COPS in Highbury (BADDD BOYS! Whatcha Gon' DO?)

[QuartzGooner]

See below.

[QuartzGooner]

It is really simple USMartin.

Unlike you, I, and others on here do not make repeated threads about THE BOARD.

So we do not need to prove anything about them.

Frankbutcher's theory does not have huge holes in it.
It has an element of doubt, as do all theories in any walk of life.

You write that is has huge holes in it in the vain hope people will read your threads and consider you some sort of expert.

Share prices rose because two billionaires wanted to buy shares.

If the club had actually won things 2006 - 2011 the club would have been a more attractive proposition for the buyers.

What is the more attractive proposition to the shareholders who sold and the two billionaire buyers:

£30M more cash in our bank accounts?

Or £30M less but:

More and better players who win things,
and consequently we sold more merchandise,
and got more prize money,
and better leverage in sponsorship deals,
and was an easier sell to new overseas markets,
and got a better cut of the Champions League revenue pot
and sold more tickets to games?

I say the "£30M less" makes us a more attractive proposition to both sellers and buyers.

So why would the board pressure Wenger not to spend, when we had cash to spare that would not put the club in danger?

My answer is that they didn't, it was just that Wenger wanted to do things his way and focus on youth, because he knew we could not outspend the Oligarchs at Chelsea and City, and because he had a footballing interest in his youth project.

14 months after first encountering you USMartin, I have had enough of repeating myself just because of your fixation with a board you think manipulated share price.

This endless tub thumping of yours, to an ever-decreasing audience, for no conceivable higher purpose other than you are bored.

I have had enough of your repetition.

If you post about football fair then enough I will discuss with you, but I do not want to continue this futile talk of THE BOARD to endless distraction.

[USMartin]

Two things USM

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.

This isn't really accurate though. There are still serious questions to be asked here and now because potentiallly there are some really serious things that can happen from here. For example the Board could vote to issue dividends to shareholders to allow Stan Kroenke to pay for the financing for his purchase of what he owns of the club. Basically this happened at Liverpool iunder hicks and Gillette and severiopusly over stretched their finances to the point of not only undermining Liverpool on the pitch as football club butn threatening its survuival as a business off it.

That alone should be more than enough to activate interest and concern on our part to make it clear that unlike Liverpool's supporter's, and in fact unlike our own lack of curiosity and concern that helped bring uss to where we are right now, that we are not ready to just let them do that or tell us they won't do that without real assurabnces and commtments to the supporters that they will not do that. Given the AST supporters are already rasisnfg real doubts about this and whether Mr. Kroenke and the Club are being candid about this with the Trust and the supporters, I think we need to show we won't just trust them at their word alone becuase that was our earlier mistake, and making it again now won't make the initial mistake go away.


I think I have sort of answered or tried to answer both your questions here but please let me know if you feel otherwise and I'll see what I can do.

[USMartin]

It is really simple USMartin.

Unlike you, I, and others on here do not make repeated threads about THE BOARD.

So we do not need to prove anything about them..

No because you don't care about the truth - apparently loyalty to the Board is more important. You quite apparently trust them no matter what without question or exception and would pnly qurstion them after the amswer was already confirmed and in no other circunstances I have seen. You are incapable of anything more than that or choose to be incapable of more that that any rate.

Frankbutcher's theory does not have huge holes in it. It has an element of doubt, as do all theories in any walk of life.

I am guessing this would be an "element of doubt"

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Look at Wenger at Monaco. Initial success through experienced players, followed by a youth (vanity) project. This is simply Mark II.

I mean if you believe that this is Monaco Mark II than either the Board had to know that this would happen or never researched his career carefully enough which would be kind of negligent on their part.

Of course they probably knew it in which case they either met the manager lie to them at least four years running, or simply were happy to let him do it because it in fact was in their fianncial interest, and they knew he wasn't going to spend the money they in fact did not want him to.

But that is merely an element of doubt , right.....hmmmmmm

[USMartin]

You write that is has huge holes in it in the vain hope people will read your threads and consider you some sort of expert..

No I would say my vain hope is people will put finally put their blind faith or embarassment at realizing that faith was abused now aside and simply stand up and make it harder for people to use our club for selfish purpsoes that have caused every last one of us the same pain and disappointment, because maybe if we made them realized their behavior was that poor and improper or could be perceived that way maybe they would re-think it or at least put more money into the Club just to keep us shut up. After all the Glazers have done far worse to United as a business but you know what no one else is leaving them anymore.

And that is my perhaps apparently vain hope. But it is a hioope worth clinging to because it is about Arsenal and thus that important to hold onto. My vain hope is that in 2054 no Gooner has to see a sign reading 2004...OH DEAR...or in 2044 or 2034 or 2024 or even 2014. That is my vain hope. My only hope in fact.

[Deise Gooner]

More utter waffle Martina You simply ignore the posters who see the holes in your logic and pretend they dont exist.

Speculate to accumulate, what say thou?

[USMartin]

Share prices rose because two billionaires wanted to buy shares.

Yes of course they just woke up one day and said I just want too buy Arsenal and have no idea about how the club is run or why and don't care even though I don't really love Arsenal. Sure...that makes real sense...

If the club had actually won things 2006 - 2011 the club would have been a more attractive proposition for the buyers.

This might be correct Quartz but is hardly certainly correct as the fact that these two billionaires were happy to invest without that being the case

What is the more attractive proposition to the shareholders who sold and the two billionaire buyers:

£30M more cash in our bank accounts?

Or £30M less but:

More and better players who win things,
and consequently we sold more merchandise,
and got more prize money,
and better leverage in sponsorship deals,
and was an easier sell to new overseas markets,
and got a better cut of the Champions League revenue pot
and sold more tickets to games?

I say the "£30M less" makes us a more attractive proposition to both sellers and buyers.

So why would the board pressure Wenger not to spend, when we had cash to spare that would not put the club in danger?.

You and I might well believe that but is that proof that the Board believed it? It seems to me that either they did not believe it certainly or at least should have been under some pressure to answer that question.

As I say I could agree with your thesis in terms of you doing it that way or me doing it that way, because I know you would do it that way and I know I would do it that way.

The problem is that in no way proves that our Board would have done it that way or should not have at least had to explain why they were or were not ready to do it that way and not just offer their won answers when they choose to and with no pressure to explain the doubts those answers could raise often in themselves.

As to why they might not see it the same way especially as you rightly point out the circumstances allowing for doing it - it could be plain greed or cheapness, simply pushing the share price just a bit higher even, or that not spending this money was in fact essential to the share price increasing. It could be other financial issues we are not yet aware of. The problem is that had no reason to see it the same way because they were under no pressure to see it the same way, and faced no cionsequences of any sort for in fact not seeing the same way (assuming that is the case)
.

[USMartin]

More utter waffle Martina You simply ignore the posters who see the holes in your logic and pretend they dont exist.

Speculate to accumulate, what say thou?

Actually in answered this earlier

May2001 1700 GBP
May2002 1725 GBP
May 2003 1425 GBP
May 2004 1609 GBP

During our four most amsbituous years and successful seasons which is what speculating to accumulate specifcally refers to our share price actually dropped 100 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


On the other hands in the last six trophyless and less financially ambitious seasons our share price increased by 7000 GBP

No matter why this happened I would suggest that this is conclusive proof that the whole speculate to accumulate concept is of questionable ability as the amount of silver won or not won does not seem to have the effect people would like to suggest on our shre price either positively or negatively.

I am sure now someone will accuse me of just repeating myself now

[Deise Gooner]

More utter waffle Martina You simply ignore the posters who see the holes in your logic and pretend they dont exist.

Speculate to accumulate, what say thou?

Actually in answered this earlier

May2001 1700 GBP
May2002 1725 GBP
May 2003 1425 GBP
May 2004 1609 GBP

During our four most amsbituous years and successful seasons which is what speculating to accumulate specifcally refers to our share price actually dropped 100 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


On the other hands in the last six trophyless and less financially ambitious seasons our share price increased by 7000 GBP

No matter why this happened I would suggest that this is conclusive proof that the whole speculate to accumulate concept is of questionable ability as the amount of silver won or not won does not seem to have the effect people would like to suggest on our shre price either positively or negatively.

I am sure now someone will accuse me of just repeating myself now

Its simple Marty, the commercial revenue that can be gained from football has sky rocketed over the past 5-6 years that is undeniable. There is bog money to be made now from football and rich owners have flocked to the PL. Manchester United are the most valueable sports team in the world for one reason and its not because their board told red nose he couldnt have money to spend.

Fair enough Marty you aknowledge our share price fell between May 08-09 but it fell between Jul 08 and Jan 09 by £3000 and doesnt return to 9500 until Jan 10 when Kroenke was buying up shares all over the place. Doesnt this show you that what Quartz and others have said makes far more sense than your wild theory.

http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCo ... tyId=10092

[ShutUpUSMartin]

You and I might well believe that but is that proof that the Board believed it?

[USMartin]

Its simple Marty, the commercial revenue that can be gained from football has sky rocketed over the past 5-6 years that is undeniable. There is bog money to be made now from football and rich owners have flocked to the PL. Manchester United are the most valueable sports team in the world for one reason and its not because their board told red nose he couldnt have money to spend.

But how does that relate to speculatting to accumulate at least in the way that term has been used here by Frank which is to suggest the Board would not hold back money to invest in the team because the lack of greater success and more silverware would adversely affect the share price.

I agree fully that is a factor in why investors are attracted particlualrly to premier League Clubs. I wouldn't dispute that for one moment. But since the issue is this insistence that the no intelligent Boiard would hold back money to be invested the the football team out of concern for not reducing the share value, doesn't that yet again confirm that that is a flawed if not false claim particularly in Arsenal's case as this happened?

I mean Frank cites the stories at Monaco as proof that he simply doing the very same thing he did at Monaco. I would say the jury is out on what excatly he did at Monaco, though if that were the case their Board dealt with the problem promptly and properly in what they perceived to be the club's best interests as an ambitous football club.

But again doesn't that suggest that any team hiring Mr. Wenger would have if they did their due dilignece, been aware of the Monaco sitation and him pursuing this project against his directors's wishes and that might compel his new employer to get assurances from him that he would not engage in this conduct again - unless of course they actually were counting on him doing it and encouraged this actively? Otherwise wouldn't the only way he could get away with this be if they allowed him to lie to them and to do so repeatedly, something I cannot see them allowing after the Graham fiasco really.

And doesn't all of that call his absolute insistence that the Board has been offering Arsene Wneger more money and he has been rejecting it seem a bit well doubtful?

Indeed I would argue the wild theory here is the one that allows for such wildly contradictory proof that undermines itself constantly and repeatedly ignores these contradictions that no one objectively assessing the argument could ignore or dismiss in judging its credibility. And that is just one of several such glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in his theory or maybe I should say thoeries because they might make miuch more sense in seperate theories.

[USMartin]

Fair enough Marty you aknowledge our share price fell between May 08-09 but it fell between Jul 08 and Jan 09 by £3000 and doesnt return to 9500 until Jan 10 when Kroenke was buying up shares all over the place. Doesnt this show you that what Quartz and others have said makes far more sense than your wild theory.

http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCo ... tyId=10092

I credit you for actually looking at the details here and considering them.

I would say here we have to look more carefully at this with two things in mind.

The first is that the share price's 2009 decline was entirelly corrolated to the concerns about the Holding Company's concerns about being able to pay out the 120 million GBP loan (135 million GBP with interest) for the financing of Highbury Sqaure due in the spring of 2010, as was the increase in the share price once in fact the loan was paid in full on time which is basically stock and bonds 101 and about as far as I have gotten myself

But the second point is equally important and that is that back when the lockdown agree emnt was put in place there was a second agreement which the Board did not discuss as eagerly in public, ann agreement between Stan Kroenke and other Board members where Mr. Kroenke promised he would not launch any takeover bid until October or November of 2009. Niow as I say the club never really publicized this second agreement(which is a familiar strategy at Arsenal it seems now of bait-and-switch). This would suggest that there was some sort of agreement to sell the club to Mr. Kroenke in place well before there was any talk of the club being sold.

It also made sense for both parties. It clearly would give the shareholders to cash in at the highest possible prices, but also gave Mr. Kroenke a away to exit gracefully or at least back back down from buying the club if the club failed to pay the loan off on time, or maybe even to buy the club for less if he saw the opportunity to rehabilitate it moving forward. Most importantly of all it gave the parties time - provided that the supporters did not question any of this to smooth the transistion as clearly have done so that there was far less resistance to it than at any club bought by American ownership, even Liverpool

[USMartin]

Just to clarify

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... tball.html

Under the terms of the new agreement, Kroenke has confirmed that he will not increase his shareholding beyond 29.9% of Arsenal’s issued share capital within the next 12 months unless he has the agreement of the board or following the announcement of an offer or possible offer for Arsenal or if there is a material change of circumstances.

This was late Sept 2008 meaning there would be no takeover bid prior to lat Sept 2009.

It should be noted that while the whiole thing seems to be viewed a sthe Board protecting against an Aliosher Usmanov takeover, no less a defender of the Board's action thatn Quartzgooner points out that Boiard members could have made more money by selling to Mr. Usmanov and chose not to, which would suggest that this agreement did nothing in regards to protecting the club against a takeover bidreally. after clealry the Board could choose whomever it wanted to sell to - provided there were multiple investors ready to buy the club..

With that in mind I would suggest that it was in effect a takeover agreement wioth a new owmer by a Board that still supposedly had no interest in selling the club to anyone at that time.

[redstevo]

Yes Martin!

[LDB]

Heres a new straw for you to clutch