Your argument doesnt hold water. Are you saying that we havent had our own share of financial flops. Arshavin, was written off, as was Santos and Gervinho. If you havent written off Giroud then you better had cos no one is going to take him off our hands for decent money. Also are you arguing that we cannot afford to change our unsuccessful backroom staff so we MUST keep them. Doing nothing is not an option i humbly suggest.
The point I am making is the fact that we are running at a loss means the money is not there to spend, I can't buy expensive things to speculate to accumulate because I don't have the capital to begin with and the same is true of Arsenal, the only way we could afford to do that is borrowing and we would not make the money back that we outlay...anymore than city, Chelsea and yes to a lesser extent Liverpool do. There is no amount of money you can make in football as a club to be a successful business and none of the successful clubs have a successful business model they run at losses. We don't have a benefactor so we can't run at a loss
QUOTE=Dein-machine;386353]Recording a financial loss is not an excuse for any business to not spend. In some cases its the end of the road for them if they don't. You have to spend to become more competitive, more reliable, recruiting better staff etc etc. We have been building cash reserves for years. I agree with you that we could have done more to sell players but again Wenger chose not to. IMO we could sell Monreal, Arteta, Rosucky, Giroud, Bentdner, Vermaelen & Podolski & easily expect to recoup £50 mill - why with our high cash reserves & stadium dept dropping would not want to strengthen our squad with quality/expensive players if we are to compete.[/QUOTE]
We have no Nasri, Fabregas, Van Persie to sell off to offset such a loss anymore. Gervinho we made at least two thirds of the money back for him from Roma. Arshavin was paid for by selling off Toure and Adebayor and the remaining money was banked.Originally Posted by Globalgunner
Clubs like Chelsea, Liverpool in terms of personnel number have far more than us, and the kind of expertise we need would cost us too much in wages especially when even after clearing out the dead wood we are crippled by our wage bill. With Podolski, Walcott, Ozil, Ramsey all on 100k a week or more, a club that can't afford to run at a loss can't afford that kind of wage bill and afford to sign players without selling.
We're operating at a loss? Is that including the new sponsorship deal? Where are you guys getting this info? It's the opposite of what Ivan and Wenger were saying in the summer. Regarding backstaff, we've just brought in the former Assistant Coach to Van Gaal, Andries Jonker and two of his men to work with the kids. He brought through Muller and Kroos for Bayern. That can't be a cheap appointment. We could have promoted from within, that would have been the cheaper option.
We posted a loss at the end of last year, and the sponsorship deals will net us 30-50 million more a season, that barely covers the cost of one player with a transfer value of 10 million when you take wages into consideration. Like I said Chelsea and Liverpool probably have twice the amount of back room staff as we do, do you honestly think a cretin like Brendan Rodgers could bring about the changes in Liverpools fortunes single handedly?.
I'd have to check the records on that one regarding the loss and the circumstances. It's a very different picture to what's being painter at the club and something is going badly wrong if we're talking about a £20m mortgage crippling us. Someone got the maths badly wrong. You sure we didn't pay off a chunk from the stadium?
As for Rogers...a cretin? Very harsh. He had Swansea playing good football and if it's not him pulling the strings and it's the backroom staff, what happened with Hodgson and Kenny? Surely they'd have performed at a similar level?
it's not the stadium costs, it's the wage bill.....
We posted a loss last year on our P&L accounts - so did virtually every other big team in Europe if you want to take player spend into the equation. Arsenal's cash reserves are bigger than those of most of the other premier league teams put together. When you buy a £30 mill player you will immediately see revenue in the form of shirt sales, increase in season tickets etc but the player becomes a £30 mill asset which can either appreciate or depreciate. It increases the value of the company & can be used as a means to borrow ( should we need to ), just like any other business.
Our biggest overheads are our wages - approx £150 mill per year + stadium repayments = £19 mill per year. Our turnover last year I think was approx £250 mill. That turnover doesn't include our new kit & other sponsors. I'll let you do the maths, but bearing in mind this has been happening for years ( since 2002 ) & Wenger has managed to spend just as much as he has sold in that time, you should see why we aren't & haven't been short of money - its all a fabrication which enables Wenger to repeatedly try & show us how he can win the league with his basement buys - Arsenal fans paying the highest ticket prices in Europe to allow Wenger to fuck us over year after year with the blessing of the board.
Ok, so do we know when what money gets accounted for in each financial quarter? Are you talking about the £2m loss announced in Feb?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote