Arsenal's Debt Level

[Xhaka Can’t]

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

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.

[LDG]

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

[Cripps_orig]

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

Flavs is his hero

[Niall_Quinn]

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.