"Liverpool could face points loss"

[Exiled-Gooner]

[goonersid]

I would give my right ball to see it happening.

[Boomer]

Wow! -3pts
That's currently 8 points adrift from West ham.

[USMartin]

It's all well and good to take the piss right now but for me watching what happens at United and Liverpool should only serve as a warning to all of us and hopefully to the club as well about the very real perils of getting involved with debt leverage.


Arsenal would fare no better in the same cu=ircumstance no matter what, unless you consider being a in battle to escape relegation yearly better, and that;'s in the best case scenario, with no remaining stadium debt and prudent ownership.

If we still were paying down stadium debt or had less prudent ownership our plight would be worse than Liverpool's.

Sorry to spoil the burial party but I'm more concerned about what could happen at Arsenal if we were ut in the same position which could happen.

You can get as angry at me as you want but there isn't one Gooner who can't say that isn't true in this instance and be correct. Debt leverage would kill us as surely as anyone else it can kill.
_________________
"it is actually a genuine shame that a club with Arsenal's history is in this position, but stop blaming everyone else and look at yourselves". -
Brian Moore from the future?

[RNTGOONER]

Stop attention-seeking

Somebody lock this now

[I Hate Hleb]

A mate of mine sent me this long but interesting article. By and large things look set to be okay and some people with doubts might be a little less concerned about our future.

However the point that worried me the most was the bit I have put in bold. Surely once you go down that road - especially in the sporting world - it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that you don't win?.

Arsenal aim to be global top Gunners

By Bill Wilson Business reporter, BBC News


Arsenal was once the quintessential English football club, with its impressive marble hallways at Highbury stadium and high-tempo football on the playing field.

Highbury has now been replaced by the modern Emirates Stadium, while Arsene Wenger has the club playing some of the most stylish passing football in Europe.

And there have been other changes under way in north London, as the club looks to US business know-how to promote its brand around the world.

Former Quaker Oats, NBA, Nike and Gatorade executive Tom Fox is Arsenal's chief commercial officer, with more than 20 years of selling American brands overseas.

His task is now to sell the club outside the UK in the way that Chelsea, Manchester United and Liverpool have done.

"Sport is unique - if the team does not have that success on the field then that makes if more difficult for usâ€

[MM99]

It's all well and good to take the piss right now but for me watching what happens at United and Liverpool should only serve as a warning to all of us and hopefully to the club as well about the very real perils of getting involved with debt leverage.


Arsenal would fare no better in the same cu=ircumstance no matter what, unless you consider being a in battle to escape relegation yearly better, and that;'s in the best case scenario, with no remaining stadium debt and prudent ownership.

If we still were paying down stadium debt or had less prudent ownership our plight would be worse than Liverpool's.

Sorry to spoil the burial party but I'm more concerned about what could happen at Arsenal if we were ut in the same position which could happen.

You can get as angry at me as you want but there isn't one Gooner who can't say that isn't true in this instance and be correct. Debt leverage would kill us as surely as anyone else it can kill.

And? This is such a stupid post where you say a lot of things without actually saying anything meaningful.
Well done, you have outlined that debt leverage can be bad. I think we all alreayd knew that. We didn't require another essay to tell us so.
So we should be aware of debt leverage buy outs shall we? The same could be said of any of the other 19 clubs in the premiership so what is your point? Anyone could now come in and buy out a club on debt leverage and screw the whole club up. Could be done to Wolves, could be done to us. Not sure what your point is as we already know this. Ultimately your post is a bit like saying "Oh my god people cancer is bad! We could all die if either of us gets it! We must all be careful of cancer!"
Yes well done martin, we already know that.

[jamjc64]

It aint going to happen.

Hicks and Gillet can huff and puff all they like. Anyone who listens to certain financial bods in the know.

Basically they are in breach of thier banking covenance and has RBS hold the keys to the kingdom, and want thier money back come the 15th Oct the Mousers will have new owners.

Sadly we wont see a points deduction, put your money on it

[RNTGOONER]

I would not worry to much about that he is marketing so his job is to sell the "BRAND" win or lose - I hate the term brand when talking about the Arsenal though.

[QuartzGooner]

However the point that worried me the most was the bit I have put in bold. Surely once you go down that road - especially in the sporting world - it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that you don't win?.


"We spend a lot of time working on how we can build a successful model that is not so relying on winning," he says. "It is about insulating ourselves," he says at a Sports Marketing 360 event in London.

Guess I am an optimist then, because I think it is a good idea.

Just four club trophies per season, and about seven or eight clubs who are competitive for some or all of those.

Many people who are not Yankees fans have bought this cap over the years, all useful cash for that team.
Cannot just rely on prize money.

[RNTGOONER]

It's all well and good to take the piss right now but for me watching what happens at United and Liverpool should only serve as a warning to all of us and hopefully to the club as well about the very real perils of getting involved with debt leverage.


Arsenal would fare no better in the same cu=ircumstance no matter what, unless you consider being a in battle to escape relegation yearly better, and that;'s in the best case scenario, with no remaining stadium debt and prudent ownership.

If we still were paying down stadium debt or had less prudent ownership our plight would be worse than Liverpool's.

Sorry to spoil the burial party but I'm more concerned about what could happen at Arsenal if we were ut in the same position which could happen.

You can get as angry at me as you want but there isn't one Gooner who can't say that isn't true in this instance and be correct. Debt leverage would kill us as surely as anyone else it can kill.

And? This is such a stupid post where you say a lot of things without actually saying anything meaningful.
Well done, you have outlined that debt leverage can be bad. I think we all alreayd knew that. We didn't require another essay to tell us so.
So we should be aware of debt leverage buy outs shall we? The same could be said of any of the other 19 clubs in the premiership so what is your point? Anyone could now come in and buy out a club on debt leverage and screw the whole club up. Could be done to Wolves, could be done to us. Not sure what your point is as we already know this. Ultimately your post is a bit like saying "Oh my god people cancer is bad! We could all die if either of us gets it! We must all be careful of cancer!"
Yes well done martin, we already know that.

you make us martin sound like mr garrison... leverged debt is bad umm-kay

[I Hate Hleb]

It might well be a good idea Quartz but isn't the 'raison detre' of a sporting club to compete on the 'sporting field'? And shouldn't we be doing all we can to make sure we win one of those four trophies?

[USMartin]

Obviously I could comment on this - but I'll focus on the bolded bit. I think we now know whether our Board considers Arsenal as a football club first or a business investment first at this point. I don't think anyone who read that can argue the Board's ambition or affection for the club any longer.

I'll only add this - the time to break the American Market was 2004 . Thierry Henry was a fixture at the NBA Playoffs and paling around with Tony Parker and the NBA Champs and Spike Lee, and he was doing TV ads for here not David Beckham, Freddie Ljungberg had the building-sized poster in Times Square not David Beckham, Robert Pires was a fashion plate and style councilor to compete with Beckham, Jens Lehmann was the kind of bigger-than-life personalities Americans love more than the rather reserved Beckham. Even super-chavvy Ashley Cole would have gone over quite well at the time. Females (and some males I guess) would have swooned over a number of our players mentioned and also Jose Reyes. Sol would have gone over well too. Patrick would have gone over very well too I suspect cause he just was cool and well as damned good.

Then you add the historic achievements of 2004 - Americans love things like going unbeaten and winning multiple championships in a short time, and the spectacular and spectacularly succesful style with which we played at the time. Arsenal could have conquered America really precisely because we weren't just of bunch of English footballers running in to stab home crosses or meet corners all match. We won and we won with style and flair on the opitch and displayed it off the pitch as well.

I'm not sure we are that marketable here now. Not just that we aren't as successful as we were then but have fewer marketable players I mean marketable over here. After Theo certainly - marketers love the good-guy - maybe Cesc and VanPersie, and Arshavin who is this team's Lehmann, it's a real struggle. Ironically enough Almunia may be the next most marketable again becaiuse of his rather outgoing personality and clothing taste(if you want to call it that).

The truth is to expand the brand you need some glory-hunters and to attract them you need some glory, so again we missed the boat on when to hit the US shores and pretty badly.

[QuartzGooner]

It might well be a good idea Quartz but isn't the 'raison detre' of a sporting club to compete on the 'sporting field'? And shouldn't we be doing all we can to make sure we win one of those four trophies?

Of course reason for the club is to win, but realistic attitude says we cannot compete pound for pound with Man City and Chelsea for the moment.
Perhaps in one competition, but not in all four.

So why not raise revenue through commercial areas, which will in turn help the team?

(And focus on youth players too, not a total answer, but a help if decent players come through and a revenue help in selling off those who are nto quite good enough).

Then in time we will have paid off the stadium, and seen Financial Fair play rules help us level the playing field as far as the Sugar Daddy Clubs are concerned.

The above commercial expansion makes us better placed to earn from technology expansion as century progresses i.e. global use of Arsenal smartphone apps, internet access, pay per view revenues from China etc.

Why should it be "cool" for tourists to buy an NY cap?
Could it not be "cool" for tourists to London to wear an Arsenal cap?

There was no one time to break the American market.
The club is continually promoting links with American sports and music figures, spreading the word that the stadium is THE place to visit when in London, that Arsenal are the British team to follow.
Regular articles in the club magazine show this: Spike Lee, Jay Z, Luol Deng, LeBron James etc have all been interviewed and / or visited the stadium.

[USMartin]

It's all well and good to take the piss right now but for me watching what happens at United and Liverpool should only serve as a warning to all of us and hopefully to the club as well about the very real perils of getting involved with debt leverage.


Arsenal would fare no better in the same cu=ircumstance no matter what, unless you consider being a in battle to escape relegation yearly better, and that;'s in the best case scenario, with no remaining stadium debt and prudent ownership.

If we still were paying down stadium debt or had less prudent ownership our plight would be worse than Liverpool's.

Sorry to spoil the burial party but I'm more concerned about what could happen at Arsenal if we were ut in the same position which could happen.

You can get as angry at me as you want but there isn't one Gooner who can't say that isn't true in this instance and be correct. Debt leverage would kill us as surely as anyone else it can kill.

And? This is such a stupid post where you say a lot of things without actually saying anything meaningful.
Well done, you have outlined that debt leverage can be bad. I think we all alreayd knew that. We didn't require another essay to tell us so.
So we should be aware of debt leverage buy outs shall we? The same could be said of any of the other 19 clubs in the premiership so what is your point? Anyone could now come in and buy out a club on debt leverage and screw the whole club up. Could be done to Wolves, could be done to us. Not sure what your point is as we already know this. Ultimately your post is a bit like saying "Oh my god people cancer is bad! We could all die if either of us gets it! We must all be careful of cancer!"
Yes well done martin, we already know that.

No apparently you aren't because you'd rather pretend it can't happen here. That is clearly what you are suggesting.

The thing is it's pretty clear whatever their motives, that our owners on the Board are looking to sell out, and the most likely buyer, Stan Kroenke, probably no longer has the cash on-hand to purchase the remainder of the club without relying on debt-leverage now that he has bought all of the St Louis Rams. So unless another buyer appears on the horizon with the cas on-hand to buy the club with their own money(Usmanov may be able to do that but this Board simply would not sell to him period even if it were best for Arsenal and that attitude may explain some attitudes on here) the is a much more real possibility that we could end up being puchased in a debt-leveraged takeover than other clubs have to worry about.

And even if Mr. Kroenke doesn't move forward on a takeover how much longer are these people willing to sit on their shares. If you read the comments from Tom Hicks the share price will neither rise nor stay steady indefinitely and so the major shareholders to ensure maximum profits or simply profits in the case of the new comers to the table could be willing to sell to a new candidate using debt-leverage to finance the takeover. After all what would Stan Kroenke care he's hardly Arsenal through-and-through and the same could be suggested of Usmanov as well., and if either of them are willing to sell Dan Fiszman won't fight to keep the club from going down thatb road because he's looking at another 60 million, and Lady bracewel-Smith just wants her 100 million however she can get it at this pont.

So forgive me if I consider your blase attitude a tiny bit irresponsible for someone who loves Arsenal and cares what happens to the club as you of course do just as I do. everybody everywhere in every walk of life always says "it can't happen here" - until it does of course.