THE PETITION IS UP AT GOPETITION NOW

[USMartin]

Well of course that also contributes to the amount of debt they had. But don't forget each player that they've bought for £30m, players such as Berbatov, Rooney, Ferdinand, Torres costing 20m, Mascherano £18m. You can't simply forget about these astonishing fees. These all have to come from somewhere too and has significantly added to the clubs' debt.

But the point is that had they not sold to the Glazers using debt leverage to buy the club that same spending would not be behind the same sort of debt is all.

[MM99]

Well of course that also contributes to the amount of debt they had. But don't forget each player that they've bought for £30m, players such as Berbatov, Rooney, Ferdinand, Torres costing 20m, Mascherano £18m. You can't simply forget about these astonishing fees. These all have to come from somewhere too and has significantly added to the clubs' debt.

But the point is that had they not sold to the Glazers using debt leverage to buy the club that same spending would not be behind the same sort of debt is all.

And if Almunia had defended his near post a tiny but better we would have been European Champions. It happened. You can't discard those events, as they have a real bearing on the league as it is today. It was those high amounts of spending and buying the best players going at the time that led to their success, which in turn made the club more attractive to investors and buyers. It is all linked, you can't simply ignore some parts.

[QuartzGooner]

Excellent post LDB.



USMartin

You say that the billions behind Chelsea and Man City do not explain Arsenal's lack of spending.
But the increase in those club's spending power might have contributed to Arsenal not spending so much.
Wenger and the board could believe that by spending huge amounts now we could still not match those two clubs, that spending big would be throwing "Good money after bad". Better to develop youth players and stick to a budget.

There is also the matter of paying for our stadium to consider in our relative lack of success since 2005.

[USMartin]

The thing you have to realise is that every significant point and rebuttal you have to make has been explored to death by numerous posters on this forum and yet still you continue. The scope for debate has become zero leaving no other option but to tell you to shut up which results in you throwing around laughable accusations of "censorship".

And yes i could choose to ignore you, just like i could choose to ignore a screaming child thats been at it for hours... but why should I? When you post in a public space you should attempt to show reasonable consideration for what other people want to read about.

What a load of crap. You want to control what is is not discussed here but don't have the courage to admit that becuase you could not accept it being done to you.

You are saying I should post a view you don't want to read period and trying to pretend you have no choice but to read it.

You say you don't want censorship of views you don't like but reading what you say above I say that is a lie, and that is on you.

A public space is public - and doesn't belong to you any more than it does to anyone else - despite your obvious and shameless belief to the contrary.

[Iceman29]

Sorry to interrupt in this laughable albeit entertaining thread but I do have a few comments for our good friend from across the pond. All this anti-board rhetoric, where is it going to lead to and what do you hope to achieve? Be honest with yourself and think what you want to achieve is far from the reality that you will actually achieve. You keep going on about how the board have invested to make profits. Well the truth is that if you make an investment, it is to make profits. Any sane person will not make an investment if they end up losing money. Will you make an investment where the value diminishes? You, sir need to ask yourself some serious questions and respond to them not as if you have just escaped from the lunatic asylum or have spent too much time with Radford149 but with an educated brain.
And can I also give you a conclusion to your campaign. Its going to be nothing but an utter failure. If boards were removed via some petition or something or even fan pressure the glazers and the Yankees at LFC would have sold out much earlier.

Now I don't want any of your tedious responses but I want you to think about this. See a shrink if you like to unravel some of these questions. People are really starting to question your sanity here.

[Iceman29]

And while I am departing all this valuable advice can I add that you take all your postings and petitions to some average joe (possibly a friend) in your fair city or even to a shrink and see what they have to say with about all this rhetoric that you have been up to. You might be surprised by the conclusion they reach about you.

[USMartin]

Well of course that also contributes to the amount of debt they had. But don't forget each player that they've bought for £30m, players such as Berbatov, Rooney, Ferdinand, Torres costing 20m, Mascherano £18m. You can't simply forget about these astonishing fees. These all have to come from somewhere too and has significantly added to the clubs' debt.

But the point is that had they not sold to the Glazers using debt leverage to buy the club that same spending would not be behind the same sort of debt is all.

And if Almunia had defended his near post a tiny but better we would have been European Champions. It happened. You can't discard those events, as they have a real bearing on the league as it is today. It was those high amounts of spending and buying the best players going at the time that led to their success, which in turn made the club more attractive to investors and buyers. It is all linked, you can't simply ignore some parts.

No I am simply pointing out that it appears you are making the debt sound as it were solely down to what is spent on players which is factually untrue, and creates a mis-leading impression of that situation which I don't believe is your intent.

If you want to say that clubs like these cannot continue spending as they are while their owners debts are on the clubs's books I agree wholeheartedly. But to suggest that the spending onn the players is the sole factor behind their debt and somehow suggest that is behind our non-spending is plainly inaccurate.

[MM99]

Well of course that also contributes to the amount of debt they had. But don't forget each player that they've bought for £30m, players such as Berbatov, Rooney, Ferdinand, Torres costing 20m, Mascherano £18m. You can't simply forget about these astonishing fees. These all have to come from somewhere too and has significantly added to the clubs' debt.

But the point is that had they not sold to the Glazers using debt leverage to buy the club that same spending would not be behind the same sort of debt is all.

And if Almunia had defended his near post a tiny but better we would have been European Champions. It happened. You can't discard those events, as they have a real bearing on the league as it is today. It was those high amounts of spending and buying the best players going at the time that led to their success, which in turn made the club more attractive to investors and buyers. It is all linked, you can't simply ignore some parts.

No I am simply pointing out that it appears you are making the debt sound as it were solely down to what is spent on players which is factually untrue, and creates a mis-leading impression of that situation which I don't believe is your intent.

If you want to say that clubs like these cannot continue spending as they are while their owners debts are on the clubs's books I agree wholeheartedly. But to suggest that the spending onn the players is the sole factor behind their debt and somehow suggest that is behind our non-spending is plainly inaccurate.

First of all it's been me that has been adamant in saying that there is not just one reason for all the debt, so i don't understand why you say i'm suggesting there is one "sole reason" when i've been saying the opposite.
Secondly, i have never once brought up our non-spending in this thread so again i don't understand why you make that point against me.

[xDAVEYx]

because....

[QuartzGooner]

USMartin


Now you have taken a perfectly reasoned post from MM99 on how extra spending at rival clubs has seen them overtake us, and tried to divert it into a discussion about the reason behind debt.

Either you have misread his post,

or

You are deliberately twisting his words.

We all misread posts, I did it today on another thread, but you make a habit of it.

Either it is a deliberate arguing technique of yours, or if it is a series of mistakes, please slow down before replying.

[USMartin]

Excellent post LDB.



USMartin

You say that the billions behind Chelsea and Man City do not explain Arsenal's lack of spending.
But the increase in those club's spending power might have contributed to Arsenal not spending so much.
Wenger and the board could believe that by spending huge amounts now we could still not match those two clubs, that spending big would be throwing "Good money after bad". Better to develop youth players and stick to a budget.

There is also the matter of paying for our stadium to consider in our relative lack of success since 2005.

First off you are neglecting the Highbury re-development completely. I know you think you are preaching to the converted tonight(who by the way have hi-jacked this this thread - which is fine - but quite hypocritical given how much they complain if I do the same thing) but you're talking to me now so you ought to know better than to think I'd miss that.
Second again as you have noted elsewhere it was the desire to pay off the debt that drove the lack of psending. If that were in fact true what the other clubs spent is irrelevent, as we ould not have spent any differently if indeed reducing the debt was our primary concern - which you have said was the case. So either your claims that "we just to accept" this lack of spending continuing until the debt is suffiiciently reduced are mis-leading or your claims about the lack of spending just happening because what other clubs were spending are.

Again you are just offering any argument you can in defence of the Board in the hope that Gooners will buy one of them. You would have much more credibility whether right or wrong if you simply genuinely believed one argument consistently. Lets not forget that you also believe we've just been sitting it out until the new FIFA rules take effect even though again that concept would be meaningless if in fact reducing the debt were the reason we weren't spending, especially since the new Financial Riules weren't even approved until 2008 or so.

Its not my fault you don''t have enough faith in what you believe to just stand behind it but would rather offer any theory available even when they contradict each other silmply to try and avoid admitting your beliefs are built on dubious evidence.

[xDAVEYx]

[QuartzGooner]

Second again as you have noted elsewhere it was the desire to pay off the debt that drove the lack of psending. If that were in fact true what the other clubs spent is irrelevent, as we ould not have spent any differently if indeed reducing the debt was our primary concern - which you have said was the case.

The Highbury Redevelopment was a reason we lowered spending, true. I have not ignored it, I have spent about 50 pages discussing it with you!

Paying off stadium debt? Another reason.

But if the other clubs carried on as they were in 2003, without billionaire owners, we would be in a better position. The fact they do have such owners who have spent big has loads to do with why we are less successful on the pitch in recent years.

Again you are just offering any argument you can in defence of the Board in the hope that Gooners will buy one of them. You would have much more credibility whether right or wrong if you simply genuinely believed one argument consistently. Lets not forget that you also believe we've just been sitting it out until the new FIFA rules take effect even though again that concept would be meaningless if in fact reducing the debt were the reason we weren't spending, especially since the new Financial Riules weren't even approved until 2008 or so.

Yes, I do think the board and Wenger are sitting it out.
They looked at the combination of the cost of our new stadium and the billions behind Chelsea and knew they could not compete.
The FIFA rules just give an extra reason to reduce spending, but I never said that the FIFA rules were the initial reason for sitting it out, I believe they are a catalyst.

You are a conspiracist, as noted elsewhere in the thread.
I offer reasoned argument, you offer the notion that I am merely an unscrupulous board defender who will ignore fact.
Take a look at various posts on here by other people, which contain many reasons why your theory is far from the whole picture.
Your theory as the sole reason behind our dip in form, has been systematically dismantled on here tonight.

[USMartin]

Quartz you don't want to do this. Here are his comments I was criticizing and his replies. Go ahead and prove your point then

The only reason that Utd have been consistently finishing in the top two recently is because of the huge amount of money they've been spending to stay up there. That comes at a small cost of being close to £1bn in debt.

The sole reason for nearly all the debt at United and at Liverpool(last I had heard they were still worse off than United after all) was that their previous owners sold to new owners who borrowed the money to buy those clubs and put their debt on the club's books. Had the Boards at those clubs insisted on selling to new owners who paid in full from their own pockets instead of just taking the money and leaving the supporters to ask questions later that would not be the case.

Well of course that also contributes to the amount of debt they had. But don't forget each player that they've bought for £30m, players such as Berbatov, Rooney, Ferdinand, Torres costing 20m, Mascherano £18m. You can't simply forget about these astonishing fees. These all have to come from somewhere too and has significantly added to the clubs' debt.

But the point is that had they not sold to the Glazers using debt leverage to buy the club that same spending would not be behind the same sort of debt is all.

.

And if Almunia had defended his near post a tiny but better we would have been European Champions. It happened. You can't discard those events, as they have a real bearing on the league as it is today. It was those high amounts of spending and buying the best players going at the time that led to their success, which in turn made the club more attractive to investors and buyers. It is all linked, you can't simply ignore some parts.

No I am simply pointing out that it appears you are making the debt sound as it were solely down to what is spent on players which is factually untrue, and creates a mis-leading impression of that situation which I don't believe is your intent.

If you want to say that clubs like these cannot continue spending as they are while their owners debts are on the clubs's books I agree wholeheartedly. But to suggest that the spending onn the players is the sole factor behind their debt and somehow suggest that is behind our non-spending is plainly inaccurate.

So are you sure I am mis-reading what he has said or mis-representing him really? If you read the last para I even agree with him in part
and even where i point out he is creating a mis-leading impression I make clear that I do not believe that is his intent - like I have done with you as well - to give him the chance to clarify his argument further.

I was going to suggest have said you bee should mis-represented so well. In fact I should be as I clearly am not by very many here.

[USMartin]

Sorry to interrupt in this laughable albeit entertaining thread but I do have a few comments for our good friend from across the pond. All this anti-board rhetoric, where is it going to lead to and what do you hope to achieve? Be honest with yourself and think what you want to achieve is far from the reality that you will actually achieve. You keep going on about how the board have invested to make profits. Well the truth is that if you make an investment, it is to make profits. Any sane person will not make an investment if they end up losing money. Will you make an investment where the value diminishes? You, sir need to ask yourself some serious questions and respond to them not as if you have just escaped from the lunatic asylum or have spent too much time with Radford149 but with an educated brain.
And can I also give you a conclusion to your campaign. Its going to be nothing but an utter failure. If boards were removed via some petition or something or even fan pressure the glazers and the Yankees at LFC would have sold out much earlier.

Now I don't want any of your tedious responses but I want you to think about this. See a shrink if you like to unravel some of these questions. People are really starting to question your sanity here.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz