The Banter Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
MrMoonX said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21572865

Is wenger smoking crack? seriously im a gunners fan, but top 2 WTF

least we are one of the few clubs who doesnt have billions in debt and the financial fair play rules will help us, good luck with that chelski and utd.
Click to expand...

PMSL proof if proof is needed that Wenger has lost his marbles finally, look if we get 4th it will be nothing short of a miracle but getting 2nd is laughable:p.

As for FPP??, wouldn't really pin my hopes on that making us competitive tbh.
 
BaZ87 said:
No it's not. Profit on player sales is simply the difference between a players book value and the amount they're sold for. Amortisation is recorded completely separately from profit on player sales.

I've not seen the accounts but going from the link above, Arsenal have specifically mentioned player trading which I assume means that £23m is a profit on the actual amounts players were bought and sold for rather than having anything to do with either amortisation or whatever figure is recorded on the accounts for profit on player sale.s

edit: Just had a look at the above is correct. Arsenal's actual profit on player sales (the amount sold for - their 'value') was £42.5m. The £23m is the actual difference between the total cost of players sold and bought.
Click to expand...

Which is what I said, we've spent circa £105mil across two windows with varying contract lengths, meaning £42.5 -23mil gives you the amount of our current total we pay out per year based on various buys we've made.

Which is essentially what I said, once again someone being overly nitpicky when I was simply taking the general terms of player profit, overall money we made as profit from player sales, minus the amount amortization for any players that count would be this year, giving us the total of £23mil profit.

AS per usual if I under explain, know it alls want to point out any minor thing even if I didn't explictly say what I meant but it was fairly obvious I meant general terms, if I over explain I get everyone complaining about posting too much.

Where as if I know a player was bought for £18mil, and someone says their price was £17, ot 19, or 20, I know it won't effect the general point they were making and I don't feel the inexplicable need to point out the inaccuracy... not least because some people will find a single source claiming a specific fee and take that as gospel, even though 10 papers all claim a different cost but in the same ballpark.

As for pointing out where people are right or wrong. We sold RVP for £22-24mil(likely 22mil + addon's, which we'll get :p ), Vela for just over 3, Song for £16 mil, Bartley and Lansbury for a mil each, around £45mil.

Players bought, Podolski was 11mil, Giroud 12mil, and Santi is said to be anything from 17-20mil, so a minimum cost of £40mil.

I fail to see how a flat numbers £45mil sold - £40mil spent = 23mil profit, but maybe its just me.

The circa £105mil spent, meaning roughly between 20-25mil in yearly amortized costs with most transfers between 4 and 5 years giving roughly £45mil - 22mil = £23mil.......
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
Which is what I said
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. You said your profit on player sales was £23m and that profit on player sales is calculated by deducting 1 years amortisation on incoming transfers from the amount received from outgoing players. Both points were simply wrong.

Your profit on player sales was just under £43m and profit on player sales is not calculated as you said - it's simply the difference in the fee received for a player and their value on the balance sheet.

edit: and reading the accounts, it's easy to see what Arsenal are referring to with the 'profit on player trading' stuff. It's the difference between your profit on player trading and the total amortisation bill, not the last year or 2's signings as you're now trying to say.

Profit on player sales = £42.5m
Amortisation bill (for all transfers that haven't fully amortised) = £19.9m
 
Last edited:
Yas786 said:
As for FPP??, wouldn't really pin my hopes on that making us competitive tbh.
Click to expand...

I think he is clutching at straws (he is an Arsenal fan, so of course, he would want to cling to some hope).

As for Wenger. This is a public relations exercise.
Publicly, he has to show that he is some fight and has higher aspirations than 4th or 5th place. His job is on the line, so he has to show he is fighter and hasn't given up.

I think that fans need to understand though, that cash injections have helped
Man City and Chelsea, to leap frog Arsenal. Before the cash injections, Arsenal were consistently finishing ahead of them. So, if we remove Chelsea and Man City from the table, only Man Utd and Tottenham are ahead of Arsenal. And by the end of the season, it is possible that Tottenham will have dropped below Arsenal. So, without the big spenders, Arsenal would finish top 2 or 3.

The same also goes for Liverpool - although Liverpool have now fallen below the likes of WBA; Liverpool who 10 years ago were finishing in the top 3 (with Man utd and Arsenal)...Liverpool's problems are deeper and could see them fall further, as the years roll on (unless there is a cash injection).

The problem isn't Arsene Wenger, the problem is that 2 other teams have spent huge sums of money to elevate themselves above Arsenal.
 
BaZ87 said:
No it wasn't. You said your profit on player sales was £23m and that profit on player sales is calculated by deducting 1 years amortisation on incoming transfers from the amount received from outgoing players. Both points were simply wrong.

Your profit on player sales was just under £43m and profit on player sales is not calculated as you said - it's simply the difference in the fee received for a player and their value on the balance sheet.

edit: and reading the accounts, it's easy to see what Arsenal are referring to with the 'profit on player trading' stuff. It's the difference between your profit on player trading and the total amortisation bill, not the last year or 2's signings as you're now trying to say.

Profit on player sales = £42.5m
Amortisation bill (for all transfers that haven't fully amortised) = £19.9m
Click to expand...

So its what I said, but you're claiming I said something else to suit what you want, its also MOSTLY the money for the last two years players because we've spent heavily for 2 years and I couldn't be bothered calculating every single player we've bought or looking back for 6 years without knowing every single player.

IF we spent £130mil in the past 4 years, and £105-110 mil of that was in the last two years, the amortization bill for the last 2 years will get you pretty close to the actual figure. Remember the nitpicking and the ball park and the not changing the final outcome much at all bit I said? I could have found every single player bought in 6 years, checked each contract length, checked multiple sources to find a likely price and come up with the actual figure, or considering 90% of the spending was in the past 2 years, use the easiest to find most recent numbers to ballpark it.... how massively inaccurate of me... and so inaccurate I got it to within apparently 1million of my estimate.... but thank god you found the actual £19mil cost, because vs my £20mil estimate, its such a MASSIVE difference it changes everything......


You also simply made up the "not the last 2 years signings as you're now trying to say", because go back to my last post, I said in one case

our current total we pay out per year based on various buys we've made
Click to expand...

minus the amount amortization for any players that count would be this year
Click to expand...

Which of these indicates only two years of sales?

Also once again you are wrong, all I said was that player profits on the year will be stated as player profits(I didn't say HOW the individual profit would be calculated AT ALL) for that year on sales would then have player amortization costs deducted from it and that would be counted as "transfer" profit for the year.

Boo hoo, in the first post I was both trying to generalise Arsenals situation and explain it because not everyone knows.

If a club has ZERO purchases, sells players for £40mil of profit, and buys £40mil of players all on 4 year contracts, this would go down as a £30mil profit on the books for that year and assuming no more sales, £10mil loss for the next 3 years.

You know how obvious this is, look what I refered to, the £23mil transfer profit, the £23mil transfer profit as shown on our books, this is what I was refering to, NOT an individual player profit, I was explaining how THE BOOKS WORKED, which is clear as day, and explicitly infered because I didn't say how the £42.5mil profit was calculated, and a slightly mistated "first year amortization", only because I was trying to show how this works in general terms.

SO to sum up, you claiming I was wrong, was incorrect, and you claiming, then confirming yourself correct about how that number was achieved with sales vs buys for the single season was.... entirely incorrect.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
So its what I said, but you're claiming I said something else to suit what you want
Click to expand...

I've said before that I can understand that it's difficult for you to keep track of what you say considering you come out with so much **** but you seriously can't be this stupid.

This is what you initially said:
drunkenmaster said:
That includes a £23mil profit from player sales, which is calculated as profit from player sales vs ONLY the first year amortization of the players we bought.
Click to expand...

The £23m is not profit on player sales, profit on player sales is not calculated that way and neither is that the way Arsenal calculated their profit on player trading figure (which isn't even something recorded in accounts, it's just something Arsenal chose to put in the report themselves). You were fundamentally wrong in everything you said.

You also simply made up the "not the last 2 years signings as you're now trying to say", because go back to my last post, I said in one case
Click to expand...

I have? Why not provide the full sentence rather than cut out the section where you state it's spread across two windows (see below)? And as quoted above, you initially claimed it was only the first years amortisation of players. Wrong on both counts.
drunkenmaster said:
Which is what I said, we've spent circa £105mil across two windows with varying contract lengths, meaning £42.5 -23mil gives you the amount of our current total we pay out per year based on various buys we've made.
Click to expand...

As above everything you said was wrong but you still insist on digging :o
 
Peter Hill-Wood was talking about us being able to buy Falcao if we wanted, he said that whenever we decide to buy a player the price guide is secondary. I guess that's not hard when we only buy dross from financially struggling league un teams. :p
 
K1LLSW1TCH said:
Peter Hill-Wood was talking about us being able to buy Falcao if we wanted, he said that whenever we decide to buy a player the price guide is secondary. I guess that's not hard when we only buy dross from financially struggling league un teams. :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was utter nonsense!
 
Newbie007 said:
Soo, do the spuds fans still wish good ol 'Arry was in charge? Seems to be that the players are enjoying playing under AVB a lot more
Click to expand...

I was relieved when he was sacked tbh, not as much drama, especially in the transfer window.

AVB has done far better than I thought he would, last August I was hoping for a top 6 finish with a new manager, especially with such a diminished squad.
 
:confused: Wat?!


NtMLalN.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom