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.
When i saw the title of this thread i decided it wasnt something i would be interested in reading,so i ignored it.But i accidently clicked on it about 5 mins ago and saw the usual stuff from my friend US marty.So i decided to read the thread from the start because previous to that i actually thought this was a thread about actual cops .Little did i realise i had a starring role.I didnt think it possible to hijack your own thread but US Marty managed to do it(you couldnt make it up)or now that i think about it you could make it up.Full marks marty i have to admire your playwriting abilities :
frankbutcher wrote: You really are dim! I'm saying that there is no reason for the Board to withhold money, and that they weren't witholding money. They wanted Wenger to spend it. BUT HE WOULDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm also saying that whether he spend it or not would not have affected the share price, as there were two willing buyers of the shares, driving the price up. The Board sold out and left two Billionaires to fight over the Club. The Board did not withhold cash to inflate the value of the Club, so that they could sell out at a high price.
so now it's all one big coincidence that just happened out of nowhere, would that be correct? That they just showed up out of nowhere and decided they just wanted to buy Arsenal right then and there ? That they didn't make any sort of analysis of the club or its finances or financial policies or posirion before they invested millions in the club?
Look you keep contradicting yourself and running roughshod over your own arguments. Now you're basuically saying that nothing went right iside the cllub but we still made hundreds of millions of pounds in sopite of that because investors were willing to ignore that the club was run completely incompetenly. Oh Dear.
frankbutcher wrote: You really are dim! I'm saying that there is no reason for the Board to withhold money, and that they weren't witholding money. They wanted Wenger to spend it. BUT HE WOULDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm also saying that whether he spend it or not would not have affected the share price, as there were two willing buyers of the shares, driving the price up. The Board sold out and left two Billionaires to fight over the Club. The Board did not withhold cash to inflate the value of the Club, so that they could sell out at a high price.
so now it's all one big coincidence that just happened out of nowhere, would that be correct? That they just showed up out of nowhere and decided they just wanted to buy Arsenal right then and there ? That they didn't make any sort of analysis of the club or its finances or financial policies or posirion before they invested millions in the club?
Look you keep contradicting yourself and running roughshod over your own arguments. Now you're basuically saying that nothing went right iside the cllub but we still made hundreds of millions of pounds in sopite of that because investors were willing to ignore that the club was run completely incompetenly. Oh Dear.
Man City - logical investment?
Chelsea - real footballing powerhouse before Abramovich turned up.
Football Club ownership is not logical. If you strip out player sales and property deals, Arsenal Plc does not make any money at present. FACT. We might be a global commercial power one day, but we certainly aren't at the moment. The only way Kroenke will pay off his investment is if the Club is successful on the pitch, and therefore sponsorship deals come flooding in. There is no logic not to spend. Kroenke has been on the Board for some time now. He would not have allowed the rest of the Board to sanction a restrained transfer budget. Try harder pal.
C+. The only reason for that mark is for the effort you put in.
Your theory is flawed. Simple as that. Look at Wenger at Monaco. Initial success through experienced players, followed by a youth (vanity) project. This is simply Mark II.
Last edited by frankbutcher on Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1-what do you want from the board now. What has happend has happend and banging on here day after day about what has happend is not going to change that one bit.
2-what do you want from us, to say your right? If we all said "you know what I think after all this time that bloke does make sence" what happens then?
1-what do you want from the board now. What has happend has happend and banging on here day after day about what has happend is not going to change that one bit.
2-what do you want from us, to say your right? If we all said "you know what I think after all this time that bloke does make sence" what happens then?
The board member share sales of recent years were to Kroenke.
Usmanov pays a lot more for shares than Kroenke.
Yet only Dein and smallholders sold to Usmanov.
So if the board member sellers were only interested in getting as much money as they could for their shares, why did they not sell to the highest bidder?
QuartzGooner wrote:You are desperate now USMartin.
UKFrank makes sense.
Of course increased assets make the club more desirable.
But if the club slips on the pitch, then regardless of share price, the shares become less desirable.
Because revenues fall with lack of team success.
Certainly not in the interest of directors who would be looking to sell, or prospective buyers !
Excuse me but as Frank has pointed in defence out his own inststence that the Board wantedd that Arsene Wenger to spend more and made significantly more available but he refused to consider their desires and refused to spend it, that still didn't stop our share price from going up over 8000 GBP while we reduced our net transfer investment and won no silverware of any sort (other than of course the Emirates Cup).
Yet you still insist that somehow that theory iabout specualting to accumulate is fact at Arsenal, and you call me desperate? Get real please.
May2001 1700 GBP
May2002 1725 GBP
May 2003 1425 GBP
May 2004 1609 GBP
May 2005 4000 GBP
May 2006 4780 GBP
May 2007 7150 GBP
May 2008 8550 GBP
May 2009 6750 GBP
May2010 10000 GBP
May2011 11000 GBP
These numbers are indisputable evidence of how inaccurate if not willfully false that claim is. at our greatest period of success iunder Arsene Wenger our share price declined 100 pounds but through six trophyless seasons our share price increased by 7000 GBP.
Yes I feel mightily desperate making an argument based on indisputable objective and varifiable facts while you two rely on speculation that flies directly in the face of such facta. The fact that you seem to prefer ignoring real facts in these instances would suggest that you're raeally talking about someone else when mentioning desperation.
By the way you'll still won't answer that one question will you about why you were willing to believe the club was behaving entirely above board when you had not one jot more evidence thatn anyone else in defence of what you believe was the case. Why are you frankly afraid to answer that one fairly simple question. Why were willing to conclude there was no reason to question what the club was doing and why when you couldn't be certain of the answer on your own?
Not a single piece of evidence you offer, offers any proof.
All this talk of share prices rising when the team did badly was totally explained by Frankbutcher, why do you act as if Frank had not posted?
You just carry on with your views regardless of whatever anyone posts to dispel your theory, and trust me, your theory has been dispelled many times over the last 14 months.
Not a single piece of evidence you offer, offers any proof.
All this talk of share prices rising when the team did badly was totally explained by Frankbutcher, why do you act as if Frank had not posted?
You just carry on with your views regardless of whatever anyone posts to dispel your theory, and trust me, your theory has been dispelled many times over the last 14 months.
frankbutcher wrote:Your theory is flawed. Simple as that. Look at Wenger at Monaco. Initial success through experienced players, followed by a youth (vanity) project. This is simply Mark II.
So then the Arsenal Board was in fact aware that Arsene Wneger had in fact done this in the past and that he would do it again and hired him anyway and and have had no desire to get rid of him in spite of it. I mean I'm sure if you were hring someone you would ask for references Frank and so this would have come up somehwere in the interview process, no?
And so either
1) He would have had to lie and promise he would not do that at Arsenal, in which case he almost surely would have been sacked for dishonesty especially after what happened with George Graham
or
2)They knew in advance he would do it and supported it fully and hired him to do it despite their comments suggesting otherwise or at least that there would no reductions in football spending at any point in this process.
But either way they knew it had happened (if in fact it did) and that knowledge makes a complete mockery of your insistence that the Board offered him more money repeatedly and encouraged him to spend it and he just turned it down and thumbed his nose at them, because they had to now that either he was going to do the same thing at Arsenal or at least might do it and did absolutely nothing about it.
Right Martina im gonna bite even though my better judgement says not to. It is over the past decade that the PL has become a global brand more so than the 90's and the early 2000's. The amount of money that can be made by club owners is at an all time hence why the shares of the club have rocketed. Another hole in your theory are the contract that were signed for Sponsorships. It is well documented that our commercial revenue is piss poor compared to nearly every club in the league so tell me this, if the board were in it to make money at the expense of Wenger why didnt they sign proper deals and just pocket the cash.
Arsenal were recently rated as the 7th most valuable sports team in the world, this shows you what a global brand the club is and they arent up there because the board said to Wenger that he was not allowed to spend money. Imagine this one Marty, if Wenger spend 30m this year on the players that we need to win the league and the CL, wouldnt the huge windfall of winning these competitions far outweigh the 30m that was spent
Not a single piece of evidence you offer, offers any proof.
All this talk of share prices rising when the team did badly was totally explained by Frankbutcher, why do you act as if Frank had not posted?
You just carry on with your views regardless of whatever anyone posts to dispel your theory, and trust me, your theory has been dispelled many times over the last 14 months.
And you don't have a single piece of proof the Board didn't act improperly and refuse to explain why you conclude that they didn't.
And I have replied to Several of Frank's posts why do you need to make false claims to the contrary. Again I think you're the desperate one at this point and i think I know why
You keep insisting the he keeps proving me wrong when in fact his theory contradicts itself repeatedly and has holes in it you could walk a whole nation of people through all through it. You yourself have now insisted that we would not have willingly decreased or held back investment in the football team because of the importance of winning trophies to our share price an argument proven incontrovertably inaccurate by the performance of Arsenal's stock from 2001-2004 and then from 2005-2011, no matter who bought the shares or why really - the point remians, withholding money would not have impacted being able to sell the club.
Again which is it here - was spending more essential to the share price remaining steady or moving positively or not? And if it wasn't how can you say money couldn't have been held back to help increase their club;''s share orcie and its attractiveness to outside investors?
Not a single piece of evidence you offer, offers any proof.
All this talk of share prices rising when the team did badly was totally explained by Frankbutcher, why do you act as if Frank had not posted?
You just carry on with your views regardless of whatever anyone posts to dispel your theory, and trust me, your theory has been dispelled many times over the last 14 months.
And you don't have a single piece of proof the Board didn't act improperly and refuse to explain why you conclude that they didn't.
And I have replied to Several of Frank's posts why do you need to make false claims to the contrary. Again I think you're the desperate one at this point and i think I know why
You keep insisting the he keeps proving me wrong when in fact his theory contradicts itself repeatedly and has holes in it you could walk a whole nation of people through all through it. You yourself have now insisted that we would not have willingly decreased or held back investment in the football team because of the importance of winning trophies to our share price an argument proven incontrovertably inaccurate by the performance of Arsenal's stock from 2001-2004 and then from 2005-2011, no matter who bought the shares or why really - the point remians, withholding money would not have impacted being able to sell the club.
Again which is it here - was spending more essential to the share price remaining steady or moving positively or not? And if it wasn't how can you say money couldn't have been held back to help increase their club;''s share price and its attractiveness to outside investors?
The board member share sales of recent years were to Kroenke.
Usmanov pays a lot more for shares than Kroenke.
Yet only Dein and smallholders sold to Usmanov.
So if the board member sellers were only interested in getting as much money as they could for their shares, why did they not sell to the highest bidder?
How does that FACT fit in with your theory?
It's an interesting question. But I do think there is a pretty clear cut answer here. They decided as a group not to sell to Red-and-White and thus to David Dein indirectly. I think the recent comments by Lady Bracewell-Smith that asserted than it par her removal from the Arsenal Board made her a casualty in the war between Dan Fiszman and David Dein whcih apparently was still ongoing after he had resigned from Red-and-White.
Again remember this - with the exception of David Dein and Dan Fiszman the rest of then Baord never put a penny of their own wealth into Arsenal as they inherited or were awarded shares I don't remember what david Dein paid per share but his total investment was about well 300,000 GBP and Dan Fiszman never paid over 2000 a share, so the Board was playing wioth hose money really and could afford once the maxmized the value to Stan Kroenke of their shares take that bit less from Mr. Kroenke to keep out David Dein.
.Little did i realise i had a starring role.I didnt think it possible to hijack your own thread but US Marty managed to do it(you couldnt make it up)or now that i think about it you could make it up.Full marks marty i have to admire your playwriting abilities : 
