Defining a 'well-run' Club- are Arsenal one of them?

Various clubs across the UK are often referred to by the media as ‘well-run’, an ambiguous phrase, banded around constantly by journalists and broadcasters alike. But despite this label often being applied to clubs, there is very little explanation as to what the term actually means. Really, there is no clear way to define a ‘well-run’ club- what the term means is dictated by who you are and your perspective on the club in question.

From a fans perspective, a well-run club simply consists of a team who performs well on the pitch, whilst keeping in mind the desires and requests of the fan base, preserving their place as an important part of the club. From the perspective a modern CEO, Commercial director, or many foreign owners, a ‘well-run’ football club, is something different all together. The priority of many of these people, rather sadly, can be solely the bottom line.

So from our perspective as fans, are the media really right to refer to any English top flight clubs as well-run? Or, in the modern world of the money-machine Premier League, is the phrase obsolete. For me, English Premier League clubs generally fall into 4 main categories: Clubs who spend ruthlessly, without any regard for the running or management of their football clubs (i.e. Man City and Chelsea); clubs who manufacture huge amounts of revenue, primarily to re-invest on the pitch (i.e. Manchester United); clubs who try to keep some of their fans wishes in mind, but ultimately prioritise commercial success in order to compete (most fall in to this category) and finally there are those who seem to pursue status as commercial brand, without any desire for an intimate connection with their loyal fans, who continue to fund the running of their brand. Alas, dear old Arsenal are one of the clubs who most definitely fit into the latter category. With an absent American owner, who is more used to managing ‘franchises’ than ‘clubs’; astronomical ticket prices, which fail to correlate which the lack of on-field success, and a manager who prioritises the vast riches of the Champions League over the much-needed glory of domestic trophy, this fans’ view of Arsenal is hard to argue with.

The issue for us fans, is that despite our clear discontent- demonstrated aptly through the vocal Black Scarf Movement- at the way Arsenal is being run, which currently resembles the running of a Global Corporation more than an important sporting institution, the board simply do not care. So given the point I made earlier, let’s take a look at who sits on the Arsenal board, and what their definition of a well-run club would likely be.

Sir Chips Keswick and Lord Harris of Peckham- The reaction of most Gooners to those names would likely be- who? And that very puzzlement probably indicates just how much influence they have on the running of our club- their presence is totally superfluous.

Peter Hill-Wood- Defendants of PHW may claim he is just old, confused, and useless at PR, but there is fairly strong evidence that his view of Arsenal conflict with the views of fans. His sale of his inherited shares for £5.5 million to Stan Kroenke , and his comment that “You wouldn’t say no to a few million pounds.” Outlined his vision that of Arsenal as a profitable business- he didn’t care less that his family had owned a share in Arsenal since the 1920s, he still happily gave away this prized heirloom for his own personal gain, just as he continues to sanction the sale of Arsenal’s star players, just to make a profit. He also, showed his clear compassion and care for the club’s supporters, announcing at the end of the club’s 2012 AGM, “Thank you for taking and interest in our affairs”- to shareholders who have every right to be there taking an interest in what is happening with the money that they have invested into the club. By the way, is Peter Hill-Wood a shareholder?

Ken Friar OBE- No Gooner can question Ken Friar’s loyalty to the club and the contributions he has made over the years, but looking at the roles he has held at the club, it is clear his main interest lies in the financial and marketing side of Arsenal- the side we fans quite simply don’t care about. He certainly isn’t to blame for Arsenal’s current corporate priorities, but I would prefer loyal servant such as Ken to devote more time to questioning Arsenal’s issues on the field and reaching out to fans, rather than worrying about the Club’s business model.

Stan Kroenke- He’s an American businessman- there’s not much more to it. As the founder of KSE (Kroenke Sports Enterprises), who also own- Denver Nuggets of the NBA, St Louis Rams of the NFL, Colorado Rapids of the MLS and Colorado Mammoth of the National Lacrosse League- he is used to a culture, particularly in the NFL, where professional sports teams are referred to as ‘franchises’, and sky-high ticket prices, mid-game commercial breaks and flashing billboards are commonplace- and are accepted wholly by fans, which is something which has not quite happened yet in the Premier League, despite a degree of acceptance from most supporters. This is Kroenke’s downfall. He has tried to apply the same strategies to Arsenal as his US franchises, only to realise that fans simply won’t just let that happen here, our passion for our clubs is far greater, they are , or at least were, at the heart of the communities we live in, something not common in American Sports. Kroenke’s prime aim is to max out share prices at Arsenal before selling his shares for a huge profit. With that he seems to be heading the right direction, but he’ll need to be willing to face many more fan protests if he is to get there.

Ivan Gazidis- Amid all the criticism Ivan is receiving from Gooners, although I think Ivan is far from blameless, we must remember that he is an employee of those above him, and ultimately his job is to comply with their wishes, he can be held accountable for poor negotiations, but cannot be blamed for the overall direction of the club, he is employed as a PR man and human shield for the board, although as I say, he is CEO, so he is not entirely blameless, and the money fans pay for their tickets does fund his rather inflated, and largely unjustified, bonuses.

So if this rather scathing and sceptical assessment of Arsenal’s board is to be agreed with, then it is clear, that they hardly have the fans’ best interests at heart. But does this result in a well-run club?

Arsenal are well-known for charging the highest ticket prices in world football, exploiting a loyal, yet evermore disillusioned fan base, with tickets starting from £62 for big games, something rightly pointed out by City fans, and a linesman to boot. With no trophies in what looks soon to become 8 seasons, it is clear Arsenal are also unable to maintain any sort of equilibrium between creating revenue and achieving success on the field. Another major issue with the running of Arsenal is the secrecy, lack of information and propaganda provided which is fed to paying supporters. The announcement of transfers is delayed, often to appease fans renewing their over-priced season tickets; attendances which do not represent the number of people in the stadium, simply the number of people who the club have taken money from, providing a falsified image, and our CEO and manager give answers any bland politician would be proud of, to very reasonable, appropriate questions.

So it is time the media changed the way they view Arsenal, and sided with the ever-growing number of disillusioned Gooners. The Arsenal is a club, not a business, who should aim for trophies, not bank notes- so we are not- ‘well-run’.