Discussion in 'Arsenal' started by Rewinder, Sep 14, 2008.
the annual report was just filed so i cannot understand where this info comes from
Why bother reading the financial reports when you can get your info from RedCafe?
hmmm - odd
i can't navigate to anti's reply on page 5
EDIT: But by posting a reply i can get here - that was strange
You're not missing much.
Guess who's the latest to start cutting costs?
Apparently Abramovich has taken huge losses (rumored to be as much as 12 billion pounds) and isn't keen to plow more money into the club.
well they have a ridiculous squad, its aging though
at least they know how to score goals against shit teams lol
Abramovich sacks 15 Chelsea staff
scouts....wait, wait...Chelsea have scouts??????
great job there doing, i mean, look at all there recent signings....ballack,anelka, deco, alex, bosingwa
There is a great blog written today on LeGrove highlighting some questions on Arsene's motivation for not spending. It had been suggested in the past that perhaps Arsene is being incentivised on his contract by the club operating at a profit.
We will not be posting record profits this year and there are a number of reasons for this which are answered by the AST.
The guys at AST also reveal that fan pressure has prompted Arsene to take the domestic cups more seriously this season from an on-line survey that was compiled into a report which was passed around at board level.
There is no big exclusives here but its a little insight from the shareholders and a little about what goes on in the offices of The Emirates.
That's an interesting blog piece, thanks for sharing it. No big surprises.
My only question is why did you resurrect a thread last touched in 2008 to add this to??
The last time we talked about finances and Martin Daoust didn't derail the thread?
Well at least we know we can sell Wilshere for a bajillion dollars should we ever need the money. Or does an English lad playing for Arsenal lose his Englishness? Hm...
Shhhhh! Don't speak his name!
Where should I have put it? The other teams thread?
Nah, this is a good enough home for your post. Unless you wanted to <gasp> start an all new thread.
But then again starting one about finances probably wouldn't garner much attention. These days folks on BS.com seem to mostly want to talk about kits, lineup tweaks, transfer pipe dreams & who sucked in the last game.
What it does show is that we're not going to be splashing out Torres money for a few more years at least. 2014/15 when we should be hoping for better sponsorship deals, then sometime after 2020 when the stadium loan is paid off, and we'll be in a much better position. Oh for a time machine
It's a little scary how many 'fans' there seem to be that are convinced that Wenger and the board have motives that are directly against our potential success on the pitch...
I was disappointed to see that some fans believed Wenger was trying to line his own pockets by not spending.
I'm waiting for the day that Wenger can go toe to toe with richer clubs in the transfer market.
Or pointless crap about where to put a post?
Crap article, crap blog. As this shows:
We would have posted 9.1 million profit before tax in 2009 and 6.7 million in 2010 if we are to exclude player sales and the money from property development (which, in case you haven't realize, isn't a lot and we could have probably been better off not selling flats in Highbury). You should be ashamed for posting garbage from that blog. Please do not post any more crap from that blog again; no one should blindly follow Wenger, but the nonsense from that article is pure libel.
At present there are ManC and Chelski that have huge spending power, with the possibility that Roman may stop digging into his pockets if he does / does not win the Champions League (cue fanfair). Realistically, we're never going to be in a position where we can go toe to toe with either of those 2, they will always be able to out pay us if they want to. And to be honest, if in 10 years time, Arsenal are posting annual 30-40 mill profits, I still can't see them wanting to over pay on wages.
However, it would be nice to see a situation where rather than having to scrabble around for bargains, we will be buying a slighter better class of player.
As far as the rest of the league are concerned, there isn't really anyone else able to outspend us on a long term basis. Liverpool may have spent £35 mill on a player who isn't fit to play for weeks to rescue their season, but that was financed by Romans millions. Spurs spend a lot of money, but they've also been very successful in selling players too, and no doubt their transfer dealings had some bearing on Portsmouth's financial collapse. Even ManU with their extreme debt will have to penny pinch in the transfer market, and everyone else in the league generally have to sell to buy.
And remember, that although we only spend £2.45 on transfers, we do spend a lot on wages. Our squad may have only cost pennies, but because of Wengers purchasing skill, it's worth 100s of £millions, and has to be paid accordingly, so though we're somewhere near the very bottom of the league in transfer costs, we're right near the top in wages.
If you're slating Le Grove, fair enough, though as someone who is a Wenger fan, I quite enjoy reading a view from 'the other side'. They do spout a load of bullshit from time to time, but it is a view shared by a reasonable amount of people.
The information they take is from the Arsenal Supporters Trust who are pretty fair, don't have any hidden agendas, and have only the best interests of the club at heart.
Swiss rambler is a very good site, always worth a read. As far as the finance figures go, both sets point to Arsenal being in a position where we have money to buy players, but not the annual £40 mill that has been chucked about in the media
9.1 million and 6.7 million isn't 40 or 50 million though, is it?
That was the point the Le Grove article was making... They never said the club wouldn't make a profit, just that it wouldn't be record breaking profits... It's not that hard to figure out
The point they are trying to make, written in bold, goes are we only posting profits when we’re selling houses or important players?. And "so perhaps Wenger’s reticence to touch the £40million war chest is related to worry about where the next batch of money is coming from?". Which is wrong. Even without record breaking profits I don't see how anyone can deny that we do have money to buy players, just that Wenger wouldn't buy them.
it was a question... their was more of this that you chose to neglect
"It’s going to be an interesting few years on that front and it’ll be interesting to see exactly how low profits will be."
"Remember, Gazidis himself said that now all the urgent debts have been taken care of, profit can be used purely for squad strengthening. However, if we’re kicking around the £6-7million area, that leaves us sniffing around the bargain basement players or resorting to selling before we can buy."
mind you, I dont agree with everything in that article, but what you slated the Le Grove writer for not saying, is what the writer actually said
That's the part which is completely wrong; £6-7 million profit is already vastly higher than what most clubs in europe are making. Making any kind profit is already something worth praising. My point isn't that we would be seeing mega profits in the next account; my point is that we do have the money to spend on players should Wenger desire so. And while spending big money on players isn't Wenger's style, the 8.5 million and 10 million he spent on Kos and Vermaelen isn't small and he WILL spend if he sees the need to do so.
It may well be, but it's not going to buy us anyone major without additional funds from selling players. The 2 players you mention, Kos and Vermaelen both cost more, and they were seen as unknowns / bargains / gambles at the time. The point is that without player trading, we can't buy 'known' players every year.
Separate names with a comma.