Magic Hat Im afraid David Dein did not decide that we should move miles away but rather they were the only options available to the club at the time. It was in fact easier for the club to re-home us miles away due to the infrastructure required to make Ashburton viable! Since when did Arsenal want to have to construct apartments and pump huge amounts of money into transport systems? No Dein took the harder option that kept us closer to our spiritual home! Nobody is saying that Wembley is better than The Grove and least of all did Dein say that! That was right up there with your daftest statements so far!
Magic Hat I do now have to say that I feel a lot of the arguements you put up are at best loosely based on the truth and at worst figments of your imagination!
As for the Man Yoo comment how can any of us predict what the future holds. How much knowledge do you have on Man Yoo Magic Hat? Are you privy to their accounts as well as ours? Do you have insider knowledge of the dealings at Old Trafford like you often make out you do at Arsenal? One thing is for sure and thats the investment pumped into Man Yoo has helped to bring them their first title in a few years and has also allowed them to not sit on their laurels and to strengthen further! Please do not now quote their current league position! Its false and you know it as well as I do!
Why do you have such a mis-trust in forigen investment? Why cannot someone from outside England care and want to be part of Arsenal's future? Its ok for players and I hope you agree its marvellous for instance we have so many Irish Gooners amongst our ranks! So its ok for supporters too! So then what is wrong with "johnny forigener" being positively and actively involved at a higher level?
Please if you are to take me to task on my comments then at least have the courtesy to do this by employing knowledge and fact, not what you wish to be true. Or worse what the Arsenal board want you to believe is true!
DAVID DEIN SOLD HIS SHARES
I"m just waiting for that old buffon Hill-Wood(or is it Magic Hat) to open his gob and say "We dont want that sort here" If i was a Manure fan or a Chelski fan i would be woried today.There is a new kid on the block.For too long we have been playing catch up.The times they are a changing.Pass me the vodka comrade.
-
Hagbard 23
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:19 am
- Location: Agog in the æther.
- Contact:
Personally I welcome back Mr Bean, sorry Dein as I believe he has only good intentions for the Arse'.
In my opinion Dein, Silent Stan and this new guy on the scene Usmanov, will join forces and mount a hostile takeover bid for AFC.
Judging on info from the media their combined stakes amount to 27 odd percent of the required 29 percent needed to take control.
This puts 'em in a VERY powerful position indeed. This boards days are numbered. They are on the way out I reckon.
Obviously there are things going on behind the scenes that we'll never know about, but if Deins statement and the inevitable media reports are correct, then we are in the midst of a massive chapter in Arsenals history. this is BIG.
THIS IS A REVOLUTION.
I for one am very excited about all this, and can't wait to see how it all pans out!
KHARRASHO, SPASSEEBA , ZA VASHY ZDAROVYA TAK DA SVEEDANYA.
In my opinion Dein, Silent Stan and this new guy on the scene Usmanov, will join forces and mount a hostile takeover bid for AFC.
Judging on info from the media their combined stakes amount to 27 odd percent of the required 29 percent needed to take control.
This puts 'em in a VERY powerful position indeed. This boards days are numbered. They are on the way out I reckon.
Obviously there are things going on behind the scenes that we'll never know about, but if Deins statement and the inevitable media reports are correct, then we are in the midst of a massive chapter in Arsenals history. this is BIG.
THIS IS A REVOLUTION.
I for one am very excited about all this, and can't wait to see how it all pans out!
KHARRASHO, SPASSEEBA , ZA VASHY ZDAROVYA TAK DA SVEEDANYA.
its about us gettin 2 a level playin field,, at the moment we just cant compete,, people who cant see this are just showing 2 much blind faith in the currant board,,THEY DO NO SEE US AS FANS BUT CUSTOMERS,, dont stand dont sing and buy our lovly tshirt wit the word GOONER ON IT,, this board has done a lot and i thank them, but 2 win we hav 2 spend and 2 spend we need new investment,,donaldo wrote:I"m just waiting for that old buffon Hill-Wood(or is it Magic Hat) to open his gob and say "We dont want that sort here" If i was a Manure fan or a Chelski fan i would be woried today.There is a new kid on the block.For too long we have been playing catch up.The times they are a changing.Pass me the vodka comrade.
An Ambromvich? Sure, as long as he didn't mess with the manager, not so sure about the Glazers.I"m just waiting for that old buffon Hill-Wood(or is it Magic Hat) to open his gob and say "We dont want that sort here" If i was a Manure fan or a Chelski fan i would be woried today.There is a new kid on the block.For too long we have been playing catch up.The times they are a changing.Pass me the vodka comrade.
So a one off payment to move a few miles up the road near our base since we moved from the south to the north and having complete control of the stadium so once the debt is paid of, we get all the funds from the stadium without worry of being turfed out at end of rental contract. Would it be easier to rent? Yes but sometimes the best option isn't the easy one.Magic Hat Im afraid David Dein did not decide that we should move miles away but rather they were the only options available to the club at the time. It was in fact easier for the club to re-home us miles away due to the infrastructure required to make Ashburton viable! Since when did Arsenal want to have to construct apartments and pump huge amounts of money into transport systems? No Dein took the harder option that kept us closer to our spiritual home! Nobody is saying that Wembley is better than The Grove and least of all did Dein say that! That was right up there with your daftest statements so far!
Gus, it isn't just me, from varoius news sources It has been reported that Arsenal vice chairman David Dein - also vice chairman of the Football Association - is keen on a permanent move to Wembley, but he faces opposition from other members of the club's board.
But on that subject, perceived wisdom says he was against the building of a new ground, preferring the much cheaper option of using Wembley. On losing that battle, his position inevitably weakened and he became marginalised.
Despite his recent sale and decision to live as a tax exile in Switzerland after retiring from his diamond business, Fiszman appears to be as committed as ever to the club. He was behind the move from Highbury to the £357 million Emirates Stadium, while Dein favoured a deal to move into the new Wembley Stadium. With a little more than 24 per cent of the shares, he could prove to be an immovable object, even though he could realise £100 million for his stake.
Also turns out Wembley wasn't that easy an optionArsenal's search for money was not helped by the fact that Wembley was also searching for money and Peter Hill-Wood, the chairman, said: "Wembley complicated matters, it made it more difficult for us."
One of the complicating factors was that the banks who lent money to finance Wembley have not been able to pass on the debt to other bankers. Keith Edelman, the managing director, said: "There are still underwriters holding more of the Wembley debt than they would choose to hold. It made it much more difficult."
Sharing Wembley was an option favoured by some at Highbury, most notably David Dein, the Arsenal vice-chairman, who was not at yesterday's celebrations, and Edelman said: "At one juncture sharing with Wembley might have been possible. We evaluated Wembley. But it was a far less attractive proposition financially than Ashburton Grove and that drove us way from Wembley. If Ashburton Grove did not happen it would have been better to stay at Highbury and put the prices up."
and from the Gooner itself David Dein has been marginalized on the Arsenal board for some years now. This was the man who would have preferred the club to be the tenants at the new Wembley instead of remaining in Islington at Ashburton Grove.
Please quote me where I said I had insider dealings with any club? The news from Old Trafford has hardly been positive about the finances, unless you count this as great news Fourteen months after US financier Malcolm Glazer and his family took over Manchester United in a hotly contested takeover battle, the club's improving financial prospects have been reflected in a £660m debt reinfinancing deal. The deal will cut the club's annual interest bill and strengthen the Glazer family's grip on the club. A spokesman for the Glazers said the amended structure would continue to provide manager Alex Ferguson with 'sufficient funds in the transfer market'. The Financial Times, citing people familiar with the package, said the club's annual interest charge would fall to £62m, compared to £90m under the old deal. It said overall borrowings would rise to £660m from £580m, but the club had halved to £135m the amount they owe in the form of higher risk payment-in-kind notes.As for the Man Yoo comment how can any of us predict what the future holds. How much knowledge do you have on Man Yoo Magic Hat? Are you privy to their accounts as well as ours? Do you have insider knowledge of the dealings at Old Trafford like you often make out you do at Arsenal? One thing is for sure and thats the investment pumped into Man Yoo has helped to bring them their first title in a few years and has also allowed them to not sit on their laurels and to strengthen further! Please do not now quote their current league position! Its false and you know it as well as I do!
Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson can enter the transfer market with increased optimism after the club confirmed a refinancing package which will slash their annual interest payments by almost 30%.
A deal is due to be concluded at some point next month which will see charges on loans fall from a massive £90million per year to £62million.
Although United's overall debt has increased to £660million under the restructuring plan, the club have been able to cut the amount borrowed at huge cost from hedge funds.
In addition, the remaining £135million owed in the form of higher risk payment-in-kind notes no longer convert into equity, releasing the club from the possibility of being run by bankers.
'This move represents good housekeeping,' said a club spokesman.
'It ensures that Alex Ferguson will be provided with sufficient funds to compete in the transfer market.'
Such a move had been widely anticipated since Malcolm Glazer completed his controversial £790million buy-out just over 12 months ago.
At £660million, United now have the highest debt ever seen at a Premiership football club and many will continue to argue such a burden can only be detrimental to the club's chances of enjoying the kind of sustained success they had in the 1990s.
From Business week at the time
Can Glazer Keep Manchester United Profitable?
Facing fan rage, it will take fancy financial footwork on his part
Malcolm Glazer could really use a David Beckham right now. Having finally won control of Manchester United, Britain's most storied soccer team, after a two-year fight, Glazer is fending off the hostile rants of irate fans who can't stand the idea of the controversial American tycoon owning their favorite team. And to make his pricey deal pay off, he desperately needs to draw worldwide attention to ManU's brand, pump up its fan base, and expand its global presence. Too bad Beckham, a celebrated heartthrob, was sold to Spain's Real Madrid in 2003.
But Glazer, a financier who bought the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 1995, has to start somewhere. He has told the London Stock Exchange he will borrow $490 million to fund the $1.47 billion takeover, and raise a further $509 million by issuing preferred securities to large investors. This means Glazer must ramp up revenues and cut costs in a big way. "For the deal to work, Glazer will have to improve financial performance very significantly," says Sanjib Datta, director at Inner Circle Sports, a London corporate-finance boutique. Yet what had been a growth story for ManU has gone a bit flat, as the team has faltered on the pitch. Rival Chelsea Football club, now owned by a Russian billionaire, has bought the players needed to grab first place in the English Premier League.
Experts in the City of London say the team's financials aren't strong enough to support the new debt Glazer is expected to take on. ManU, which prided itself on its debt-free balance sheet, generates operating profits of just over $90 million on revenues of more than $300 million. While Glazer has yet to reveal the details of his financing arrangement, analysts estimate he will have to shell out at least $55 million a year on interest payments. That doesn't leave much to run the rest of the business. "The logic isn't something that stares you in the face," says Roy Kaitcer, a director at stockbroker Brewin Dolphin Securities Ltd. in Manchester.
Glazer is expected to try to renegotiate key TV contracts and sponsorship deals, as well as co-market and co-brand Tampa Bay and ManU in the U.S. That could pave the way for establishing a global pay-per-view TV network. While fans question his commitment to the club, Glazer is known in the financial world for taking a measured approach to his investments and ManU remains one of the richest sports franchises going. In a statement, son Joel Glazer, who will be running the club, says: "We are long-term sports investors and avid Manchester United fans."
Boosting revenues won't be easy. There are so many games on TV in Britain that "audiences are getting footballed out," says Andy Jones, a TV buyer at ZenithOptimedia, a London-based media buying firm. The Glazers may also have bought ManU at the start of its decline. This could hurt Glazer's strategy to expand abroad, where allegiances to clubs are more fickle than in England.
SLOW BUILD
Glazer's biggest worry may be the clout of Roman Abramovich, the Russian billionaire who owns the Chelsea team. Abramovich's deep pockets, which helped the team win its first title in 50 years, are tough to compete with. Glazer could boost ticket prices, as ManU has already done. Yet since there's a limit on how many price hikes fans will tolerate, Glazer is expected to focus on cost-cutting.
Asia will be key to expanding the franchise. ManU has made inroads in China, thanks in part to its Mandarin-language Web site, and the team has a new soccer school in Hong Kong. The U.S. is not so promising: The number of people who play soccer here has held steady, at 18 million, for a decade. Glazer is a smart manager. But it may be a while before he scores with ManU.
Now it is true Man U may well come out of this having paid off their debt and then they will be in a strong position to spend but it does seem a rather big if to me.
Sorry, when did I see forgien anything was bad? I don't want the club out right owned by anyone, be they English, French, from Swazi Swazi land or Martian.
Why do you have such a mis-trust in forigen investment? Why cannot someone from outside England care and want to be part of Arsenal's future? Its ok for players and I hope you agree its marvellous for instance we have so many Irish Gooners amongst our ranks! So its ok for supporters too! So then what is wrong with "johnny forigener" being positively and actively involved at a higher level?
-
DB10GOONER
- Posts: 62185
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
- Location: Dublin, Ireland.
- Contact:
I'm not too sure about this. On the one hand it looks like DD will be back in an active role at the club, which I welcome to a certain extent.
But I do not have blind faith in DD. I believe he does have Arsenal's wellbeing foremost in his heart. But he is not perfect and can be blinded to the bigger picture by his obsession with the club; he was wrong about Wembley and he was wrong about not wanting us to move to the Grove.
He was also a driving force behind G14's idea to create a true European Super League which would ruin the game we all love; not to mention killing grass roots football in England. Would you honestly rather watch us play against the spuds and Everton and West Ham (who we have a real history with, a tradition going back decades) or watch us play against Sparta Prague or Villareal (who we have no real history or tradition with) week in week out?
So he is not perfect (none of us are!) and he has got it arseways before on major issues. But he is a true Gooner and has done amazing things for us over the years, all credit to him.
But I think the reason he did so well on our board was because he brought balance to the board. He is an inovative, creative person, and he pushed hard to bring us into the modern era and to make us a bigger club. But, vitally, the older, more staid board members restrained him when needed.
I think if DD was let off the leash with no checks and controls in place it could be disasterous, as is often the case with inovative people. I say could be, not definitely would be, but certainly could be.
As for Usmanov, we don't have enough information to really judge him yet. He may well be one of the notorious Obligarchs that profitted (mostly illegally) from the break up of the Soviet Union, but equally he may be an honest hard working man.
I'm afraid we'll just have to wait and see, fingers crossed.
But I do not have blind faith in DD. I believe he does have Arsenal's wellbeing foremost in his heart. But he is not perfect and can be blinded to the bigger picture by his obsession with the club; he was wrong about Wembley and he was wrong about not wanting us to move to the Grove.
He was also a driving force behind G14's idea to create a true European Super League which would ruin the game we all love; not to mention killing grass roots football in England. Would you honestly rather watch us play against the spuds and Everton and West Ham (who we have a real history with, a tradition going back decades) or watch us play against Sparta Prague or Villareal (who we have no real history or tradition with) week in week out?
So he is not perfect (none of us are!) and he has got it arseways before on major issues. But he is a true Gooner and has done amazing things for us over the years, all credit to him.
But I think the reason he did so well on our board was because he brought balance to the board. He is an inovative, creative person, and he pushed hard to bring us into the modern era and to make us a bigger club. But, vitally, the older, more staid board members restrained him when needed.
I think if DD was let off the leash with no checks and controls in place it could be disasterous, as is often the case with inovative people. I say could be, not definitely would be, but certainly could be.
As for Usmanov, we don't have enough information to really judge him yet. He may well be one of the notorious Obligarchs that profitted (mostly illegally) from the break up of the Soviet Union, but equally he may be an honest hard working man.
I'm afraid we'll just have to wait and see, fingers crossed.
Last edited by DB10GOONER on Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
gus ceasar is a legend
- Posts: 9078
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:42 pm
Sod this Im not commenting anymore!
Magic Hat Im afraid I believe poeple like yourself ruin good debate!
You twist and turn peoples comments to suit and we can all copy and paste articles but who is to say they are true in the first place!
I will go as far as saying its blinkered, naive and short sighted vision like yours and the current boards that is holding OUR club back!
Im sorry if this seems offensive but I have lost patience trying to be reasonable!
Magic Hat Im afraid I believe poeple like yourself ruin good debate!
You twist and turn peoples comments to suit and we can all copy and paste articles but who is to say they are true in the first place!
I will go as far as saying its blinkered, naive and short sighted vision like yours and the current boards that is holding OUR club back!
Im sorry if this seems offensive but I have lost patience trying to be reasonable!
hear hear gus.. at the end of the day i dont care who calls themselfs chairman of arsenal fc as long as OUR TEAM ON THE FIELD OF PLAY are able 2 compete,, and thats why i welcome the news of new investors,,remember we are the BIGGEST club in the BIGGEST city in europe,, now lets hav the BIGGEST AND BEST TEAMgus ceasar is a legend wrote:!
You twist and turn peoples comments to suit and we can all copy and paste articles but who is to say they are true in the first place!
I will go as far as saying its blinkered, naive and short sighted vision like yours and the current boards that is holding [/b]OUR club back!
Im sorry if this seems offensive but I have lost patience trying to be reasonable!
-
RockyRockyRocastle
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:52 pm
It's all about keeping our identity.
We support a club with great history, a red and white kit, since we've known it from N5, and the Hill-Wood family have always tried to uphold our traditions.
If you take away the soul and identity of the club it will ruin it for us fans.
Whoever owns Arsenal and runs the club must consider the fans.
Fine have club level - it generates a huge amount of money on a matchday but keep the rest of the stadium as it is now for us fans and consider us.
RedAction were given scraves to help increase the atmosphere on Wednesday it shows the board are still in touch with the fans.
If a new guy comes in he has to remember we are the most important part of the club, we will be there when we win titles, and we will be there if we were to be bottom of the league. We will (virtually) sell out the stadium for Prague at Home when we are 2-up from the first leg. We'll sell out the ground if we get Luton in the Carling Cup. You can be a rich club but if you have empty seats (like the chavs) it's all a bit pointless.
All I ask is the fans are considered and the club we love keeps it's identity and soul. Things can be modernised but tradition can also be kept.
We support a club with great history, a red and white kit, since we've known it from N5, and the Hill-Wood family have always tried to uphold our traditions.
If you take away the soul and identity of the club it will ruin it for us fans.
Whoever owns Arsenal and runs the club must consider the fans.
Fine have club level - it generates a huge amount of money on a matchday but keep the rest of the stadium as it is now for us fans and consider us.
RedAction were given scraves to help increase the atmosphere on Wednesday it shows the board are still in touch with the fans.
If a new guy comes in he has to remember we are the most important part of the club, we will be there when we win titles, and we will be there if we were to be bottom of the league. We will (virtually) sell out the stadium for Prague at Home when we are 2-up from the first leg. We'll sell out the ground if we get Luton in the Carling Cup. You can be a rich club but if you have empty seats (like the chavs) it's all a bit pointless.
All I ask is the fans are considered and the club we love keeps it's identity and soul. Things can be modernised but tradition can also be kept.
-
Hagbard 23
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:19 am
- Location: Agog in the æther.
- Contact:
GUS stop being a big baby and throwing your toys out the pram! What you're doing with MH IS by definition, debating.gus ceasar is a legend wrote:Sod this Im not commenting anymore!
And MH please stop copy and pasting huge tracts of someone else's writing. By all means plagiarize to your hearts content ,but at least have the decency to at least try and translate it to your own words !
GUS start picking those toys up now please....
-
Ben-gooner14
- Posts: 1108
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:40 pm
- Location: Martock (Somerset)
- Contact:
Yum,Yum lol.
I think Magic Hat has made some solid points throughout this thread and I agree with his suspicion of DD.
I don't want this club to be a play-thing for the rich, that is what it becomes if either Red & White or SK take a controlling interest. If they so love football, if they want to create a fantastic team, if they want to give something back to the fans and local community, why don't the main investors behind Red & White and SK do it in their own countries?
SK owns a football club, in a league that is currently in crisis, maybe he should concentrate on sorting the MLS mess out before turning his attentions elsewhere. As for our Russian friend, why does he want to invest in the UK? Anyone who thinks it for his love of OUR club is wrong. He wants to get his money out of Russia and cleaned up before Putin comes gunning. He wants to do a Roman and create a high profile image so the Russian Authorities think twice before doing anything. Believe this...HE WILL WANT A FAT RETURN FOR HIS MONEY.
Manwho are 5 years away from being in serious financial trouble. Radio 5 Live had a great report on it over the weekend. But in brief, they are heavily in debt, the board intend to increase ticket prices every year for the next 5 years and to service all the debt they need to win serious trophies every year...without fail.
There are two statements that DD made yesterday that I don't like:
"I believe that the Board should welcome non British involvement in the club given the wealth of nationalities responsible for Arsenal’s success on the pitch, including that of its manager."
Why?
He might be right, but by his logic surely we should now make Edinburgh the capital of the UK and all the riches that come with that. Afterall, for the past 10 years its on the whole Scotsmen that have made this country economically and politically strong. Just because there is a majority in a profession, does that mean that profession can or should be run be that majority?
"Yes, I want Arsenal to be number one. But without new investors I fear very soon that Arsenal might not be able to compete successfully at the very top level despite the fantastic work of Arsene Wenger."
The board have also had a hand in this "fantastic work" and since when has the club pleaded poverty or Arsene complained of lack of funds? DD's fear seems to be self-serving.
I know of DD's achievements, but in the industry I work in your only as good as your last job. For me DD's over-riding mistake and the reason I don't like this move is his opposition to our new fantastic stadium.
I don't want this club to be a play-thing for the rich, that is what it becomes if either Red & White or SK take a controlling interest. If they so love football, if they want to create a fantastic team, if they want to give something back to the fans and local community, why don't the main investors behind Red & White and SK do it in their own countries?
SK owns a football club, in a league that is currently in crisis, maybe he should concentrate on sorting the MLS mess out before turning his attentions elsewhere. As for our Russian friend, why does he want to invest in the UK? Anyone who thinks it for his love of OUR club is wrong. He wants to get his money out of Russia and cleaned up before Putin comes gunning. He wants to do a Roman and create a high profile image so the Russian Authorities think twice before doing anything. Believe this...HE WILL WANT A FAT RETURN FOR HIS MONEY.
Manwho are 5 years away from being in serious financial trouble. Radio 5 Live had a great report on it over the weekend. But in brief, they are heavily in debt, the board intend to increase ticket prices every year for the next 5 years and to service all the debt they need to win serious trophies every year...without fail.
There are two statements that DD made yesterday that I don't like:
"I believe that the Board should welcome non British involvement in the club given the wealth of nationalities responsible for Arsenal’s success on the pitch, including that of its manager."
Why?
He might be right, but by his logic surely we should now make Edinburgh the capital of the UK and all the riches that come with that. Afterall, for the past 10 years its on the whole Scotsmen that have made this country economically and politically strong. Just because there is a majority in a profession, does that mean that profession can or should be run be that majority?
"Yes, I want Arsenal to be number one. But without new investors I fear very soon that Arsenal might not be able to compete successfully at the very top level despite the fantastic work of Arsene Wenger."
The board have also had a hand in this "fantastic work" and since when has the club pleaded poverty or Arsene complained of lack of funds? DD's fear seems to be self-serving.
I know of DD's achievements, but in the industry I work in your only as good as your last job. For me DD's over-riding mistake and the reason I don't like this move is his opposition to our new fantastic stadium.
