Potential Super League

[Power n Glory]

What is the point of all this? What does it prove about the owner?

[jayramfootball]

What is the point of all this? What does it prove about the owner?

Well, wrt Kroenke we need to be clear about where his issues are.

He has never been reluctant to spend his money on players to improve our team. He has spent a fortune. In fact half a billion over the last 4 seasons gross.
We've actually lost 90m over the last two seasons because he spent his money on players.

Let's be clear about what we're actually unhappy about, not some made-up bollocks to suit some boogeyman BS.
I mean seriously, what kind of lunacy takes hold of a person to the extent that they'd be unhappy if an owner wasn't using their personal bank account to pay for stuff.???

He has chosen the management team poorly and has shown with the ESL that he does not understand football in this country.
That is enough to want him gone.
If we are going to at least try and get rid of him, let's be clear on the reasons why.

[Power n Glory]

What is the point of all this? What does it prove about the owner?

Well, wrt Kroenke we need to be clear about where his issues are.

He has never been reluctant to spend his money on players to improve our team. He has spent a fortune. In fact half a billion over the last 4 seasons gross.
We've actually lost 90m over the last two seasons because he spent his money on players.

Let's be clear about what we're actually unhappy about, not some made-up bollocks to suit some boogeyman BS.
I mean seriously, what kind of lunacy takes hold of a person to the extent that they'd be unhappy if an owner wasn't using their personal bank account to pay for stuff.???

He has chosen the management team poorly and has shown with the ESL that he does not understand football in this country.
That is enough to want him gone.
If we are going to at least try and get rid of him, let's be clear on the reasons why.

But why? The clear point should be Kroenke out. What's the point in splitting hairs over the definition of money? Clearly it's not enough and especially when comparing your stance on how we improve. If you believe the squad isn't good enough and we need a complete overhaul, it will take a lot longer to do if we're relying upon the revenue we generate.

[jayramfootball]

What is the point of all this? What does it prove about the owner?

Well, wrt Kroenke we need to be clear about where his issues are.

He has never been reluctant to spend his money on players to improve our team. He has spent a fortune. In fact half a billion over the last 4 seasons gross.
We've actually lost 90m over the last two seasons because he spent his money on players.

Let's be clear about what we're actually unhappy about, not some made-up bollocks to suit some boogeyman BS.
I mean seriously, what kind of lunacy takes hold of a person to the extent that they'd be unhappy if an owner wasn't using their personal bank account to pay for stuff.???

He has chosen the management team poorly and has shown with the ESL that he does not understand football in this country.
That is enough to want him gone.
If we are going to at least try and get rid of him, let's be clear on the reasons why.

But why? The clear point should be Kroenke out. What's the point in splitting hairs over the definition of money? Clearly it's not enough and especially when comparing your stance on how we improve. If you believe the squad isn't good enough and we need a complete overhaul, it will take a lot longer to do if we're relying upon the revenue we generate.

Because you simply won't align the fans if your message is we want a sugar daddy, so Kroenke out.
I am not alone in not wanting our club to financially cheat.

Victoria Concordia Crescit
NOT, Victory because of Daddy's chequebook.

I am fine with building the squad over time.
I just want to see improvement.

To be clear, I also want Kroenke out, but only if it leads to a more distributed ownership model AND/OR a capable management team.
Otherwise, there is no point. We're already spending plenty of money on players.

[Paddy]

I asked : Who owns the money we are paying to Lille for Pepe over 3 seasons?
You can;t answer, can you....?

I'll still wait for you, but I suspect you can;t answer as you know what that answer will mean for you.
Maybe you will stop acting like a child long enough to actually come back with an answer.
We'll see.

Mate, I asked him to tell me who paid the £140m to pay off the stadium debt, to allow the club greater short term freedom, he hasn't answered that yet, I'm still waiting.

Paddy I will give you the same clue I gave you before, it wasn't Arsenal FC or Arsenal Holdings that paid for it !

But but but ..... Kroenke doesn't dip into his own pocket.

he did not pay off the debt. he provided the money to cover the bonds.

we redeemed the bonds thanks to kroenke's loan. we now owe the money to KSE instead of external bondholders.

in other words he restructured the debt. he did not pay anything off. we now have to pay him back with an unspecified interest rate.

in fact, we had to pay a penalty for repaying early as it was due to run until 2031.

dont get into a debate you have no clue about.

So, who paid for Pepe's transfer then?

they didnt fund the partey or pepe transfer. they rearranged our debt to free up funds. instead of the club owing money to some bank the kroenke's made it so we owe it to KSE. they didn't inject anything.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... nvestment/

schooled AGAIN.

call me the KING.

[jayramfootball]

I asked : Who owns the money we are paying to Lille for Pepe over 3 seasons?
You can;t answer, can you....?

I'll still wait for you, but I suspect you can;t answer as you know what that answer will mean for you.
Maybe you will stop acting like a child long enough to actually come back with an answer.
We'll see.

Mate, I asked him to tell me who paid the £140m to pay off the stadium debt, to allow the club greater short term freedom, he hasn't answered that yet, I'm still waiting.

Paddy I will give you the same clue I gave you before, it wasn't Arsenal FC or Arsenal Holdings that paid for it !

But but but ..... Kroenke doesn't dip into his own pocket.

he did not pay off the debt. he provided the money to cover the bonds.

we redeemed the bonds thanks to kroenke's loan. we now owe the money to KSE instead of external bondholders.

in other words he restructured the debt. he did not pay anything off. we now have to pay him back with an unspecified interest rate.

in fact, we had to pay a penalty for repaying early as it was due to run until 2031.

dont get into a debate you have no clue about.

So, who paid for Pepe's transfer then?

they didnt fund the partey or pepe transfer. they rearranged our debt to free up funds. instead of the club owing money to some bank the kroenke's made it so we owe it to KSE. they didn't inject anything.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... nvestment/

schooled AGAIN.

call me the KING.

Who did the freed-up funds belong to for the transfers?

King? No.
Court Jester.

[Power n Glory]

What is the point of all this? What does it prove about the owner?

Well, wrt Kroenke we need to be clear about where his issues are.

He has never been reluctant to spend his money on players to improve our team. He has spent a fortune. In fact half a billion over the last 4 seasons gross.
We've actually lost 90m over the last two seasons because he spent his money on players.

Let's be clear about what we're actually unhappy about, not some made-up bollocks to suit some boogeyman BS.
I mean seriously, what kind of lunacy takes hold of a person to the extent that they'd be unhappy if an owner wasn't using their personal bank account to pay for stuff.???

He has chosen the management team poorly and has shown with the ESL that he does not understand football in this country.
That is enough to want him gone.
If we are going to at least try and get rid of him, let's be clear on the reasons why.

But why? The clear point should be Kroenke out. What's the point in splitting hairs over the definition of money? Clearly it's not enough and especially when comparing your stance on how we improve. If you believe the squad isn't good enough and we need a complete overhaul, it will take a lot longer to do if we're relying upon the revenue we generate.

Because you simply won't align the fans if your message is we want a sugar daddy, so Kroenke out.
I am not alone in not wanting our club to financially cheat.

Victoria Concordia Crescit
NOT, Victory because of Daddy's chequebook.

I am fine with building the squad over time.
I just want to see improvement.

To be clear, I also want Kroenke out, but only if it leads to a more distributed ownership model AND/OR a capable management team.
Otherwise, there is no point. We're already spending plenty of money on players.

Fans are already aligned on the Kroenke out message and we don't really have a say on who bids for the club after that.

But if you're worried about alignment with fans, this isn't really the way to go about it. It's just finding more ways to be divisive over something small. But who am I....

[jayramfootball]

What is the point of all this? What does it prove about the owner?

Well, wrt Kroenke we need to be clear about where his issues are.

He has never been reluctant to spend his money on players to improve our team. He has spent a fortune. In fact half a billion over the last 4 seasons gross.
We've actually lost 90m over the last two seasons because he spent his money on players.

Let's be clear about what we're actually unhappy about, not some made-up bollocks to suit some boogeyman BS.
I mean seriously, what kind of lunacy takes hold of a person to the extent that they'd be unhappy if an owner wasn't using their personal bank account to pay for stuff.???

He has chosen the management team poorly and has shown with the ESL that he does not understand football in this country.
That is enough to want him gone.
If we are going to at least try and get rid of him, let's be clear on the reasons why.

But why? The clear point should be Kroenke out. What's the point in splitting hairs over the definition of money? Clearly it's not enough and especially when comparing your stance on how we improve. If you believe the squad isn't good enough and we need a complete overhaul, it will take a lot longer to do if we're relying upon the revenue we generate.

Because you simply won't align the fans if your message is we want a sugar daddy, so Kroenke out.
I am not alone in not wanting our club to financially cheat.

Victoria Concordia Crescit
NOT, Victory because of Daddy's chequebook.

I am fine with building the squad over time.
I just want to see improvement.

To be clear, I also want Kroenke out, but only if it leads to a more distributed ownership model AND/OR a capable management team.
Otherwise, there is no point. We're already spending plenty of money on players.

Fans are already aligned on the Kroenke out message and we don't really have a say on who bids for the club after that.

But if you're worried about alignment with fans, this isn't really the way to go about it. It's just finding more ways to be divisive over something small. But who am I....

I can tell you there are many fans that are not aligned with wanting a sugar daddy.
There are also fans who are not interested in just getting swept up in the media storm. Heard the press conference today? The protests and noise (from some fans) are not productive right now. It's hysteria and the media are loving it - and they are certainly not trying to help us.

Regardless, I am not going to go along with made-up BS just because I want Kroenke gone.
Kroenke already commits a fortune to the playing staff. Are you sure another owner will do the same?
Right now I would be happy if there was a change in the way the management at the club conducted their business.
The ownership model can wait.

[Paddy]

I asked : Who owns the money we are paying to Lille for Pepe over 3 seasons?
You can;t answer, can you....?

I'll still wait for you, but I suspect you can;t answer as you know what that answer will mean for you.
Maybe you will stop acting like a child long enough to actually come back with an answer.
We'll see.

Mate, I asked him to tell me who paid the £140m to pay off the stadium debt, to allow the club greater short term freedom, he hasn't answered that yet, I'm still waiting.

Paddy I will give you the same clue I gave you before, it wasn't Arsenal FC or Arsenal Holdings that paid for it !

But but but ..... Kroenke doesn't dip into his own pocket.

he did not pay off the debt. he provided the money to cover the bonds.

we redeemed the bonds thanks to kroenke's loan. we now owe the money to KSE instead of external bondholders.

in other words he restructured the debt. he did not pay anything off. we now have to pay him back with an unspecified interest rate.

in fact, we had to pay a penalty for repaying early as it was due to run until 2031.

dont get into a debate you have no clue about.

So, who paid for Pepe's transfer then?

they didnt fund the partey or pepe transfer. they rearranged our debt to free up funds. instead of the club owing money to some bank the kroenke's made it so we owe it to KSE. they didn't inject anything.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... nvestment/

schooled AGAIN.

call me the KING.

Who did the freed-up funds belong to for the transfers?

King? No.
Court Jester.

youre just trying wind me up now

right ive schooled your arse. easy work.

ciao.

[jayramfootball]

I asked : Who owns the money we are paying to Lille for Pepe over 3 seasons?
You can;t answer, can you....?

I'll still wait for you, but I suspect you can;t answer as you know what that answer will mean for you.
Maybe you will stop acting like a child long enough to actually come back with an answer.
We'll see.

Mate, I asked him to tell me who paid the £140m to pay off the stadium debt, to allow the club greater short term freedom, he hasn't answered that yet, I'm still waiting.

Paddy I will give you the same clue I gave you before, it wasn't Arsenal FC or Arsenal Holdings that paid for it !

But but but ..... Kroenke doesn't dip into his own pocket.

he did not pay off the debt. he provided the money to cover the bonds.

we redeemed the bonds thanks to kroenke's loan. we now owe the money to KSE instead of external bondholders.

in other words he restructured the debt. he did not pay anything off. we now have to pay him back with an unspecified interest rate.

in fact, we had to pay a penalty for repaying early as it was due to run until 2031.

dont get into a debate you have no clue about.

So, who paid for Pepe's transfer then?

they didnt fund the partey or pepe transfer. they rearranged our debt to free up funds. instead of the club owing money to some bank the kroenke's made it so we owe it to KSE. they didn't inject anything.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... nvestment/

schooled AGAIN.

call me the KING.

Who did the freed-up funds belong to for the transfers?

King? No.
Court Jester.

youre just trying wind me up now

right ive schooled your arse. easy work.

ciao.

So, how about you answer the question?

Who did the freed-up funds belong to for the transfers?

[theHotHead]

we all dream of an owner like chelsea's

We all most certainly do not. While my dislike of Wenger had me at odds with most Arsenal fans ( I wanted him out from around 2010/2011), I have admiration for the way he thought the club should be run and he stuck to his principles, even though thats exactly what led to our demise.

Had Wenger not been so arrogant and a tactical dufus his way would've worked just fine. We don't need a sugar daddy.

look at chelsea and city's success

it speaks for itself

Are you telling me the bluprint for the future of football is for evey club to chase a sugar daddy owner willing to pump hundreds of millions if not billions of their personal fortune into the club, to make fans like you happy ?

when did i say that? give me the exact quotes.

Mate its right there in quotes.

You said we all dream of having owners like Chelsea, I said we most certainly do not and that we do not need a sugar daddy owner, you said look at City and Chelsea's success - 2 clubs with sugar daddy owners - you said it speaks for itself. I said is that the future of football, for every club to chase a sugar daddy owner to make the fans happy. You then said "when did I say that"

Are you taking the piss ??? Do you not understand the meaning of what you have written ?

i was referring to us. i personally would love an owner like chelsea's at arsenal.

Ok, but it doesn't change the premise of what I wrote. Is that our lot them as Arsenal fans, to yearn for a sugar daddy owner to be able to compete?!!

[theHotHead]

I asked : Who owns the money we are paying to Lille for Pepe over 3 seasons?
You can;t answer, can you....?

I'll still wait for you, but I suspect you can;t answer as you know what that answer will mean for you.
Maybe you will stop acting like a child long enough to actually come back with an answer.
We'll see.

Mate, I asked him to tell me who paid the £140m to pay off the stadium debt, to allow the club greater short term freedom, he hasn't answered that yet, I'm still waiting.

Paddy I will give you the same clue I gave you before, it wasn't Arsenal FC or Arsenal Holdings that paid for it !

But but but ..... Kroenke doesn't dip into his own pocket.

he did not pay off the debt. he provided the money to cover the bonds.

we redeemed the bonds thanks to kroenke's loan. we now owe the money to KSE instead of external bondholders.

in other words he restructured the debt. he did not pay anything off. we now have to pay him back with an unspecified interest rate.

in fact, we had to pay a penalty for repaying early as it was due to run until 2031.

dont get into a debate you have no clue about.

Paid off the debt/restructured the debt, who gives a shit, he still paid £140m doing it!

https://arseblog.news/2020/07/report-kroenke-restructures-arsenal-debt-to-ease-short-term-financial-pressure/

I will make you look silly every day of the week.

[theHotHead]

Paddy is a wum, I engaged with him because I thought he was legit but turns out he is just another wum.

When we spend significantly over our allotted transfer budget that money has to come from somewhere, where did it come from? Especially when cash reserves don't drop.

[jayramfootball]

Paddy is a wum, I engaged with him because I thought he was legit but turns out he is just another wum.

When we spend significantly over our allotted transfer budget that money has to come from somewhere, where did it come from? Especially when cash reserves don't drop.

I think he might be a banned member returned under a new user name. GA perhaps.

[Phil71]

Paddy is a wum, I engaged with him because I thought he was legit but turns out he is just another wum.

When we spend significantly over our allotted transfer budget that money has to come from somewhere, where did it come from? Especially when cash reserves don't drop.

100%