Today feels like the beginning of the end.

[HashKads]

Boring.

Maybe, no surely it is, but it matters. Look at you signature.

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.

Go away.

[USMartin]

Boring.

Maybe, no surely it is, but it matters. Look at you signature.

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.

Go away.

Even if I did would your frustration or disappointment go away?


Hate messenger if that makes you feel better but we both love Arsenal so don't ignore the message - please.

[MutleyGooner]

Boring.

Maybe, no surely it is, but it matters. Look at you signature.

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.

Maybe it's a simple case of other teams being better than us

[USMartin]

Boring.

Maybe, no surely it is, but it matters. Look at you signature.

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.

Maybe it's a simple case of other teams being better than us

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?

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.

[mcdowell42]

I love the board i think they should make as much money as they can it cant be easy being a director god bless them looking after us poor arsenal fans 3 cheers hip hip hooray

[MutleyGooner]

Back the board, they are just swell

[mcdowell42]

Bet you he bites

[JMascis666]

Bet you he bites

I always imagined he did.

[MutleyGooner]

Thanks to our board, we have tradition and history which many other clubs envy, why would you want to slag them off They deserve to reap the rewards of their hard work and loyalty to the club.

[USMartin]

Back the board, they are just swell

Then just remember where the fault lies, dear Brutus, if that backing is proven to be a mistake. And it won't be all of us who should feel that way.

[MutleyGooner]

I think he is an alter ego, I'm just not sure who it is yet.

[USMartin]

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?

[mcdowell42]

The board have the best interests of the club at heart so its only right they earn a few bob out of it.Everything is being run prudently we have lots of money to spend thats a fact i have proof

[MutleyGooner]

The board want money and lots of it, same as the players and same as me

[Arsenal 1991]

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?

Bracewell-Smith is not on the board anymore!