Hallelujah David Conn - Is the Media finally interested?

[Glitch33]

Martin, it might help if your posts were shorter. there will be people on here who only worry about what AW and/or the team do on the pitch, plus plenty of other banter.

If you want to be taken seriously and stand a chance of having your voice heard then make your posts short and to the point. People are put off by a page of text each time.

[USMartin]

BTW I would appreciate if you delete the Bergkamp-Genius posts if only because they are thread hi-jacking, entertaining as they were, but because they make it more difficult for those who do wish to either read theses threads or to partcipate seriosuly in them to do so.

I know I can scroll past them and all but like I say they are unneeded distraction to the thread topic for me and I expect others, and I with a tinge of genuine regret have to request they be removed from here and the other thread they appear in. Sorry Bergkamp-Genius

[USMartin]

Martin, it might help if your posts were shorter. there will be people on here who only worry about what AW and/or the team do on the pitch, plus plenty of other banter.

If you want to be taken seriously and stand a chance of having your voice heard then make your posts short and to the point. People are put off by a page of text each time.

The problem then is people demand more information more proof or don't take things seriously - sort of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, so I'll choose damned-if-you-do.

It was the same thing with the "thread hijacking" controversy. I went to mods on my own and asked if, so there would be less complaints I couldn't open seperate threads that simply allowed those who might view some of the issues in the context of how the club was being run to discuss them as well without being accused of hi-jacking threads to do so, and when the moderators agreed some of the very same people who said they couldn't stand threads being hi-jacked were just as upset by the alternative threads being posted. DB10 even mentioned this in another thread earlier.

[barnetgooner]

The Guardian in left leaning nonsense article shocker...

"None of that money (from the share sales) is going back into Arsenal"

Arsenal isn't a charity, how could the money have conceivably gone back into the club when the directors sold the shares, should they have then donated it to Kroenke so he could invest it!?

"Over almost 30 years not one director or shareholder of Arsenal has put a penny into the club itself, while they have made vast personal millions for themselves out of selling their Arsenal shares."

1. This is how the entire Western economy works
2. If you inherited your parents' shares in any company that went on to be successful, this would happen.

[mcdowell42]

Why dont you just fuck off US,this was an enjoyable forum when i first joined.Where people like myself and others enjoy the banter the craic gently taking the piss out of each other and discussing our club and the team.I have no problem with anyone discussing/debating about the finacial situation or what the board are doing.But you ,you fuckwit have turned your obsession with the board into 1 longwinded moronic drivel that is cluttering up this forum with your crap.The biggest problem you have is that you alone are right with your views opinions and conspiracy theories and everyone else is wrong,and when they dont agree with you have to resort to insults.Now i will admit i at the moment am insulting you but i dont fucking care.You are a prick of the highest order surely to god there is enough problems on your side of the water that could keep you occupied.Go fucking bore people elsewhere in cyber space and let us get back to the enjoyable forum i 1st joined a few years ago.



PS Sorry to everyone else for losing my temper but i have enough of this moby.

[marcengels]

Glitch has a point, USM....make your posts shorter as some of us don't have the atten

oh look...a squirrel

[mcdowell42]

Glitch has a point, USM....make your posts shorter as some of us don't have the atten

oh look...a squirrel

[topgoon]

Some blokes bought shares in a company, they ran the company like a tight ship...maybe even a bunch of tight-arses ship.

Some other bloke comes along likes the look of the tightly run ship buys the shares and the 1st blokes made a shed load....

So what, we'd all do it and there are things I begrudge these guys but at least they don't take home millions in fees through dodgy'parent companies' like the Glazers,The old and probably eventually the new dippers' owner, bleeding the club dry.

Since when is it rong to pay your mortgage early

Is the club going to go bust or go under when any of the shareholders leaves- No

Is the club running itself without a stupid cash injection from some glory-hunting sugar daddy-Yes

David Conn needs to make his mind up should a club be run prudently or wrecklessly(City,Chelsea).

I don't like not winning a trophy and like less being fleeced by a 6.5% ST rise but this article was a load of bollocks from a City fan

[USMartin]

Some blokes bought shares in a company, they ran the company like a tight ship...maybe even a bunch of tight-arses ship.

Some other bloke comes along likes the look of the tightly run ship buys the shares and the 1st blokes made a shed load....:

No... some blokes fathers and grandfathers bought shares in a company back 50 60 years ago in svereral cases. Once again nobody paid more than 2 k a share for their holding in Arsenal before Stan Kroenke - and several sharholders inherited their shares and they were bought for pennies on the pound or tenths of pennies on the pound.

So what, we'd all do it and there are things I begrudge these guys but at least they don't take home millions in fees through dodgy'parent companies' like the Glazers,The old and probably eventually the new dippers' owner, bleeding the club dry.

Maybe you would but not all of us would value something we love so much so little as to sell it out for a few more peices of silver. Remember if they had sold af half the price they did - The Fiszman fgamily still would have made almost 60 million pounds on top another fourty million already made, and Lady Bracewell-Smith would have made almost 60 million pounds. To hold out for that much extra which may wekll have led to even less investment in the football club while they did is hardly something I would do if I genuinely loved the football club and thus those whoved the club as much as constantly insisted they did.

Since when is it rong to pay your mortgage early

Since when are they paying it early? They aren't. As Quartz said there are penalties for early-repayment on these bonds so they aren't paying anything early.

The sole real purpose now for keeping that cash in reserves would seem to be to those who want to trust the Club in case of an unforeseen dip in club revenues.

Which could only happen if ticket sales plummet which is only likely to happen if we drop from the top four which is only liely to happen if we continue to refuse to invest more the team. Funny that.

Actually a case can be made that not spending that lowers our net debt which inturn increases our share price and the attractive to investors of our shares.

Is the club going to go bust or go under when any of the shareholders leaves- No

Don't be so sure. If things go wrong before 2031 it could happen or worse to prevent it happening we could end consigned to where s***s have been since 1961, and that would be a criminal shame.

Is the club running itself without a stupid cash injection from some glory-hunting sugar daddy-Yes

We don't need a sugar daddy just people running the club who truly put Arsenal's best interest ahead of or level with their own interests as we weere told this Boioard was doing over and over when it realluy looks a big lie

David Conn needs to make his mind up should a club be run prudently or wrecklessly(City,Chelsea).:

The Peter Hill-Wood Defence - we can only choose between running the club this way and ending up like Leeds. The comment above is no different really and every bit as untrue. There are other choices, and we saw that clearly from 1998-2005 and before that even. The fact is the Board used this sort of fear tactic to scare people into not questioning things for a right long time. Sad to see it still can work now even.

[USMartin]

Glitch has a point, USM....make your posts shorter as some of us don't have the atten

oh look...a squirrel

That's the Johnny McCartney I know and love!!

[olgitgooner]

Oh goody!

Another USM thread.

[goonerak]

A constraint the business has to work within. It is still a business not a charity or a philanthropic enterprise. Many years ago it was different but with the money in the game now is all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$

I think if you look back through history it has been about money since 1893. So much so that the club came close to folding in 1910.

At the end of each season, newspapers would report on how big a profit or loss a club made rather than them not winning anything.

No money - no club.

[Glitch33]

Martin, it might help if your posts were shorter. there will be people on here who only worry about what AW and/or the team do on the pitch, plus plenty of other banter.

If you want to be taken seriously and stand a chance of having your voice heard then make your posts short and to the point. People are put off by a page of text each time.

The problem then is people demand more information more proof or don't take things seriously - sort of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, so I'll choose damned-if-you-do.

It was the same thing with the "thread hijacking" controversy. I went to mods on my own and asked if, so there would be less complaints I couldn't open seperate threads that simply allowed those who might view some of the issues in the context of how the club was being run to discuss them as well without being accused of hi-jacking threads to do so, and when the moderators agreed some of the very same people who said they couldn't stand threads being hi-jacked were just as upset by the alternative threads being posted. DB10 even mentioned this in another thread earlier.

A good example where the first paragraph is sufficient.
I started reading the second paragraph and I too saw a squirrel.

[USMartin]

Martin, it might help if your posts were shorter. there will be people on here who only worry about what AW and/or the team do on the pitch, plus plenty of other banter.

If you want to be taken seriously and stand a chance of having your voice heard then make your posts short and to the point. People are put off by a page of text each time.

The problem then is people demand more information more proof or don't take things seriously - sort of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, so I'll choose damned-if-you-do.

It was the same thing with the "thread hijacking" controversy. I went to mods on my own and asked if, so there would be less complaints I couldn't open seperate threads that simply allowed those who might view some of the issues in the context of how the club was being run to discuss them as well without being accused of hi-jacking threads to do so, and when the moderators agreed some of the very same people who said they couldn't stand threads being hi-jacked were just as upset by the alternative threads being posted. DB10 even mentioned this in another thread earlier.

A good example where the first paragraph is sufficient.
I started reading the second paragraph and I too saw a squirrel.

Maybe - but you know what they are so many people who will say anything to defend their position and to condemn me for having a different view that I feel I have to be that much more specific and prove what I am saying. For all I know if don't include that you might say I'm overracting or full of crap. That has happened before with other people here.

[Jumpers For Goalposts]

Some blokes bought shares in a company, they ran the company like a tight ship...maybe even a bunch of tight-arses ship.

Some other bloke comes along likes the look of the tightly run ship buys the shares and the 1st blokes made a shed load....:

No... some blokes fathers and grandfathers bought shares in a company back 50 60 years ago in svereral cases. Once again nobody paid more than 2 k a share for their holding in Arsenal before Stan Kroenke - and several sharholders inherited their shares and they were bought for pennies on the pound or tenths of pennies on the pound.

So what, we'd all do it and there are things I begrudge these guys but at least they don't take home millions in fees through dodgy'parent companies' like the Glazers,The old and probably eventually the new dippers' owner, bleeding the club dry.

Maybe you would but not all of us would value something we love so much so little as to sell it out for a few more peices of silver. Remember if they had sold af half the price they did - The Fiszman fgamily still would have made almost 60 million pounds on top another fourty million already made, and Lady Bracewell-Smith would have made almost 60 million pounds. To hold out for that much extra which may wekll have led to even less investment in the football club while they did is hardly something I would do if I genuinely loved the football club and thus those whoved the club as much as constantly insisted they did.

Since when is it rong to pay your mortgage early

Since when are they paying it early? They aren't. As Quartz said there are penalties for early-repayment on these bonds so they aren't paying anything early.

The sole real purpose now for keeping that cash in reserves would seem to be to those who want to trust the Club in case of an unforeseen dip in club revenues.

Which could only happen if ticket sales plummet which is only likely to happen if we drop from the top four which is only liely to happen if we continue to refuse to invest more the team. Funny that.

Actually a case can be made that not spending that lowers our net debt which inturn increases our share price and the attractive to investors of our shares.

Is the club going to go bust or go under when any of the shareholders leaves- No

Don't be so sure. If things go wrong before 2031 it could happen or worse to prevent it happening we could end consigned to where s***s have been since 1961, and that would be a criminal shame.

Is the club running itself without a stupid cash injection from some glory-hunting sugar daddy-Yes

We don't need a sugar daddy just people running the club who truly put Arsenal's best interest ahead of or level with their own interests as we weere told this Boioard was doing over and over when it realluy looks a big lie

David Conn needs to make his mind up should a club be run prudently or wrecklessly(City,Chelsea).:

The Peter Hill-Wood Defence - we can only choose between running the club this way and ending up like Leeds. The comment above is no different really and every bit as untrue. There are other choices, and we saw that clearly from 1998-2005 and before that even. The fact is the Board used this sort of fear tactic to scare people into not questioning things for a right long time. Sad to see it still can work now even.

THE MOST BORING MAN IN THE WORLD!!! I BET MRS BORING LEFT YEARS AGO . . . . . . .