COPS in Highbury (BADDD BOYS! Whatcha Gon' DO?)

Post by **flash gunner** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:09 pm

kingjayson1 wrote:Where is the presentation of evidence?

USMartin · Post by **USMartin** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:09 pm

kingjayson1 wrote:Where is the presentation of evidence?

Apparently you have none to present.

Henry Norris 1913 · Post by **Henry Norris 1913** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:12 pm

USMartin wrote:Oh and the players who left in the summer of 01 - Stefan Malz, Guy Demel and Sylvinho. I'd say we didn't give up quite as much that summer or fail to replace any of the quality we lost in 2001.

@Martin, Wozza, other wenger apologists-

Overmars left in 2000 for Â£24m to Barca, Petit for around Â£10m, and Sylvinho in 2001 for Â£13m. Don't forget Anelka in 1999 for Â£23m and you can see ever since the first wenger double-winning sides we always made a profit by selling our best players and spending less on replacements . Its part of wenger's philosophy , he will usually only spend what he has made.

Give me one reason why the board since DD has held back money other than to pay off stadium debts and to account for the highbury development

redstevo · Post by **redstevo** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:31 pm

Fellas you are all just wasting your time!

Look back through the history of the forum and you will find this topic debated with the same facts figures etc only different people sucked in to a debate with the obsessive compulsive USM Babbitt.

I seriously think the guy is a WUM, another panto, monostich, etc

This forum has been dragged into a state where the majority of threads are turned into the USM show.

If there is one person who is more interested in using arsenal has a tool to give his sad life meaning that USM I would be surprised.

Don't feed the troll!!! Just say 'Yes Martin, you are right'. Maybe only then will he bugger off!!!

Post by **flash gunner** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:32 pm

redstevo wrote:Fellas you are all just wasting your time!

Look back through the history of the forum and you will find this topic debated with the same facts figures etc only different people sucked in to a debate with the obsessive compulsive USM Babbitt.

I seriously think the guy is a WUM, another panto, monostich, etc

This forum has been dragged into a state where the majority of threads are turned into the USM show.

If there is one person who is more interested in using arsenal has a tool to give his sad life meaning that USM I would be surprised.

Don't feed the troll!!! Just say 'Yes Martin, you are right'. Maybe only then will he bugger off!!!

Youre right mate.......

or ban him

for hijacking

redstevo · Post by **redstevo** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:35 pm

Ban him? No.

Agree with him? Yes.

Let him destroy the forum? No way!!

Post by **flash gunner** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:36 pm

redstevo wrote:Ban him? No.

Agree with him? Yes.

Let him destroy the forum? No way!!

Spot on mate if only everyone would do the same

redstevo · Post by **redstevo** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:37 pm

I AGREE WITH RAINMAN!!!

Post by **flash gunner** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:41 pm

redstevo wrote:I AGREE WITH RAINMAN!!!

me too

Post by **HashKads** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:43 pm

USMartin wrote:
kingjayson1 wrote:Where is the presentation of evidence?
Apparently you have none to present.

I am not the one with an overboard freaky obsession darling.

Post by **flash gunner** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:45 pm

kingjayson1 wrote:
USMartin wrote:
kingjayson1 wrote:Where is the presentation of evidence?
Apparently you have none to present.
I am not the one with an overboard freaky obsession darling.

Take the wind out of his sails agree with him

Post by **HashKads** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:49 pm

flash gunner wrote:
kingjayson1 wrote:
USMartin wrote:
kingjayson1 wrote:Where is the presentation of evidence?
Apparently you have none to present.
I am not the one with an overboard freaky obsession darling.

Take the wind out of his sails agree with him

How can I agree with him when I believe the club did the right thing by redeveloping Highbury themselves? I would of even been happy if Mr Hill-Wood decided to be the foreman.

USMartin · Post by **USMartin** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:51 pm

Henry Norris 1913 wrote:
USMartin wrote:Oh and the players who left in the summer of 01 - Stefan Malz, Guy Demel and Sylvinho. I'd say we didn't give up quite as much that summer or fail to replace any of the quality we lost in 2001.
@Martin, Wozza, other wenger apologists-

Overmars left in 2000 for Â£24m to Barca, Petit for around Â£10m, and Sylvinho in 2001 for Â£13m. Don't forget Anelka in 1999 for Â£23m and you can see ever since the first wenger double-winning sides we always made a profit by selling our best players and spending less on replacements . Its part of wenger's philosophy , he will usually only spend what he has made.

Give me one reason why the board since DD has held back money other than to pay off stadium debts and to account for the highbury development

Easy - the money stays inside the club and increases it's value and shre price.

Investors are gamblers, but they also like making safe money as wellas big money and big and safe money is the best of all, and wehn we report record and increasing cash Resevres year after year that will not only attract investors but will assure them that we are low-risk buys with high profit probablilty. Net debt is the measurement of total debts against cash reserves.

If a company is not looking for major outside investment or even new ownership to buy out current investors altogether this number is meaningless in circumtstances like ours as we would bring highly unforseen circustances have more than ample resources to service our debt annually without said reserves (it is after all a very large mortgage we can more then pay off from our annual revenue now).

In other words holding back cash increases the company's share price on its own and decreases the risk to investors of buying iinto a company and thus makes buying in a higher prices more likely.

Note the comment beow

http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=net-debt

"...This is one aspect to think about when considering investing in a company..."

In other words spend less high and you have higher profits, cash reserves and lower net debt making the stock only more attractive (and thus expensive) but less risky to purchase. Could have a little something to do with that maybe...

Post by **flash gunner** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:51 pm

kingjayson1 wrote:
flash gunner wrote:
kingjayson1 wrote:
USMartin wrote:
kingjayson1 wrote:Where is the presentation of evidence?
Apparently you have none to present.
I am not the one with an overboard freaky obsession darling.

Take the wind out of his sails agree with him

How can I agree with him when I believe the club did the right thing by redeveloping Highbury themselves? I would of even been happy if Mr Hill-Wood decided to be the foreman.

You just want to see Hill-Woods Helmet/hard hat

Post by **HashKads** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:55 pm

flash gunner wrote:
kingjayson1 wrote:
flash gunner wrote:
kingjayson1 wrote:
USMartin wrote: Apparently you have none to present.
I am not the one with an overboard freaky obsession darling.

Take the wind out of his sails agree with him

How can I agree with him when I believe the club did the right thing by redeveloping Highbury themselves? I would of even been happy if Mr Hill-Wood decided to be the foreman.

You just want to see Hill-Woods Helmet/hard hat

It would be like your shrivelled disused little number

COPS in Highbury (BADDD BOYS! Whatcha Gon' DO?)

Will this show win at the BAFTAs