The Gooner Forum

As I said in Frank's thread challening people to defend Arsene Wenger

There is no no reason to emotionally analyze objective facts. The question is what makes sense logically based on what we in fact actually know.[/b

]

No what do we actually know

We know that

1) The Arsenal Board had intended to sell Highbury to help pay for the new stadium loan's repayment for as much as 80 million GBP, but decided instead to redevelop the property themselves because that would be more profitable but did so while insisting the Club remain financially self-sustaining including in the re-payment of the additional 120 million pound debt obligation they chose to take on on top of the 300 million GBP debt on the new stadium


2 The Arsenal Board then borrowed an additional 120 million GBP (135 million with interest) on top of the 300-plus million it already now owed to creditors while still enforcing the club operate under the self-sustaining business model on all transactions

3) That in order to to deal with the financial instability this created while working within that business model investment in the football team was cut drastically, though the Arsenal Board had denied that would ever happen prior to 2005 and denied it was happening after 2005 another 4-5 years and has never associated that with the cost of financing re-developing Highbury now even.3

4) That after borrowing this 120 million and commencing this project Arsena;'s share price rose from about 1600 GBP as the Invincible Season ended in 2004 to 4000 GBP as Patrick Vieira signed off with the PK that gave us the 2005 FA Cup up to 8500 When Dan Fiszman sold a third of his holdings and the carr family divested in 2008 and to 11700 when the Board and former Board members finally sold to Stan Kroenke as we completed a sixth trophyless season

Everything numbered above is fact. Not rumour, not specilation, not supposition, not fevered dream. Fact, and facts we all know of have easy access to,

So based on the facts which makes more sense logically

1) That our Board decided to pursue making additional profits in property development and construction that would increase the club's share price and the value of major shareholders stock ahead of cashing in, and in order to do this without risking undermining the project reduced investment in the football team with the manager's cooperation as he had little logical choice but to do so in thiose circumstances,and was handsomely paid not to protest too much

or

2) That Arsene Wenger on his own driven by ego, warped principle, or incompetence chose to abandon everything that had allowed him and his sides to achieve a historical level of success at Arsenal, and that he did this ignoring the feeling of Arsenal supprters Arsenal players and the Arsenal Board, and that though they wished for him to do things as he had been doing them, the Board could not sack him, because they were too incomptent to realize this and too dependent on or too afraid of Arsene Wenger to act.

Which makes more sense logically?

I'd say the reason for the share price rising is primarily because of two things:

1) Move to a new Stadium, which will earn us £3m per game (£1m profit).
2) Kroenke buying into the Club in 2007 and then Usmanov buying Dein's stake, when everyone expected Kroenke to buy them. With two eager buyers, this drove the share price up.

If anything the Highbury Square deal has dented the share price by creating a cash-flow situation that has only recently been solved (by selling the bulk of the remaining flats).

I think you pay too much credence to the Highbury redevelopment. At the end of the day, this was a ring-fenced Property deal that went wrong for a few years. Since early 2010 it has had no influence on the Club's finances and has actually driven out c. £30m of profit. Why has this not been spent on the squad, when we can all see the glaring deficencies?

Please tell me how Wenger has been constrained since 2010?

What you have printed as fact is not all fact.

Richard Carr left the board in 2008, but divested in 2010.

frankbutcher wrote:I'd say the reason for the share price rising is primarily because of two things:

1) Move to a new Stadium, which will earn us £3m per game (£1m profit).
2) Kroenke buying into the Club in 2007 and then Usmanov buying Dein's stake, when everyone expected Kroenke to buy them. With two eager buyers, this drove the share price up.

I would agree largely here excepet that massively oversimplifies things

First off nobody can buy stock unless people want to sell it, and that fact that Stan Kroenke initially purchased share for Arsenal Board members namely Dan Fiszman shows that the custodians of our club for all their commitment to long term and the Arsenal Way the spoke and speak of still may not have been so sincere after all.

Secondly many people have referred to and I believe you have as well(feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that success or the lack of success on the pitch will impact the share price as well.

Yet during our most successful years 2002-2005 since the 1930's the share price hovered between 1400 and 1700 GBP a share before shooting to 4000 a share in 2005 after we borrowed the additional 120 million GBP while we were still yet to play a match at the Emirates and two years before Stan Kreonke showed any interest in Arsenal.

I think it is not antirely accurate to protray the rise in our share pirice as solely down to the interest of Stan Kroenke and Alisher Usmanov, but the real complaint is it seems to ignore the reality that people on the Board had to be interested in selling to them otherwise there was nothing for them to buy and the question is did they make any decisions that negatively affected the football team make those sales more personally profitable? I believe the board should be accountable to answer that question honestly and candidly.

frankbutcher wrote: If anything the Highbury Square deal has dented the share price by creating a cash-flow situation that has only recently been solved (by selling the bulk of the remaining flats). [ /quote]

I think this is correct, if by denting to share price you mean limiting its growth upward. The fact is that from 2005 to 2011 there are only to periods of significant decline in the share price. I would say had the Board reached into their own pockets as Peter Hill-Wood once acknowledged they did not do at Arsenal that indeed the share price might have reached 15000-17000 if they had eased the cash flow issues by now but why not not just push it to 12000 without spending your own money to do so?

The first is a sharply drastic and sudden and brief decline in 2007 consistent with the entire stock market the weeks the world teetered on the edge of economic depression. The second is a longer and steadier decline in 2009 associated with the reports from out of the club itself that we might not meet our 2010 debt obligations on time - specifically the re-payment of the 120 million GBP Highbury re-development loan
due in-full in spring 2010.

That's it. yes there are brief downward shifts throughout the five years as there are brief upward ones ito balance them, but overall the pice moves staedilu up ward excpet for one period where the entire market was similarly impacted and one where the overborrowing to re-develop Highbury looked to have backfired. When the laon was paid on time the share price not only recovered but impoved even further.

[quote= "frank butcher]I think you pay too much credence to the Highbury redevelopment. At the end of the day, this was a ring-fenced Property deal that went wrong for a few years. Since early 2010 it has had no influence on the Club's finances and has actually driven out c. £30m of profit. Why has this not been spent on the squad, when we can all see the glaring deficencies?[/quote]


I think quite the contrary. As you acknowledge the cash-flow probems it c reated have only recently been solved and I think those cash flow problems are solely behind the decline in investment in the football team the premature break-up of the Invincibles and the introduction of a money-saving youth system and a wage structure which undermined any chance investing in outside talent in the transfer market of Arsenal quality we had seen from 2002-2005 certainly.

I would also say we do not not know with certainty about any ring-fencing at this point. Indeed the new stadium was supposed to be ring-fnced but now both Arsene Wenger and Board members are acknowledging that was not entirely true. The funny things I think that was the case. I think had we simply sold Highbury and paid off the stadium loan anually with those funds from 2005-2007 there would not have been any cash flow crisis to impact investment in the football team and force breaking up the team then or under-investing it moving forward.

I think its was very calculated how they always before and now mention the stadium and how much it cost but never discussing the re-development and its impact on Arsenal Football Club's finances at all. from 2005-2010 The Board insisted the new stadium had no negative impact on our spending, and now they insist that it did. They would rather say anything even make themselves look like out-and-out liars than discuss the Highbury re-development. Wonder why....

[quote= "frank butcher"]Please tell me how Wenger has been constrained since 2010?[/quote]


The new wage structure almost certainly. In 2004 our wage bill was 64 million GBP annually and we had two players on over 100K a week and two more players on over 70K week. Now our wage bill is nearly double that and we have just one player on over 100K a week and tow more players on over 70K a week.

And that makes Arsenal utterly non-competitive on the wage front for top players who command higher wages and thus transfer fees, which means we can insist we have money to spend and feel safe knowing it won't be spent because we'll never agree wages with those 20-30 million pound transfer targets. And while that moey including the 30 million refers to goes unspent out profits remain higher and our net debt as well both of which just happen to increase a company's value and share price.

FFS not another one of these threads. Is nobody bored with the same old shit yet?

Cos there were no other threads you could of posted this in you attention seeking fuckmonger

So for the last 3 seasons at least, when the board have come out and said there is money to spend, Wenger has not spent it because he was covering up the fact that there was actually NO money available and he was lying and protecting his employers, whom he owes nothing to , whilst risking his reputation by lying to the clubs supporters and the worlds media?

Do you not think that if Arsenal were actually broke during that time, that some journalist, somewhere, would not have uncovered it because it would have made a massive story, what with The board lying in front of TV cameras, one of the worlds 'biggest' clubs, struggling?

Or do you think it's possible that the board said to Wenger, 'we have £XXm available if you think you need it' and Wenger, being the qualified Economics expert, being the prudent manager, being the stubborn gambler (with unknown, bargain basement signings) that he is, may have said 'I'll do it my way and keep us in the top 4, bringing in CL money for the next few years, but I need to be involved in the general running of the club, and do things my way'.

When Wenger came to Arsenal, he openly stated that he could not work with a board that interfered, he had to be able to do things his way.
He has had that wish and more.

There is absolutely no logical reason why Arsene Wenger should put his worldwide reputation on the line to protect a board of directors, no logical reason at all and yet you Martin, believe that is the case? Please answer that question:

Why would Wenger lie publicly to cover the board and risk his own reputation in doing so?

QuartzGooner wrote:What you have printed as fact is not all fact.

Richard Carr left the board in 2008, but divested in 2010.

My understanding is the Carr Family divisted in 3008 when they and Dan Fiszman sold holdings to Mr. Kroenke. Perhaps I am confused here but that is my understanding - that when Mr. Fiszman sold one-third of his holdings at 8500K a share to Mr. Kroenke that the Carr family do so at that price as well.

Otherwise that defense is up there with "I didn't shoot joey.Tommy shot Joey, and I shot Tommy..."

USMartin wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:What you have printed as fact is not all fact.

Richard Carr left the board in 2008, but divested in 2010.

My understanding is the Carr Family divisted in 3008 when they and Dan Fiszman sold holdings to Mr. Kroenke. Perhaps I am confused here but that is my understanding - that when Mr. Fiszman sold one-third of his holdings at 8500K a share to Mr. Kroenke that the Carr family do so at that price as well.

Otherwise that defense is up there with "I didn't shoot joey.Tommy shot Joey, and I shot Tommy..."

? Whats with you and shooting people

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... older.html


March - July 2009 - Kroenke increases his shareholding to more than 20 per cent after buying 5,000 shares from Arsenal director Danny Fiszman. In May, Kroenke buys the shares of the Carr family, increasing his stake to 28.3 per cent, and then in July he buys 160 more shares to reach 28.58 per cent.

USMartin wrote: So based on the facts which makes more sense logically

1) That our Board decided to pursue making additional profits in property development and construction that would increase the club's share price and the value of major shareholders stock ahead of cashing in, and in order to do this without risking undermining the project reduced investment in the football team with the manager's cooperation as he had little logical choice but to do so in thiose circumstances,and was handsomely paid not to protest too much

or

2) That Arsene Wenger on his own driven by ego, warped principle, or incompetence chose to abandon everything that had allowed him and his sides to achieve a historical level of success at Arsenal, and that he did this ignoring the feeling of Arsenal supprters Arsenal players and the Arsenal Board, and that though they wished for him to do things as he had been doing them, the Board could not sack him, because they were too incomptent to realize this and too dependent on or too afraid of Arsene Wenger to act.

Which makes more sense logically?

Martin, why does it have to be black or white, the Board or Wenger?

I just don't get this at all.

The Board wanted to make money. They wanted to make a lot of money, because they realised that they could. They were 'custodians' only when there was no way of making money from the shares, as soon as the Premier League exploded they saw their chance. New Stadium, more tickets sold, share price rises, etc., etc, sell up.

They did it. FACT. The Board has gone. They made their money.

Now I can't believe that you think that Wenger didn't know that this was going to happen, and that he either was so stupid that he just went along with it, or that he was somehow tricked by the Board into believing there was money to spend when there wasn't.

It's quite clear that Wenger AND The Board formulated this plan. There is no other way it could have worked. Do you think the Board would just whisper whenever Wenger was in ear-shot, so that he wouldn't know what they were up to?

Do you think Wenger believed them when they said there was no money to spend, and then just went out to buy some cheap promising youngsters, but that he really wanted to buy the finished article? Or is it possible that Wenger was told before the Stadium was built that no money would be available for big signings for a few years after the Stadium was finished, and that Wenger would have to seek out up and coming stars to keep us in the Top 4, and gladly accepted that challenge, as this project was exactly what he wanted.

Do you think Wenger doesn't know that there is still the cash from the Adebayor and Kolo transfers in the bank, and he could spend that with no adverse effects on our repayment plan?

When the Board tell the World and his dog that The Arsenal have money to spend in the transfer window - do you then think they go and see Wenger and tell him that he is not allowed to spend that money, and he'd better not say anything, otherwise he'll get a chinese burn?

Wenger AND The Board. Wenger is part of the Board. He is just as guilty. There is no way that Wenger didn't know - well, there is one way - and that would mean he's as thick as shit, and of course he is not.

Unless you believe that the Board just paid him off to be quiet - which you seem to suggest, and how would that be better? Would Wenger come out of this with his reputation intact if he was just paid a bit of cash to shut up and not protest?

Wenger and The Board - tarred with the same brush. There is just no other scenario.

The Board wanted the money. They got it.

Wenger wanted his project. He got it.

TeeCee wrote:So for the last 3 seasons at least, when the board have come out and said there is money to spend, Wenger has not spent it because he was covering up the fact that there was actually NO money available and he was lying and protecting his employers, whom he owes nothing to , whilst risking his reputation by lying to the clubs supporters and the worlds media?

Do you not think that if Arsenal were actually broke during that time, that some journalist, somewhere, would not have uncovered it because it would have made a massive story, what with The board lying in front of TV cameras, one of the worlds 'biggest' clubs, struggling?

Or do you think it's possible that the board said to Wenger, 'we have £XXm available if you think you need it' and Wenger, being the qualified Economics expert, being the prudent manager, being the stubborn gambler (with unknown, bargain basement signings) that he is, may have said 'I'll do it my way and keep us in the top 4, bringing in CL money for the next few years, but I need to be involved in the general running of the club, and do things my way'.

When Wenger came to Arsenal, he openly stated that he could not work with a board that interfered, he had to be able to do things his way.
He has had that wish and more.

There is absolutely no logical reason why Arsene Wenger should put his worldwide reputation on the line to protect a board of directors, no logical reason at all and yet you Martin, believe that is the case? Please answer that question:

Why would Wenger lie publicly to cover the board and risk his own reputation in doing so?

Spot on post. Infact its so good that Marty has chosen to ignore it.

Marty.... if you are watching, please read this post, break it down, and give us your slant?

Great post babu.He isnt going to agree with you even though you have hit the nail on the head.