THE BOARD - Kroenke, Usmanov, Finances, AGM etc.

[topgoon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22233389

The picture they have of him is awful, he looks like Jabba the Hutt about to devour Princess Leia(No but I'd like to)

[Top Londoner]

This Transfer League Table is a record of the amount of money spent in transfer fees by English Premier League Football Clubs since 2003.

The Reason for choosing 2003 as the starting point for this table is that this was the year which heralded the begining of hugely wealthy global business men buying football clubs with Roman Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea .

The table also shows new investment which owners have made available to their club managers. The new investment can be seen season by season on the Club page from the Teams Transfer menu.


The "Purchased" column in this table shows the money spent on players in transfer fees by all the English Premier League clubs since 2003.

The "Sold" column shows the money received by the football club from the sale of players in the same period.

In the Nett" column the total of transfer fees received from the sale of Players is subtracted from the total money spent in transfer fees on purchasing players since 2003. This Nett figure is the "new investment" made available each season to the manager to buy players.

The "per season" column is the "Nett" total divided by the number of years that have passed since 2003 giving an average of the money spent in transfer fees by each premiership club each season since 2003.


http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tabl ... -date.html

[Steve_I]

This Transfer League Table is a record of the amount of money spent in transfer fees by English Premier League Football Clubs since 2003.

The Reason for choosing 2003 as the starting point for this table is that this was the year which heralded the begining of hugely wealthy global business men buying football clubs with Roman Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea .

The table also shows new investment which owners have made available to their club managers. The new investment can be seen season by season on the Club page from the Teams Transfer menu.


The "Purchased" column in this table shows the money spent on players in transfer fees by all the English Premier League clubs since 2003.

The "Sold" column shows the money received by the football club from the sale of players in the same period.

In the Nett" column the total of transfer fees received from the sale of Players is subtracted from the total money spent in transfer fees on purchasing players since 2003. This Nett figure is the "new investment" made available each season to the manager to buy players.

The "per season" column is the "Nett" total divided by the number of years that have passed since 2003 giving an average of the money spent in transfer fees by each premiership club each season since 2003.


http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tabl ... -date.html

Phenomenal!

[highburyJD]

isolating a section of our finances only obscures the meaning
during that period we've always had one of the leagues highest wage bills
our 'stars' of that period might have been made but they've still been paid star wages
that has been funded by player sales

surprised how much Villa have spent, 5th highest! have they even come 5th?
Martin O'Neill has been living on past glories for ages now...

[augie]

This Transfer League Table is a record of the amount of money spent in transfer fees by English Premier League Football Clubs since 2003.

The Reason for choosing 2003 as the starting point for this table is that this was the year which heralded the begining of hugely wealthy global business men buying football clubs with Roman Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea .

The table also shows new investment which owners have made available to their club managers. The new investment can be seen season by season on the Club page from the Teams Transfer menu.


The "Purchased" column in this table shows the money spent on players in transfer fees by all the English Premier League clubs since 2003.

The "Sold" column shows the money received by the football club from the sale of players in the same period.

In the Nett" column the total of transfer fees received from the sale of Players is subtracted from the total money spent in transfer fees on purchasing players since 2003. This Nett figure is the "new investment" made available each season to the manager to buy players.

The "per season" column is the "Nett" total divided by the number of years that have passed since 2003 giving an average of the money spent in transfer fees by each premiership club each season since 2003.


http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tabl ... -date.html

Very unfair and lopsided table - doesn't everybody already know that we can't be expected to compete financially with teams like the mighty Norwich or the all conquering Swansea and Southampton and not to mention reading, stoke and fulham

[highburyJD]

Augie - our huge wage bill is funded by our negative net spend
one number is meaningless without the other

League positions are more likely to correlate with wage bills than transfer spending
within those terms its a logical model

although I believe we pay a disproportionately high chunk of wages to non first team players
which skews thos figures, in order to make us more profitable on the transfer fee front
(we also have a 'deadwood' problem that should be reduced this summer)
pay the best wages to kids and you at least have assets to sell, even if they don't make the first team

[1989]

Usmanov could easily buy Kroenke out so why the fuck has he not done so already?

[REB]

Usmanov could easily buy Kroenke out so why the fuck has he not done so already?

because kroneke doesn't want to sell at this time.

[northbank123]

Although that table shows our lack of (net) spend even 5th-placed Spurs have only spent £12m/season more than us since 2003. Notwithstanding that we had players in that squad we were able to realise value out of (nearly £50m for Vieira, Toure and Henry all at the end of their careers as well as a young Fabregas ultimately worth £30m+ and Cole) whereas they didn't.

But when we're paying more than £50m more in wages it puts it into perspective. You can differentiate between wage spending and transfer spending and say one should correlate more with league positions but at the end of the day we're spending a hell of a lot more money than them every season on our squad. So it comes down to a question of which club is using their resources better?

We're prohibited from spending money on transfers because of what we spunk away on Wenger's 'socialist' brainchild/brain-abortion of a wage policy. It's not that the money hasn't been there - it's that it's been spent on the wrong things.

It's okay though, because yet again this year we're going to have a 'clear out' Contract renewals to 6 players (most with 3 or 4 years unexpired so there's only one reason -pay hike) mid-season and possibly a few more at the end... don't be surprised to see our wage bill creep up again even though a few players are out of contract finally.

[Brady's left peg]

Usmanov could easily buy Kroenke out so why the fuck has he not done so already?

because kroneke doesn't want to sell at this time.

Theoretically Kroenke could be offered a price so high for his shares that he would be a mug not to accept, the trouble is should Usmanov offer that kind of money, it would over value the club by a huge amount. If at a later date he wanted to sell there is no way he could get his money back.
Best case scenario..... he walks away and loses a lot of cash.
Worst case scenario..... He sells every available asset the club has and then walks away leaving us in the shit!
As REB says if Kroenke won't sell we are stuck with him.

[supergeorgegraham]

While Arsenal have the evil Kronke in charge we are doomed. Its more important than the Manager leaving as finances are what the top positions are run on now.
Still I dont think Chelsea or City have won near enough considering what they spent.
United on the other hand have done it all perfectly. Ferguson must be the best manager of all time and Wenger is miles miles behind.
Mind you if you look at what Wenger has done to Arsenal financially then he is miles ahead of Fergsuon. Pushing AFC to 4th richest club in the world is in itself unreal but we will never be pleased because as fans we rightly want to win trophies.
Usmanov should get his chance but you feel that Kronke will not sell because the club still improves in terms of financial growth from loyal loyal loyal support.
As for football I will always remember the great 1997/8 team and of course 2004.

[Top Londoner]

supergeorgegraham wrote.

"While Arsenal have the evil Kronke in charge we are doomed."

I agree however, as some have posted on here that there is no longer the lengthy waiting list for ST's then, just perhaps, his doom has started?
It will be interesting to see how the close season pans out and how much easier it might be to be offered a ST.
I reckon Kranky will bail out at the point of seeing we are not selling out ST's.

[Arsenal Till I Die]

If we don't get into the Champions League I think that Wiggy will sell up very quickly. The loss of money to the club would hurt his pockets, the public demand to BUY players to ensure this doesn't happen again may also ruffle some feathers.

Anyway, if we do get into the CL we've got that Arab consortium that will buy us out......even thoughwe've heard nothing of it since......

[Herd]

I have no clue of Stans plans or intentions however I do know that long before he was the majority stakeholder he already had bought and separated Arsenals TV rights so that in a post Sky ERA where Arsenal TV can be sold directly by Cable to subscribers or sold individually to a Network who in turn provide it to subscribers.
Such deals are currently ripping the old order apart in the states with lakers dodgers deals to time warner and others in the making paying not millions but billions for TV rights and Owning as he does a number of sporting franchises he might yet to a whopper of a deal for the TV rights.

To think he will just roll over and sell at whatever price is offered if we dont get chumps league is naive.
To the best of my knowledge he has money he isn't under any pressure to sell so I dont think he's about to sell to anyone unless the price is right and I dont mean for a few bucks but multiples of what he paid .

I think Usmanov already knows this so he is trying to get a fan based campaign going ,as he has done since he sent Dein round to the home of one of our lot however that hasn't gone very well.

The BSM and this Organ is the worst it gets and lets face it that isn't much so dont expect any rash moves on Stans behalf as I firmly believe he is here for the long term.

I do however see Usmanov selling as his money is effectively dead ,no dividends ,no control ,no lookee at the bookies !

[Brady's left peg]

I have no clue of Stans plans or intentions however I do know that long before he was the majority stakeholder he already had bought and separated Arsenals TV rights in a post Sky ERA where Arsenal TV can be sold directly by Cable to subscribers or sold individually to a Network who in turn provide it to subscribers.
Such deals are currently ripping the old order apart in the states with lakers dodgers deals to time warner and others in the making paying not millions but billions for TV rights and Owning as he does a number of sporting franchises he might yet to a whopper of a deal for the TV rights.

To think he will just roll over and sell at whatever price is offered if we dont get chumps league is naive.
To the best of my knowledge he has money he isn't under any pressure to sell so I dont think he's about to sell to anyone unless the price is right and I dont mean for a few bucks but multiples of what he paid .

I think Usmanov already knows this so he is trying to get a fan based campaign going ,as he has done since he sent Dein round to the home of one of our lot however that hasn't gone very well.

The BSM and this Organ is the worst it gets and lets face it that isn't much so dont expect any rash moves on Stans behalf as I firmly believe he is here for the long term.

I do however see Usmanov selling as his money is effectively dead ,no dividends ,no control ,no lookee at the bookies !

I have no idea how these tv deal thingies are sorted out, but surely the basis of maximising your revenue has to be how successful you are. In much the same way that we are now seeing empty seats at the grove, the number of tv subscribers would fall as the club continues its decline.
As an investor in property and land I'm sure Kroenke is well aware of the term "you have to speculate to accumulate", so why does he seem content to oversee his investment waning. If he was passionate about the club it wouldn't be happening but even purely as a business model, surely even the stupidest of owners is not going to standby idly by and watch the profits start drying up.

Kroenke out!!