Ivan the terrible

Arsenal chief executive Ivan Gazidis says club can still thrive financially without Champions League football

The executive believes it would be "foolish" for any team to rely on the money received through playing in the competition, and says there is no salary ceiling at Emirates Stadium


Arsenal chief executive Ivan Gazidis today claimed that the north London club could cope well with the financial blow of failing to qualify for the Champions League.

Gazidis said that it would be “foolish” for any club to rely on revenue from the Champions League, which earned Arsenal £26 million in Uefa handouts when they reached the last 16 last season, and £45m for runners-up Manchester United.




Arsene Wenger’s team are 15th in the PremierLeague after losing four of their opening seven league matches of the season, which has thrown into serious doubt their chances of finishing in the top four for the 15th consecutive campaign.


“We would rather qualify for it but we have a really sustainable model that can cope without it. Not just cope, but we can do well and compete,” Gazidis said at the Leaders in Football conference at Stamford Bridge.


“It would be very foolish to build a business model that relied on being in the Champions League for perpetuity and I don’t think any clubs do that and, if they do, then they probably aren’t being run as responsibly as they should be.”


Arsenal announced a £15m pre-tax profit in their latest set of financial results last week and, even though revenue growth was flat for the year ending May 2011, Gazidis says the club are well positioned for the future.
“Every club has the temptation to think that money is the answer to issues and ‘if we only spend just a little bit more, it would push us over the top of a curve’ and that is what drives the cycle of spending that you see in the game and that is not by any means always what is successful, actually,” he continued.


“It is tempting to think that it is. It relieves pressure for a while but actually builds long-term pressure in other ways. We will continue to act with discipline to make sure we have got a good short-term and long-term future.”


A number of players – including Cesc Fabregas, Samir Nasri, Emmanuel Adebayor, Gael Clichy and Mathieu Flamini – have left Arsenal in recent years for teams where they have negotiated higher salaries, but Gazidis denied that the club’s wage structure is holding them back.


He said: “We don’t have a salary ceiling. I don’t know where that story comes from. We have a very sophisticated business model that looks at what we need to do to compete today and what we need to do to compete next year and five years from now. I’m comfortable we will be able to be competitive in whatever environment is created.


“We are not looking for credit for being a self-sustaining club. I do think it is the right model for us. It gives us stability and the ability to look forward with confidence without worrying too much about the ups and downs, the competitive cycle or the economic cycle.”


Gazidis gave short shrift to the possibility of billionaire Alisher Usmanov, Arsenal’s second biggest shareholder, presenting Wenger with a transfer war chest and claimed he “had not seen” comments from the Uzbek tycoon in the past about ploughing money into the club.


The Arsenal chief argued that the sums of money and risk involved in investing in Premier League clubs had put off a number of investors.
He said: “Those two things go together. The amount of risk in order to be able to compete and the amount of money you have to spend to play the game is dramatic and that means there are a handful of people in the world, literally, who are prepared to play at that level.


“But there are many people who see the potential of the Premier League, for example. It is those people, I believe, we could get involved right through the game to actually create a more competitive environment like they have in Germany, a healthy environment for the game, and also take the dramatic pressure off to spend in order to compete. While it can be attractive in the short term, it is incredibly damaging for the game in the long term."

Gazidis believes one of the consequences of Uefa’s new financial fair play rules will be to make the Premier League less predictable.
“No club wants a system that boxes in the current hierarchy forever,” he said. "Even if you are at the top, it is not healthy. I don’t believe it is healthy in Spain to have Barcelona and Real Madrid locked in at the top.
“I believe it will attract strong and capable ownership that clubs at the moment are struggling to attract investment. There are many clubs in this country that have enormous potential that could be unlocked. But can it be done in a year by buying players? No.
“There has to be a longer-term plan in terms of investing in infrastructure and developing fan engagement and relationships, and engaging more commercially. I don’t agree it locks in the hierarchy. What we have now is more predictable.”

seems like he is preparing for the worst

Would you rather he not prepare for the worst?

GoonerJay29 wrote:Would you rather he not prepare for the worst?

He shouldn't be doing this....he should be saying things like a club of Arsenal stature should be in the top four not things like we can live without it.

Its a bit like saying finishing outside the top four is a acceptable

gunnerlistick wrote:

“We would rather qualify for it but we have a really sustainable model that can cope without it. Not just cope, but we can do well and compete,” Gazidis said at the Leaders in Football conference at Stamford Bridge.

This sounds like foolishness to me. If it were true we would've been more active in the transfer market and re-signed more of our higher profile players.


We need all the money we can get. And if we're without the CL money for longer than a year we'll see how 'sustainable' the model is....

It doesn't make a single bit of difference to me if Gazidis says we should be in the top four etc. Consider the timing of this; right after Arsenal posted signficantly smaller profits than last year. So I've got no problem with Gazidis reasurring fans that we won't have to make many changes to the way we do things if we don't have Champions League football next season.

The all thing stinks of mediocrity...Ivan should be thinking of trying to get the club back at the top not talking about dropping out top four

He is the ceo and thinks best in shareholders interest. shareholders want dividend. instead of sanctioning 25mil for a player of high quality he would rather satisfy the board by dividends. that means he also stays a ceo.
bring back david dein at least he was passionate about arsenal.

Money money money. Can we think beyond that please? In terms of success ON THE F*CKING PITCH? Tbh, I am at the edge of my patience with the current board.

usman111 wrote:He is the ceo and thinks best in shareholders interest. shareholders want dividend. instead of sanctioning 25mil for a player of high quality he would rather satisfy the board by dividends. that means he also stays a ceo.
bring back david dein at least he was passionate about arsenal.

Arsenal don't pay their board dividends. Haven't for many years now.

Money money money. Can we think beyond that please? In terms of success ON THE F*CKING PITCH? Tbh, I am at the edge of my patience with the current board.

God forbid, someone from the board answers a question about finances when aked about finances.

I'm honestly not seeing the problem here. It goes without saying that the club want a top four finish. Not getting it would be counter-productive for a widely perceived money-grabbing board, wouldn't it?

Wenger and Gazidis need to realize that it's okay to spend a little over a player's valuation if it means success. Imagine where we'd be if Wenger had been less stingy about Xabi Alonso.

Agree, I wish we still had David Dein.

this is the most annoying thing for me.

for years all we ever hear about is how well of financially we are and that we have plenty of money to spend.

if thats the case why hasnt it been reinvested into the squad when we have clearly needed it !!!

what are they doing with all this money ??

not mention the fact they raised the cost of tickets to go to a match.

our board is a joke we could have a billion dollars to spend but if we dont use it to help the team grow we might as well have 2 dollars in the bank as its just sitting there.

Billion?
I don't think our club's even worth that much...
We're trying to be self-sufficient, unlike other oil-laden clubs.
And we still have quite a bit of debt to get rid of.

beatrixasdfghjk. wrote:Billion?
I don't think our club's even worth that much...
We're trying to be self-sufficient, unlike other oil-laden clubs.
And we still have quite a bit of debt to get rid of.

no no i never meant we literally had a billion i was just pointing out that whether we had a billion dollars in the bank or 2 dollars in the bank what difference does it make to us seein as there not reinvesting anything into the squad so we might as well only have 2 dollars in the bank.

lol sorry maybe i didnt explain myself properly

so sick of our board talkin about hwo much money we have yet they refuse to put it to good use

The money is being put to a good use though: ensuring the club remains self-sufficient i.e. only spending what we earn. There is no outside investment.

Now consider that whatver money we have available, is spent on things like servicing the debt, operation costs, paying wages, bonuses, etc. it really doesn't leave that much for the transfer budget. As a very reputable journalists details, Arsenal's budget is in the region of £30-50mil. Considering that wages, bonuses, signing-on fee and what have you all come from that same budget, we've only really got enough for two good players at the most.

And it's not like we even generate that much cash in the first place. At least, not in comparison to other top clubs. As our recent financial results show, we're still dependant on selling players to make big profits.

Of course, it can't be ignored that we did spend £50mil on players this summer, which is the most we've spent in one summer in years. Even if we made £70mil profit from players sales, we at least reinvested the money.

So basically, money is there, but how much of it can be reinvested is not as much as we'd like to think, and the reluctance to spend comes from maintaining a self-sufficient model that's still somwhat dependant on selling our best assets, which obviously is counter-productive to what we're trying to acheive on the field.

GoonerJay29 wrote:The money is being put to a good use though: ensuring the club remains self-sufficient i.e. only spending what we earn. There is no outside investment.

Now consider that whatver money we have available, is spent on things like servicing the debt, operation costs, paying wages, bonuses, etc. it really doesn't leave that much for the transfer budget. As a very reputable journalists details, Arsenal's budget is in the region of £30-50mil. Considering that wages, bonuses, signing-on fee and what have you all come from that same budget, we've only really got enough for two good players at the most.

And it's not like we even generate that much cash in the first place. At least, not in comparison to other top clubs. As our recent financial results show, we're still dependant on selling players to make big profits.

Of course, it can't be ignored that we did spend £50mil on players this summer, which is the most we've spent in one summer in years. Even if we made £70mil profit from players sales, we at least reinvested the money.

So basically, money is there, but how much of it can be reinvested is not as much as we'd like to think, and the reluctance to spend comes from maintaining a self-sufficient model that's still somwhat dependant on selling our best assets, which obviously is counter-productive to what we're trying to acheive on the field.

well if thats the case they need to explain better because if we have money for everything else but not transfer then we dont exactly have money do we.
all im sayin if we cant afford to buy players dont go constantly sayin we have money as its very aggravating when you hear that but u dnt see it

well if thats the case they need to explain better because if we have money for everything else but not transfer then we dont exactly have money do we.
all im sayin if we cant afford to buy players dont go constantly sayin we have money as its very aggravating when you hear that but u dnt see it

While a more transparent approach would placate a lot of fans when it comes to transfers, it's simply not a very good negotiation tactic to reveal how much you have to spend, especially if it's not a lot.

If our board came out and said "we haven't got a lot of money to spend, enough for one player at the most" then clubs will know that if they put their asking price high enough, we won't match that valuation and pull out. We'd only be able to sign cheaper players or players who specifically want to leave and are willing to force their club's hand.

It's hard enough for us to sign good players, given our position. It doesn't need to be any harder.

Also, the board tend to twist the truth to protect the clubs image, in a way. Admitting that we have no money, despite having this big new stadium and profits every year would not look good in the slightest and add more fuel to the "board are money grabbers who don't care about success" conspiracy theory.

To talk as if we have already failed to finish in the top 4 this season is so bad.

Gazidis really is doing a bad job.