Arsenal: 5 pros and cons of James Maddison £60m transfer

5. Can Arsenal Afford £60m on James Maddison?

Crying out for the club to spend some money in the transfer window – primarily on the right players – now they’re edging closer to doing so, why is there sudden trepidation?

Ben White being eyed up for a deal that will cost Arsenal close to £50m – on a position that is not a priority and for a player with very similar qualities to another centre-back at the club who cost £27m himself – will only work under one condition: that it’s the start of a spree of lavish spending.

Otherwise, it’s a gross miscalculation of resource allocation.

Same with Maddison, if Arsenal do go out and splurge £60m on his signature and are left with pocket change to acquire two full-backs and another central midfielder then the club are not much better off than where they started.

The question of where the money is coming from is linked back to the Barclays loan in May. That bank loan was taken out to pay off the other Covid Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) loan received in January, although there were no limitations on how the new one could be spent.

It’s likely it will have exceeded the £120m needed to pay back the CCFF, which will be directly impacting this string of high-profile pursuits the club are exploring. How much exactly is anyone’s guess, but the management of these resources has to be carried with due diligence, thus fans absolutely have the right to be cautious with how it’s spent given the uncertainty of the amount.

Yet if Arsenal can sign White and Maddison for £110m and still fix the midfield and full-backs positions, then the expenditure won’t be questioned so long as it ends up with a successful outcome. We’re in the dark on this one, but at the same time, you’d like to think that Arsenal have some idea of what they’re playing with.