The Gooner Forum

USMartin wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:I have no information that we had to give cash back to the Emirates Airline because of the Israel deal.
I would like to know where that came from because you are the first person to mention it.

The new stadium was delayed by one year because of trouble finding the eventual six banks to lend construction money, so it is well known the club needed money up front, irellevant of anything to do with Highbury.
You in the USA may not have bee aware of it but demolition of the buildings on the site, and the levelling of the ground of the podium happened very quickly, but then work stopped for a while until funds were secured. I made it my business to regularly pass the area when it was a construction site (I did not live far away at the time), it was boarded off but you could peak in through the gates, and there was a period of time when little happened there.

I agree that the front loaded deal for Henry was ridiculous, unless he had to give money back to the club when we sold him, but I do not know i that was meant to happen or if it happened.

We don't know that that happened for sure - although if it did Arsenal and Emirates Air certainly wouldn't have been the first companies to resolve a conflict that way. The sole reason it may not have happened is if Emirates Air people calculated that their endorsement contract had been so porrly negotiated by the club and was so advantageous to them it was not worth pursuing extra money

But even if that were the case it does not disguise the reality that some poor decisions were driven by anxiety about our cash flow, such as this.

We read forums then too y'know - yes we are aware of those story behind the story so to speak. If anything the delay securing that financing minimized the need to produce more money ourselves - after all the sooner we have to pay the loans back the greater any potential cash flow problem - certainly if we had decided not to sell Highbury at that time already.

If anything that delay only calls the re-development decision into even further question.

I seriously doubt the froont-loaded money was given back, or it would have been no incentive whatsoever. I suspect that as much as he loves Arsenal, Henry was leaving in frustration as he saw the reaalty was, well, what, we all have seen since then. And we simply could not afford for his departure to cast a massive pall over the opening season at the Emirates and potentially even undermine tcket sales and profits.

The "Royal We" USMartin?
That is strictly for the Queen.

You are just speculating about the Emirates Airline wanting money from Arsenal because of the decision about Israel, you are the first to mention such a possibility and without a link to a source I cannot consider your thoughts on this as an account of something that actually happened.

Cannot agree the delay on the new stadium was a good thing, because the quicker it was built the quicker revenues would rise.

USMartin wrote:

Big_G wrote:I could have declared Liverpool as toxic...its full of degrading shit, whats new

Bad- ump-bump!

QuartzGooner wrote:

USMartin wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:I have no information that we had to give cash back to the Emirates Airline because of the Israel deal.
I would like to know where that came from because you are the first person to mention it.

The new stadium was delayed by one year because of trouble finding the eventual six banks to lend construction money, so it is well known the club needed money up front, irellevant of anything to do with Highbury.
You in the USA may not have bee aware of it but demolition of the buildings on the site, and the levelling of the ground of the podium happened very quickly, but then work stopped for a while until funds were secured. I made it my business to regularly pass the area when it was a construction site (I did not live far away at the time), it was boarded off but you could peak in through the gates, and there was a period of time when little happened there.

I agree that the front loaded deal for Henry was ridiculous, unless he had to give money back to the club when we sold him, but I do not know i that was meant to happen or if it happened.

We don't know that that happened for sure - although if it did Arsenal and Emirates Air certainly wouldn't have been the first companies to resolve a conflict that way. The sole reason it may not have happened is if Emirates Air people calculated that their endorsement contract had been so porrly negotiated by the club and was so advantageous to them it was not worth pursuing extra money

But even if that were the case it does not disguise the reality that some poor decisions were driven by anxiety about our cash flow, such as this.

We read forums then too y'know - yes we are aware of those story behind the story so to speak. If anything the delay securing that financing minimized the need to produce more money ourselves - after all the sooner we have to pay the loans back the greater any potential cash flow problem - certainly if we had decided not to sell Highbury at that time already.

If anything that delay only calls the re-development decision into even further question.

I seriously doubt the froont-loaded money was given back, or it would have been no incentive whatsoever. I suspect that as much as he loves Arsenal, Henry was leaving in frustration as he saw the reaalty was, well, what, we all have seen since then. And we simply could not afford for his departure to cast a massive pall over the opening season at the Emirates and potentially even undermine tcket sales and profits.

The "Royal We" USMartin?
That is strictly for the Queen.

You are just speculating about the Emirates Airline wanting money from Arsenal because of the decision about Israel, you are the first to mention such a possibility and without a link to a source I cannot consider your thoughts on this as an account of something that actually happened.

Cannot agree the delay on the new stadium was a good thing, because the quicker it was built the quicker revenues would rise.

Sice I am not the only Gooner nased in the U/ S. and there are at least three of us here, and no offense intended Barriecuda, but as you basically are operating in the same part of the world, I reckoned that "you in the USA" referred to us in the USA.

As to your argument - yes I am specualting and have not said otherwise. As I said earlier there is no real way to know for sure in such an instance.

But your logic is the same as a smoker defending his habit by noting that he did not in fact have a lung disease of any sort yet. The point is there a number of situations where our concern about cash flow resulting from not selling Highbury could have cost us some money that can off-set the benefit of the profit form the re-development. Some of these things may have happened some may not. But none of them even might have happened had we sold Highbury.

As to the delay - had we sold Highbury as planned and not created the cash-flow problem we did, I would agree fully. As we opted for the course we did the earlier we owed that monry the greater the cash flow problem would have been and the sooner it would have been dealt with in the same wauy- meaning perhaps the Invincible Season never even happens.

USMartin wrote:
As to the delay - had we sold Highbury as planned and not created the cash-flow problem we did, I would agree fully. As we opted for the course we did the earlier we owed that monry the greater the cash flow problem would have been and the sooner it would have been dealt with in the same wauy- meaning perhaps the Invincible Season never even happens.

What do you mean "Had we sold Highbury as planned?"
You appear to be planting the suggestion the board had planned to sell it and then the board changed it's mind?
Where is your evidence for this?

I have already posted links to articles reporting this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 19886.html


But the Arsenal vice-chairman, David Dein, said: "There is no point in having a great stadium if you haven't got a great team to play in it. All the money Arsène Wenger needs for team-building will still be available.â€

USMartin it apperars that your views, assumptions and speculations are based on lots of media led reports and a fair bit of hindsight.

At the time decissions had to be made and were made in what the Arsenal board thought were the best for the club and to leave the club in the best financial situation possible. Now it is easy depending on your views to look back and pick holes in the board and their actions.

I think 95% of Arsenal fans are happy with what is happening financialy(at board level eg repaying of loans and debt etc) at Arsenal and I think the lack of signitures on your petition(11 at time of typing) show how a lot of members on this forum feel about it and having read most of QuartzGooner's posts I dont think he is 100% behind the board but he is just pointing out the holes in your argument.

USMartin
The above article and quote proves nothing!
It does not state that the club will sell the land to a specific developer, it can easily be read as meaning that the stadium will be developed as luxury flats.

Again, where do you get "evidence" for your belief that Highbury was to be sold, but instead the club decided to redevelop it?
Where was this big "turning point"?

And even if you can produce evidence (I have no fixed view on it, I am just enquiring, because I have never heard this point of view before), so what!

You once again regard a difference of opinion as not valid, and instead say that an other's views are deliberate lies.

Paranoid. That's what you are!

stg wrote:USMartin it apperars that your views, assumptions and speculations are based on lots of media led reports and a fair bit of hindsight.

I mean no disrespect but that is rubbish. I have been stating these very views back as far as 2005 and 2006. You can see that on Arseblog (lask about wouldyoubelieveit?), on The Steve Glieber Forum(ask about USMartin) and on BigSoccer(Ask about Martin Daoust) and if you were a member of the old Arsenal Mailing List 12-18 months ago.

As to the media we believe the media when it suits us – indeed what do you think was lined to start this thread – a media report some want to choose to believe. I’m disputing that report at all. But picking and choosing what media to believe is dodgy. I’ve seen people say don’t trust the sun they hate us then the first time they print an article supporting what we want to believe the same people will post it. Ihf the media stated that we always planned re-developing Highbury I’d accept that provided the evidence cited was credible.

stg wrote:At the time decissions had to be made and were made in what the Arsenal board thought were the best for the club and to leave the club in the best financial situation possible. Now it is easy depending on your views to look back and pick holes in the board and their actions.

Pardon me, but unless you are on the Arsenal Board or were present at Board meetings at that or privy to Board meeting records how exactly do you know that? You might be right, but how can you be so sure you are other than your desire to believe that? Give me some tangible proof of that, please.

Yes its easy to look back when you were totally unwilling to look at the time which is a big part of the problem. Your estimate of the percentage of supporters happy with the situation was probably true back five years ago when people were happy not to ask any of these questions. Its easy to call something hindsight when you ignored it for years years and only see it now. I saw it then and like I say go to those websites and see if right or wrong, I didn’t ignore it. I may be right or worng, but hindsight has nothing to do with it either way.

stg wrote:I think 95% of Arsenal fans are happy with what is happening financialy(at board level eg repaying of loans and debt etc) at Arsenal and I think the lack of signitures on your petition(11 at time of typing) show how a lot of members on this forum feel about it and having read most of QuartzGooner's posts I dont think he is 100% behind the board but he is just pointing out the holes in your argument.

I think your math is a bit off. I agree a majority of Gooners are still reasonably content with things, but 95% is really so four years ago. It’s not close to that now. 65%-70% maybe. But that alone represents a 30% drop, and that number will continue to drop I fear if we continue as we are. I also think that as more people learn information that has not been furnished by the club that number will continue to decline. As to the petition its early doors and I think there are a number of factors as to why there are not more signatures. I do think that will change as time moves on.

As for whether Quartz is 100% behind the Board if he’s not what is ? 99.7%? 99.3%? 99.1%?
There is no shame in being 100% behind the Board btw. The Issue is in using bad evidence to support being 100% behind them.

QuartzGooner wrote: The above article and quote proves nothing!
It does not state that the club will sell the land to a specific developer, it can easily be read as meaning that the stadium will be developed as luxury flats.

Only what Quartz wants to believe proves anything. You don’t even care ofiif the Board lie. Trusting them is pure reflex action for you. It proves nothing on its own but suggests that ,maybe we don’t know everything we ought to.

You are the one arguing solely on the basis of trusting the Board’s word. Name one piece of information that does not come from the Board supporting the fact that that was not the case.
You are the one saying that when the Board says something that that alone prove its true

QuartzGooner wrote: Again, where do you get "evidence" for your belief that Highbury was to be sold, but instead the club decided to redevelop it?
Where was this big "turning point"?

We don’t know for sure – just as we don’t know for sure that indeed it wasn’t the original plan – although I am sure I can find posts by you acknowledging that indeed we did change plans – and again there are legitimate questions about what our original plan was and the motive behind this plan whether it was original or plan or not in fact.

QuartzGooner wrote: And even if you can produce evidence (I have no fixed view on it, I am just enquiring, because I have never heard this point of view before), so what!

Well it certainly raises the question given this attitude of why from the first time I posted on these issues you have debated me post-for-post, point-for-point, then. Which is hard to see you or anybody - doing if you had no concern about these issues, especially on the level that you have. Indeed I won’t take your bait and make stupid comments about anyone’s mental health, but it’s remarkable to consider the scale sheer of your effort to discredit my views when your attitude about them is “so what?â€

I mean no disrespect but that is rubbish. I have been stating these very views back as far as 2005 and 2006. You can see that on Arseblog (lask about wouldyoubelieveit?), on The Steve Glieber Forum(ask about USMartin) and on BigSoccer(Ask about Martin Daoust) and if you were a member of the old Arsenal Mailing List 12-18 months ago.

As to the media we believe the media when it suits us – indeed what do you think was lined to start this thread – a media report some want to choose to believe. I’m disputing that report at all. But picking and choosing what media to believe is dodgy. I’ve seen people say don’t trust the sun they hate us then the first time they print an article supporting what we want to believe the same people will post it. Ihf the media stated that we always planned re-developing Highbury I’d accept that provided the evidence cited was credible.

Sorry I will retract the hindsight bit

Pardon me, but unless you are on the Arsenal Board or were present at Board meetings at that or privy to Board meeting records how exactly do you know that? You might be right, but how can you be so sure you are other than your desire to believe that? Give me some tangible proof of that, please.

Pot, kettle & black me thinks

I think your math is a bit off. I agree a majority of Gooners are still reasonably content with things, but 95% is really so four years ago. It’s not close to that now. 65%-70% maybe. But that alone represents a 30% drop, and that number will continue to drop I fear if we continue as we are. I also think that as more people learn information that has not been furnished by the club that number will continue to decline.

Is it really if you showed most Arsenal fans the financial plan in place to pay off any loans Arsenal fotball club I would say most would be happy with what they see. OK that number might drop if "people learn information that has not been furnished by the club" but how the bloody hell will they know that untill they have been furnished with the information and how do you know what information may or may not be given out in the future unless you.....please refer back to your answer beginging with "Pardon me" above

USMartin wrote:

You are the one saying that when the Board says something that that alone prove its true

No.
I have consistently said that some of the Board have not told the truth on the negative effect the new stadium would initially have on money available for transfers.

USMartin wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote: Again, where do you get "evidence" for your belief that Highbury was to be sold, but instead the club decided to redevelop it?
Where was this big "turning point"?

We don’t know for sure – just as we don’t know for sure that indeed it wasn’t the original plan – although I am sure I can find posts by you acknowledging that indeed we did change plans

.

I have never said that the board originally wanted to sell the land to a developer.

The whole idea of a changed plan has come from you.

USMartin wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote: And even if you can produce evidence (I have no fixed view on it, I am just enquiring, because I have never heard this point of view before), so what!

Well it certainly raises the question given this attitude of why from the first time I posted on these issues you have debated me post-for-post, point-for-point, then.

You came onto a Forum from nowhere.
Instead of the odd post about various topics, you proceded to post multiple threads attacking the board based on your interpretation of their actions.
Tough luck if someone argues against you, instead of sitting idly by.
Yes I do consider you to be paranoid about that.

USMartin wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote: You once again regard a difference of opinion as not valid, and instead say that an other's views are deliberate lies.

In this case that’s what they are. You deliberately seek to discourage objectively analyzing the re-development in the this time frame by comparing the project to the construction of and payment for the East and West Stands, deliberately withholding the facts that you know that the re-development is fully paid for and has generated nearly all the profits for the club already it will while the earlier project took forty years to pay off and produced profits for the club for thirty years after that. You are aware of these facts and deliberately withhold them to deliberately mis-lead those who read what you post. That is engaging in knowing and deliberate deception which is by definition lying.

I have a different opinion to you and there is no shame in that.

I do believe that such things as the East and West stands at Highbury should be taken into account, and that the new stadium and Highbury Redevelopment can only be fully judged over 50 years.

You repeatedly accuse me of "Deliberate Deception", as opposed to just accepting someone might have a different viewpoint to you.

That is strong behaviour for someone who such as yourself, claims to have no financial stake in Arsenal.
It is also a very weak argument tactic.

stg wrote: Sorry I will retract the hindsight bit

No worries – it’s a mis-conception made often in this debate. I appreciate the retraction but would suggest you should be midful that many Gooners who question this have been at it some time and are not simply arguing based on hind-sight either.

stg wrote: Pot, kettle & black me thinks

Actually, no. I am not sure what is actually happening. I am sure that there is reason to be concerned as to what is actually happening. I am sure we are not being told the entire truth about what is actually happening – whatever is actually happening. I am concerned that we need to know more about what is actually happening. And I am because I am concerned about the short- and long-term consequences for Arsenal Football Club of what is actually happening.

This because what is actually happening and what have been and are being told is actually happening seems to be clearly inconsistent in a number of ways. Does that on its own prove something is genuinely and that the Board are acting in anything other than Arsenal’s best interests? No but it proves we ought to be more aware of what is actually being done and why because of its potential consequences.

stg wrote: Is it really if you showed most Arsenal fans the financial plan in place to pay off any loans Arsenal fotball club I would say most would be happy with what they see. OK that number might drop if "people learn information that has not been furnished by the club" but how the bloody hell will they know that untill they have been furnished with the information and how do you know what information may or may not be given out in the future unless you.....please refer back to your answer beginging with "Pardon me" above

Maybe unless you…and some other Gooners sign a petition asking the Board to explain several points concerning the supporters about these issues. Maybe then we get those answers from the Board. Maybe we don’t, but even if we don’t we see what the Board thinks it is obligated to share with the supporters and if we don’t get the answers we want we can press harder for them if need be. A petition may not get answers or or the answers we want want but its got more aof achance than sitting quietly and wondering.

Niether you or I have the information we should and deserve really – let’s go to the source.

QuartzGooner wrote: No. I have consistently said that some of the Board have not told the truth on the negative effect the new stadium would initially have on money available for transfers.

Yes, in fairness you have said that and said it consistently. But even than you have defended and endorsed that course of action after acknowledging it, and given that its about all you acknowledge in criticism of the Board and its actions I think it only confirms my view that basically anything the Board says or does is acceptable to you even if you know its untrue.

QuartzGooner wrote: I have never said that the board originally wanted to sell the land to a developer.

The whole idea of a changed plan has come from you.

But that’s not what I have said. I simply have said you did not dispute that in the past in replying to many of my posts on the matter. It could I suppose be over-sight but I am willing to bet I can find enough such posts to suggest that its not merely oversight.

QuartzGooner wrote: You came onto a Forum from nowhere.
Instead of the odd post about various topics, you proceded to post multiple threads attacking the board based on your interpretation of their actions.
Tough luck if someone argues against you, instead of sitting idly by.
Yes I do consider you to be paranoid about that.

Full credit for trying to imply I’m not just a supporter again but this is the basement. Anyone reading this haere has made up their mind already.

Anyway I don’t mind someone arguing with or debating me at all. I just wonder why someone who seems to care so little about the facts as some of your comments in the past and this “so whatâ€

USM
You brought up the idea of a changed plan today. Do not remember reading it before.

I said "So what" about one specific point.
Not about the whole debate.

Are you a fan?
You say you are.

But why should the board tell you anything?

The do not have to.

QuartzGooner wrote: I have a different opinion to you and there is no shame in that.

I would suggest there is when the foundation of your different opinion relies on using an argument you know is flawed and mis-leading and you deliberately withhold information that confirms this each time you press that opinion.

I would be ashamed to do that, myself. Its not as though you don’t know that the argument is specious or about the evidence that proves that. If I did that I would be ashamed of myself, yes

QuartzGooner wrote:
I do believe that such things as the East and West stands at Highbury should be taken into account, and that the new stadium and Highbury Redevelopment can only be fully judged over 50 years.

The argument might have a kernel of credibility if you did offer full disclosure about the facts about the projects you are comparing which you consistently and I can only conclude deliberately avoid doing because it weakens if not destroys the credibility of your argument.

QuartzGooner wrote:
You repeatedly accuse me of "Deliberate Deception", as opposed to just accepting someone might have a different viewpoint to you.

That’s because this is not an honest difference in opinion, but a dishonest one. You know if fact that you deliberately try to make comparison not supported by the factual evidence you are aware of or deliberately refuse to acknowledge

. This isn’t just an honest mistake by you where you just don’t realize this evidence exists because I have made you aware of it repeatedly - an undeniable set of facts the undermine the credibility of the comparison you want other Gooners to make - yet you have chosen to withhold that information every time you make the argument. That is deliberately omitting factual details that may influence how people view the case you present. You do so deliberately and knowingly and even after it is pointed out. It’s not a mistake - it is deliberate deception. You have had every chance not to do it yet chosen to do it. That is something you should be ashamed of.

I’m not accusing you of deliberate deception. You are engaging in deliberate deception. You had every chance not to, every warning that you were, yet you have chosen to go ahead and do so.

QuartzGooner wrote:
That is strong behaviour for someone who such as yourself, claims to have no financial stake in Arsenal.
It is also a very weak argument tactic.

You don’t quit do you – takeover stooge, wind-up merchant, conspiracy theorist, paranoiac, investor with a financial stake in the club – you will get the bill from my printer for my business cards.

But really if I was an investor either I would be 100% delighted with the current state of affairs at Arsenal or you would have to take my concerns far more seriously as I would be willing to pass up making even more money for some sincere reason reason.