Arsenal: Rich Oligarchs or Tycoon Patrons, Do Arsenal Need One?

If you are an Arsenal fan, last summer is unlikely to rate high on your list of fond memories.

After a season that promised much, but went downhill in the most perplexing and agonizing fashion, fans of Arsenal and every armchair critic were sure of the fix Arsenal needed—Chris Samba, Gary Cahill and Phil Jagielka at the back, to stem the team's leaky defense. To top it off, some big signing—preferably Lionel Messi!—which Arsene Wenger had promised, after his ill-advised reticence in the January transfer window.

Predictably everyone supplied names: Florent Malouda, Franck Ribery, Karim Benzema—just about every French man that hadn't already played for Arsenal, and every other star of note on the emerald planet.

What surprise and agony, then, when the cycle of habit returned and Wenger clung tighter than ever to his £40-million purse, which the club's management had gleefully declared his to spend any way he wished.

Wenger preferred to keep it, and when he did decide to dig into it a little, he seemed to go for puny cats—Carl Jenkinson, who made his debut by scoring a spectacular own goal, Alex Oxlaide-Chamberlaine, Gervinho—not the tawny lions, the thought of whom tantalized everyone.

But most cruel was the nightmare and horror of watching the transfer window close with no big name coming to Arsenal, and what was worse, Fabregas left, admonishing the fans in the process to please entertain no fear at his departure for one came after him, Aaron Ramsey, who would be bigger than even he, Cesc Fabregas.

Most painful, though, was the effrontery of the departing Samir Nasri, who took a dig at the poor, suffering fans. Said he: "Arsenal have good fans but not that passionate since they moved from Highbury." All this, while munching on the £180,000 candy Roberto Mancini had given him. "Bribe," cried Arsenal fans!

During that distressful transfer period—and little comfort it was when Wenger, chastened at Manchester United, finally spent  at the 11th hour the rest of his £40 million—Arsenal fans had to watch helplessly while Mancini grabbed every star he could lay his hands on, crying all the while, like Oliver Twist, for more. "Greed," cried Arsenal fans!

The only comfort for Arsenal fans was this song, which one of their most thoughtful and enterprising members composed:

When you look at City with their lands and gold,
Think, "Wenger has promised better days to come"
Your unmatched aesthetics, money cannot buy
Fix your mind on these and you'll be satisfied.

Arsenal fans were clearly unimpressed or unmoved. Panic set in, especially when Manchester trounced Arsenal in the most humiliating fashion at Old Trafford, and Manchester City, clearly the new boss in town, hit the ground running and now seem unstoppable and are driving everyone mad with their "campione campione ole ole ole!" What’s more, they even have the audacity to aim at Arsenal’s invincible record!

Oh goodness!

It is unsurprising then, and clearly understandable that some—if not many—Arsenal fans are frustrated with Stan Kroenke, who—by all intents and purposes— is the new owner of Arsenal, whose dawning, however, has been devoid of the accompanying boon that Manchester City have enjoyed from Sheikh Mansour, their new billionaire owner.

City's new fortunes and their accompanying swift movement in the footballing ranks underscore the role money plays in football or its relation to success. No qualification is needed to proclaim that all successful football clubs are wealthy clubs.

Arsenal's recent trophy drought is strongly related to the rise of Chelsea, fueled by the wealth of an oligarch. Few will argue that Manchester United's recent humiliation at the hand of their bitter rival, City, has a strong connection to the pound, or that City's recent attractiveness to players is not connected to the monetary rewards, which can be had from their liberal benefactor.

Furthermore, the allure of Barcelona or Real Madrid, or even Manchester United could arguably be said to stem from reasons other than the nobility or the superiority of their style.

Consider, for instance, how few, if any, of Arsenal's players have been lost to Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur or even Manchester United in recent times. On the contrary, the movement inevitably appears to head towards Manchester City—why? 

Well and good, then, that not a few Arsenal fans have discerned the connection between wealth and success (duh!); the players seemed to have figured that out long ago—ask Adebayor and Ashley Cole! Tired of the humiliation of watching Manchester strutting about like a peacock, they also want their own oligarch or tycoon.

Some of them would have Alisher Usmanov overthrow Stan Kroenke, on the belief that with the former, Arsenal could enjoy City-like boon, and they could. But is it necessary?

Yes, must be the answer if your aspiration is short-term success. And yes, again, will be your answer if you are the type that is given to desperation when it seems other people's plans are yielding quick returns and yours are not.

Yes, yet again, will be your answer if you lack the fortitude to wait for your superior strategy to bear fruit. Still, yes will be your answer if you do not think that transparent ethics should undergird the game.

Consider ethics. 

Every normal person in whom the intrinsic sense of justice is functioning properly would be enraged if she or he were to spend four years preparing for the Olympics—name any of the games—and then on the day of the event for which she or he competes, an opponent flies to victory on the wings of performance-enhancing drugs.

I suspect that the sweetness of victory is heightened by a leveled plain and by the sweat of one's own brow.

Infusion of unregulated money, such as has been in the case of Manchester City and Chelsea, or when a team is run on debt just to win trophies, is no different than winning on drugs, which is why the current Manchester City cannot win my respect. They are the rich man who comes and buys out everyone just because he can.

Consider debt.

How long can a team continue running on debt? Is this a feasible endeavor? Might there come a day when the bubble bursts, or is this destined to be a vicious, ouroboros cycle and other teams are to be better advised to hop on the carousel, and quickly too?

Someone has pointed out that the current misfortune of Portsmouth is not unconnected to running the club on the fumes of debts. Recently, a Russian club went bankrupt for the same reason. It seems then that debt is not the way to go.

If this is true, what will happen to Manchester United—say—if they can no longer borrow their way to success, or Madrid, or Barcelona?

Consider patronage.

Twenty years from now or even 10, will Sheikh Mansour still be there for City, dishing out the cash? Will this current amusement be sustained indefinitely? For surely it is an amusement. No how can it be called a proper business operation, which spends and spends without returns, nor can there be any returns at this rate.

So when Mansour leaves, what then becomes of City, or Chelsea when Roman Abramovich departs?

This is not to say there are no advantages to patronage. After all, if City's new stadium and sporting facility are built, will they not continue to benefit the team and English football in general? Moreover, is patronage not one way of spreading wealth around, which otherwise could remain stashed away?

Be that as it may, there is a scenario in which even if the stadium is built and the patron leaves, the club could find it difficult to shoulder the ensuing debt; this could expose the club to the possibility of bankruptcy, or render it unable to successfully compete with buoyant clubs.

Buoyancy is the word.

By 2015, it is projected that Arsenal would have paid off the rest of her stadium debt, which stands now at around £95 million, down from the £390 million that was borrowed to build the stadium.

Arsenal are, of course, considered the model of an efficiently run club, a club that operates within its means. It is why Wenger has focused on young talents in the past six years rather than on established stars, who can cost anything from £25-80 million. No wonder, then, that Wenger did not, as some expected, sign Messi during the summer!

Arsenal’s long-term goal, which Wenger has articulated on many occasions, is to be debt-free eventually, to be able to afford any player they fancy and be able to say no to any club that comes knocking for their own players.

This dream, this reality is just four years away and Arsenal will achieve it with the sweat of her own brow, not through handouts from an oligarch. If this dream is achieved, it will not be long before Arsenal become the wealthiest club in the world. Who will be laughing then?

In life, anything of worth takes time to develop; pearl and diamond are just two ready examples. Athletes train for four years, even eight, to win the Olympics; musicians practice six hours a day to perfect their skill; character often takes one-third of a lifetime to develop; suffering and perseverance can yield precious returns.

Patience, then, is the word.

It is only in football that success is expected overnight; only in football is business run at a loss. In football, fans can praise you in the morning and crucify you in the evening, so patience is not one of their better attributes.

Yet, patience is the word.

I heard of a place where everyone but one man was a fool. Everyone thought the opposite, of course. And that poor man knew no rest until one day he gave up and became a fool himself. Then everyone applauded him and called him wise.

What do you think—do Arsenal need an oligarch?