Tony Adams praises Danny Fiszman

[Babu]

Thats a no to the the petition then

I'm in!

[USMartin]

This proves what Babu?

Well, it proves that Wenger had the same ideas then as he has now.

So lets look at the actions

1998-2005 - SPENDS 5 million a year in transfer market


2005-2011 - MAKES 5 million a year in transfer market

Arsenal never finish above thrid



I think that speaks above anything anyone can say.

Plus the New Stadium. Plus increased share prices.

It's Wenger and the ( now ex ) Board.

1998-2005 - SPENDS 5 million a year in transfer market

Arsenal finish first or second every year.


2005-2011 - MAKES 5 million a year in transfer market

Arsenal never finish above thrid

Lack of quality investments, and David Dein no longer with us to make sure the quality actually signs.
Other teams with money, and us not utilising our resources efficiently.


It's not just one or the other, it's quite clearly both of them, Wenger and the Board. In fact I can't see how you can differentiate the two, really I don't.

No Babu it is all down to the decision not to sell Highbury as originally planned and to follow Keith Edelamn's recommendtation to boorow andother 120 million on top of the 380 million we borrowed to build the new stadium(in addition to the 100-150 million the club actually invested into that project).

If we had sold Highbury and used some or all of the proceeds tp pay off the stadium loan from 2005-2007 the club would never have exoperienced the same severity of cash flow problems as it did or perhaps no real cahs flow problem at all and much of the redution in investment in the team would have been completely uneccessary.

Do the math.

Insatead of owing 180 million GBP by 2010 we owe about 60 million total over that period and we have the proceeds to pay that off from the sale of Highbury We owe 120 million less and have 60 million more to cover that smaller amount on hand.

[QuartzGooner]

Danny Fizsman he used to stand on the clock-end and supported Arsenal all his life.

Don't know where you got that from, thought everyone knew he was a y**

Not sure where you get your information from Sutch but never heard that from anyone.

The views seem to be that either he was a lifelong fan, or he was someone with little interest in football who then got very involved with us.

I have no idea which is correct.

[USMartin]

Danny Fizsman he used to stand on the clock-end and supported Arsenal all his life.

Don't know where you got that from, thought everyone knew he was a y**

Not sure where you get your information from Sutch but never heard that from anyone.

The views seem to be that either he was a lifelong fan, or he was someone with little interest in football who then got very involved with us.

I have no idea which is correct.

But conclude the former is right?

[Babu]

No Babu it is all down to the decision not to sell Highbury as originally planned and to follow Keith Edelamn's recommendtation to boorow andother 120 million on top of the 380 million we borrowed to build the new stadium(in addition to the 100-150 million the club actually invested into that project).

If we had sold Highbury and used some or all of the proceeds tp pay off the stadium loan from 2005-2007 the club would never have exoperienced the same severity of cash flow problems as it did or perhaps no real cahs flow problem at all and much of the redution in investment in the team would have been completely uneccessary.

Do the math.

Insatead of owing 180 million GBP by 2010 we owe about 60 million total over that period and we have the proceeds to pay that off from the sale of Highbury We owe 120 million less and have 60 million more to cover that smaller amount on hand.

Well, at the time Ashburton Grove was a huge risk, and The Arsenal were not sure that they could raise all the money.

At the AGM in 2003...

Funding will be sought for the whole project with the club receiving the proceeds form the sale of Highbury, which will not take place until after the new stadium is complete. Short term finance is in place. However, the eagerly anticipated long term finance has not yet arrived. Edelman confirmed that any long term funding would be at a fixed rate of interest. Yet no English bank will lend to us and that we are at the mercy of some banks in far flung places. It is also interesting to note that the banks involved do not appear to be far into the process required to lend money and there was a definite air of caution in Edelman's tone.

Definite uncertainty.

Then the AGM 2004...

Highbury will be turned into Highbury Square. We hope to start marketing next summer. We have taken on some residential developers to help as with Highbury Square. It is the board’s intention to develop and market it ourselves. We believe that will add something like £30 million for the club

They needed the 'extra' money that they thought Highbury would make them, and I'm sure that was for the Stadium. Of course it was also to keep Arsenal PLC afloat, and to keep them in brandy and cigars, and for Wenger's transfer budget ( ho-ho ), but at the time they were our 'custodians' and were doing it for themselves and for The Arsenal. Or at least some of them were.

I too would have done the same with Highbury. Have said it before, will say it again.
Some you win, some you lose.

Would you really have sold Highbury? Really? At that time?

[USMartin]

The problem there is that ther proceeds from the re-development of Highbury have not paid one penny for the new stadium. Nor has it gone back into the team. It has sat in our cash reserves lowering our net debt and thus raising our share price.

Nor will they go into the new stadium because of the early re-payment penalties agreed to when we accepted re-financing of the new stadium. Another lucky mistake I'm guessing.

Besides your own quotes show the plan in 2003 was in fact to sell Highbury still - at least that is what wthe public was told and appearsd to be accurate. But it could well be that the uncertainty you refer to was manufactured to justify this shift in policy. After all, we did borrow another 120 million GBP to finance this which would be kind of hard to believe was possible if there were real problems just getting the money needed to build the stadium itself.

Think about it apparently nobody wants to loan us the 380 million we need first then after we get that we find people willing to loan us another 120 million on top for that? Doesn't read right does it?

[Babu]

Besides your own quotes show the plan in 2003 was in fact to sell Highbury still - at least that is what the public was told and appeared to be accurate.

Yes, of course. The original plan was to sell Highbury, but then they thought/hoped/guessed that it would make them/us/the team more money, so they decided to do it themselves.

Can't fault them there. Well, I can't, as I wouldn't have sold it either - but for sentimental ( as well as financial ) reasons.

[Babu]

Think about it apparently nobody wants to loan us the 380 million we need first then after we get that we find people willing to loan us another 120 million on top for that? Doesn't read right does it?

Sadly that does read right.

That's how it works - or not. Lehman Bros, etc., etc.

Speculate to accumulate, if he's doing it it must be OK.

The Board and the football club wanted to make money. I see nothing wrong with that. They had something they wanted to buy. ( new stadium ) Fair enough. It would benefit the fans. OK then.

Could they foresee the financial crisis? Of course not. Did they make the best job they could have? Well, opinion is divided, but again - with hindsight everything is easy.

I remember thinking Jonathan Woodgate would have been a great signing.

[USMartin]

Besides your own quotes show the plan in 2003 was in fact to sell Highbury still - at least that is what the public was told and appeared to be accurate.

Yes, of course. The original plan was to sell Highbury, but then they thought/hoped/guessed that it would make them/us/the team more money, so they decided to do it themselves.

Can't fault them there. Well, I can't, as I wouldn't have sold it either - but for sentimental ( as well as financial ) reasons.

Come on Babu do you really think sentiment was involved here?

The bottom line is they were prepared to sell Highbury to responsibly pay for the project probably all the way back to when the first mooted a new stadium . I think some on the Board saw an opportunity pbenefit personally doing things the way they did and unfortunately they won the debate in the Board Room.

[Babu]

Come on Babu do you really think sentiment was involved here?

The bottom line is they were prepared to sell Highbury to responsibly pay for the project probably all the way back to when the first mooted a new stadium . I think some on the Board saw an opportunity pbenefit personally doing things the way they did and unfortunately they won the debate in the Board Room.

No, I don't think sentiment was involved. I was saying that for me it would have been sentimental as well as financial reasons, and I wouldn't have sold it.

The fact I wouldn't have moved out in the first place is irrelevant.

I think 'some' on the Board definitely saw an opportunity to benefit. Have never argued otherwise. What I am saying though is for them to benefit they have to make money. Keeping Highbury and developing it ourselves should have made The Arsenal more money.

Now you can't argue with that, can you? Without using hindsight.

What they were going to do with the money is another point. But making more money is not a bad idea. No way!

What plans they had for the money? Who can tell. But trying to make more money out of their 'possession', even if they were only alleged 'custodians' ?!? Well, you can't argue against that.

[USMartin]

Think about it apparently nobody wants to loan us the 380 million we need first then after we get that we find people willing to loan us another 120 million on top for that? Doesn't read right does it?

Sadly that does read right.

That's how it works - or not. Lehman Bros, etc., etc.

Speculate to accumulate, if he's doing it it must be OK.

The Board and the football club wanted to make money. I see nothing wrong with that. They had something they wanted to buy. ( new stadium ) Fair enough. It would benefit the fans. OK then.

Could they foresee the financial crisis? Of course not. Did they make the best job they could have? Well, opinion is divided, but again - with hindsight everything is easy.

I remember thinking Jonathan Woodgate would have been a great signing.

But again the financial crisis did exactly nothing to change the impact of not selling Highbury. That damage was done and would have been done no matter what happened after 2007.

Abiout the only thing the financial crisis might have done really is reduce the actual profit we might have made otherwise, and even then , with none of that money going back into paying down the stadium loan onwe second ahead of schedule or back into improving the football team who would have benefitted then?

You didn't need hindsight to see this was a bad idea for Arsenal Football Club or at the very least for its football team. That was obvious from day one given our devotion to the priciple of self-sustainability guiding how much we invested in the football team and how.

[Babu]

Abiout the only thing the financial crisis might have done really is reduce the actual profit we might have made otherwise, and even then , with none of that money going back into paying down the stadium loan one second ahead of schedule or back into improving the football team who would have benefitted then?

You didn't need hindsight to see this was a bad idea for Arsenal Football Club or at the very least for its football team. That was obvious from day one given our devotion to the priciple of self-sustainability guiding how much we invested in the football team and how.

http://www.football-marketing.com/2010/ ... ts-of-56m/

The sale of 362 apartments at Highbury Square and the social housing at Queensland Road, developments that were part of the move to the Emirates, generated revenues of £156.9m and allowed Arsenal to repay in full the £129.6m in bank loans taken to fund the construction. The property sales helped increase turnover to a record £379.9m from £313.3m.

We made money on it. Paid off in full. Good bit of business.

Can't pay off the Stadium loan quicker, as there will be huge penalties for that.

Can't invest in the football team as Wenger doesn't want to spend the money on experience, as he has his own agenda.

That is all I have to say at the moment. Have to get ready to go to Belgium. it's a 6AM start for us tomorrow.
And I still have to find my knuckle-duster.
:armandtraore:


Take it easy mate. Will catch you later.

[USMartin]

Come on Babu do you really think sentiment was involved here?

The bottom line is they were prepared to sell Highbury to responsibly pay for the project probably all the way back to when the first mooted a new stadium . I think some on the Board saw an opportunity pbenefit personally doing things the way they did and unfortunately they won the debate in the Board Room.

No, I don't think sentiment was involved. I was saying that for me it would have been sentimental as well as financial reasons, and I wouldn't have sold it.

The fact I wouldn't have moved out in the first place is irrelevant.

I think 'some' on the Board definitely saw an opportunity to benefit. Have never argued otherwise. What I am saying though is for them to benefit they have to make money. Keeping Highbury and developing it ourselves should have made The Arsenal more money.

Now you can't argue with that, can you? Without using hindsight.

What they were going to do with the money is another point. But making more money is not a bad idea. No way!

What plans they had for the money? Who can tell. But trying to make more money out of their 'possession', even if they were only alleged 'custodians' ?!? Well, you can't argue against that.

This might hold water if

A) We all felt that Arsenal was purely a for-ptofit buisiness and not a football club represebtative of a community of supporters who who invested their lives in it if nothing else

3B) If it had been finanically viable from a genuinely concservative business perspective(that is to say not riskign the business's survivial or success simply to make larger perosnal profits.

This wasn't some honourable failure we are looking at. It was neiyther in fact a failure nor honourable how and why they did this.

[mcdowell42]

Couldnt you 2 get a room

[Babu]

This might hold water if

A) We all felt that Arsenal was purely a for-ptofit buisiness and not a football club represebtative of a community of supporters who who invested their lives in it if nothing else

3B) If it had been finanically viable from a genuinely concservative business perspective(that is to say not riskign the business's survivial or success simply to make larger perosnal profits.

This wasn't some honourable failure we are looking at. It was neiyther in fact a failure nor honourable how and why they did this.

We are a Football Club, or were. Agreed 100%. Of course.

The most pleasing aspect of these results is that the returns generated in the property business during the year, particularly at Highbury Square, have allowed us to repay £130m of bank loans and significantly reduce the group’s overall net debt. We now have a debt-free property business which is accumulating surplus cash as further unit sales are made at Highbury Square and which has three further property assets to realise over the next few years.

We've done well with our property company. It's the commercial deals that are very dated, and of course the cack that Wenger has bought to realise his project have not ( yet ) achieved anything.

Fuck, I'm now trying to defend the Board, and I can't. They're *word censored*. You know it, I know it, we probably all know it, deep down.

Wenger is to blame as well, as he is part of that gang. He has either:

a) stood by and watched it happen and done nothing, although he wanted to, or...
b) helped them, as he was in on it.

Either way he's a *word censored* as well.

Summary:

A long time ago, we were a football club. Our Board were our custodians, as they couldn't make a profit out of it, and they looked after the Club as a hobby. A Gentlemans Club, where they could drink their brandy and smoke their cigars.

Suddenly everyone realised that you could make money out of football. Laws changed, everyone became greedy, sky turned up, football fucked up. The End.


Sad but true. Football as we knew it is dead.