Go away.USMartin wrote:Maybe, no surely it is, but it matters. Look at you signature.kingjayson1 wrote:Boring.
Why don't you have one from 2006 or 2007 or 2010?
Maybe how the club is being run and why is the reason you don't.
Today feels like the beginning of the end.
Even if I did would your frustration or disappointment go away?kingjayson1 wrote:Go away.USMartin wrote:Maybe, no surely it is, but it matters. Look at you signature.kingjayson1 wrote:Boring.
Why don't you have one from 2006 or 2007 or 2010?
Maybe how the club is being run and why is the reason you don't.
Hate messenger if that makes you feel better but we both love Arsenal so don't ignore the message - please.
-
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:39 am
- Location: Living next door to my neighbours
And that would have nothing to do with our spending being curbed significantly because of cash flow problems stemming solely from re-developing Highbury instead of selling it?MutleyGooner wrote:Maybe it's a simple case of other teams being better than usUSMartin wrote:Maybe, no surely it is, but it matters. Look at you signature.kingjayson1 wrote:Boring.
Why don't you have one from 2006 or 2007 or 2010?
Maybe how the club is being run and why is the reason you don't.
If we had sold Highbury for as little as 40 million GBP even our total debt in 2005 would have been reduced by 160 million pounds, and we would not have needed to use money that customarily was re-invested into the football team in the past to pay off that debt during that period.
If we had sold it for as much as 85 million pounds our total debt would have been reduced by almost 210 million pounds between 2005 and 2010.
And remember while we did not have to pay a penny on the Highbury Square Loan until 2010 we still yhad to make annual payments on the stadium construction loan and put aside additional revenues as part of that all the way from 2005-2010. W
And those loan repayments would have covered - a number of them at the very least from the revenue we would have had immediately had we sold Highbury as was origoially planned, before Keith Edelman recommended re-developing it ourselves for a higher profit.
-
- Posts: 18321
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:19 pm
- Location: ireland
-
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:39 am
- Location: Living next door to my neighbours
- JMascis666
- Posts: 1887
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:46 am
- Location: N16
-
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:39 am
- Location: Living next door to my neighbours
-
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:39 am
- Location: Living next door to my neighbours
By the way do you think making a 100 million pound profit in part by limiting investment in the football team is merely reaping rewards? Why not invest more in the football team and reap a 30 million pound profit?
Would that be so wrong?
I have never claimed the Board have no right to enjoy a reward for the work they do and have done. I have simply asserteed that we should wonder why these already wealthy people should want to make so much more money this way when they could make good money still after investing more in the football team.
Can you explain why they should want to make 100 million pounds as Mr. Fiszman or his family likely will and Lady Bracewell-Smith likely will instead of making only 30-50 million pounds? After Dan Fiszman never paid above two thousands pound for a share he purchased and Lady Nina never actually paid a penny herself. After all our Board are supporters not purely profit-driven businessmen and women right?
Can you explain why we should not be concerned that they chose to increase our debt obligations from 2005-2010 by up to 210 million pounds while eliminating a source or=f revenue to pay down that debt in those years yet seem to have no problem with cashing in for the highest possible profit as a result?
Would that be so wrong?
I have never claimed the Board have no right to enjoy a reward for the work they do and have done. I have simply asserteed that we should wonder why these already wealthy people should want to make so much more money this way when they could make good money still after investing more in the football team.
Can you explain why they should want to make 100 million pounds as Mr. Fiszman or his family likely will and Lady Bracewell-Smith likely will instead of making only 30-50 million pounds? After Dan Fiszman never paid above two thousands pound for a share he purchased and Lady Nina never actually paid a penny herself. After all our Board are supporters not purely profit-driven businessmen and women right?
Can you explain why we should not be concerned that they chose to increase our debt obligations from 2005-2010 by up to 210 million pounds while eliminating a source or=f revenue to pay down that debt in those years yet seem to have no problem with cashing in for the highest possible profit as a result?
-
- Posts: 18321
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:19 pm
- Location: ireland
-
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:39 am
- Location: Living next door to my neighbours
- Arsenal 1991
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:53 pm
- Location: England
Bracewell-Smith is not on the board anymore!USMartin wrote:By the way do you think making a 100 million pound profit in part by limiting investment in the football team is merely reaping rewards? Why not invest more in the football team and reap a 30 million pound profit?
Would that be so wrong?
I have never claimed the Board have no right to enjoy a reward for the work they do and have done. I have simply asserteed that we should wonder why these already wealthy people should want to make so much more money this way when they could make good money still after investing more in the football team.
Can you explain why they should want to make 100 million pounds as Mr. Fiszman or his family likely will and Lady Bracewell-Smith likely will instead of making only 30-50 million pounds? After Dan Fiszman never paid above two thousands pound for a share he purchased and Lady Nina never actually paid a penny herself. After all our Board are supporters not purely profit-driven businessmen and women right?
Can you explain why we should not be concerned that they chose to increase our debt obligations from 2005-2010 by up to 210 million pounds while eliminating a source or=f revenue to pay down that debt in those years yet seem to have no problem with cashing in for the highest possible profit as a result?