A manager and a team that finishes consistently top four and gets to the knockout rounds of the CL every year is pants?
I think you need to re-asses your definition of "pants"
Wenger and co getting abused by arsenal fans
- Thread starter jonneymendoza
- Start date
A manager and a team that finishes consistently top four and gets to the knockout rounds of the CL every year is pants?
I think you need to re-asses your definition of "pants"
The public Arsenal accounts contradict this.
Sorry dude. You're entitled to your own opinion about the club and manager but you should make sure you're aware of the facts first.
Since 09/10 Arsenal have gone and bought 3 players that were more than 20million. In that same time frame:
Man City have bought 15 20 million+ players
Chelsea have bought 9 20 Million+ players
Man U have bought 6 20 million+ players (7 if you include De Gea at 18, still more than arsenal have spent on a single purchase bar those 3 20 mill+).
Its all well and good quoting wages and saying arsenal spend huge money (only in the last window did you actually have a trasnfer outlay above 50 million, not net figures, actual gross spend). You are the 4th higest spenders on Wages, which is your league position on average. As you know the wage bill will generally equate to the league finish - so you are finishing bang on target, regardless of the Wenger is rubbish arguement you seem to peddle.
Re Dortmund and Athletico - in the years they challenged / won titles - they have zero injuries pretty much. Give them injuries, and watch them suffer for it (hi Dortmund).
Have Arsenal not got the money to buy £20m plus players? Do you not get considerably more money for progressing to the latter stages of the CL and finishing higher in the PL?
Some would say that his unwillingness to spend money when its needed is part of the issue.
Some would say that his unwillingness to spend money when its needed is part of the issue.
again, it just smack of the sense of entitlement some fans post 1992 seem to have
people supporting preston or Bolton or most of the other 92 league clubs must look on in bemusement as people moan about qualifying for the champions league every year
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,135
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Is Boltons expectations based on size of club, current squads ability, training recheme, history and wealth expected to compete with Man city and Real madrid for top honours?
Nope they have realistic expectations with the bar set well lower then arsenals
Indeed, the majority of us (myself included) get on like a bunch of entitled ***** when really none of us know what little success really feels like and those clubs never will due to money, kinda makes it all seem a bit silly and down to luck
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,135
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
So i guess you be satisfied with liverpool finishing bottom of the league as you should be grateful that you had a chance to be in the EPL compared to Bolton and co lol
Thats just a retarded argument. If you a capable of being a rocket scientist but work as a dustman you are not reaching your intellectual potential. Arsenal could and should strive for more based on their situation in the PL. Who cares if you support a local team in League 3 whos sole ambition is to not get relegated.
Look at southampton. Should they have been happy when they got promoted to the Championship and just said "right, we have done well so lets just be happy with what we have" or should they have aimed higher once they had achieved this.
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,135
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
well said.
Arsenal has a realistic expectations to actually compete with the very best.
else why bother moving to a large stadium then! or touring around asia to get more brand appeal!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
No they don't, Arsenal's financial records show the debt INCREDIBLY clearly, if you believe they don't you have not read them. For no apparent reason in the past 18 months, largely because we spent money on Ozil people have decided we've paid off the debt, we haven't. No one at Arsenal has claimed this, the numbers are clear as day to anyone who can read.
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_file...1411130554_ISDX_ANNOUNCEMENT_FULL_CONTENT.pdf
I have no idea at all why the pages aren't numbered, either way, 3rd last page. As of June 1st 2013 our debts held as bonds were 247 million, as of May 31 2014 this is 240million.
Anyone who thinks we are out of debt, our repayment schedule has significantly changed or that our finances were anything but stronger at every single second since the stadium move is 100% incorrect.
Or is the link to Arsenal's pdf which lists are current debt and 100% proves it's not gone not remotely small somehow prove otherwise? We pay off around 15mil a year of which a decent portion is interest and well, the debt itself only decreased around 6million.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,152
- Location
- Surrey
For the amount we've spent it's pants. Look what Southampton can do having spent a pittance in comparison. If they had our sort of money they'd be up the top ahead of us regularly. Surely every team wants to win the league and are trying to find the right manager and players to do it? Arsenal currently don't have the manager or probably the players to win so things need to change. Settling for 4th every year shows no ambition, who wants that?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/arsenal-money-dont-matter-2-night.html
Anyone that wants to know a bit more about Arsenal finances should read that top to bottom and stop talking rubbish about having no debt.
This is two years old and the numbers are a little better now but not hugely. People confuse gross and net debt. When a paper wants to make one club look bad they compare it's gross debt to other clubs net debt. When a paper wants to push a narrative that Arsenal can spend because we are out of debt they are talking about our net debt(gross debt - cash reserves). We had around 206mil of debt and 173mil of cash giving us a 33million net debt, but it's still a 206million debt largely down to the stadium, this is still going down by roughly equal amounts through payments each year with multiple large drops due to property sales from the development of the old ground. The bank loans which were around 270mil at their highest got refinanced into long term bonbs basically right after the stadium was finished. This meant around 250mil of various bonds to due to be repaid by 2031... yes a 3 and a 1. It was not paid off in the last couple of years and won't be for a very long time. Absolutely nothing changed in regards to the debt between 2007 and today, nor will it change significantly in the next 5 years. We may pay it off early but that has financial penalties or, effectively no real gains in doing so.
The only financial stipulation with the debt is that we keep £24mil in cash reserves... so if we have a crappy year we can still repay the next years interest/required payments basically. In all but one year since 2005 we had over 70mil in cash reserves, they built up by some 20mil a year up to the 173mil figure bandied around last year. There is no requirement to have this much in reserve. But when people say the 173mil in cash and then we spent 42mil in Ozil out of nowhere people figured the debt was gone and the 173mil was free to spend, both being incorrect.
The debt is NO WHERE NEAR paid off, and the cash reserves are... whatever. They could be used to pay off the debt, we could hit 200mil in cash reserves then spend every spare penny after that on the club, the board might take 140mil out and pocket it, who knows.
We have over 200mil in debt, we still have pretty large cash reserves(I would guess down at least 30mil maybe more like 50mil after the past 12 months of spending). When we sold RVP for however much it was, we had 150+mil in cash reserves and only required 24mil to be in there... we did in no way sell RVP because we were in trouble financially, nor Cesc, nor any other player since the stadium move. Not once have we been in danger of missing repayments or dropping cash reserves. We could have kept Ade, Cesc, RVP, Clichy, Toure, not have the slightest problem financially.
When we left Highbury we had a wage bill around the 65-70mil mark, it now stands at around 170mil and yet our cash reserves have increased by 100mil and we've made repayments. Not for one second since the move have we been financially worse off. We've had increased spending power on a dramatic scale(not all down to the stadium of course, tv, other income). When the debt is finally gone we will have even more money but only 10-15mil a year more.
It's a case of, using a rough figure for direct comparison, being able to afford 85mil a year in transfers/wages before the moved, ignoring tv increases and focusing on stadium income increase alone, the year we moved we could spend 115mil a year, and once the debt is repaid this will move towards more like 125-130mil. Just because we'd be stronger without debt repayments doesn't change the fact that 115mil is significantly higher than 85mil. We are and have been since the day of the move FAR stronger financially.
Anyone that wants to know a bit more about Arsenal finances should read that top to bottom and stop talking rubbish about having no debt.
This is two years old and the numbers are a little better now but not hugely. People confuse gross and net debt. When a paper wants to make one club look bad they compare it's gross debt to other clubs net debt. When a paper wants to push a narrative that Arsenal can spend because we are out of debt they are talking about our net debt(gross debt - cash reserves). We had around 206mil of debt and 173mil of cash giving us a 33million net debt, but it's still a 206million debt largely down to the stadium, this is still going down by roughly equal amounts through payments each year with multiple large drops due to property sales from the development of the old ground. The bank loans which were around 270mil at their highest got refinanced into long term bonbs basically right after the stadium was finished. This meant around 250mil of various bonds to due to be repaid by 2031... yes a 3 and a 1. It was not paid off in the last couple of years and won't be for a very long time. Absolutely nothing changed in regards to the debt between 2007 and today, nor will it change significantly in the next 5 years. We may pay it off early but that has financial penalties or, effectively no real gains in doing so.
The only financial stipulation with the debt is that we keep £24mil in cash reserves... so if we have a crappy year we can still repay the next years interest/required payments basically. In all but one year since 2005 we had over 70mil in cash reserves, they built up by some 20mil a year up to the 173mil figure bandied around last year. There is no requirement to have this much in reserve. But when people say the 173mil in cash and then we spent 42mil in Ozil out of nowhere people figured the debt was gone and the 173mil was free to spend, both being incorrect.
The debt is NO WHERE NEAR paid off, and the cash reserves are... whatever. They could be used to pay off the debt, we could hit 200mil in cash reserves then spend every spare penny after that on the club, the board might take 140mil out and pocket it, who knows.
We have over 200mil in debt, we still have pretty large cash reserves(I would guess down at least 30mil maybe more like 50mil after the past 12 months of spending). When we sold RVP for however much it was, we had 150+mil in cash reserves and only required 24mil to be in there... we did in no way sell RVP because we were in trouble financially, nor Cesc, nor any other player since the stadium move. Not once have we been in danger of missing repayments or dropping cash reserves. We could have kept Ade, Cesc, RVP, Clichy, Toure, not have the slightest problem financially.
When we left Highbury we had a wage bill around the 65-70mil mark, it now stands at around 170mil and yet our cash reserves have increased by 100mil and we've made repayments. Not for one second since the move have we been financially worse off. We've had increased spending power on a dramatic scale(not all down to the stadium of course, tv, other income). When the debt is finally gone we will have even more money but only 10-15mil a year more.
It's a case of, using a rough figure for direct comparison, being able to afford 85mil a year in transfers/wages before the moved, ignoring tv increases and focusing on stadium income increase alone, the year we moved we could spend 115mil a year, and once the debt is repaid this will move towards more like 125-130mil. Just because we'd be stronger without debt repayments doesn't change the fact that 115mil is significantly higher than 85mil. We are and have been since the day of the move FAR stronger financially.
Last edited:
fundamental question is.....why do people support a football team
is it to win things? if thats the case theres only a few clubs fans will ever know what that feels like..and in which case why bother to support anybody else?
or is it something else? something that draws fans to support local teams even though theres next to no chance of the success some other clubs have.
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,135
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
call me old fashion but i support my local team and thats arsenal where i went to primary school and grew up in islington.
Many folks are the same or support the same team there father and tehre grandfather and even there great grand father probably supported.
Some of us were born next to old trafford or had our father etc born and bread united supports while some where born and raised in Bolton.
mighty lucky...but can you not understand how it looks to the vast majority of other supporters who don't live near one of these financial giants. United fans were the same last year.
I also suspect that match day crowds for these mega clubs are not the same as they used to be...how many people are there because of a long tradition of supporting the club through their families. I bet long time fans can spot the tourists a mile off, are real fans being priced out in favour of day trippers?
So if the club is still in debt is Arsene's brief 'Champions league qualification' and the club are happy with that? Can they (and should they) invest the money to try and take on City/Chelsea? Can they afford to if it means a new manager who will want £200 million to buy 'his' players? Are thee club sticking with Arsene because it's cheaper than getting someone else?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Not really, a manager can't spend more money if the board don't allow him to. I think a new manager could get more out of the players we have and do better in the transfer market. I mean, I called it when we bought Welbeck, Giroud was injured and Welbeck wanted to play more centrally but you had to look long term. Wenger was always going to put Giroud back in and Welbeck has already been pushed out wide or in fact dropped for a game. This was always going to happen, we spent 16mil and likely 100k or more a week to buy in a main striker for 2 months before he got pushed out wide where he is even more awful.
Aside from the fact that Welbeck is cack, not worth 16mil nor 100k a week and the team didn't need him, buying him was a terrible idea when you could see Wenger would favour Giroud anyway. When Ozil and Walcott are fit, two of Wenger's favourites, with Giroud back where does Welbeck fit in to the team. Same happened with Chamakh, rather than giving a big wage to a new player in a position we needed we used him for 3-4 months while RVP was injured then barely used him again, another big in price yet short term fix that everyone else could see would be a bad buy before Wenger did it.
Ozil, well, it's either a ridiculous coincidence that everything I said about Ozil's strength, attitude, poor big game performances and general lazyness was completely accurate or in fact Ozil just looked like that for Real for his 3 years there. 42mil was always a ridiculous fee for Ozil.
A better manager would even within the same budget get better value, buy the right players and get better performances out of the players who are here. I mean, do you think any manager that came in would give Diaby a new contract like Wenger wants to.
How much cash Arsenal have doesn't matter, it's not the reason Wenger should go. We've overspent on poor players, aren't getting performances out of the players we have, make stupid short term buys with no long term plan. How is it Mourinho can come to Chelsea and highlight the key positions that need improving, they've spent other money but the key buys were Matic, Cesc and Costa and we could have used all three and could have afforded all three, having spent almost the same on just Sanchez/Ozil alone.
I want a manager who looks at our performances, isn't delusional and attempts to fix major problems within the squad, if we still don't compete, fine, as long as a manager is trying to improve.
Watching Arsenal play the same every week, lose to anyone good in a gutless performance, watch someone great left on the bench because Wenger has some random love of Hleb, or Denilson, or Cazorla, Gibbs, Sagna, etc, seeing the same major mistakes when we get thrashed in an 8-2 or 6-0 every season, it's soul destroying.
Well said. I agree and I like you would only want wenger replaced with someone truly special. Otherwise we could easily end up much worse even with a manager implementing all of DMs suggestions.
Another manager unless world class won't attract players like ozil and sanchez. This is the time we need to slowly build on world class players. Not sure what dm and jonneyboy expect, it won't be easy to beat the likes of city and chelsea. New random manager won't fix that.
Wait until end of season I say. Silly calling for his head now in my opinion.