Dokko Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Load of shite, one of the most financially sound clubs in the league. Reason he's in the soup is hanging on in windows to players who clearly want away then not replacing them with equal quality. That and buying in the wrong areas. He's a stubborn old fool, and he's not going to change any time soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 The faults have been visable for a long time now and he's failed to deal with them, how long since he won anything now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 The faults have been visable for a long time now and he's failed to deal with them, how long since he won anything now? 7 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagten Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 So they claim, but their is the suggestion that there is not. With his unwillingness to spend just being a front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Not according to Arsenal fans i know, money was there but he just refused to spend it. Arsenal accounts show over 100M in cash, which the board have said is there for transfers. Wenger has only himself to blame for this, not just his transfer policy but his insistence of him only coaching the team as he doesn't trust anyone else etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagten Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Load of s****, one of the most financially sound clubs in the league. Reason he's in the soup is hanging on in windows to players who clearly want away then not replacing them with equal quality. That and buying in the wrong areas. He's a stubborn old fool, and he's not going to change any time soon. How do they service the payments for the stadium? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 i can sympathise with the arteta purchase as he didnt have a lot of time and it was short-term to plug a gap. however he knew fabregas was going to leave eventually so why didnt he have proper replacements lined up rather than a panic signing? £30m+ they got for him alone, you'd think he would splash out on a comparable player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Load of s****, one of the most financially sound clubs in the league. Reason he's in the soup is hanging on in windows to players who clearly want away then not replacing them with equal quality. That and buying in the wrong areas. He's a stubborn old fool, and he's not going to change any time soon. How do they service the payments for the stadium? By selling the stadium name. Got a fortune for selling the land high bury was on as well. London n all that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagten Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Load of s****, one of the most financially sound clubs in the league. Reason he's in the soup is hanging on in windows to players who clearly want away then not replacing them with equal quality. That and buying in the wrong areas. He's a stubborn old fool, and he's not going to change any time soon. How do they service the payments for the stadium? By selling the stadium name. Somehow i doubt that generates enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Load of s****, one of the most financially sound clubs in the league. Reason he's in the soup is hanging on in windows to players who clearly want away then not replacing them with equal quality. That and buying in the wrong areas. He's a stubborn old fool, and he's not going to change any time soon. How do they service the payments for the stadium? By selling the stadium name. + Conversion of Highbury into apartments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Load of s****, one of the most financially sound clubs in the league. Reason he's in the soup is hanging on in windows to players who clearly want away then not replacing them with equal quality. That and buying in the wrong areas. He's a stubborn old fool, and he's not going to change any time soon. How do they service the payments for the stadium? And charging the most ridiculous prices for matches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Won't finish in the top four, will get sacked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Load of s****, one of the most financially sound clubs in the league. Reason he's in the soup is hanging on in windows to players who clearly want away then not replacing them with equal quality. That and buying in the wrong areas. He's a stubborn old fool, and he's not going to change any time soon. How do they service the payments for the stadium? By selling the stadium name. Somehow i doubt that generates enough. They make 3M on a matchday, it is the highest in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Sacking him would be daft after all he's done for them. They probably do need to move on though, so they should be asking Wenger to find them his replacement this summer. Dunno if he'd be up for that mind, but it's still what I believe we should have done with SBR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Is king shola tdeans? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Sacking him would be daft after all he's done for them. They probably do need to move on though, so they should be asking Wenger to find them his replacement this summer. Dunno if he'd be up for that mind, but it's still what I believe we should have done with SBR. They sacked George Graham who was equally as successful. Also the past means little when your team is as crap as Arsenal's is today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Load of s****, one of the most financially sound clubs in the league. Reason he's in the soup is hanging on in windows to players who clearly want away then not replacing them with equal quality. That and buying in the wrong areas. He's a stubborn old fool, and he's not going to change any time soon. How do they service the payments for the stadium? By selling the stadium name. Somehow i doubt that generates enough. The £470 million cost of the project, augmented by the extra costs the club had to meet besides building the stadium itself, was a formidable obstacle, especially as Arsenal were not granted any public subsidy. Arsenal had difficulty obtaining finance for the project, and work ceased just after it had begun, before restarting when a £260 million loan package was obtained from a consortium of banks, led by the Royal Bank of Scotland.[69] In August 2005 Arsenal announced plans to replace most of the bank debt with bonds. The proposed bond issue went ahead on 13 July 2006. The club issued £210 million worth of 13.5 year bonds with a spread of 52 basis points over UK government bonds and £50 million of 7.1 year bonds with a spread of 22 basis points over LIBOR. It was the first publicly marketed, asset-backed bond issue by a European football club.[70] The effective interest rate on these bonds is 5.14% and 5.97% respectively, and they are due to be paid back over a 25-year period; the move to bonds has reduced the club's annual debt service cost to approximately £20 million a year.[63] On 31 May 2007 the club's net debt stood at £262.1 million.[63] However at the same time there are multiple sources of income for the club; the remainder of the Lough Road site is being used for new housing, as are the surplus areas around the stadium at Ashburton Grove. Highbury is currently being converted into apartments, most of which have been sold. In total, more than 2,000 homes will be built at the three sites, and the club is counting on the profit from these developments to make a major contribution towards the costs of the new stadium. Other sources of revenue include the £100 million from Emirates for the naming rights, to be paid over the course of the deal[50] and a £15m contribution towards the capital costs of the stadium's catering facilities from catering firm Delaware North, which has a 20-year exclusive contract to run the stadium's catering operation.[71] Finally, there is the increased revenue from the stadium itself. In 2005, Arsenal's then chief executive Keith Edelman commented that the new stadium is expected to increase Arsenal's turnover from typically £115 million to around £170 million.[72] Final accounts for the year ending May 2007, Arsenal's first season at the Emirates, show that Arsenal's turnover has increased to £200.8 million, compared to £137.2 million the previous year and that group operating profits increased to £51.2 million.[63] Even once debt repayments are taken into account, the club's turnover has increased by at least £20 million a year,[73] (in 2006–07 the club recorded a surplus of £37 million).[63] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Sacking him would be daft after all he's done for them. They probably do need to move on though, so they should be asking Wenger to find them his replacement this summer. Dunno if he'd be up for that mind, but it's still what I believe we should have done with SBR. They sacked George Graham who was equally as successful. Thought he went for dodgy payments ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Sacking him would be daft after all he's done for them. They probably do need to move on though, so they should be asking Wenger to find them his replacement this summer. Dunno if he'd be up for that mind, but it's still what I believe we should have done with SBR. Think he might be too stuborn for that but agreed, the right thing to do is wait till the summer and do what NUFC didn't when the club got rid of Bobby. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagten Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 They still have large salary's to pay, and a stadium to service. I dont believe they have the amount of money that you perceive they might. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 He has to go, it's obvious really. If you look at the present instead of the past, they're regressing at an alarming rate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Sacking him would be daft after all he's done for them. They probably do need to move on though, so they should be asking Wenger to find them his replacement this summer. Dunno if he'd be up for that mind, but it's still what I believe we should have done with SBR. They sacked George Graham who was equally as successful. Thought he went for dodgy payments ? He was, but they were also are a downward spiral as well which would have played some part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Look at his net expenditure. Do you not think he would have rather brought in someone else over arteta to replace fabregas? He is restricted by his board, and the need to make money... Load of s****, one of the most financially sound clubs in the league. Reason he's in the soup is hanging on in windows to players who clearly want away then not replacing them with equal quality. That and buying in the wrong areas. He's a stubborn old fool, and he's not going to change any time soon. How do they service the payments for the stadium? By selling the stadium name. Somehow i doubt that generates enough. The £470 million cost of the project, augmented by the extra costs the club had to meet besides building the stadium itself, was a formidable obstacle, especially as Arsenal were not granted any public subsidy. Arsenal had difficulty obtaining finance for the project, and work ceased just after it had begun, before restarting when a £260 million loan package was obtained from a consortium of banks, led by the Royal Bank of Scotland.[69] In August 2005 Arsenal announced plans to replace most of the bank debt with bonds. The proposed bond issue went ahead on 13 July 2006. The club issued £210 million worth of 13.5 year bonds with a spread of 52 basis points over UK government bonds and £50 million of 7.1 year bonds with a spread of 22 basis points over LIBOR. It was the first publicly marketed, asset-backed bond issue by a European football club.[70] The effective interest rate on these bonds is 5.14% and 5.97% respectively, and they are due to be paid back over a 25-year period; the move to bonds has reduced the club's annual debt service cost to approximately £20 million a year.[63] On 31 May 2007 the club's net debt stood at £262.1 million.[63] However at the same time there are multiple sources of income for the club; the remainder of the Lough Road site is being used for new housing, as are the surplus areas around the stadium at Ashburton Grove. Highbury is currently being converted into apartments, most of which have been sold. In total, more than 2,000 homes will be built at the three sites, and the club is counting on the profit from these developments to make a major contribution towards the costs of the new stadium. Other sources of revenue include the £100 million from Emirates for the naming rights, to be paid over the course of the deal[50] and a £15m contribution towards the capital costs of the stadium's catering facilities from catering firm Delaware North, which has a 20-year exclusive contract to run the stadium's catering operation.[71] Finally, there is the increased revenue from the stadium itself. In 2005, Arsenal's then chief executive Keith Edelman commented that the new stadium is expected to increase Arsenal's turnover from typically £115 million to around £170 million.[72] Final accounts for the year ending May 2007, Arsenal's first season at the Emirates, show that Arsenal's turnover has increased to £200.8 million, compared to £137.2 million the previous year and that group operating profits increased to £51.2 million.[63] Even once debt repayments are taken into account, the club's turnover has increased by at least £20 million a year,[73] (in 2006–07 the club recorded a surplus of £37 million).[63] Skint then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 They still have large salary's to pay, and a stadium to service. I dont believe they have the amount of money that you perceive they might. Give up, just looking foolish now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 They still have large salary's to pay, and a stadium to service. I dont believe they have the amount of money that you perceive they might. Give up, just looking foolish now. This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now