As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
olgitgooner wrote:I am not happy about single ownership of our club. Regardless of the owner.
But I'd just like to point out that Stan has never loaded debt on to any of his sports clubs. And he owns quite a few.
(Sorry if this was mentioned earlier. There is no way I'm going to read through 25 pages, just to check )
USMartin wrote:Maybe if Gooners had listened to voices like mine earlier instead of heaping skcepticism ridicule and downright hostility on them back in 2006 you wouldn't have to hear us so often now or lament the fact that what we were warning might come to be has come to be to a large extent.
Please please please.........................................jog on
Marty......have you ever heard the word "bumptious"?
USMartin wrote:And unless we do spend significantly more now to make up for the lack of spending since 2006 we are serious danger of seeing that happen, as Man United Chelsea and Man City definitely will spend, as will Liverpool and probably s***s, and that's five teams fighting for four places and us fighting with one arm tied behind our backs.
And soon that will only be three places to fight for.
We cannot lose touch now, because with the stadium still to be fully paid and the possibility that the club will also have to pay for being bought by Stan Kroenke even if its not debt leveraged we will either drop to mid-table medicority or worse or risk bankruptcy unless the self-syustaining model is abandoned altogether.
On the other hand spend now even if that model has to be abandoned temporarily and this might be avoided.
Where did u get the idea we spent heavily pre 2005 - we probably had net spend of under £40million under Wenger in that period.
Apparently that kind of amount is there now but Wenger don't want it - according to him - so he's either a liar or a coward doin the boards dirty work.
Arsenal were always frugal bastards and always will be
P.S. Did u buy any of these cheap shares - seeming that u could see this coming for so long
If you read on I address this - but we had an average net spend of app 5.5 million from 1998-2005 and have had an average net profit of about 5.5 million from 2006 on - a shift of 10-11 million a year in spending since 2006 - or about one Tom Vermaelen - a year. That means had we just spent 5.5 million a year fronm 2006 on we might have one more Tom Vermaelen priced and quality player each year - five more of Tom Vermaelen's quality instead of say Denilson, Bendtner, Almunia, Squllaci, and Diaby.
Fair point Martin but in terms of spending its still only peanuts(where's Percy) compared to what other clubs spend not just big clubs either. We are tight and always were.
If we had've spent the £50 million (which apparently is there but Wenger don't want it) - instead of club being worth £827 it would be worth £777 - approx 6% or 1.25% a year. Now if the board were indeed in it to make the cash - i'm sure they could have got a better return on their investment elsewhere than to deny the club these funds so they could increase their share value by an extra 1% or so a year
USMartin wrote:And unless we do spend significantly more now to make up for the lack of spending since 2006 we are serious danger of seeing that happen, as Man United Chelsea and Man City definitely will spend, as will Liverpool and probably s***s, and that's five teams fighting for four places and us fighting with one arm tied behind our backs.
And soon that will only be three places to fight for.
We cannot lose touch now, because with the stadium still to be fully paid and the possibility that the club will also have to pay for being bought by Stan Kroenke even if its not debt leveraged we will either drop to mid-table medicority or worse or risk bankruptcy unless the self-syustaining model is abandoned altogether.
On the other hand spend now even if that model has to be abandoned temporarily and this might be avoided.
Where did u get the idea we spent heavily pre 2005 - we probably had net spend of under £40million under Wenger in that period.
Apparently that kind of amount is there now but Wenger don't want it - according to him - so he's either a liar or a coward doin the boards dirty work.
Arsenal were always frugal bastards and always will be
P.S. Did u buy any of these cheap shares - seeming that u could see this coming for so long
If you read on I address this - but we had an average net spend of app 5.5 million from 1998-2005 and have had an average net profit of about 5.5 million from 2006 on - a shift of 10-11 million a year in spending since 2006 - or about one Tom Vermaelen - a year. That means had we just spent 5.5 million a year fronm 2006 on we might have one more Tom Vermaelen priced and quality player each year - five more of Tom Vermaelen's quality instead of say Denilson, Bendtner, Almunia, Squllaci, and Diaby.
Fair point Martin but in terms of spending its still only peanuts(where's Percy) compared to what other clubs spend not just big clubs either. We are tight and always were.
If we had've spent the £50 million (which apparently is there but Wenger don't want it) - instead of club being worth £827 it would be worth £777 - approx 6% or 1.25% a year. Now if the board were indeed in it to make the cash - i'm sure they could have got a better return on their investment elsewhere than to deny the club these funds so they could increase their share value by an extra 1% or so a year
or maybe not
There's the rub - or maybe not. And the I think Board wanted the sure thing.
I agree we have never spent huge money. The thing is we didn't have to at this point, all we had to do was spend like we had been from 1998-2005. Yes Chelsea inflated the market, but the did not inflate as much as our policy deflated our desire to work in it at the same level as we had.
It made working within the self-sustaining business model far less practical and since our board refuse to work outside(spending their own money - but hey most of them never paid for their shares either or paid a pittance on what they are making now)all but impossible really.
USMartin wrote:So I wouild back Ruslan Usmanov - reluctantly - now because what we do know is that he has moere than enough money to buy the club without leveraged debt or even paying for it through dividends but that even if he did he wouild likely pump money inot the football team.
And that at least would compensate for the failure of the self-sustaining business model which is inevitable if that dividend is taken. I don't think Mr. Kroenke has that kind of money.
So after over 4,000 posts on here, there we have it: USMartin is a stooge for Usmanov!!
USMartin wrote:So I wouild back Ruslan Usmanov - reluctantly - now because what we do know is that he has moere than enough money to buy the club without leveraged debt or even paying for it through dividends but that even if he did he wouild likely pump money inot the football team.
And that at least would compensate for the failure of the self-sustaining business model which is inevitable if that dividend is taken. I don't think Mr. Kroenke has that kind of money.
So after over 4,000 posts on here, there we have it: USMartin is a stooge for Usmanov!!
Don't worry we'll probably get another 4000 posts trying to convince everyone that this is all proof he was right...
Good news tonight that the supporters trust have rejected the offer for the shares - unsurprising, but good.
Whatever we may think of the current financial policy (and my view is we spend a little under what we should, and we could raise some more cash through selling some deadwood) I think it would be really dangerous if an Usmanov or a Kroenke came in and starting flashing the cash.
I don't know why, but I wouldn't like it entirely.
I'm happy to continue on the current path, with Kroenke bringing in as little change at the top as possible. It's tinkering we need, not wholesale change - as the gap at the top of the table indicates (to me, I know MANY others disagree)
USMartin wrote:So I wouild back Ruslan Usmanov - reluctantly - now because what we do know is that he has moere than enough money to buy the club without leveraged debt or even paying for it through dividends but that even if he did he wouild likely pump money inot the football team.
And that at least would compensate for the failure of the self-sustaining business model which is inevitable if that dividend is taken. I don't think Mr. Kroenke has that kind of money.
So after over 4,000 posts on here, there we have it: USMartin is a stooge for Usmanov!!
This is what i wa trying to get him to do, nail his true colours to the mast. USMartin is an Usmanov mole
flash gunner wrote:So its proven that the board creamed off the cash for themselves and poor Arsene was in no way to blame.... What happens next?
That's it pure over-simplification - though it makes more sense than your thesis
No Arsene Wenger shares some blame - just not as much as you believe or for what you believe.
Arsene Wenger made no effort to challenge the Board on any of this and cooperated with it. I suspect that is why he has gotten the last two or three contract renewals and the improved terms with them.
But I think the Board's decision to re-develop Highbury which only made them richer as we see now fatally undermined what had been a very successful on the pitch and efficient off the pitch self-sustaining business model up to 2005. Arsene Wenger is at fault for not condemning that decision or its results and challenging the Board to correct its own greed-driven errors.
The one thing in his defense is that if the Board's policy changed his will as well, which is what we want in the end.
I just tend to believe the odds are its more likely that the Board was willing to give up the silverware for the club for more silver for themselves than Arsene Wenger was for his ego. And ask yourself this - is this were any club but Arsenal what you believe then?
Does it really matter if the board made themselves some money over our move to the new stadium? If we didn't build our own stadium we would've ended up at Wembley, or worse still bidding for the Olympic stadium. Don't be fooled by our status while we were at Highbury, Wenger would've moved on, we would've dropped out the top 4 into mid table obscurity and don't think for one minute we would've got a top class manager to replace him at that time either.
It can be argued that we sustained our on pitch status because of Wenger not in spite of him.
Imagine, we could've gone 6 season without silverware, still at Highbury, aiming to finish fifth. Now surely, that would give us legitimate reason to be unhappy.
While I understand the sentiment of "Arsenal FC, not PLC", we've been a plc since the time of Henry Norris, so where were you in 1910?
I'll admit that I've not been able to trawl through all of the posts so sorry if this has been posted before (although highly unlikely as most people are just regurgitating what the media are spewing out).
Kroenke will only be laying out £125m to start with. He has agreed to buy the shares of Lady Nina, Hill-Wood, Chips Keswick, Lord Harris and Ken Friar. Lady Nina's are worth about £120m, Hill-Wood's about £4.7m and rest are next to bugger all in the grand scheme of things.
He has first option on Fizsman's shares but he isn't buying them....yet.
Usmanov won't sell.
That leaves about 11% of small shareholders. Usmanov has been trying to buy these for the last 3 years for good money but these people won't sell.
So, the owners will be (roughly):
Kroenke - 46%
Usmanov - 27%
Fizsman - 16%
Others - 11%
Kroenke and Fizsman will more than likely run the show.
No I'm not. I would be happy to back Stan Kroenke if I was cionfident of his ability to pay for his shares without debt leverage or via dividends supporting debt purchase.
I would also be be happy to back the current Board and did for several years and even when I initiallt questioned or Board as early as 2000 withdrew spome of my initial concerns until 2005, if they had not made it impossible for us to compete under the self-sustaining business model as they did from 2006 forward.
My dog in this fight is Arsenal F.C. - the Club and Team I love. I'll support anyone I believe who has Arsenal best interests at the heart, and question and oppose anyone I believe doesn't.
There is plenty of reason to doubt either Stan Kreonke or Ruslan Usmanov.
The problem is the only reason we even have to have such a debate is becauise the Board we trusted not to do this this to us because that's not why the ran Arsenal betrayed that trust.
Nos89 wrote: [Does it really matter if the board made themselves some money over our move to the new stadium? If we didn't build our own stadium we would've ended up at Wembley, or worse still bidding for the Olympic stadium. Don't be fooled by our status while we were at Highbury, Wenger would've moved on, we would've dropped out the top 4 into mid table obscurity and don't think for one minute we would've got a top class manager to replace him at that time either.
It can be argued that we sustained our on pitch status because of Wenger not in spite of him.
Imagine, we could've gone 6 season without silverware, still at Highbury, aiming to finish fifth. Now surely, that would give us legitimate reason to be unhappy.
While I understand the sentiment of "Arsenal FC, not PLC", we've been a plc since the time of Henry Norris, so where were you in 1910?
I'll start at the end - I hope that is mere sarcasm otherwise that is pathetically disingenuous since I will assume most of out parents weren't even alive then.
As to your first question it matters because they did it in part by withholding investment in the football team apparently which our Baord was never supposed to do because they didn't do things that way. So yes it matters.
As to your point about Highbury, no one is saying we shouldn't have left Highbury, painful as that was. All that is being said is that borrowoing 120 million on top of borrowing 300 million was reckless in the extreme and the project it was borrowed for only benefit the multi-millionaire shareholders now cashing in the past few years while undermining the football team and potentially risking the Club's long-term survival more than selling Highbury as originally planned would have.
Does it really matter if the board made themselves some money over our move to the new stadium? Yes because the more Kroenke pays for the club the less we will have to spend on players ,its pretty simple !
If we didn't build our own stadium we would've ended up at Wembley, or worse still bidding for the Olympic stadium. Don't be fooled by our status while we were at Highbury, Wenger would've moved on, we would've dropped out the top 4 into mid table obscurity and don't think for one minute we would've got a top class manager to replace him at that time either. Sorry thats just not true ,we were making 20/30 Milllion per annum from Highbury and a lot of it was made available to Wenger . Since then he's been given peanuts. Moreoever whose to say Koreonke wont move us to Wembley
It can be argued that we sustained our on pitch status because of Wenger not in spite of him. Agreed but thats not a popular opinion around these parts
Imagine, we could've gone 6 season without silverware, still at Highbury, aiming to finish fifth. Now surely, that would give us legitimate reason to be unhappy.
While I understand the sentiment of "Arsenal FC, not PLC", we've been a plc since the time of Henry Norris, so where were you in 1910?[/quote]
)
