While much attention has been focused on Manchester United's exit from Europe and the potential impact on the business plan at Old Trafford, the plight of Arsenal, eight months ahead of their move to the prestigious new Emirates Stadium, has been overlooked.
Yet the Londoners head into the new year among the most indebted football clubs in history, and with some sources in the City of London beginning to wonder whether they are showing the strain of having to service their massive £260m loan.
Arsenal's debt is twice the amount that sank Leeds after the Yorkshire club, Icarus-like, staked all on flying close to the bright heat of a European Cup semi-final. It is also more than twice the amount which would have bankrupted Chelsea had Roman Abramovich not opened his wallet for the benefit of the Stamford Bridge club just days before the debt-collectors moved in.
And around the hallowed, marbled halls of the old Highbury stadium this past week, after successive away defeats at Bolton and Newcastle, the murmurings have been about "doing a Leeds", of Arsenal becoming bogged down in a quagmire of high finance. The danger signals are already there for all to see.
The most obvious sign of trouble has been Thierry Henry's unsigned contract. Henry, the club captain, is emblematic of Arsene Wenger's Arsenal, with its pace, poise and awesome skill. Yet there is already a sense that the striker, now 28, has his heart set on one last big move, with Barcelona apparently poised to add him to their collection of many talents.
In a Doomsday scenario, then, Arsenal might become the latest and biggest victims yet of the "Curse of the New Stadium". Think Leicester, or Derby County, or Southampton, or Sunderland, or Millwall: all clubs that have bravely developed new home grounds and then, as they have invested in bricks and mortar at the expense of the team, lost their top-division status.
Even the English FA, through its building of the new Wembley, faces an uncertain financial future.
Arsenal were traditionally "the Bank of England" club, but even they have had to pour the bulk of their resources - £97m - into getting the £360m stadium built. This cash contribution includes the proceeds of land sales around Highbury, the sale of an equity stake by TV group Granada, and income from its deal with sportswear manufacturer Nike. It has left Arsenal with little wriggle room in the club's current account.
The financial vortex Arsenal have found themselves sucked into revolves around the £260m loan arranged nearly two years ago with a group of six banks, led by the Royal Bank of Scotland. Because of the commercially high risk nature of the construction project, the interest due was fixed at an expensive rate, accruing at around £15m a year. Put simply, the interest alone will cost Arsenal all its likely profits from next year's clash with Real Madrid.
It is suggested that it was the lenders - RBS, Banco Espirito Santo, Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Banks, CIT Group Structured Finance (UK) and HSH Nordbank - who insisted that Arsenal accept the long-term stadium-naming and shirt deal with Emirates. Unpopular with the fans, who wanted Ashburton Grove to be called "New Highbury", the deal is worth £100m over 15 years. While it is a guarantee of nearly £7m a year income, it rates only moderately alongside the £10m-a-year sponsor deal signed by Chelsea last year with mobile phone company Samsung, a shorter term arrangement that covers shirt sponsorship only.