THE MONEY THREAD

[26may1989]

Only thing I disagree is that I really do not think the board ever said we had a £70M transfer fund.

Edelman said that was the bank balance, and the media ran with the story that it was all for transfers.

But what did Edelman or the board do to correct what was being reported? Fuck all. Carrying the fans through this period is crucial, and managing the PR intelligently is therefore a very important element in the equation. If the media reports last year were wrong, they should have been corrected. Failing to correct any misreporting (if that is what happened) amounts to deceiving the fans almost as much as saying £70m was available in the first place.

[QuartzGooner]

Only thing I disagree is that I really do not think the board ever said we had a £70M transfer fund.

Edelman said that was the bank balance, and the media ran with the story that it was all for transfers.

But what did Edelman or the board do to correct what was being reported? Fuck all. Carrying the fans through this period is crucial, and managing the PR intelligently is therefore a very important element in the equation. If the media reports last year were wrong, they should have been corrected. Failing to correct any misreporting (if that is what happened) amounts to deceiving the fans almost as much as saying £70m was available in the first place.

But how could the board say, "Actually, we only have £25M to spend"

It would put us at a disadvantage in transfer negotiations.

There is an element of bluff in transfer deals like in poker, and the club have to try to keep as much of their true transfer money as obscured a spossible to keep some negotiations advantage.

[Ras Dam]

Letting clubs think we have £70m to spend on players doesn't help either. Lyon wouldn't have held out for £24m if they thought Chelsea couldn't afford to spend it on Essien.

I stand by my statements about Wenger sitting on a fortune. It's certainly more than I have in the bank.

Looking over the financial report from May 2007, it states that 'the annual cash requirement for the debt service cost of the bonds is £20million'. It also says 'match day revenues at £90.6million, representing an average of some £3.1 million per match played at the Emirates Stadium...were comfortably more than double £44.1million achieved in the last season at Highbury.' Maybe my math is wrong but I can't possilbly see how that doesn't say that the stadium pays for itself. An increase of £46.5 million minus £20 million debt doesn't leave a negative figure.

We've got two development sites; in Queensland Road and in Hornsey Street, which are set to be sold this year. And although neither site is meant to make a profit, it will mean freeing up more cash for Arsenal Holdings PLC.

The money is there to be invested in the playing staff.

[Herbert144]

Magic Merse, Donaldo and the others are right - anyone can see that Spurs and just about every other team in the top half of the Premiership have outspent us and will continue to do so; and you are absolutely right about the loan being long-term , which means that the club can afford to take short term risks and spend enough to bring in some top quality players.

If we spend the money now, the chances will be that much greater of winning a major trophy, thus increasing revenues - which, with continued big attendances, will easily cover what is spent, especially if you include the TV money etc. By failing to the strengthen the squad, we risk further arid seasons and as someone has pointed out, the club playing to a half empty stadium - with all the financial problems that will bring.

What doesn't help is Arsene Wenger saying, as he did today, that he doesn't feel there is a need to buy in a replacement for Flamini, because we have Son, Denilson and Dyaby. They are good players and promising for the future, but we need experience and backbone for the team right now. There is no point, as far as I can see, in bringing in more unfininished players and saying well, they will be ready in a season or two. We don't have a season or two to spare. Spurs are closing the gap, bit by bit and Liverpool aren't standing still. Never mind winning any trophies: at this rate we will be struggling to hold on to third place.

[I Hate Hleb]

Only thing I disagree is that I really do not think the board ever said we had a £70M transfer fund.

Edelman said that was the bank balance, and the media ran with the story that it was all for transfers.

But what did Edelman or the board do to correct what was being reported? Fuck all. Carrying the fans through this period is crucial, and managing the PR intelligently is therefore a very important element in the equation. If the media reports last year were wrong, they should have been corrected. Failing to correct any misreporting (if that is what happened) amounts to deceiving the fans almost as much as saying £70m was available in the first place.

But how could the board say, "Actually, we only have £25M to spend"

It would put us at a disadvantage in transfer negotiations.

There is an element of bluff in transfer deals like in poker, and the club have to try to keep as much of their true transfer money as obscured as possible to keep some negotiations advantage.

Quartz,

You keep saying that the media misquoted Keith Edelman with regards the money available but I remember seeing with my own eyes and hearing with my own ears Edelman actually say that we were cash rich to the tune of £69 million and anything Wenger wanted for new players would be made available to him. Now that tells me that Edelman was trying to convey the message to the fans that there were huge sums available to spend in the transfer market - but Wenger didn't want to spend it!! As has been already mentioned, why didn't the club come out and clarify it if it was all a load of tosh? Because they wanted us to believe it, that's why!!

I don't know about keeping a 'negotiations advantage' but the Board have a duty to at least be honest with the fans and not mis-lead them into thinking we had more to spend that we actually did!!

[I Hate Hleb]

Here are some figures reported by SkySportsNews with regards player spending over the past decade:

Chelsea - £475 million

Man Utd - £298 million

Liverpool - £264 million

Newcastle - £231 million

Spuds - £229 million

Arsenal - £184 million

The fact that Wenger has won as much as he has, or even managed to keep us competitive during that period - despite the Board's failure to finance signings to the extent that our rivals have - reflects badly on them whilst showing us the truely great job Wenger has done.

[Magic Hat]

Wouldn't it suggest that we produced less money then Man U and didn't put ourselves in debt like the rest? Our commerce department could have done with a good kick certainly but didn't the board appoint Wenger, keep us debt free and didn't the board get us a new stadium in time and in budget?

For those saying take short term risks, what happens if we don't win anything with the new money, credit crunch gets worse and the houses don't sell as well as hoped? We would have no cash reserves?

[augie]

Wouldn't it suggest that we produced less money then Man U and didn't put ourselves in debt like the rest? Our commerce department could have done with a good kick certainly but didn't the board appoint Wenger, keep us debt free and didn't the board get us a new stadium in time and in budget?

For those saying take short term risks, what happens if we don't win anything with the new money, credit crunch gets worse and the houses don't sell as well as hoped? We would have no cash reserves?

Wasnt it in fact David Dein that recruited wenger ? Wasnt it a combination of wengers knowledge of players and DD's negotiating skills and contacts that kept the club debt free ? My understanding of the buildings trade is limited but what I do know is that you hire a construction company and you tie them to a certain timeframe that should they run overtime it would cost the builders huge financial penalties so I am not sure where the board delivered the stadium on time

For those that are opposed to taking some short risks ask yourselves what kind of financial impact would it have on the club should we fail to qualify for the champions league ? Ask yourselves how much negative impact would it have should we lose our only recognised world class player (cesc) ? Would it impact our ability to convince other players that we are a club on the up ? Ask yourselves would any of the above affect our ability to sell the club to sponsors and commercial backers to the point where we would be forced to accept less than the market value (a la emirates and nike deals) purely cos we needed the money ?

A lot of fans fail to see the real risks that a failure to properly invest in the squad and team this summer will bring. Yes it is early yet but when you already see jens and flamini gone and you just know that bert and hleb will soon follow them out the door and all for a pittance or nothing at all then it does not look good.

[QuartzGooner]

Wouldn't it suggest that we produced less money then Man U and didn't put ourselves in debt like the rest? Our commerce department could have done with a good kick certainly but didn't the board appoint Wenger, keep us debt free and didn't the board get us a new stadium in time and in budget?

For those saying take short term risks, what happens if we don't win anything with the new money, credit crunch gets worse and the houses don't sell as well as hoped? We would have no cash reserves?

Wasnt it in fact David Dein that recruited wenger ? Wasnt it a combination of wengers knowledge of players and DD's negotiating skills and contacts that kept the club debt free ? My understanding of the buildings trade is limited but what I do know is that you hire a construction company and you tie them to a certain timeframe that should they run overtime it would cost the builders huge financial penalties so I am not sure where the board delivered the stadium on time

For those that are opposed to taking some short risks ask yourselves what kind of financial impact would it have on the club should we fail to qualify for the champions league ? Ask yourselves how much negative impact would it have should we lose our only recognised world class player (cesc) ? Would it impact our ability to convince other players that we are a club on the up ? Ask yourselves would any of the above affect our ability to sell the club to sponsors and commercial backers to the point where we would be forced to accept less than the market value (a la emirates and nike deals) purely cos we needed the money ?

A lot of fans fail to see the real risks that a failure to properly invest in the squad and team this summer will bring. Yes it is early yet but when you already see jens and flamini gone and you just know that bert and hleb will soon follow them out the door and all for a pittance or nothing at all then it does not look good.

The debt came from moving to the new stadium. That alone has given us debt, it is not connected to Dein or Wenger, you cannot credit them for the lack of debt pre the stadium move.

Even if Cesc did go so what?

The "brand" of Arsenal is bigger than any player.

Bigger than Wright, bigger than Vieiera, bigger then Henry and bigger than Flamini.

Cesc will go one day, back to Barcelona, and we will replace him.

As for the other clubs listed who spend more, Chelsea, Newcastle, Liverpool, Man Utd and Spurs.

Chelsea are unique in having a multi billionaire owner, so comparison is pointless.

Man Utd have hideous debt.

Liverpool are a mess off the pitch, have debt and an unsure way ahead, and have finished lower in the league than us as has been usual these last ten years.

Spurs - oh please. They are miles below us, and have yet to move stadium.

[Magic Hat]

Wasnt it in fact David Dein that recruited wenger ? Wasnt it a combination of wengers knowledge of players and DD's negotiating skills and contacts that kept the club debt free ? My understanding of the buildings trade is limited but what I do know is that you hire a construction company and you tie them to a certain timeframe that should they run overtime it would cost the builders huge financial penalties so I am not sure where the board delivered the stadium on time

For those that are opposed to taking some short risks ask yourselves what kind of financial impact would it have on the club should we fail to qualify for the champions league ? Ask yourselves how much negative impact would it have should we lose our only recognised world class player (cesc) ? Would it impact our ability to convince other players that we are a club on the up ? Ask yourselves would any of the above affect our ability to sell the club to sponsors and commercial backers to the point where we would be forced to accept less than the market value (a la emirates and nike deals) purely cos we needed the money ?

A lot of fans fail to see the real risks that a failure to properly invest in the squad and team this summer will bring. Yes it is early yet but when you already see jens and flamini gone and you just know that bert and hleb will soon follow them out the door and all for a pittance or nothing at all then it does not look good.

so Dein outvoted the board by himself? Even he admits that two senior board members came with him to try and win Arsene over. Wouldn't it be the board for using Dein and Wenger while not giving money that we didn't have or doing anything else to plunge us into debt? Why do the Fa have a huge bill for their staduim as given the massive delays, shouldn't it be the original price?

It would be bad, recoverable I hoped but bad. Thankfully with Arsene at the helm, we have ridden over the close year and improved whereas Spurs have imploded. If we lose Cesc, we lose him, we will one day anyway but we will replace him as we have replaced big players before. It does seem unlikely that we are going to plunge into 4th or below unless we take massive injuries as in we are forced to wield our reserve side

Jens we knew was going before this season, we lost a midfielder whose ability is in doubt, we don't know about Gilberto and we should get a nice fee for Hleb. Annoying to lose such players but not like we won't buy players is it?