Didn't he say that Baz?
He edited his post while I was writing my reply
He initially said the Emirates and Nike deals were worth £10m (I assume) each.
The Banter Thread
- Thread starter CliffyBiro
- Start date
- Status
He edited his post while I was writing my reply
He initially said the Emirates and Nike deals were worth £10m (I assume) each.
He edited his post while I was writing my reply
He initially said the Emirates and Nike deals were worth £10m (I assume) each.
I said £10m together but yes.
Ok, well it initially read to me as £10m each. And these accounts include the Fabregas and Nasri sales
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,175
- Location
- South Shields, UK
I think it's pretty obvious that there will be T&C's in his new contract that favour the club/its finances if he suddenly becomes crap. Ashley is far from stupid.
The 8 year figure means naff all, it means naff all with players too so why any one is questioning it has me a bit confused.
It says to Pardew and his staff that the club have faith in you to continue it on and foresee you as manager of NUFC for a considerable amount of time. If he continues to prove himself, then it would not be unreasonable to see the FA come in for him offering the England job or another club offering him another opportunity. NUFC will then be entitled to a good amount of compensation if he were to leave.
I would entirely expect Ashley to have negotiated positional pay incentives for him and the back room staff to keep interest levels high, the better you do the better you are paid.
And I fully expect a clause of something along the lines of if we finish in the bottom 5 then we can let you and the staff go without compensation.
Great business IMHO.
The 8 year figure means naff all, it means naff all with players too so why any one is questioning it has me a bit confused.
It says to Pardew and his staff that the club have faith in you to continue it on and foresee you as manager of NUFC for a considerable amount of time. If he continues to prove himself, then it would not be unreasonable to see the FA come in for him offering the England job or another club offering him another opportunity. NUFC will then be entitled to a good amount of compensation if he were to leave.
I would entirely expect Ashley to have negotiated positional pay incentives for him and the back room staff to keep interest levels high, the better you do the better you are paid.
And I fully expect a clause of something along the lines of if we finish in the bottom 5 then we can let you and the staff go without compensation.
Great business IMHO.
Arsenal's £36.6m profit would have been near a £90m profit had it not been for the purchases of AOC, Gervinho + a few others - which is quite alarming!
No it wouldn't have
Those players transfer fees aren't just whacked on the accounts as a cost - players are assets and their fees amortise over the length of the contract.
Without knowing the exact amount spent on the players signed in that accounting period, how long their contracts are and the exact timing of when they joined, it's difficult to say how much those players have added to Arsenal's amortisation bill in that period but I'd be surprised if it's much more than £10m (probably less when you take into account players leaving which would have lowered the amortisation bill to begin with).
edit: The amortisation bill increased by £15m. So if you simply removed the profit on player sales and the change in the amortisation bill, Arsenal would have recorded a loss of around £15m. Obviously the various outgoing and incoming transfers would have also effected the wagebill but exactly how much (just those players effected it) is anyone's guess.
Last edited:
OK fair point, but in turn I think you are neglecting their impact on the wage bill, we must have paid the new purchases something in the region of £12m+ until the end of May I'd have thought, even if the transfer fees didn't have such a big impact. As mentioned earlier, wages rose by ~£20m versus the previous year but wouldn't have risen as much had we not bought any players.
Anyway the point I was trying to make is I don't really like all that "oh they only made profit because they sold players", it reminds me a bit of the "you only beat us because we played rubbish" argument. I may as well say "our profit was so low only because we bought players". Part of Arsenal's strategy over recent years has been to bring in considerable funds through trading so it isn't as though player sales are a one-off that will never happen again. This season Arsenal have allegedly sold £43.7m worth of players. In 09/10 it was £41m.
Anyway the point I was trying to make is I don't really like all that "oh they only made profit because they sold players", it reminds me a bit of the "you only beat us because we played rubbish" argument. I may as well say "our profit was so low only because we bought players". Part of Arsenal's strategy over recent years has been to bring in considerable funds through trading so it isn't as though player sales are a one-off that will never happen again. This season Arsenal have allegedly sold £43.7m worth of players. In 09/10 it was £41m.
Last edited:
Probably not but I was assuming you'd factored in the wage cut on those players to near £30m loss! I.e. if we can say profit was 'artifically high' (not a quote but some might infer that) due to player sales and bringing the wage down then it doesn't really seem fair to discount the movement in the other direction from players coming in.
Anyway lets bookmark for a year's time and see how alarmed we should be
Anyway lets bookmark for a year's time and see how alarmed we should be
Probably not but I was assuming you'd factored in the wage cut on those players to near £30m loss! I.e. if we can say profit was 'artifically high' (not a quote but some might infer that) due to player sales and bringing the wage down then it doesn't really seem fair to discount the movement in the other direction from players coming in.
Anyway lets bookmark for a year's time and see how alarmed we should be
You've lost me with the wage cut comment. I made a simple observation that had Arsenal not recorded such a big profit on player sales, they'd have lost close to £30m. You were right to take into account incoming transfers though - a loss would have still been made however.
And I'm not sure what you're getting out with the last sentence. Arsenal obviously aren't going to go bust (you keep selling your best players to prevent that
) but given the media praise of your board's financial control, your regular CL qualification, 60k seater stadium with sky high prices, it must be a slight concern that you're having to sell players to remain profitable.To me it is more a reality than a concern.... the stadium wasn't built for free and the money had to come from somewhere (more specifically loans don't repay themselves). Most clubs that are profitable either have sizeable debts or sell players.
As I've posted in the past, I think now the property side of things is sorted, and with a new shirt deal in the offing (considering how cheaply we gave it away last time) and a stadium with high matchday revenue in place, the future should be OK providing there are no catastrophies on the pitch.
edit: if you look back here, post 11 onwards: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=20193091
...and I'm like woah, hold your horses.
The reality of course was that they ended that year with £14.8m profit, and the next year (just announced) where they were "projected to make a loss", they actually made £36.6m. Not saying the projection was necessarily wrong at the time it was made - yes, player sales propped up those profits - but the reality turned out different from the projection. If you take a longer term view transfers are a two way street, Arsenal's profits have been suppressed by players bought, if we stopped selling players we could stop buying them as well.
It is worth noting that Arsenal's net profit over the past 3 years is well in excess of £100m, so one could argue that even if they make a loss next season, the overall situation is still pretty good.
As I've posted in the past, I think now the property side of things is sorted, and with a new shirt deal in the offing (considering how cheaply we gave it away last time) and a stadium with high matchday revenue in place, the future should be OK providing there are no catastrophies on the pitch.
edit: if you look back here, post 11 onwards: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=20193091
...and I'm like woah, hold your horses.
The reality of course was that they ended that year with £14.8m profit, and the next year (just announced) where they were "projected to make a loss", they actually made £36.6m. Not saying the projection was necessarily wrong at the time it was made - yes, player sales propped up those profits - but the reality turned out different from the projection. If you take a longer term view transfers are a two way street, Arsenal's profits have been suppressed by players bought, if we stopped selling players we could stop buying them as well.
It is worth noting that Arsenal's net profit over the past 3 years is well in excess of £100m, so one could argue that even if they make a loss next season, the overall situation is still pretty good.
Last edited:
The stadium was supposed to be the answer though and increased match day revenue far outweighs the debt repayments. The cost of constructing the stadium isn't the reason for the need to sell players now to remain profitable. Costs have grown and revenues (on the whole) haven't increased at a similar rate.
As above, there's not likely to be a disaster on the cards but even with the potential of bigger commercial deals on the cards, Arsenal won't be hugely profitable.
No. As of the year end of these accounts, you owe just over £250m and have just over £150m cash in the bank.
£98m is the net debt; the difference between what you owe and the amount of cash in the bankEDIT: £150m in the bank. £98m Mortgage on the stadium payable over 20 more years or something. Yeah we are fine
Last edited:
Andre Santos banned from driving for 12 months plus has to pay £3600 in fines and costs.
Don't worry about it Andre, we've all been there. Crank up the tunes and nobody feels like they are going too fast until they break the 150 barrier. Also masks those pesky sirens in the background, I normally have to close my eyes as well to shut out the annoying lights flashing in the mirror.
Don't worry about it Andre, we've all been there. Crank up the tunes and nobody feels like they are going too fast until they break the 150 barrier. Also masks those pesky sirens in the background, I normally have to close my eyes as well to shut out the annoying lights flashing in the mirror.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 2,994
- Location
- Canberra
I guess we'll be sining
'he drives how he wants
he drives how he waaaaaaaants
not any more
he's banned for 12 months'
- Status