Arsene Wenger

[Jagten]

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. 

You have no idea how much money is made available to wenger, a figure which i question.

[johnnypd]

make wenger club president or something - let him control scouting, youth system, purchases, choice of manager etc. he's still got enough about him to contribute but i think he's done in terms of day to day management of this side.

 

actually would love him to be england manager or have some input into the FA.

[Sifu]

Will be let go at the end of the season I reckons. Don't think they'll sack him any time soon - I reckon they'll let him see the season out.......

[Jagten]

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. 

Your'e marginally aggressive when trying to convey a point 

[toontownman]

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.

 

Agreed. There is rarely sentiment in the modern game, doing the "right thing" and showing class don't always come hand in hand.

 

How the hell we never gave Bobby an upstairs role, which being the gentleman he was would have probably taken, I will never know. Dark days and kharmas been a bitch every since.

[Guest neesy111]

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. 

You have no idea how much money is made available to wenger, a figure which i question.

 

Are you Mike Ashley?

[Jagten]

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. 

You have no idea how much money is made available to wenger, a figure which i question.

 

Are you Mike Ashley?

Yes

[leffe186]

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.

 

But that's part of the point. They've got a vast wage bill (111M in 09/10, dwarfing ours for example) but for years and years have been held up as paragons of financial virtue because it's still low relative to their turnover. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

[Guest BlacknWhiteArmy]

Is king shola tdeans?

 

Surely not? I loved that guy

[johnnypd]

they raised what 55m? from selling Nasri and Fabregas, bet he would've been allowed to spend that. mind you the money he did spend in the summer was absolutely wasted, mertesacker, gervinho and arteta ffs Could've signed Samba for the amount Mertesacker cost, i'd rather have Williamson.

[The College Dropout]

They have money for transfer fees, not wages.

[johnnypd]

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.

 

But that's part of the point. They've got a vast wage bill (111M in 09/10, dwarfing ours for example) but for years and years have been held up as paragons of financial virtue because it's still low relative to their turnover. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

 

80k a week on Denilson I heard.

[Guest neesy111]

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.

 

But that's part of the point. They've got a vast wage bill (111M in 09/10, dwarfing ours for example) but for years and years have been held up as paragons of financial virtue because it's still low relative to their turnover. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

 

80k a week on Denilson I heard.

 

Who isn't even at the club now.

[Jagten]

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.

 

But that's part of the point. They've got a vast wage bill (111M in 09/10, dwarfing ours for example) but for years and years have been held up as paragons of financial virtue because it's still low relative to their turnover. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

I am well aware they are in rude financial health. But the suggestion that he only likes to spend a bit of money, on some half decent players seems daft. Surely there must be constraints other than stubbornness that hinder him.

[Guest neesy111]

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.

 

But that's part of the point. They've got a vast wage bill (111M in 09/10, dwarfing ours for example) but for years and years have been held up as paragons of financial virtue because it's still low relative to their turnover. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

I am well aware they are in rude financial health. But the suggestion that he only likes to spend a bit of money, on some half decent players seems daft. Surely there must be constraints other than stubbornness that hinder him.

 

Not likely.  Just follow his managerial career.

[ikri]

That's the worst Arsenal have looked since Wenger took over.

 

The type of game that Sunderland player today, quickly closing Arsenal players down in numbers, used to benefit Arsenal since they had players able to quickly pass their way out of trouble and always had players running into space.  Closing players down en masse like Sunderland did today would have seen that team annihilated a few seasons ago.

 

Then there's the attacking players always looking for the pass instead of looking to make a shot, they looked like they were scared of shooting today.

[Jagten]

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.

 

But that's part of the point. They've got a vast wage bill (111M in 09/10, dwarfing ours for example) but for years and years have been held up as paragons of financial virtue because it's still low relative to their turnover. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

I am well aware they are in rude financial health. But the suggestion that he only likes to spend a bit of money, on some half decent players seems daft. Surely there must be constraints other than stubbornness that hinder him.

 

Not likely.  Just follow his managerial career.

I dont think his dealings in japan and french football are comparable to the financial might of arsenal. Yes he has a tendency to opt for youth, but surely someone of his experience would be acutely aware to the need to spend money, in his current predicament. I wont cite stubbornness.

[leffe186]

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.

 

But that's part of the point. They've got a vast wage bill (111M in 09/10, dwarfing ours for example) but for years and years have been held up as paragons of financial virtue because it's still low relative to their turnover. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

I am well aware they are in rude financial health. But the suggestion that he only likes to spend a bit of money, on some half decent players seems daft. Surely there must be constraints other than stubbornness that hinder him.

 

I realise they're accounted for separately, but as a bigger picture it's obvious that the board have backed him in terms of wages. Why would the same not apply to  transfer funds? To take Denilson - if he had a four year contract at 80Kpw that's roughly 16M. If we (Spurs) have managed to build the squad we did while paying half that amount in wages, then it should certainly be possible for Wenger to do so, given the position they were in (regular CL, great stadium). I think our squad right now is marginally better than theirs, even taking injuries into account.

 

Even if Wenger has not been given too much to lay out on transfer fees, he deserves part of the blame for having mediocre players on big wages.

[Jagten]

Was denilson really on 80k?

[leffe186]

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.

 

But that's part of the point. They've got a vast wage bill (111M in 09/10, dwarfing ours for example) but for years and years have been held up as paragons of financial virtue because it's still low relative to their turnover. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

I am well aware they are in rude financial health. But the suggestion that he only likes to spend a bit of money, on some half decent players seems daft. Surely there must be constraints other than stubbornness that hinder him.

 

Not likely.  Just follow his managerial career.

I dont think his dealings in japan and french football are comparable to the financial might of arsenal. Yes he has a tendency to opt for youth, but surely someone of his experience would be acutely aware to the need to spend money, in his current predicament. I wont cite stubbornness.

 

So given that the accounts show that they are in rude financial health ("financial might"), what do you think is happening? Are the board planning to siphon money off? If they don't trust Wenger with the money, why don't they fire him and get in someone they do trust? If the money's being withheld, why doesn't he resign himself (if you won't cite stubbornness)?

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/10/arsenals-finances-21-questions.html

[leffe186]

Was denilson really on 80k?

 

Well if the total wage bill was 111M in 09-10 then it wouldn't be a surprise. Their wage bill is massive (though obviously still only fourth in the Premier League). You can pick any name you like.

[Guest neesy111]

Was denilson really on 80k?

 

Well if the total wage bill was 111M in 09-10 then it wouldn't be a surprise. Their wage bill is massive (though obviously still only fourth in the Premier League). You can pick any name you like.

 

Arsenal pay do contracts on the net income they get (after tax).  Because they had to give every player a payrise when the 50% tax rate came in.

[Guest gggg]

Time for him to go. Arsenal are too big a club to go nearly a decade without a trophy and too big to pander to any manager. They won 6 major trophies in the 7 years before him, one of those in Europe which he's never done.

 

He's turned them into a predictable set of wet blankets with no leaders, it's obvious to everyone else what their problems are. He's either too stubborn or too mental to solve them either way his times up.

 

As for the money argument,  I bet they've got a bigger wagebill than Milan. Their budget is definitely miles bigger than Sunderland's, and Birminghams. That isn't why they fail at this time every year against clubs with smaller budgets.

[Jagten]

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.

 

But that's part of the point. They've got a vast wage bill (111M in 09/10, dwarfing ours for example) but for years and years have been held up as paragons of financial virtue because it's still low relative to their turnover. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY.

I am well aware they are in rude financial health. But the suggestion that he only likes to spend a bit of money, on some half decent players seems daft. Surely there must be constraints other than stubbornness that hinder him.

 

Not likely.  Just follow his managerial career.

I dont think his dealings in japan and french football are comparable to the financial might of arsenal. Yes he has a tendency to opt for youth, but surely someone of his experience would be acutely aware to the need to spend money, in his current predicament. I wont cite stubbornness.

 

So given that the accounts show that they are in rude financial health ("financial might"), what do you think is happening? Are the board planning to siphon money off? If they don't trust Wenger with the money, why don't they fire him and get in someone they do trust? If the money's being withheld, why doesn't he resign himself (if you won't cite stubbornness)?

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/10/arsenals-finances-21-questions.html

Im not capable of answering those questions, as i dont know enough about the specifics or the inner workings of arsenal.

Would % of profit paid out to shareholders be viewable on their public accounts? Likewise the retained earnings?

[leffe186]

Was denilson really on 80k?

 

Well if the total wage bill was 111M in 09-10 then it wouldn't be a surprise. Their wage bill is massive (though obviously still only fourth in the Premier League). You can pick any name you like.

 

Arsenal pay do contracts on the net income they get (after tax).  Because they had to give every player a payrise when the 50% tax rate came in.

 

Sorry neesy, genuine here, I don't understand. Are they the only club that do that? If so, surely that would be even more likely to attract players?