Arsenal's Debt Level

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie the Gooner

So you think he wanted Fabregas and Nasri gone and the team left like that? And if AW has all this power over the board you moan about, then no point you crying he should be sacked because its not going to happen as he is that powerful.

---

No they wanted to leave because he couldn't convince them to stay, he doesn't believe in holding onto players against their will (fair enough as long as he replaces them), that's nothing to do with the board.

I'll complain because I'm not happy, just because the board are money grabbing tw*ts doesn't change the fact he shouldn't be here, until things change I won't alter my stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StamfordBrdige

On a more serious note, what's your take on it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StamfordBrdige

On a more serious note, what's your take on it?

---

My take on it is that even though we have failed by a considerable margin to maximise commercial revenue, our debt is entirely manageable and would still have been so had the repayment profile not been accelerated to the extent that it has. The debt, the accelerated repayments, and the poor commercial deals in my view have to be linked to a Board and Management team with an overly conservative and risk averse mindset. I think there has, since the Stadium Project's inception (a sign of a healthy risk appetite looking at the upside of risk) been a shift to becoming increasingly risk averse and this has resulted in bad long term deals to get commercial revenue in as quickly as possible, which may have been a good idea at the time - and a requirement of creditors.

I've little doubt that the pressures, that existed towards the latter stages of the Stadium project, coupled with the onset of of the recssion and the short term collapse in the London property market are still influencing the Board's risk appetite - when they shouldn't. We've moved on from that, so I'm stuggling to understand why we still behave the way we do (as if it is 2008 and it is all going wrong). I also do not understand the actions of the Manager that will spend £15m on prospects, but not £14m on proven talent. I also struggle to understand what are the dynamics between owners, Board and management because they don't seem to align with any model I am familiar with.

That is why I made my initial comment on the OP trying to make sense of things that simply don't make sense.

Did Stamford deliberately spell "bridge" incorrectly in his username? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDG

Did Stamford deliberately spell "bridge" incorrectly in his username? :unsure:

---

Flavs is his hero

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDG

Well if our largest shareholder and owner does not want to pay off the debt, then the simple conclusion is that he wants the clubs profits to pay it off first, in order that he can then cream it when it's paid.

Simple logic.

It will of course mean that the pure profit with no debt senario will yield more funds for the playing staff.

The more I think about it, the more I think AW is, to a degree, sacrificing himself in all of this. Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but I think he's part of the plan to rid the club of the stadium debt.

People will laud the next manager when he eventually comes in....but I think the new manager will have it fucking easy compared to AW. And that says something to me.

Of course, that doesn't excuse Mr Wenger of the atrocious decisions he's made tactically and in the transfer market (and by that I mean not buying when we most needed it...not necessarily the players he's bought).

---

Yep, you're reading it like I am. Wenger is a shield for the greedy bastards hiding behind him. It could be a lot worse than we imagine as well, worse to such a degree that the nonsensical actions of Wenger actually start to make sense when applied to the restrictions that have been placed upon him by the human/ maggot hybrids in the boardroom. Wenger's crazy claims of players staying when they were walking out the door behind him was surely some shot at the board? Like yourself, I don't forgive Wenger his many sins born out of stubbornness and blind faith in the non-performing players we have at the club, but I do think this horrible board is getting a very easy ride considering what they have said and what they have/ haven't done. I mean what have we actually heard from any of these cunts? In fighting and telling the fans to shut it and be patient, that's about all they've decided to explain having banked millions as the club goes down the shitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StamfordBrdige

Entirely incorrect. The tendency for people to keep making excuses for AW is impressive albeit deluded. This is a man who has no qualms spending 12m on some kid from the lower leagues but refuses to pay slightly more for established players.

Once again i wish people would take the time and read the financials. It's really all there. Your stadium repayments are 25m(ish) a year and seeing as you were able to meet those repayments at highbury i'm pretty sure you have no problems meeting them in a stadium that brings in shitloads more money than highbury ever did.

If your club decides to repay the debt in record time at the expense of the team's on-pitch success then they are incredibly stupid. You aren't legally bound to repay the debt in 2years or some such crap. It was a long term repayment deal and while paying it off early might seem like a good idea, it's only a good idea if it's done in a balanced way.

Plus the irony of course that if you did get some fucking quality in, you'd win more stuff which = more money (from TV, UEFA, commercial stuff etc). I mean ManUtd have twice your debt and level of repayments and they seem able to repay their debt + invest in the team + win stuff. So it's bullshit that your debt is the reason you can't do a thing. If that was the case ManUtd would be fundamentally fucked.

---

None of the people in charge are stupid. They will know precisely what they are doing in financial terms. This is why I believe the club is being looted before our eyes. Examining what we know, the board and Wenger propose the stadium move claiming it is a way for the club to maintain itself at the top of the game. The fans are on board because of course they believed "top of the game" implied titles and trophies and an entertaining team. Little did we know.

So the board takes on the debt (I heard it was a spectacularly good deal), flogs off Highbury, sends the ticket prices through the roof, starts flogging the players and the cash is pouring in. They even boast about it, indeed Arsenal is at the top of the game but only in terms of cash in the bank. In football terms we are falling off a cliff. Then along comes Kroenke, pays all the boardroom fuckers a fat wedge, keeps them on in their jobs and now we have even less signings, the ticket prices are even higher, the club is falling faster. Looks to me like the Old Etonians have made their loot and now Stand wants his. They are using the club as the vehicle to stuff their already stuffed pockets. Stand will then flog a debt free club onto the next bunch (Usmanov in the wings?) and the exploitation will continue with Wenger having (hopefully) found enough youngsters than can keep us competitive in their short Arsenal careers before being sold on at large profit.

If you think about it, provided there are enough gullible fans and the quality of the entertainment is kept high in the corporate boxes (if not on the pitch), this model could actually work.

And yes of course I am speculating, but what I'm saying fits what we know, any other explanation makes the board and Wenger look like total loons and I doubt very much they are that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StamfordBrdige

I'm saying it's up to AW to get the players in. If AW wanted to spend 70m on one player i'm sure the board would tell him to go fuck himself (and rightly so). Ashley young cost ManUtd 17m. For a bit more than you paid for some kid from league one you could have got ashley young (for example).

I'm pretty sure a board that sanctioned the purchase of some kid for would see the logic in paying a bit more for an established international PL experienced player. Unless you are suggesting otherwise.

You got rid of Clichy and are relying on Gibbs + some other random kid. Meanwhile enrique gets signed by Liverpool for 6m. You really telling me your club can't pay 6m for a LB.

---

No we can't afford the £6mill, because as Wenger says, it would kill Gibbs. Kill Gibbs in what respect is the question? I propose it would be his transfer fee out. If Arsenal can stay in Europe and near the top of the league, if Gibbs can stay fit and get a few England caps, how much will he be worth when following Cole and then Clichy out the door? I'm not saying it's a fact, but it does look a bit like a conveyor belt. And then there's all those "tricky" midfielders we buy - and then sell. We're overloaded with them, almost like it's a breeding ground. So the question is, are we a football club or a feeder club? Is this why we won't stump up the money for a player like Parker who could do a job for us? Parker would represent wages and no sell-on fee. But some relatively unknown kid from Europe that could be polished up and flogged to Barca in a couple of years, well there's profit in that.

Enrique is shite, hence why Liverpool bought him, and hence why he only cost 6m

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GB.

My take on it is that even though we have failed by a considerable margin to maximise commercial revenue, our debt is entirely manageable and would still have been so had the repayment profile not been accelerated to the extent that it has. The debt, the accelerated repayments, and the poor commercial deals in my view have to be linked to a Board and Management team with an overly conservative and risk averse mindset. I think there has, since the Stadium Project's inception (a sign of a healthy risk appetite looking at the upside of risk) been a shift to becoming increasingly risk averse and this has resulted in bad long term deals to get commercial revenue in as quickly as possible, which may have been a good idea at the time - and a requirement of creditors.

I've little doubt that the pressures, that existed towards the latter stages of the Stadium project, coupled with the onset of of the recssion and the short term collapse in the London property market are still influencing the Board's risk appetite - when they shouldn't. We've moved on from that, so I'm stuggling to understand why we still behave the way we do (as if it is 2008 and it is all going wrong). I also do not understand the actions of the Manager that will spend £15m on prospects, but not £14m on proven talent. I also struggle to understand what are the dynamics between owners, Board and management because they don't seem to align with any model I am familiar with.

That is why I made my initial comment on the OP trying to make sense of things that simply don't make sense.

---

In other words, the board are cunts.

Wenger has chosen to walk this path. From what I've read about his career in Monaco, he led them down the same route. He started off well with Monaco and won the league, went on to win the league cup, but that was it. He was there from 1987 - 1995 and won two trophies.

It's really similar to how his career is ending here. That sort of thing is hard to ignore.