Sorry but you lose me here. We did precisely what I am suggesting from 1998-2005, as there were several clubs spending more than we were.frankbutcher wrote:In essence, I feel that Wenger and the Board have AGREED TOGETHER not to compete with Man City and Chelsea, because they can't. Just spending a few more million or a few more thousand on wages doesn't work. You either compete, or you don't. There is no middle ground. If you buy a player for £20m and put him on £150k a week, every senior player wants £150k per week. We can't do it.
And the idea there is no middle ground is just untrue and really just sounds like trying to excuse a policy that coincidentally seems to be working out very well for the club's wealthiest investors right now, and again I just find it highly lucky that it just worked out that way because that would suggest one everything was purely coincidental which is just hard to believe given that our Board are whatever you of their policies and actions think very competent businessmen. If anything the middle ground now was simply bigger and wider and there were more paths to venture into it.
And we could have done it without competitng directly with Chelsea or Man City too. As I say I think the cash flow problems were what handicapped us here and the Chelsea thing is a straw man, an excuse used after the fact.
I think you are right about Chelsea and maybe Man City but not sure on Man United. They are too much of a cash cow now even and also too big a club not to find a buyer or buyers willing to rescue them at some point. I think they may be pushed into a tight spot that someone will get them out of it. And with their cash generating ability now even once they are under new ownership it will be the Old United again - fortunately they won't have Ferguscunt in place anymore to use their support.frankbutcher wrote:Man City, Chelsea and Man Utd are UNSUSTAINABLE. They will go bust one day and Arsenal won't (unless we get bought out)
And our being sold is not automatically the end of the world. If we are sold into a debt-leveraged takeover then yes you are correct. Or even if we are not we are taken over by new ownership with reckless spending policies than yes you are correct.
But if we are sold to new ownership who pays for the club in full wioth their own money and can grasp the smae balance as ourtr current Board had in the past there is no reason to worry for Arsenal's future.
Of course it all depends on if when and who they sell Arsenal to.
If it were up to me we would have sold Highbury and let the Directors take dividends. After they had run the club very successfully and maintained the balance between competitive football club and fiscally sound business very well prior to 2005.frankbutcher wrote:Are the Directors planning to sell up after de-gearing the Club for years and building up oodles of cash? Who knows?
One thing I do know is that they are fully entitled to take dividends from the Club, which they are not doing. The cash is being used on player wages and on paying down debt. I know the value of the shares has shot up, but to be honest this has more to do with Kroenke and Usmanov getting involved than anything. ACTUALLY, the share price has gone down since Kroenke and Usmanov bought at their peak. And who has sold shares?
The question to me is was the decision to re-develop Highbury about driving that share price upward more quickly rather than simply in Arsenal's best interests? I mean to say why not take a smaller annual dividend and continue to run the club as they had prior to 2005 which was still very effectively efficiently and successfully in every sense. After all these aren't paupers running Arsenal. 250K 500 K or a million or more a year for Board members wouldn't leave them unable to feed their families.
frankbutcher wrote:Dein - no longer in the business, but seen as the saviour (despite making as fortune out of the Club)
Fiszman - why shouldn't he sell a few shares?
Lady Nina - up for sale but at a joke price. If Usmanov or Kroenke were going to buy the Club and leverage it up on debt, would they not have done it by now????????????????
Yopur point regarding David Dein is quite valid but I'm not so sure reagrding Mr. Fiszman or Lady Nina. Not about selling shares on principle, but whether we should just look at this in so purely innocent or natural a way. I can't help but wonder ifcertain actiions weren't driven by the desire to do this as opposed to them being in the club's best interests.
