LDB wrote:USMartin wrote:In what will fully naive world are you living in where there is no connection between cutting investment in the football club which helps increase profitability which then in turn increses the value of their shares and them making money selling them?
This really is a dubious link to make and requires a pretty big leap of faith.
1) Obviously, selling or buying shares does not remove a single penny from the clubs coffers
2) If you're moaning about a lack of direct investment from board members, never going to happen with a plurality of ownership anywhere, anyhow, anytime.
3) The board cutting funds to the playing side of the club purely to increase their share price is just insane on their part. Im dubious that intentionally weakening the playing side of a football club does much for their investment anyway.
Oh wait lets look at another possible factor. Its crazy i know but bear with me.
I seem to remember a few years ago we committed
300 MILLION POUNDS TO BUILDING A NEW STADIUM
Maybe that had something to do with it? Its a bit coincidental i know but there you have it.[/b]
The problem isn't the money committed to the new stadium though. It's the cash flow problems that were created by not selling hIghbury. The fact is had we sold Highbury as was origianlly planned much of the early repayment of debt would have been taken care of with the proceeds from that sale, and that would have allowed the footballing side(the supposedly ring-fenced footballing side) to continue to operate without financial disruption throughout the next several years..
The re-development of Highbury alone created the financial problems that led to the coincidentally-at-best-timed break-up of the Invincibles and introduction of the our gorundbreaking new "youth system", and the apparently coincidental decline which resulted. as yo your specific points
on 1) Agreed and no one has suggested that id the case. By the same token it proves little or nothing in the way of what I am comncerned has been and is happening
on 2) No one has said that either. The problem with what they have done is they have done that while cliaming that their sole concern is the club's long-term financial viability. Which given the again coincidental spike upward in share values and their cashing in on this spiket and not re-investing some of that because of that very concern they continue to refer to, it now looks like increasingly questionable if not out right dubious reasoning.
They sound like the right-wingers who wrry intensely about national debts and buudget deficits and want to eliminate all sorts wasteful programms(programs not for wealthy people) and their concern sounds rather genuine until it's suggested that increasing taxes to the weathiest citizens could help cut the debt, at which point they look at you like someone has stuck a thumb up their arse without warning them first..
I find it odd how they have managed to profit siginificantly the past few years while maintaining we are in too precarious a financial position to risk investing more in the football team now. Surely unless you believe its purely coinciodental or dumb luck the projects have worked out so well you must find this a bit odd too at the very least, no?
On 3) so long as the team's finish doesn't undermine ticket sales or the club's profits form the footballing portion of the company why would that be? If a company chooses to sell a defective product and people buy it and no one returns it or reports it will that company's share price be hurt? Why wouldn't they risk further decline so long as they thought they could get away with it without losing matchday and season tacket revenues? That will drive the sahre price more than mere positions in the Premiership table on their own.
, then it all starts making sense... and despite our objections, Martin's board fetish is nothing more peverse than sucking off a donkey, or even being fisted by a dwarf, and there's nothing wrong with that!
