The Gooner Forum

I'm actually beginning to like USM

All this for one wanky petition!

flash gunner wrote:Martin the summary is....

1. NO-ONE WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT THE BOARD

2. YOU WILL CHANGE NO-ONES MIND ABOUT THE BOARD

GIVE IT A FUCKING REST MAN!!!!!

They will either sign or not its been well publicised lets see how many you get to sign

Or there will be some signatures for a joke

And yes Martin I have just added the latest signature to your pathetic schoolboy look at me petition!

:awnker:

Percy Dalton wrote:And yes Martin I have just added the latest signature to your pathetic schoolboy look at me petition!

:awnker:

I have a feeling this campaign is backfiring somewhat

xDAVEYx wrote:

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

post of the thread imo and very funny..Well done DAVE"y

Of course its not the board! Its Wenger. We had £100 million in the bank at the end of 2009 season, before we sold you know who. We all know how much we spent!. If it was all about paying off the debt we could have reduced it by £100m then.

Read the accounts. The debt is peanuts in overall trading.

Lights blue touch paper and retires.

WOW!! 12 sigs now.
number 12 is...Martin is a complete knob.

That the wage structure has not been deliberately restructured to prevent acquiring players of higher quality, development, and cost who would require more competitive wages than this wage structure apparently allows for at this point while claiming money is available to spend

I belive( ) that the wage structure is in place to somewhat stop the Mercenary type player from coming to Arsenal is Yaya Toure worth £200k per week was Robiniho worth the 1000's that man city paid fo him. Players see bigger clubs as cash cows and somewhere along the line a line has to be drawn and I belive Arsenal to some extent have drawn it along with clubs like Villa. Manchester City will have to fininsh 8th or higher to pay for Yaya Toure's wages this season, Chelsea recived 16 million for winning the PL last season that pays for Terry and Lampard. It was estimated that the owners of Man city have spent over 1 billion pounds since they have taken over which does not include wages. So how would you describe "more competitive wages" if you bring in one player on £120k per week how long before others start questioning why they are not on the same level.
Yes I would be great for all supporters to see a world class player sign for Arsenal but Arsenal at the moment are running within thier means and in a time of bust rather than boom this is surely a prudent way of running a football club?

That the youth system under construction is meant first and foremost to benefit the football team on the pitch and not solely to increase the Club’s profits from the transfer market annually

I think you will find that the youth system at the moment is set up more for the benifit of the first team than ever before especially regarding my above point.

That any or all of the well over 100 million in savings now in the bank is intended to go to the football team first and not to shareholders or to help finance selling the club

I think the answer you will get will be "It wil be used where Arsenal see fit to use it".
As I understand it the club's 08-09 accounts show the bonds issued to finance the building of the Emirates stadium was £244.9m. This is repayable over a 20 to 22-year term at a fixed interest rate of 5.3 per cent that works out at about £17 million per year. Arsenal are also paying off some of the principal sum of the bond each year (£5.3m in 08-09), which means that Arsenal, will not be saddled with debt indefinitely. The bank loan taken out by the club with Barclays to finance the Highbury Square stood at £137m, with a repayment date of December 2010 and an interest rate of 2-2.5 per cent above the London inter-bank lending rate (Libor). Since then, however, the club has reduced the property bank loan to £47.1m, financed by selling apartments at Highbury Square for a discount.
So would it be a good or bad thing if Arsenal used some of that money to pay off the debt?

That the Board is fully behind the manager spending any part of that money as is best for the football team and only behind a manager ready and willing to spend any portion of it that way

I think the board are 100% behind the manager spending what he does and more importantly the manager seems 100% behind the board in doing what they are doing

That if that money is meant to be used for early debt repayment instead how using it that way is of primary benefit to the football club now and/or in the future and if it is not being used for either at this point why and how that benefits Arsenal Football Club in any way primarily on the pitch

If it is used to pay of debt then it will have no primary effect on what is happening on the pitch now but it will give Arsenal and Wenger an advantage in the future.

[quote/]

That if the Club is being sold imminently that the Board would publicly commit to not selling to any individual or group of owners who would be using debt leverage to purchase Arsenal. Given the very real problems at Liverpool and the potential problems at Manchester United that have resulted from debt leverage at those clubs we would like to know that the Board consider selling to anyone else using debt leverage unacceptable altogether.[/quote]

What options are open to the board when or if they do sell up? 1)A multi-billionaire who has the funds to bank roll the club Chelsea/man city like. 2)A debt leverage take over Man U/Liverpool like or 3)Another 2 or 3 investers like Kroneke and Asmaninov?
1)Billionaire investers seem far and few between but would relish a club like Arsenal with it's lack of debt and history but in the end would they want their money back at some point?
2)We have all seen the problems with debt leverage but if this was the only option available to sell on the club would they turn it down?
3)Would Arsenal find other investors who would work with Kroneke and Asmaninov and be happy not to have overall control?
I am sure there are a few other options!!!!!!





there you go a post nearly as long as an USMartins [/quote]

RE-POST


Martin the summary is....

1. NO-ONE WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT THE BOARD

2. YOU WILL CHANGE NO-ONES MIND ABOUT THE BOARD

GIVE IT A FUCKING REST MAN!!!!!

They will either sign or not its been well publicised lets see how many you get to sign

USMartin wrote:

LDB wrote: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.

Surely if I or anyone else wanted to censor you we would have done so the first time you started posting rather then the 1,600th? In fact you got quite a receptive response the first time you posted here. I personally disagreed and still do, but you didnt see me trying to get you to shut up, did you? In fact, the people that were praising you at the time are now trying to "shut you down". What does that tell you? Perhaps that we've covered every possible angle here?

A public space does not mean you can just do/say whatever you want with zero regard for the other people within that space. If you really believe it is then you are more childish then i realised. Its the exact same reasoning that stops me from running into a church in a gimp suit shouting BABABOOEY.

And before you bother, this is not to say you can only post things people agree with but rather make your point once rather then flooding the forum with it.

stg wrote:

That the wage structure has not been deliberately restructured to prevent acquiring players of higher quality, development, and cost who would require more competitive wages than this wage structure apparently allows for at this point while claiming money is available to spend

I belive( ) that the wage structure is in place to somewhat stop the Mercenary type player from coming to Arsenal is Yaya Toure worth £200k per week was Robiniho worth the 1000's that man city paid fo him. Players see bigger clubs as cash cows and somewhere along the line a line has to be drawn and I belive Arsenal to some extent have drawn it along with clubs like Villa. Manchester City will have to fininsh 8th or higher to pay for Yaya Toure's wages this season, Chelsea recived 16 million for winning the PL last season that pays for Terry and Lampard. It was estimated that the owners of Man city have spent over 1 billion pounds since they have taken over which does not include wages. So how would you describe "more competitive wages" if you bring in one player on £120k per week how long before others start questioning why they are not on the same level.
Yes I would be great for all supporters to see a world class player sign for Arsenal but Arsenal at the moment are running within thier means and in a time of bust rather than boom this is surely a prudent way of running a football club?

That the youth system under construction is meant first and foremost to benefit the football team on the pitch and not solely to increase the Club’s profits from the transfer market annually

I think you will find that the youth system at the moment is set up more for the benifit of the first team than ever before especially regarding my above point.

That any or all of the well over 100 million in savings now in the bank is intended to go to the football team first and not to shareholders or to help finance selling the club

I think the answer you will get will be "It wil be used where Arsenal see fit to use it".
As I understand it the club's 08-09 accounts show the bonds issued to finance the building of the Emirates stadium was £244.9m. This is repayable over a 20 to 22-year term at a fixed interest rate of 5.3 per cent that works out at about £17 million per year. Arsenal are also paying off some of the principal sum of the bond each year (£5.3m in 08-09), which means that Arsenal, will not be saddled with debt indefinitely. The bank loan taken out by the club with Barclays to finance the Highbury Square stood at £137m, with a repayment date of December 2010 and an interest rate of 2-2.5 per cent above the London inter-bank lending rate (Libor). Since then, however, the club has reduced the property bank loan to £47.1m, financed by selling apartments at Highbury Square for a discount.
So would it be a good or bad thing if Arsenal used some of that money to pay off the debt?

That the Board is fully behind the manager spending any part of that money as is best for the football team and only behind a manager ready and willing to spend any portion of it that way

I think the board are 100% behind the manager spending what he does and more importantly the manager seems 100% behind the board in doing what they are doing

That if that money is meant to be used for early debt repayment instead how using it that way is of primary benefit to the football club now and/or in the future and if it is not being used for either at this point why and how that benefits Arsenal Football Club in any way primarily on the pitch

If it is used to pay of debt then it will have no primary effect on what is happening on the pitch now but it will give Arsenal and Wenger an advantage in the future.

[quote/]

That if the Club is being sold imminently that the Board would publicly commit to not selling to any individual or group of owners who would be using debt leverage to purchase Arsenal. Given the very real problems at Liverpool and the potential problems at Manchester United that have resulted from debt leverage at those clubs we would like to know that the Board consider selling to anyone else using debt leverage unacceptable altogether.

What options are open to the board when or if they do sell up? 1)A multi-billionaire who has the funds to bank roll the club Chelsea/man city like. 2)A debt leverage take over Man U/Liverpool like or 3)Another 2 or 3 investers like Kroneke and Asmaninov?
1)Billionaire investers seem far and few between but would relish a club like Arsenal with it's lack of debt and history but in the end would they want their money back at some point?
2)We have all seen the problems with debt leverage but if this was the only option available to sell on the club would they turn it down?
3)Would Arsenal find other investors who would work with Kroneke and Asmaninov and be happy not to have overall control?
I am sure there are a few other options!!!!!!





there you go a post nearly as long as an USMartins [/quote][/quote]


FFS STEVE!!! dont you start

FFS STEVE!!! dont you start

Im entitled to my opinion if you dont like it you dont have to read it but i am right about everything i say because i know what i am on about and the rest of you dont how dare you say that i am not alowed to start when you have contubited nothing to this debate(of which i am right of course) and if you did contribute to this discussion on which i am right i would not belive anything you write because i am right and you are wrong so there....

OK thats it!!
Im putting up a petition against you

Ahh but then I wont meet you at the WBA game and buy you a drink