Arsenal and Chelsea's financial results

[Backbiter]

"People can work out for themselves who is the richest or most profitable club or whatever. It's not for us to shout about."

So says Arsenal MD Edelman today.

Forgetting this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 525608.ece

Peter Hill-Wood, the Arsenal chairman, yesterday added strongly-worded insults to Chelsea’s self-inflicted injuries by describing their plans for global domination as “bulls***” and “fantasy”.

On the day that Arsenal announced a British-record turnover of £200.8 million, Hill-Wood mocked their London rivals’ stated ambition to become the biggest club in the world by 2014.

Arsenal tend to go about their business more quietly, although they could afford to be pleased with themselves after achieving operating profits of £51.2 million for the year ending May 2007. Manchester United are expected to exceed both figures to confirm their position as the country’s richest club when they announce their results for the same period next March, but Arsenal are confident of staying ahead of Chelsea, whose turnover was £153 million for 2005-06.

Peter Kenyon, the Chelsea chief executive, regularly refers to his desire to “turn the world blue”, but Hill-Wood turned the air blue when asked about such ambitions yesterday.

“It’s bulls***,” Hill-Wood said. “I don’t want to run Chelsea down, but one has to concede Manchester United and Liverpool are probably the biggest names in UK football and probably throughout the world. For Chelsea to think they are suddenly going to dominate United and Liverpool is fantasy. It’s not going to happen.

“I found it very surprising Chelsea only had 25,000 for a Champions League game [against Rosenborg at Stamford Bridge last Tuesday]. Our fan-base probably started in the Thirties and it’s been handed down from father to son and so forth. It takes 100 years to build and about 100 minutes to destroy. Money is irrelevant to history and how big your club is.”

Arsenal believe that their financial strength shows they have no need for overseas investment and should help them to fight off the predatory movements of Alisher Usmanov, the Uzbek billionaire, who is aiming to increase his 21 per cent shareholding.

Hill-Wood could not resist aiming another swipe at Chelsea when outlining the Arsenal board’s determination to resist a takeover, claiming that Roman Abramovich’s fallout with José Mourinho, the manager who left the club on Thursday, highlighted the dangers inherent in interfering foreign owners. “I don’t think that Abramovich [the Chelsea owner] has helped the Russian cause,” he said. “The board is completely united and have no intention of not remaining so. The idea of us selling out to whoever is simply not on the agenda.”

And this is classic Daily Mail:

Chelsea's turnover increased by a massive 25 per cent to £190.5m, with the club boasting an overall figure of £223.3m when other businesses excluded from the accounts are added.

That puts them on a par with Arsenal but behind Manchester United in the Premier League rich list.

These are the facts:

English football's top three earners 2006/2007

(figures show the clubs' group turnovers):

Manchester United £210m

Chelsea £190.5m

Arsenal £177m

So . Us having a turnover of £19m less than Manure means we're behind them (unarguable fact) whereas Arsenal being £13m behind us counts as 'on a par' (Daily Mail spin to big up the establishment darlings)

[coco]

Forget the £ figures.

We can only be the top club by winning more silverware on the pitch.

[Backbiter]

My post wasn't about money. It was about Arsenal's MD never saying they'd make a big deal about how big they were when they've got a chairman who did exactly that just a few months ago, while publicly belittling us and implying we aren't a big club. It was about their hypocrisy. It was about Chelsea always being slated for lacking 'class' and 'history'. We've got as much history as them even if we've got less silverware and I never remember our chairman making public critical comments about the way Arsenal do things.

This is not the comment of a chairman with class:

I found it very surprising Chelsea only had 25,000 for a Champions League gameOur fan-base probably started in the Thirties and it’s been handed down from father to son and so forth. It takes 100 years to build and about 100 minutes to destroy. Money is irrelevant to history and how big your club is.”

because he is clearly alleging we have money but no history. No different from the Scousers.

And of course my post was about the ridiculously favourable media coverage Arsenal get.