ARSENAL ANNOUNCED HALF YEAR PROFITS
-
Block91Broox
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:33 am
They will be a step ahead.....for now. Big Transfers mean big wages and from a domestic point of view I don't see how United, Chelsea & City can increase their turnovers much more.digger wrote:Sorry mate, but you're nuts!Block91Broox wrote:With these financial results and the patience which the club has been run, mean Arsenal can be the next Liverpool-United and dominate club football for 15yrs and not just dip in and out like we have done for decades.
I'm talking real dominance, 3 titles in a row. European cups. The last 5 years would be worth that wouldn't it boys?
If we somehow pay off ALL of our debts in the next three years, becoming FULLY debt free, and assuming none of the board members vote for a dividend, no-one uses the club's sturdy financial base to reinvest in other ventures, and we make £100m a year to spend on transfers....
Barcelona and Real Madrid will spend £150m on transfers
Abramovich will spent £200m a year on transfers
City will spent £500m a year on transfers
Being a self-sustainable football club is amazing, but a benefactor with a bottomless pit of money from oil, steel, human trafficking etc will always be one step ahead.
Remember that 50% is to be the magic number when it comes to wages against turnover ratio.
These figures are not exact but pretty close:
United
Turnover 250m Wages 121m % 48%
Arsenal
Turnover 235m Wages 101m % 42%
Chelsea
Turnover 213m Wages 172m % 80%
God knows what Man City will be after this year but I guess around the 90% mark.
Chelsea have no real supporter base and neither do City comparable to United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
We are Lions waiting to pounce boy's I'm telling you.
And yes I am nut's digger I can't deny that.
Block91Broox wrote:They will be a step ahead.....for now. Big Transfers mean big wages and from a domestic point of view I don't see how United, Chelsea & City can increase their turnovers much more.digger wrote:Sorry mate, but you're nuts!Block91Broox wrote:With these financial results and the patience which the club has been run, mean Arsenal can be the next Liverpool-United and dominate club football for 15yrs and not just dip in and out like we have done for decades.
I'm talking real dominance, 3 titles in a row. European cups. The last 5 years would be worth that wouldn't it boys?
If we somehow pay off ALL of our debts in the next three years, becoming FULLY debt free, and assuming none of the board members vote for a dividend, no-one uses the club's sturdy financial base to reinvest in other ventures, and we make £100m a year to spend on transfers....
Barcelona and Real Madrid will spend £150m on transfers
Abramovich will spent £200m a year on transfers
City will spent £500m a year on transfers
Being a self-sustainable football club is amazing, but a benefactor with a bottomless pit of money from oil, steel, human trafficking etc will always be one step ahead.
Remember that 50% is to be the magic number when it comes to wages against turnover ratio.
These figures are not exact but pretty close:
United
Turnover 250m Wages 121m % 48%
Arsenal
Turnover 235m Wages 101m % 42%
Chelsea
Turnover 213m Wages 172m % 80%
God knows what Man City will be after this year but I guess around the 90% mark.
Chelsea have no real supporter base and neither do City comparable to United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
We are Lions waiting to pounce boy's I'm telling you.
And yes I am nut's digger I can't deny that.
And I thought all our comedians were either on the Field, on the Bench, or in the Board Room - or in Brazil...........
Very good ! If Simon Cowell opts for humour instead of Kareoke, I'll authenticate your CV.
Oh! So it wasn't the board that said they were going to pay off all the debt in three years? I didn't think they would say that.
What makes anyone think they would do this? Just because they paid off a large amount over the last 6 months doesn't mean they are going to keep doing it at that rate untill its been wiped out.
What makes anyone think they would do this? Just because they paid off a large amount over the last 6 months doesn't mean they are going to keep doing it at that rate untill its been wiped out.
-
Block91Broox
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:33 am
-
Jumpers For Goalposts
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:42 pm
You're doing exactly what the Club want you to do - you're missing the most important point my friend:-Rob wrote:Block91Broox wrote:They will be a step ahead.....for now. Big Transfers mean big wages and from a domestic point of view I don't see how United, Chelsea & City can increase their turnovers much more.digger wrote:Sorry mate, but you're nuts!Block91Broox wrote:With these financial results and the patience which the club has been run, mean Arsenal can be the next Liverpool-United and dominate club football for 15yrs and not just dip in and out like we have done for decades.
I'm talking real dominance, 3 titles in a row. European cups. The last 5 years would be worth that wouldn't it boys?
If we somehow pay off ALL of our debts in the next three years, becoming FULLY debt free, and assuming none of the board members vote for a dividend, no-one uses the club's sturdy financial base to reinvest in other ventures, and we make £100m a year to spend on transfers....
Barcelona and Real Madrid will spend £150m on transfers
Abramovich will spent £200m a year on transfers
City will spent £500m a year on transfers
Being a self-sustainable football club is amazing, but a benefactor with a bottomless pit of money from oil, steel, human trafficking etc will always be one step ahead.
Remember that 50% is to be the magic number when it comes to wages against turnover ratio.
These figures are not exact but pretty close:
United
Turnover 250m Wages 121m % 48%
Arsenal
Turnover 235m Wages 101m % 42%
Chelsea
Turnover 213m Wages 172m % 80%
God knows what Man City will be after this year but I guess around the 90% mark.
Chelsea have no real supporter base and neither do City comparable to United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
We are Lions waiting to pounce boy's I'm telling you.
And yes I am nut's digger I can't deny that.
And I thought all our comedians were either on the Field, on the Bench, or in the Board Room - or in Brazil...........
Very good ! If Simon Cowell opts for humour instead of Kareoke, I'll authenticate your CV.
Chelsea and Citeh are being bank-rolled by multi-billionaires so turnovers / ratios / fan bases are irrelevant. And ManUre are one of the 2 or 3 biggest clubs in the world so they will always be bailed out.
We are not waiting to pounce on anything because the likelihood of these clubs going bust is so low. The Portsmouth argument does not apply to these clubs!
Gooners are sick of being fed bullshit by our manager and directors in relation to finances!
Fair play.... but where Chelsea's turnover is something like £300m, Roman Abramovich is worth about £6bn. Topping up the difference to give Chelsea more cash than Arsenal is nothing to him. Same with Man City. Neither club needs to be self sustaining.... even if they paid their players 10x what they make from TV money, gate receipts and shirt sales.Block91Broox wrote:They will be a step ahead.....for now. Big Transfers mean big wages and from a domestic point of view I don't see how United, Chelsea & City can increase their turnovers much more.digger wrote:Sorry mate, but you're nuts!Block91Broox wrote:With these financial results and the patience which the club has been run, mean Arsenal can be the next Liverpool-United and dominate club football for 15yrs and not just dip in and out like we have done for decades.
I'm talking real dominance, 3 titles in a row. European cups. The last 5 years would be worth that wouldn't it boys?
If we somehow pay off ALL of our debts in the next three years, becoming FULLY debt free, and assuming none of the board members vote for a dividend, no-one uses the club's sturdy financial base to reinvest in other ventures, and we make £100m a year to spend on transfers....
Barcelona and Real Madrid will spend £150m on transfers
Abramovich will spent £200m a year on transfers
City will spent £500m a year on transfers
Being a self-sustainable football club is amazing, but a benefactor with a bottomless pit of money from oil, steel, human trafficking etc will always be one step ahead.
Remember that 50% is to be the magic number when it comes to wages against turnover ratio.
These figures are not exact but pretty close:
United
Turnover 250m Wages 121m % 48%
Arsenal
Turnover 235m Wages 101m % 42%
Chelsea
Turnover 213m Wages 172m % 80%
God knows what Man City will be after this year but I guess around the 90% mark.
Chelsea have no real supporter base and neither do City comparable to United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
We are Lions waiting to pounce boy's I'm telling you.
And yes I am nut's digger I can't deny that.
-
Block91Broox
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:33 am
Bloody hell Selsdon! Grumpy old men needs some new faces.selsdon wrote:We are in a position now to spend big in the transfer market. We have a young team who are improving massively year on year
I didn't lol at that, I pissed myself.
When it comes to the way the club is moving forward I am with the one's who support it. However when it comes to discussing getting taken over by the yank or the Baby boiling murderer I just as grumpy as you are on this subject.
I know it is born from frustration, I understand that and I really respect that it stem's from passion for the club. But I really beleive we are right when it comes to the bigger picture.
But that's just my opinion, which is worth what really?
-
Block91Broox
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:33 am
This is the thing Digger. The rich bastard's cannot just top up the turn over. They have to be self sustaining regardless of the owners wealth. It is based on the turnover that thier accounts show.digger wrote:Fair play.... but where Chelsea's turnover is something like £300m, Roman Abramovich is worth about £6bn. Topping up the difference to give Chelsea more cash than Arsenal is nothing to him. Same with Man City. Neither club needs to be self sustaining.... even if they paid their players 10x what they make from TV money, gate receipts and shirt sales.Block91Broox wrote:They will be a step ahead.....for now. Big Transfers mean big wages and from a domestic point of view I don't see how United, Chelsea & City can increase their turnovers much more.digger wrote:Sorry mate, but you're nuts!Block91Broox wrote:With these financial results and the patience which the club has been run, mean Arsenal can be the next Liverpool-United and dominate club football for 15yrs and not just dip in and out like we have done for decades.
I'm talking real dominance, 3 titles in a row. European cups. The last 5 years would be worth that wouldn't it boys?
If we somehow pay off ALL of our debts in the next three years, becoming FULLY debt free, and assuming none of the board members vote for a dividend, no-one uses the club's sturdy financial base to reinvest in other ventures, and we make £100m a year to spend on transfers....
Barcelona and Real Madrid will spend £150m on transfers
Abramovich will spent £200m a year on transfers
City will spent £500m a year on transfers
Being a self-sustainable football club is amazing, but a benefactor with a bottomless pit of money from oil, steel, human trafficking etc will always be one step ahead.
Remember that 50% is to be the magic number when it comes to wages against turnover ratio.
These figures are not exact but pretty close:
United
Turnover 250m Wages 121m % 48%
Arsenal
Turnover 235m Wages 101m % 42%
Chelsea
Turnover 213m Wages 172m % 80%
God knows what Man City will be after this year but I guess around the 90% mark.
Chelsea have no real supporter base and neither do City comparable to United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
We are Lions waiting to pounce boy's I'm telling you.
And yes I am nut's digger I can't deny that.
I know they don't have to be self sufficient to survive, but they will have to be to compete in the champions league or the future European super league.
They will be
We will be
Broox, if we were all in this together ie the board/manager/players/fans I wouldn't be as grumpy (although I am a miserable bastard sober)
But we're not....
the first three named on that list are getting rich at the expense of the last named whilst at the same time pleading poverty
They say you can't have it both ways but they appear they can.
But we're not....
the first three named on that list are getting rich at the expense of the last named whilst at the same time pleading poverty
They say you can't have it both ways but they appear they can.
-
Block91Broox
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:33 am
Mate, if we get a couple of years down the line and money is not invested into the team I'll be right behind you of thet there is no doubt in my mind. But just now I agree with what we have done.selsdon wrote:Broox, if we were all in this together ie the board/manager/players/fans I wouldn't be as grumpy (although I am a miserable bastard sober)
But we're not....
the first three named on that list are getting rich at the expense of the last named whilst at the same time pleading poverty
They say you can't have it both ways but they appear they can.
It has been impossible to compete with these big spenders for players since we moved stadium and their spending has inflated the value of players to ridiculous levels (Lescott £24m?????). However we couldn't compete before the move and if we hadn't have moved we would not have been able to compete....ever.
Winning trophies from money robbed from the working classes by criminals ------ £800m
Winning trophies with a team that has been built and matured against all the odd's ----- Priceless.
It'll happen boys trust me!!!
Right, the wife is giving me earache cause I've just been on here with you lot 2hrs after I said I'll be home.
Lets smash those shitkicking Stoke twunts tommorow and shit these big spending cheat's right up.
RED ARMY!!!!!
Great thread lad's
Last edited by Block91Broox on Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
