Could Arsenal spend more money in the transfer market after paying £170m for Rice & Havertz?

An extremely busy couple of days in the transfer window with big spending, Arsenal catching the eye. So where has all their spending power come from? A good time to speak to football finance expert Kieran Maguire then. Kieran, thank you for coming on. So starting with Arsenal, rise for 100 million, Havertz over 60 and more to come. Can you talk us through this spending spree? Well, Arsenal are actually in a very strong when it comes to spending. And the reason for that is that they've managed to get their wages under control. Arsenal's wages are lower than they were in 2018. They're 150 to 170 million pounds a year, less than Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City. So that's given them the flexibility to go in the market and to buy new players without having to worry too much. Plus they've got the additional benefits of Champions League matches coming in, premium prices and the minimum, I would say, prize money of £50 million from being participants. So you factor that all together, they've still got probably a bit of leeway in terms of what they can spend over this present window. Would you say it's more of a strategy change perhaps? Yes, I think they've had a retrenchment. They went through some fallow years when they weren't qualifying for the Champions League. They've managed to get rid of high earners, the likes of Ozil and Aubameyang off that payroll. And that's given them the ability to now go into the market and to be very competitive and to try to match. Arsenal used to be known as the Bank of England club. They've always been well run financially. And I think this change in terms of spending is a reward for Mikel Arteta in terms of his ability to get them into those Champions League places again, which means so much in terms of enhanced revenue. So Manchester City pulled out of the race for Declan Rice due to costs. Were you surprised by that? And can we read anything into City being outbid? I don't think so. If we take a look at Manchester City's strategy over the last few years, they have been competitive with players, but they've got a very definitive price as to what they're prepared to pay. So they pulled out of the deal for Harry Maguire, Cristiano Ronaldo, Marco Correa and others who have gone to other clubs because City feel that in their view, the players were being overpriced. It could be that that's their perception with regards to the Declan Rice fee, which is estimated to be 105 million. Chelsea have also caught the attention this window. What are your thoughts on their selling tactics? And do you think Mauricio Pochettino has had much of a say on all of this? I think there has been a drive at Chelsea to get players out of the door by the 30th of June. And the reason for that is that under the way that the accounts are dealt with, when you buy a player, the cost of the player is spread over the life of the contract. But when you sell a player, all of those profits go into the accounts immediately. So therefore, by getting players out of the door by the end of this month, it means that Chelsea can book a profit. And Chelsea have been the most profitable club when it comes to player sales in the Premier League over the course of the last 10 years. And that's helped by having such a strong production line in the academy, because every academy that you players that you sell is pure profit. So when the likes of Tomori and Abrahams went a couple of years ago, that helped them to book £124 million worth of player sale profits. These players, whilst they've been bought in, you're getting wages off the payroll, you're getting profits as far as those deals are concerned. And that allows them to also buy within the window. You've been looking into the debt position at Manchester United today. They're yet to make a signing. It seems there's a lot going on in the background. What's the position there? Do you see it? How much is the potential takeover affecting their summer business? I think to be fair to Manchester United, that the the budget that the recruitment team have been given is independent of the separate issue with regards to the sale of the club. So therefore, they have been in negotiations to buy. We know that's been the case as far as Mason Mount is concerned. They're rumoured to be interested in Caicedo as well. So I think we can still expect signings regardless of what happens. I think the frustration from a Manchester United fan's point of view is that if you look at what we refer to as football net debt, which is the amount of money that Manchester United owe to the banks plus the amount that they owe in terms of transfer fees, that's the second highest in the Premier League. It's well over £900 million. It's only surpassed by Spurs. But Spurs will point out, well, we've got a brand new stadium which people can attend and all of the benefits. And I think it's fair to say that Old Trafford is looking a bit tired and dated. And we know that there's going to be a big expenditure commitment there. I don't think Manchester United's transfer spend will be impacted by the lack of progress on the deal. What could have been the case if one of the new owners had come in, they might have said, we're actually going to extend that budget. And I think that's proving to be extra frustration for Manchester United fans. Kieran, we have seen some high profile players head to Saudi Arabia this window. What do you think Saudi Arabia's involvement in the window could mean for the Premier League? Could it benefit the Premier League in any way? Yes. If we take a look at the Premier League over the past five years, it is very much been the big dog as far as the transfer market is concerned. And the net spend from the Premier League, the Premier League overall owes over a billion pounds in outstanding transfer instalments in respect of historic fees. So what this will allow the Premier League clubs to do, similar to what we saw in the Chinese Super League in around about 2015-16, is to perhaps to pass on those players who aren't perhaps performing at the level or in the interests of the manager and yet they will have a ready market. The challenge the Premier League has had in recent years is it's got many players who are on very, very high wage levels who therefore wanted to sit out on their contracts at the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United and so on because there was nobody willing to match those wages. I think the rise of the Saudi League gives an opportunity for those players to benefit financially and also the clubs who will be looking to sell those players onto a fresh destination. We have reported today that Romelu Lukaku and Jamie Vardy have turned down big money moves to Saudi, but are you surprised at how quickly the Saudi project has gathered momentum? Not really because we've only got to go back to the acquisition of Newcastle United less than two years ago to see that when they decide to spend money, that deal went through within 48 hours of being given approval by the Premier League. It's effectively an unlimited budget that the clubs have. There's no equivalent of financial fair play that operates in that particular market. So the clubs are being financed and they're being given benevolent amounts by the club owners and those are pretty sensational numbers. So the clubs are wanting to be competitive, they're wanting to get attention as well and the best way to do that is to sign high profile players. So this is in line with expectations, especially with Saudi Arabia hoping to host the World Cup in either 2030 or 2034. The first thing they want to do is to increase the appeal of their domestic league. Kieran, thank you very much. Great to get your thoughts. Thank you.