Arsenal's Financial Situation

[Salibatelli]

Kroenke is the worst kind of owner, one that has zero interest, this does t usually work well and thus far it clearly hasn’t.

You need owners who show some sort of interest rate in the sport and in the club.

The lack of investment is really poor given our downward spiral over the years, even the bigger signing have been deals that hinder us in the future as they’ve been spread over several years.

Consequently this summer we’re having to try and sell players to buy some and it’s not working well as players who don’t perform from clubs on a downward spiral generally don’t attract a lot of interest.

[theHotHead]

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30464&p=1724616&hilit=Fsg#p1724616

Like I said in my post earlier:

clubs like Liverpool, City, and Chelsea can most likely afford to go a few seasons now without owner financing due to their owners investing large amounts of their money early and into their squads.

Take City and Chelsea out of it because their starting point is so much better, they already have good or very good squads so reduced owner financing won't affect them. Liverpool are more like us, they have not needed owner financing of their squad at all to be competitive with the oil clubs and to win the biggest prizes in world club football.

[theHotHead]

Kroenke is the worst kind of owner, one that has zero interest, this does t usually work well and thus far it clearly hasn’t.

You need owners who show some sort of interest rate in the sport and in the club.

The lack of investment is really poor given our downward spiral over the years, even the bigger signing have been deals that hinder us in the future as they’ve been spread over several years.

Consequently this summer we’re having to try and sell players to buy some and it’s not working well as players who don’t perform from clubs on a downward spiral generally don’t attract a lot of interest.

How So ? How good was Liverpool's squad in 2010 compared to us and we have spent more than they have (net) ?

Liverpool squad:
Glen Johnson, Raul Meireles, Daniel Agger, Fabio Aurelio, Luis Suarez, Andy Carroll, Joe Cole, Milan Jovanovic, Sotirios Kyrgiakos, Maxi Rodrigues, Dirk Kuyt, Lucas, Jamie Carragher, David N'Gog, Pepe Reina, Jay spearing, Jonjo Shelvey, Martin Kelly, Martin Skrtl.

Arsenal squad:
Almunia, Diaby, Sagna, Fabregas, Koscielny, Rosicky, Nasri, RVP, Vela, Walcott, Denilson, Ramsey, Song, Squillaci, Wilshere, Djourou, Fabianski, Clichy, Arshavin, Eboue, Gibbs, Chamakh, Bendtner, Shezza.

Tell me which squad you think is better. The Arsenal squad is miles better than Liverpool's and we have spent more net than Liverpool from that point in 2010 until now. If our investment has been poor according to you what has Liverpool's been then, considering their starting point was worse than ours and they have spent less (net) than us over that time ?!!!!

[CrimsonGunner11]

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30464&p=1724616&hilit=Fsg#p1724616

Like I said in my post earlier:

clubs like Liverpool, City, and Chelsea can most likely afford to go a few seasons now without owner financing due to their owners investing large amounts of their money early and into their squads.

Take City and Chelsea out of it because their starting point is so much better, they already have good or very good squads so reduced owner financing won't affect them. Liverpool are more like us, they have not needed owner financing of their squad at all to be competitive with the oil clubs and to win the biggest prizes in world club football.

Which isn't the case as indicated by the graph in the link. While Liverpool have benefitted and gone forward from the initial investments of FSG into their squad, we have mainly struggled and gone backwards after years of no help from our owners

[theHotHead]

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30464&p=1724616&hilit=Fsg#p1724616

Like I said in my post earlier:

clubs like Liverpool, City, and Chelsea can most likely afford to go a few seasons now without owner financing due to their owners investing large amounts of their money early and into their squads.

Take City and Chelsea out of it because their starting point is so much better, they already have good or very good squads so reduced owner financing won't affect them. Liverpool are more like us, they have not needed owner financing of their squad at all to be competitive with the oil clubs and to win the biggest prizes in world club football.

Which isn't the case as indicated by the graph in the link. While Liverpool have benefitted and gone forward from the initial investments of FSG into their squad, we have mainly struggled and gone backwards after years of no help from our owners

I think you have got it twisted, what money did FSG put into the squad ? The graph in the link tells you what the club have done with the funds since FSG took over but it doesn't say anything about them pumping money into player purchases. If you believe their investment has been on players, then so be it, I, like EK, believe the money was spent on stadium/training ground improvements which is more likely given their relatively low net spend per year on players.

[CrimsonGunner11]

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30464&p=1724616&hilit=Fsg#p1724616

Like I said in my post earlier:

clubs like Liverpool, City, and Chelsea can most likely afford to go a few seasons now without owner financing due to their owners investing large amounts of their money early and into their squads.

Take City and Chelsea out of it because their starting point is so much better, they already have good or very good squads so reduced owner financing won't affect them. Liverpool are more like us, they have not needed owner financing of their squad at all to be competitive with the oil clubs and to win the biggest prizes in world club football.

Which isn't the case as indicated by the graph in the link. While Liverpool have benefitted and gone forward from the initial investments of FSG into their squad, we have mainly struggled and gone backwards after years of no help from our owners

I think you have got it twisted, what money did FSG put into the squad ? The graph in the link tells you what the club have done with the funds since FSG took over but it doesn't say anything about them pumping money into player purchases. If you believe their investment has been on players, then so be it, I, like EK, believe the money was spent on stadium/training ground improvements which is more likely given their relatively low net spend per year on players.

The amount of cash Liverpool generate from operating activities has been increasing, reaching £65 million in 2015, after adding back non-cash expenses like player amortisation and depreciation. Nevertheless, they still required £49 million of funding from FSG to cover their cash outlay, as they spent a net £59 million on players (gross £96 million), £40 million on the stadium development, £9 million on bank loan repayments and £3 million interest payments.

That’s part of the quote that came with the graph and it’s wrt 2015 alone

EDIT:
Here’s the remaining quote:

In the five years since FSG bought Liverpool, the club has had available cash of £320 million. Less than half of this (£146 million) has come from operating activities, while £114 million has been provided by the owners in the form of loans and a further £46 million from the bank facility.

[theHotHead]

Duplicate

[theHotHead]

Ok Crimson, answer me this, last season it was widely said that we only had a transfer budget of about £40m and everyone was up in arms about it. We bought Luiz and Tierney and everyone thought that would be our lot then the club obliterated our supposed budget on club record on one player alone - Pepe.

We had a net spend of approx £100m, considering our budget was around £40m, where did that extra money come from ?

[Zenith]

Ok Crimson, answer me this, last season it was widely said that we only had a transfer budget of about £40m and everyone was up in arms about it. We bought Luiz and Tierney and everyone thought that would be our lot then the club obliterated our supposed budget on club record on one player alone - Pepe.

We had a net spend of approx £100m, considering our budget was around £40m, where did that extra money come from ?

That's because, last year, Arsenal only paid a tiny fraction of Saliba's and Pépé's total transfer fees up front. The remaining funds—which accounts for roughly £50m of that £96m—will be paid in installments across the upcoming 5 years (starting this year) for each player. Last season's expenditures are 100% reflective of a club that has allocated a £40m-budget for that particular transfer window.

[Angelito]

Liverpool and Spurs spend the money they earn in transfers the same as us. We are not in a unique situation at all.

While this is true, what derailed us was the lack of assertion and our inability to be opportune enough in the market in 13/14 and 15/16.

If we'd have bought Higuain in 13/14, or a striker who could share the workload with Giroud in 15/16, we'd probably be looking at two league titles.

Even if it had gone topsy-turvy from there on, it wouldn't have reached breaking point as it did in 17/18 because we'd have had two league titles in the last decade.

Unlike Liverpool, we've failed to be strategic in the market.

Think about it. Higuain was more or less still in demand until 2018. If we'd have bought him for €35m in 13/14 on top of Ozil, we could have sold him for a similar fee, or for around €20m, in 17/18.

For much of last decade, we took the poor man's approach to business 101. Instead of investing, we focused on saving.

With an ambitious owner, this wouldn't have been a problem. Or, with a board as well run as Bayern Munich's.

We've relied on player sales for pretty much the entire Premier League era. It's astonishing that a club the size and draw of Arsenal lags so much behind other clubs. With United, they're just poorly run. Liverpool and Spurs overachieved in the past 5-6 years. Arsenal have underachieved massively since 14/15 despite winning those FA Cups.

[CrimsonGunner11]

Ok Crimson, answer me this, last season it was widely said that we only had a transfer budget of about £40m and everyone was up in arms about it. We bought Luiz and Tierney and everyone thought that would be our lot then the club obliterated our supposed budget on club record on one player alone - Pepe.

We had a net spend of approx £100m, considering our budget was around £40m, where did that extra money come from ?

It could have came from external loans. It could have came from clauses in unrelated or related transfer deals. It could have came from a source of income no one anticipated that year. And, yes, it could have even came from Kroenke’s pocket. I wish I worked at Arsenal to know the answer to that question but like I said in my post earlier:

We’ve been in a unique position for years wrt owner financing but things appear to be slowly getting better now.

Assuming the money did come from Kroenke, the fact of the matter remains and that’s that the damage has already been done by Kroenke and company and we’re now playing catch-up, I would guess, because Kroenke finally saw the writing on the wall.

EDIT:
Zenith answered the question wrt where the money came from and it appears that it didn’t come from Kroenke

[Arsenal Tone]

I love how on tapatalk the preview to the mustafi thread is a picture of benny hill [emoji38]

[Pat Rice in Short Shorts]

Ok Crimson, answer me this, last season it was widely said that we only had a transfer budget of about £40m and everyone was up in arms about it. We bought Luiz and Tierney and everyone thought that would be our lot then the club obliterated our supposed budget on club record on one player alone - Pepe.

We had a net spend of approx £100m, considering our budget was around £40m, where did that extra money come from ?

That's because, last year, Arsenal only paid a tiny fraction of Saliba's and Pépé's total transfer fees up front. The remaining funds—which accounts for roughly £50m of that £96m—will be paid in installments across the upcoming 5 years (starting this year) for each player. Last season's expenditures are 100% reflective of a club that has allocated a £40m-budget for that particular transfer window.

Which is why it would be prudent for Kroenke to jump start Arteta's project with both guys he wants now. Missing out on CL money and the CL itself will cost more than chipping in. FFS the dude spent $1.6 billion (of $5B) of his own cash on his LA stadium as an investment.

He spends more on Angus bulls each year than Partey would cost. After all if the cows don't get f***ked the rancher fucks himself.

[Salibatelli]

Ok Crimson, answer me this, last season it was widely said that we only had a transfer budget of about £40m and everyone was up in arms about it. We bought Luiz and Tierney and everyone thought that would be our lot then the club obliterated our supposed budget on club record on one player alone - Pepe.

We had a net spend of approx £100m, considering our budget was around £40m, where did that extra money come from ?

That's because, last year, Arsenal only paid a tiny fraction of Saliba's and Pépé's total transfer fees up front. The remaining funds—which accounts for roughly £50m of that £96m—will be paid in installments across the upcoming 5 years (starting this year) for each player. Last season's expenditures are 100% reflective of a club that has allocated a £40m-budget for that particular transfer window.

Spot on, the claim that we spent 100 odd million is incorrect, we basically spent our future season budgets on players like Pepe and Saliba hence the reason we’ve got no money now after buying one player.

We’re desperately trying to sell players to buy players now after spending a measly 23 million. The owner puts nothing in.

[Salibatelli]

Kroenke is the worst kind of owner, one that has zero interest, this does t usually work well and thus far it clearly hasn’t.

You need owners who show some sort of interest rate in the sport and in the club.

The lack of investment is really poor given our downward spiral over the years, even the bigger signing have been deals that hinder us in the future as they’ve been spread over several years.

Consequently this summer we’re having to try and sell players to buy some and it’s not working well as players who don’t perform from clubs on a downward spiral generally don’t attract a lot of interest.

How So ? How good was Liverpool's squad in 2010 compared to us and we have spent more than they have (net) ?

Liverpool squad:
Glen Johnson, Raul Meireles, Daniel Agger, Fabio Aurelio, Luis Suarez, Andy Carroll, Joe Cole, Milan Jovanovic, Sotirios Kyrgiakos, Maxi Rodrigues, Dirk Kuyt, Lucas, Jamie Carragher, David N'Gog, Pepe Reina, Jay spearing, Jonjo Shelvey, Martin Kelly, Martin Skrtl.

Arsenal squad:
Almunia, Diaby, Sagna, Fabregas, Koscielny, Rosicky, Nasri, RVP, Vela, Walcott, Denilson, Ramsey, Song, Squillaci, Wilshere, Djourou, Fabianski, Clichy, Arshavin, Eboue, Gibbs, Chamakh, Bendtner, Shezza.

Tell me which squad you think is better. The Arsenal squad is miles better than Liverpool's and we have spent more net than Liverpool from that point in 2010 until now. If our investment has been poor according to you what has Liverpool's been then, considering their starting point was worse than ours and they have spent less (net) than us over that time ?!!!!

There’s not much in it to be honest, both pretty lousy squads!

The point is Liverpool sold well so didn’t need their owners to pump huge amounts in (though their owners appear to have put money in even then), we sold terribly and spent terribly, this is partly due to having an owner who isn’t interested, but of course when we’ve needed the money after such a tough time he’s been nowhere to be seen, we’ve just had to spend future seasons transfers budgets and now sell to buy!