PLUS Markets closing, could be good for Usmanov...

[Talkspot]

If it wasn't for the billionnaires it'd be a two horse race between us and Utd.

The only other teams to win the Premiership are Blackburn, Chelsea and City, all through investing heavily.

Wenger has already stated that finishing third means he doesn't need to spend big and that says to me that we are aiming for Champions League football every season and nothing else. That is unnacceptable for a club of our stature.

I highly doubt AW ever said that, that type of comment is so against his philosophy.

[Plymouth Gooner]

What is it about Usmanov that people don't trust?

We aren't hiring him as a baby sitter, we we want him to come in and invest big money to turn us into a winning side again. We don't want a nice bloke in charge, we want someone who is ruthless and not affraid to get rid of people who don't do their jobs properly!

Kroenke seems too nice to me, too happy to just go along with what Wenger and the board say.

I'm also pretty sure that I've seen Usmanov at more games than I have seen Kroenke at which suggests to me he cares more.

[Plymouth Gooner]

If it wasn't for the billionnaires it'd be a two horse race between us and Utd.

The only other teams to win the Premiership are Blackburn, Chelsea and City, all through investing heavily.

Wenger has already stated that finishing third means he doesn't need to spend big and that says to me that we are aiming for Champions League football every season and nothing else. That is unnacceptable for a club of our stature.

I highly doubt AW ever said that, that type of comment is so against his philosophy.

I can't find the link, anyone want to help me out?

[Leody]

Fascinating page

I've always tried to keep my faith in our model. The lack of spending after ALL that profit had me questioning things though "where was the money". At least we know now that it (or most of it) has actually gone into reducing the debt.

Two good arguments from Leo and Zedie though.

1. Use profit to make more profit. Understandable. (buy the right players, improve the squad, earn more from titles)
2. The inflated market due to Citeh, Chelski, PSG etc has priced us out of buying the right players, and we won't spend recklessly. Also understandable (buy young players, out of contract players, or obscure players that won't command a high wage).

They counter eachother to some extent... although I'm sure there's some happy medium somewhere.

Our hand was forced last year after the sale of two (one and a half) influential players. So we can purchase if needed.

If the list GG noted above (Kagawa, M'Vila etc) were all possible, that would be perfect. But someone like M'Vila would have been a typical Wenger buy a few seasons ago, and now Citeh are in for him... it's almost like there are no obscure players these days. Scouting networks cover more countries than ever, top clubs own teams abroad with the purpose of developing local talent and giving them first refusal. It's more difficult than ever, in every respect.

To be clear, paying off debt early isn't a horrible idea or anything, that's not what I'm saying. It just isn't the best thing to do, and as an investor, it raises doubt about the leadership of the company, as does a business paying dividends. Not the greatest usages of cash. But they're not horrible indications either.

The best run companies don't do those things though.

[Est83]

Perfetctly clear the first time mate.


Kinda the reason behind my comment about a "happy medium". The info in the 'financial health' thread had it down that we had paid £210m in three years, getting the debt down to £98m (Could be as low as £40m now??? ) That's definitely something to be commended, but when you look back and know that we've been literally only one or two signings away from a title, you can't help but think signings could have been made as well as making a considerable effort toward reducing the debt.

[gzagee]

I like the fact that we're self-sufficient. We're a rarity in the Prem, a bunch of f**king odd-balls just because we operate at a profit... any other league and we would be commended!!!

The debt/s is/are soon to be cleared, we can judge the board/manager after that. The shackles will be off!

They'll find another excuse to "shackle" themselves. The debt isn't as big a problem as they make it out to be. A couple of years ago they over paid on it by something around £100m, what if they had used a bit of that on improving the squad?

Without going into too much financial jargon, when you pay of debt early to save let's say 8% interest (made up number) you're saying to the world, I'm not able to find anything that I could do with this money to improve my business and get better than an 8% return. IMO, that's a very poor indication of the quality of business man that's running Arsenal.

It says to me that the company is risk averse and doesn't want to spunk all the reserves on 3-4 players at £20m each, leaving £40-20m for any eventualities. Yes they could easily spend more money, but That needs to be signed off by board, not wenger.

Gunn - Im actually surprised you don't want usmanov? He's a billionaire that's willing to give you what your asking for constantly and he won't give a shit about spending it? Or are you hoping that stab is going to change he's thought process overnight?

I really don't get how you can continue to blame wenger for not spending money when it not him that signs off?

Why would i want a Russian rapist using my club as a play thing? I agree with Gza that getting him in may force the boards hand, but i don't want a Chelsea situation where the owner overules the manager and brings in players HE wants to club.

And pray tell what is it i am exactly asking for?

Am i asking for Messi esc signings? No
Am i asking for us to spend £30-£40m on one player? No
Am i asking for the manager of this club to be more tactically open minded? Yes
Am i asking the manager of this club to strengthen areas which he has neglected for years? Yes

The club has money, lots of money, the last time i checked there was over £100m in the pot with about £55m directly available for transfers.

Are you telling me that AW is not allowed that to spend on the team? I don't think so, the reason why i continue to blame Wenger is because

A) We were told the debt was managed in such a way that it would not impact on our transfer budget - Lie
B) We were told that by moving to a Cereal bowl we would be able to compete with the worlds elite clubs - Lie
C) We have been told at least once a season that substantial funds are available for transfers - Lie
D) We are told at least once a season that we can afford world class players - Lie
E) We can compete with Chelsea - Lie

Those are just off the pitch matters, i can't stand being lied to, i would have preferred it from the off if the club had been honest, but they and Wenger continue to shovel this shit in our faces and then have the cheek to charge some of the highest ticket prices and season renewals in the world.

No, im asking you which 3-4 quality players you would sign to add that extra with a seperate wage budget of £230k and £60m to spend. Answers on a postcard please.

Also:


A) We were told the debt was managed in such a way that it would not impact on our transfer budget - Lie - we have basically spent the same amount of money per player as we traditionally have, we are not a club who go out and traditionally break British transfer fees - not much has changed imo

B) We were told that by moving to a Cereal bowl we would be able to compete with the worlds elite clubs - Lie - Not immediately, but yes, the revenue created from 60000 seats v 38000 seats in the long run, is going to be more. Its just not going to happen in 3-4 years which is quite frankly unrealistic.

C) We have been told at least once a season that substantial funds are available for transfers - Lie Spot on. We splashed big this season because we had a fire sale at the same time. Id agree that this whole 'we have a war chest speech is bollocks. We do, but not compared to the teams around us

D) We are told at least once a season that we can afford world class players - Lie - AWs definitions of world class seem to be different to the general football fan. They are random players when they come, they are world class players when they leave. Henry, Cesc, Vieira, Pires, Cole etc

E) We can compete with Chelsea - Lie - We cant compete financially. If you ask me if i think we can beat Chelsea in a football match home or away my answer would be yes. If you ask me if we can beat them league position next season, id say yes, if we apply ourselves so nothing has changed.


To conclude, our board dont think the way the average fan does and their plans dont happen in seasons they happen in decades. There will come a point when we are not in a situation that we have no debt and we can use whatever profit we make to do whatever we want, and it doesnt have to be a new stadium as we have one. We wont be in a position like the Manures, Shittys, Chelseas and Liverfools (nearly to deadly effect) were and are, because we are not relying on one mans decision as to whether or not he can be arsed to have a football club anymore. Not too long ago, Liverfool fans were looking at an abyss, and i for one dont want to end up like that.

We are a self sufficient business, like it or not and regardless if you want Stan to scrap sensible financial policies to spunk money (whether it be 20m or 50m per player!), this is how it will be while hes at the helm. Benitez, Martinez, Guardiola etc may come to the Emirates, but they will have to work by the same rules.

Answers on a post card?

Podolski - £11m - £80k a week
M'Vila - £17m - £70k a week
Kagawa - £7m - £60k a week
Suarez - £7m - £60k a week

Thats not even £50m and on 4 players that would strengthen the squad and starting 11 and more importantly give us more options tactically.

What people fail to realise is that there is little thing called infaltion, £7m 5-10 years years ago doesn't go as far as £7m today, as inflation increases especially with the likes of PSG, Anzhi and City running around you have to up your spend.

What you also seem to have glazed over is that in the past 7 seasons we have operated at a substanial profit in the transfer market, that is wrong, and clearly dictates that we are a selling club.

Lastly, World Class when they leave, when they LEAVE.

When you let World Class players leave, you have to replace that class otherwise as we have found out to our cost, your quality drops and leaves us in the situation we are in now, with absolutely zero chance of winning everything and no winning mentality.

World Class players don't just bring quality they bring match winning experience and this myth that World Class players cost the Earth is completely wrong.

Say for example we had never signed Park, would you have been happy replacing Van Persie with him? Because that is what Wenger does every season. As a club we have lost more World Class players than probably any other top team, when was the last time we actually bought a player who was a proven world class player?

You couldn't even describe Arshavin as World Class, he stood out in one tournament and was good for less than 6 months before proving himself an expensive flop.

We don't need several World Class players but we do need something, just one box office smash, a player who can just take the game by the balls and pull something out of the bag.

Podolski is not that player IMO but someone like Kagawa probably is, if he didn't have one year on his contract left he would be a £20m+ player.

Rosicky when he arrived was a bonified world class midfielder who would have commanded a £20m+ fee at a time when a handful of players went for that money, we took advantage of Dortmunds situation and we got him for £7m. Wenger used to be able to do that 2-3 times a window, not 2-3 times every 5 years.

I'm not arguing about this anymore, regardless of my opinion and regardless of whose fault it actually is that we are in this situation, the truth is, we are in a shit situation, we need players, our manager has proven that he can't cut it even at the most basic of managerial levels.

Take players out of the occasion completely and look at some of the on field decisions AW has made over the years, let alone the previous season, a better, more tactically astute manager would have gotten more out of these players. AW has been allowed far too much reign, he has openly admitted ignoring the advice of his closest aide's.

Van Persie is 100% responsible for us making the top 4, not Wenger, some of the decisions he made last season nearly had catastrophic effects.

I would just like to say in response to the transfers and salaries part we now must amortise our assets over the length of the contract.
So, if I'm guessing right:
we paid £11m Podollski and given him £80k a week for 4 years
that means the cost of his transfer is £2.75m per year and
the cost of his wages is £4.16m per year
which by my basic claculations means we have to account for £27.6m over that period. This does not take into account any bonuses or salary increments which may or may not be installed within the contract.

[Leody]

If he got his Facebook stock from the IPO he can't sell his shares for 880 days. Only the shares sold to brokerage firms will be sold on the open market.

Edit: And to add a little financial analysis... he's probably going to lose his shirt paying $38 a share. The IPO is underperforming already today, not raising at all to speak of today which is very uncommon for IPOs, they normally go up at on average 25%. And after holding for that long, the price will normalize. And the price is currently 100x earning, which is ridiculously high, to add perspective Apple trades at 10x earnings.

Haha, and Zynga the game maker for Facebook that also went public today is down 13% today... and the only thing keeping Facebook from going below $38 a share is the underwriter support. While a popular IPO, it's not going to be a successful one because the opening price was crazy inflated.

Already down to $34...

Who called that?

[TRA Dial Square]

If he fucks up, gets arrested for shit from back home - Or becomes bored.

He'll f**k off, leaving the club high and dry. Just like Roman's gonna do w/ Chavski soon.

Our club will sink faster than Joey Baletonni about to sleep w/ the fishes.

That's the only reason I don't trust him.

Leo? $34? Isn't this the first time EVER it's gone below the $38 ps mark?

Sure I read something RE: That this week.

[gzagee]

If he got his Facebook stock from the IPO he can't sell his shares for 880 days. Only the shares sold to brokerage firms will be sold on the open market.

Edit: And to add a little financial analysis... he's probably going to lose his shirt paying $38 a share. The IPO is underperforming already today, not raising at all to speak of today which is very uncommon for IPOs, they normally go up at on average 25%. And after holding for that long, the price will normalize. And the price is currently 100x earning, which is ridiculously high, to add perspective Apple trades at 10x earnings.

Haha, and Zynga the game maker for Facebook that also went public today is down 13% today... and the only thing keeping Facebook from going below $38 a share is the underwriter support. While a popular IPO, it's not going to be a successful one because the opening price was crazy inflated.

Already down to $34...

Who called that?

Ha! Anyone remember boo.com? Although I'm not saying facebook will be gone in 18 months.

[GunnGunn]

Not going to quote the post Gza or we'll get lost, but i've already spoken before about wages.

You can't include them in the transfer fee because its simply not realistic, the transfer fee is an up front cost that will directly affect the amount we have to spend, whereas player wages are taken from a completely different account which is managed by the operating monetary income the club generates, such as match day revenue, sponsors and the rest.

For the basis of argument, even if you included the wages for the first year of each players contracts, those players listed would still fall into the budget the AST members listed a few months back.

I understand completely that we do not have £100m to spend on players, just because you have £1000 sitting in the bank doesn't mean you spunk £999 of it on a new TV, then there is no contingency plan.

But what we do have is around £55m pre player sales to spend without impacting on our contingency funds or savings, that money is there for Wenger to spend and by and large he chooses not to.

If we were like Everton, well run with no money to spend, i wouldn't moan, but when we are well run and have money to spend, not money that has come from such rich tit sitting on a big boat somewhere, or money that has come from loans, it does grate on me.

Podolski was a good buy at a good price, i refuse to believe there are not several other players out there for that money, look at Jelavic at £5m or Cisse at £10m.

These used to be the kind of players AW would take a punt on, he doesn't do it anymore, he goes for players that are well known for being quite poor, or players who are simply too much of a risk (Squillaci, Santos).

[Leody]

If he got his Facebook stock from the IPO he can't sell his shares for 880 days. Only the shares sold to brokerage firms will be sold on the open market.

Edit: And to add a little financial analysis... he's probably going to lose his shirt paying $38 a share. The IPO is underperforming already today, not raising at all to speak of today which is very uncommon for IPOs, they normally go up at on average 25%. And after holding for that long, the price will normalize. And the price is currently 100x earning, which is ridiculously high, to add perspective Apple trades at 10x earnings.

Haha, and Zynga the game maker for Facebook that also went public today is down 13% today... and the only thing keeping Facebook from going below $38 a share is the underwriter support. While a popular IPO, it's not going to be a successful one because the opening price was crazy inflated.

Already down to $34...

Who called that?

Ha! Anyone remember boo.com? Although I'm not saying facebook will be gone in 18 months.

Not going to be gone, but it will probably not be valued this high. Was great for FB to start though, got boatloads more money than they should have by going public.

They just don't generate that much revenue, and the ad revenue they do have is questionable because of the privacy laws, and the current FB advertising companies aren't seeing the greatest ROI. They have lots of growing to do if they're going to be worth that much, we'll see what happens, but I don't see it in a 3 year window. They'd have to grow almost 10 fold in revenue to reach that valuation. I don't see it. That would be mirroring Google's growth.

Maybe... Who knows. But I'm sceptical.

[Leody]

Man was I ever spot on about Facebook, the share price is now under $21. Anybody who bought that at the IPO and held it since has lost almost half their investment now.

And it's only going to get worse with stories like this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickhanl ... coming-bs/