Arsenal surpass Manchester United
Google Beta User
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
Gabbage
> As Britains richest club that is.
>
> http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
I thought it would be closer to 160 million, but whatever, it had been
known for years that the new stadium would make them among the three
richest clubs in the world. So it was always bizarre that Spurs fans
thought they could catch Arsenal. No matter what happened last year
they were always going to be left behind in the long-term.
Diablos Rojos
"Google Beta User" <wany...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Operating figures which include the sale of the apartments that are built on
the old Highbury, which have pumped up this years figures.
Stefan Walker
"Google Beta User" <wany...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Blah..Blah..Blah...My cock is bigger than yours blah blah...
Try having fuck all money...it's far more refreshing...lmao
Bert Bertolli
"Diablos Rojos" <M.B.@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5lpklnF...@mid.individual.net...
I reckon I must be tired. I can't see the statement saying that turnover has
been inflated by the sales on the Highbury Square units. £137m in 2006, £200
in 2007 with a £46m rise in match day profits. If it has inflated them, then
I would guess only to the tune of £17m.
But if the developemnt isn't ready until 2009, what muppet has paid out for
their apartment already? My sister bought her house before it was built, but
as far as I am aware the mortgage didn't start until they had completed and
moved in.....
http://www.plusmarketsgroup.com/story.shtml?ISIN=GB0030895238&NewsID=25781
scoopex
scoopex
yet again diablos claims to run his own business but cannot understand a
simple business statement put out by arsenal.
*OWNED*
Diablos Rojos
"Bert Bertolli" <be...@bertware.cotton.com> wrote in message
news:3tmdnc9_RKkNP2rb...@bt.com...
>
> "Diablos Rojos" <M.B.@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5lpklnF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Google Beta User" <wany...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> > As Britains richest club that is.
>> >
>> > http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>> >
>>
>> Operating figures which include the sale of the apartments that are built
> on
>> the old Highbury, which have pumped up this years figures.
>>
>>
>
> I reckon I must be tired. I can't see the statement saying that turnover
> has
> been inflated by the sales on the Highbury Square units.
Read more carefully then in the link you provided and it says that funds
have been included from the Highbury development and theres more to follow.
Diablos Rojos
"scoopex" <sco...@scoopex.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46f7a569$0$28228$a926...@news.buzzardnews.com...
Yet again the dumbarse scrote jumps in without knowing what the fuck he's on
about.
Be quiet mong.
Gabbage
> "Google Beta User" <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > As Britains richest club that is.
>
> >http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>
> Operating figures which include the sale of the apartments that are built on
> the old Highbury, which have pumped up this years figures.
Thanks for the info. I took a peak at the full report and the
apartment sales apparently account for £23.5 million. That's a lot of
money they'll receive only once, so the £200+ million figure is a bit
misleading. But that still means they'll receive around £177 million
every year as long as they make the Champions League.
scoopex
*tilt*
Diablos Rojos
"Gabbage" <gab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190635204.9...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
They have got more cash to come from the sales of these developments, should
cover about 60% of the cost of building the Emirates all told, not that it
will be used to pay it off though.
chuck-...@hotmail.co.uk
Be carefully what you wish for, United's renowned profitability
attracted the wrong sort of 'investor'.
Ian
> "Google Beta User" <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > As Britains richest club that is.
>
> >http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>
> Operating figures which include the sale of the apartments that are built on
> the old Highbury, which have pumped up this years figures.
and when you take this out, it's still a higher turnover than Man U,
but with a far, far, far lower debt repayment.
Any comment?
scoopex
Diablos Rojos
"Ian" <ianharv...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1190636969.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Yes it worries me that the Glazers will look at your figures see that we
have a far bigger gate and fanbase and think they'll rip us off as much as
you lot are obviously getting done.
Bound to happen.
RED DEVIL
Best read it again...lol
RED DEVIL
Champions!
RED DEVIL
wrote:
yes, I'll comment.
You don't know how to read financial documents.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
Doublegooner
It maybe all very well MU supposedly having a bigger worldwide fanbase, but
this inviarably has no financial benefit as the majority of these fans are
from countries with low income & there is nothing that they can buy. Get
ready for increased seat prices !
Interestly for the first time, this season the Chinese will have to pay for
the main live PL games & they don't like it !!
Bert Bertolli
2007 2006
GBPm GBPm
Football
Turnover 177.0 132.1
Operating profit * 42.2 13.4
Profit before tax and
exceptional items 20.8 16.8
Property development
Turnover 23.8 5.1
Operating profit * 9.0 0.3
Profit before tax and
exceptional items 6.1 (0.9)
Group
Turnover 200.8 137.2
Operating profit * 51.2 13.7
Profit before tax and
exceptional items 26.9 15.9
* = Operating Profit stated before
depreciation and player trading costs
The property development business recorded the sale of the development site
at
Drayton Park for some GBP23.5 million. We continue to progress and invest in
two further major property development sites. The larger of these is
Highbury
Square where the construction and development work on the conversion of
Highbury into apartments and penthouses is being financed through a separate
bank facility arranged specifically for that purpose. Assembly of the
smaller
development site at Queensland Road is very close to being complete and we
are
currently preparing a revised comprehensive planning application. The
combined
sales value of these two development sites is expected to be comfortably in
excess of GBP300 million and we expect the Group's property activities to
contribute positive net cash of some GBP90 million over the next three years
Diablos Rojos
wany...@gmail.com
> "Google Beta User" <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > As Britains richest club that is.
>
> >http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>
> Operating figures which include the sale of the apartments that are built on
> the old Highbury, which have pumped up this years figures.
Ok.
I figure the sale of those apartments are part of Arsenal's revenue
available to you though.
And I forgot to check if debt or expenses were included, but even then
they certainly haven't spent as much as we have, nor do they have
Glazer's debt like you lot do.
I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
Old Trafford though.
Diablos Rojos
"Doublegooner" <double...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R-ydnSCeEb-HIGrb...@bt.com...
> ready for increased seat prices !
>
What I just said really then?
I haven't paid to get into a game for 10years or more so it doesn't affect
me, but it does annoy that these clubs are just milking for every penny now,
it has to stop somewhere. The football fan though seems willing to forsake
other things as long as they get to see the game. Maybe there's sublimal
messages in the electronic advertising boards and mind control drugs in the
pies and bovril.
Bert Bertolli
>
> "Bert Bertolli" <be...@bertware.cotton.com> wrote in message
> news:IPmdnY28tMm7IGrb...@bt.com...
>
> AND?
>
There is no income from Highbury Square in those figures. It does state they
will contribute to turnover over the next 3 years though.
Bert Bertolli
"RED DEVIL" <REDD...@xxxbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7ccff35f4n2u17v90...@4ax.com...
Why, what is he missing?
Diablos Rojos
£24million from Highbury properties included in those figures.
cupra
Explain then.
wany...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:06:37 -0000, Google Beta User
>
> >As Britains richest club that is.
>
> >http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>
> Best read it again...lol
>
> RED DEVIL
I read it again and saw:
"Arsenal today revealed their status as Britain's richest football
club following figures released this morning which show their move to
the Emirates Stadium helped increase turnover to more than £200m.
The report - for the year ending May 31, 2007 - also revealed group
operating profits up by an astonishing 274%, to £51.2m. These well
exceed the likes of Manchester United...."
I'm not an economist or financial analyst, so perhaps there was a
hidden message. What did I miss?
Ian
> "Ian" <ianharveygoo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
I think they realise that Arsenal have a far wealthier fan base.
There is still room for squeezing up there though.
Ian
You don't expect a financial analyst in The Guardian to know what he's
talking about do you?
Best to ship over some know nothing from the US who played for
Macclesfield 50 years ago to analyse them instead.
Bert Bertolli
Ah right, that isn't from Highbury. It is from a development they agreed to
with Islington Council to regenerate an area close to Drayton Park to
provide some cheap housing and a health centre (although the health centre
has been put on hold as the NHS trust didn't take up the option). It does
mean that is has pushed the overall turnover up by 13% or so. So without
property income, football turnover was £177m, with £23.8m as added income.
Total, £200.8m
What the financial statement does also mention is that the next 3 years will
bring extra cash of £90m through the Highbury developemnt and queensland
road. So we will have to get used to seeing it on the balance for a few
years. No mention of what the extra cash will be used for, but I'm sure
there are plenty willing to establish their guess as fact.
I don't think it will be used to pay off any of the stadium debt, as the
club hve stated they have fixed this over 25 years at a low interest rate of
less then 6%, more then comfortable to repay at the given turnover. However
the club do state 'It is expected that the development of Highbury Square
will be completed in the fourth calendar quarter of 2009, making further
funds available to the Group to either increase investment in the squad or
to reduce borrowings'.
I guess it depends on how much squad 'investment' is needed.
Diablos Rojos
yeah whatever you're all millionaires down in the smoke and we're all poor
peasants who live in huts crafted from dung and corrugated iron. Stands to
reason the more you charge for tickets the poorer fans get driven away.
> There is still room for squeezing up there though.
>
Theres plenty of room, maybe the normal joe working class fan will get
pushed out even more, there will always be somebody ready to step in and
pay that bit more for a ticket and remember all United fans are from the
super rich Sarf east not the peasanty North.
SteveH
> I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
> Old Trafford though.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest when you consider that the cheapest
Arsenal season ticket is more expensive than the most expensive United
season ticket.
It's all very well jumping up and down at these turnover figures - but
they're heavily funded by the paying fans.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
Ian
> <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
> > Old Trafford though.
>
> Doesn't surprise me in the slightest when you consider that the cheapest
> Arsenal season ticket is more expensive than the most expensive United
> season ticket.
>
> It's all very well jumping up and down at these turnover figures - but
> they're heavily funded by the paying fans.
Exactly, the results are bitter sweet, although to be honest my ticket
is the same price as it was at highbury.
Luther Root
> <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
> > Old Trafford though.
>
> Doesn't surprise me in the slightest when you consider that the cheapest
> Arsenal season ticket is more expensive than the most expensive United
> season ticket.
>
> It's all very well jumping up and down at these turnover figures - but
> they're heavily funded by the paying fans.
Better to be funded by the fans, rather than a megalomaniac Russian
oligarch, I say. Or for matter, debt taken-out in the club's name to
finance the purchase of non-income generating assets.
~LR
SteveH
The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets and
getting what in return?
The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
considering the turnover, the profit figure, especially considering the
very limited squad spending, looks absolutely shite.
wany...@gmail.com
> The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets and
> getting what in return?
>
> The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
In Arsenal's case is it because Arsenal _can't_ or because Wenger
won't? (this is in regards to limited squad spending).
SteveH
Luther Root
> Luther Root <Luther.R...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 12:20 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
> > > <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
> > > > Old Trafford though.
>
> > > Doesn't surprise me in the slightest when you consider that the cheapest
> > > Arsenal season ticket is more expensive than the most expensive United
> > > season ticket.
>
> > > It's all very well jumping up and down at these turnover figures - but
> > > they're heavily funded by the paying fans.
>
> > Better to be funded by the fans, rather than a megalomaniac Russian
> > oligarch, I say. Or for matter, debt taken-out in the club's name to
> > finance the purchase of non-income generating assets.
>
> The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets and
> getting what in return?
The most attractive football played in the country,
~LR
Luther Root
> <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 10:48 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>
> > > The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets and
> > > getting what in return?
>
> > > The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
>
> > In Arsenal's case is it because Arsenal _can't_ or because Wenger
> > won't? (this is in regards to limited squad spending).
>
> £5.6m pre-tax profit says he can't.
Um, doesn't the pre-tax profit reflect what the club has left over
_after_ transfers?
~LR
SteveH
Oh, well, that's OK then.
It's fine to charge fans significantly more than everyone else, so long
as you play pretty football. Even if this does mean an empty trophy
cabinet.
Diablos Rojos
"Luther Root" <Luthe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190647555.0...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
~LR
So what huge transfers have you shelled out on?
SteveH
Luther Root
> "Luther Root" <Luther.R...@gmail.com> wrote in message
How about: Who cares?
Anybody with half a brain cell or more knows where the money is
going.
However, if the Board says there was money available to Wenger but he
chose not to use it, I would believe them. It's no great stretch for
Arsenal to go 5-10M in the red, if Arsene wanted another striker.
Perhaps he should have, that way the club would have paid less to
HMRC.
~LR
Diablos Rojos
On Sep 25, 1:27 am, "Diablos Rojos" <M...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Luther Root" <Luther.R...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190647555.0...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 1:08 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>
> > <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 24, 10:48 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>
> > > > The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets
> > > > and
> > > > getting what in return?
>
> > > > The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
>
> > > In Arsenal's case is it because Arsenal _can't_ or because Wenger
> > > won't? (this is in regards to limited squad spending).
>
> > £5.6m pre-tax profit says he can't.
>
> Um, doesn't the pre-tax profit reflect what the club has left over
> _after_ transfers?
>
> ~LR
>
> So what huge transfers have you shelled out on?
How about: Who cares?
You did a moment ago
SteveH
> > So what huge transfers have you shelled out on?
>
> How about: Who cares?
>
> Anybody with half a brain cell or more knows where the money is
> going.
>
> However, if the Board says there was money available to Wenger but he
> chose not to use it, I would believe them. It's no great stretch for
> Arsenal to go 5-10M in the red, if Arsene wanted another striker.
> Perhaps he should have, that way the club would have paid less to
> HMRC.
If Arsene wanted to spend money, he'd have..... enough to buy Emile
Heskey in the kitty.
With ticket prices like yours, I'd expect a hell of a lot more money to
be available to the manager - especially from such a 'well run club' -
which looks absolutely laughable when you consider that, even without
major transfer spending, all you had left at the end of the trading year
was just over £5m left from around £200m coming in.
Luther Root
> "Luther Root" <Luther.R...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190648369.8...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 1:27 am, "Diablos Rojos" <M...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Luther Root" <Luther.R...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1190647555.0...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 25, 1:08 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>
> > > <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 24, 10:48 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>
> > > > > The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets
> > > > > and
> > > > > getting what in return?
>
> > > > > The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
>
> > > > In Arsenal's case is it because Arsenal _can't_ or because Wenger
> > > > won't? (this is in regards to limited squad spending).
>
> > > £5.6m pre-tax profit says he can't.
>
> > Um, doesn't the pre-tax profit reflect what the club has left over
> > _after_ transfers?
>
> > ~LR
>
> > So what huge transfers have you shelled out on?
>
> How about: Who cares?
>
> You did a moment ago
Not me.
The other poster was suggesting Wenger can't spend because of
Arsenal's low pre-tax profit. I say he can spend, but chose not to.
~LR
Doublegooner
I've been going to The Arsenal since 1967. Of course it would have nice to
be paying a pro rata gate price up until late 80's, but reality is the
demand is so strong and this affects the prices. I do feel for the many
genuine fans from clubs that have been priced out as they are probably the
ones that add to atmosphere in the stadiums.
Doublegooner
"SteveH" <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1i4yajj.11gz0xjtjl8nwN%st...@italiancar.co.uk...
> <wany...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
> > Old Trafford though.
>
> Doesn't surprise me in the slightest when you consider that the cheapest
> Arsenal season ticket is more expensive than the most expensive United
> season ticket.
>
> It's all very well jumping up and down at these turnover figures - but
> they're heavily funded by the paying fans.
Bit like a Tesco's turnover being funded by shoppers !
Doublegooner
> Luther Root <Luthe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 12:20 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
> > > <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
> > > > Old Trafford though.
> > >
> > > Doesn't surprise me in the slightest when you consider that the
cheapest
> > > Arsenal season ticket is more expensive than the most expensive United
> > > season ticket.
> > >
> > > It's all very well jumping up and down at these turnover figures - but
> > > they're heavily funded by the paying fans.
> >
> > Better to be funded by the fans, rather than a megalomaniac Russian
> > oligarch, I say. Or for matter, debt taken-out in the club's name to
> > finance the purchase of non-income generating assets.
>
> The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets and
> getting what in return?
Watching the finest football. Or in marketing terms. Getting the best
product.
>
> The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
> considering the turnover, the profit figure, especially considering the
> very limited squad spending, looks absolutely shite.
Money is in the bank cash fund. Wenger will spend if he sees fit. Only he,
can create regular sucessful teams without colosal spending. He's unique.
SteveH
Not even close to being the same - buying a ticket to watch a game
doesn't buy you a share in the club, ffs.
I'll leave it now, as you obviously haven't got the slightest clue about
this kind of stuff.
Ian
> <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 10:48 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>
> > > The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets and
> > > getting what in return?
>
> > > The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
>
> > In Arsenal's case is it because Arsenal _can't_ or because Wenger
> > won't? (this is in regards to limited squad spending).
>
> £5.6m pre-tax profit says he can't.
I've explained this elsewhere. Stop propogating nonsense.
SteveH
> > The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets and
> > getting what in return?
>
> Watching the finest football. Or in marketing terms. Getting the best
> product.
And your trophy count? - not exactly making many teams jealous in recent
years, is it?
> > The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
> > considering the turnover, the profit figure, especially considering the
> > very limited squad spending, looks absolutely shite.
>
> Money is in the bank cash fund. Wenger will spend if he sees fit. Only he,
> can create regular sucessful teams without colosal spending. He's unique.
Oh dear. That 'cash fund' could be called in at any time by the people
who've financed your spending. It is, in effect, not your money to
spend. I know we're even worse off in this respect, but you're fooling
yourselves if you really think that you're a rich club.
Bert Bertolli
> Heskey in the kitty.
As reported in the figures:
* The Group's cash balances rose to GBP73.9 million
, and direct quote from Edelman: 'We had over £70million of cash at the end
of the year and if Arsene wants to spend that money we will make it
available.'
See, that is why we don't buy English. £70m for Heskey on the strength of an
England recall is fucking ludicrous.
> With ticket prices like yours, I'd expect a hell of a lot more money to
> be available to the manager - especially from such a 'well run club' -
> which looks absolutely laughable when you consider that, even without
> major transfer spending, all you had left at the end of the trading year
> was just over £5m left from around £200m coming in.
The overall profit for this was always going to be low. It took into account
the exceptional one off payment required to refinance £430m into a £260m low
interest long term package. It was the same payment that led to 'some'
people claiming that Arsenal are losing money hand over fist and are in
terminal decline. The exceptional costs also take into account the move
itself.
James Farrar
wrote:
><wany...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 24, 10:48 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>>
>> > The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets and
>> > getting what in return?
>> >
>> > The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
>>
>> In Arsenal's case is it because Arsenal _can't_ or because Wenger
>> won't? (this is in regards to limited squad spending).
>
>£5.6m pre-tax profit says he can't.
Message-ID: <IPmdnY28tMm7IGrb...@bt.com> contains the
real figures. Where dows £5.6m come from?
Luther Root
> Luther Root <Luther.R...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So what huge transfers have you shelled out on?
>
> > How about: Who cares?
>
> > Anybody with half a brain cell or more knows where the money is
> > going.
>
> > However, if the Board says there was money available to Wenger but he
> > chose not to use it, I would believe them. It's no great stretch for
> > Arsenal to go 5-10M in the red, if Arsene wanted another striker.
> > Perhaps he should have, that way the club would have paid less to
> > HMRC.
>
> If Arsene wanted to spend money, he'd have..... enough to buy Emile
> Heskey in the kitty.
That's funny, because for what Wigan paid for Heskey, Wenger paid the
same for the combined sum of Fabregas, Kolo Toure, Clichy, Diarra and
Adebayor.
A friend of mine who works for Deloittes (and works on their "Football
Money League" report) told me it is estimated that an identical player
would cost MU on average 3-4M and Chelsea 6-7M more than it would for
Arsenal.
> With ticket prices like yours, I'd expect a hell of a lot more money to
> be available to the manager - especially from such a 'well run club'
Do you know what would have been an indication that Arsenal wasn't a
"well run club"? If they had spent 20M on Franck Ribéry.
> which looks absolutely laughable when you consider that, even without
> major transfer spending, all you had left at the end of the trading year
> was just over £5m left from around £200m coming in.
Are you aware of what a company that has never in its existence
distributed a single dividend does with its profits?
You'd be interested to know that Arsenal have budgeted the finance of
the new stadium on the premise that they DON'T qualify for the
Champions League.
~LR
SteveH
> > If Arsene wanted to spend money, he'd have..... enough to buy Emile
> > Heskey in the kitty.
>
> As reported in the figures:
>
> * The Group's cash balances rose to GBP73.9 million
>
> , and direct quote from Edelman: 'We had over £70million of cash at the end
> of the year and if Arsene wants to spend that money we will make it
> available.'
See the 'group' cash balance there? - that's not the FC cash balance -
if you think the board are about to release that then you're deluded.
That 'cash reserve' is there for other stuff - like keeping the wolf
from the door when the banks come calling.
Bert Bertolli
> Doublegooner <double...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets
and
> > > getting what in return?
> >
> > Watching the finest football. Or in marketing terms. Getting the best
> > product.
>
> And your trophy count? - not exactly making many teams jealous in recent
> years, is it?
>
> > > The money isn't going into the squad, so where *is* it going? -
> > > considering the turnover, the profit figure, especially considering
the
> > > very limited squad spending, looks absolutely shite.
> >
> > Money is in the bank cash fund. Wenger will spend if he sees fit. Only
he,
> > can create regular sucessful teams without colosal spending. He's
unique.
>
> Oh dear. That 'cash fund' could be called in at any time by the people
> who've financed your spending. It is, in effect, not your money to
> spend. I know we're even worse off in this respect, but you're fooling
> yourselves if you really think that you're a rich club.
> --
And you are only fooling yourself fullstop. The last comment being an
absolute joke. And to think you had the idiotic notion to start it with the
patronising 'oh dear'.
You are right of course, they could call it in at anytime, but then also a
space station could unexpectantly drop from the sky and wipe out the
stadium.
By your logic, IF own my entire current account, savings account, and future
earnings and therefore have the right to control what I spend and on who as
I have a mortgage with them. Or is it that I signed a mortgage agreement
over 25 years agreeing to pay back what they require on the required date
based on the fixed interest rate we agreed. And so long as I don't miss a
payment, they don't come in and disturb me, and at no point do they ever
just ring me up and say, did you get a pay rise? I hope you aren't spending
that money beacuse it is ours, and they also don't say, all that money, I
want it all now. Perhaps it is an interest thing. You see they make more
money out of me over 25 years then they do by insisting I pay back the
entire mortgage amount after, say, one year.
You didn't do finance in your lifetime I take it.
SteveH
> > Oh dear. That 'cash fund' could be called in at any time by the people
> > who've financed your spending. It is, in effect, not your money to
> > spend. I know we're even worse off in this respect, but you're fooling
> > yourselves if you really think that you're a rich club.
> > --
>
>
> And you are only fooling yourself fullstop. The last comment being an
> absolute joke. And to think you had the idiotic notion to start it with the
> patronising 'oh dear'.
>
> You are right of course, they could call it in at anytime, but then also a
> space station could unexpectantly drop from the sky and wipe out the
> stadium.
>
> By your logic, IF own my entire current account, savings account, and future
> earnings and therefore have the right to control what I spend and on who as
> I have a mortgage with them. Or is it that I signed a mortgage agreement
> over 25 years agreeing to pay back what they require on the required date
> based on the fixed interest rate we agreed. And so long as I don't miss a
> payment, they don't come in and disturb me, and at no point do they ever
> just ring me up and say, did you get a pay rise? I hope you aren't spending
> that money beacuse it is ours, and they also don't say, all that money, I
> want it all now. Perhaps it is an interest thing. You see they make more
> money out of me over 25 years then they do by insisting I pay back the
> entire mortgage amount after, say, one year.
>
> You didn't do finance in your lifetime I take it.
You're taken in by the hype and have lost sight of what's going on.
That money is not for spending on the team, never has been, never will
be, it's there to pay for other essential stuff - like the ground move
and future maintenance / redevelopment.
If, by chance, you finish outside the top 4 this season and come away
without silverware again, money will be drained from that 'cash reserve'
to keep the banks happy.
But I wouldn't expect anyone who thinks it's great that they have the
best match day revenue entirely based on ripping off fans to understand
this.
Bert Bertolli
> Bert Bertolli <be...@bertware.cotton.com> wrote:
>
> > > If Arsene wanted to spend money, he'd have..... enough to buy Emile
> > > Heskey in the kitty.
> >
> > As reported in the figures:
> >
> > * The Group's cash balances rose to GBP73.9 million
> >
> > , and direct quote from Edelman: 'We had over £70million of cash at the
end
> > of the year and if Arsene wants to spend that money we will make it
> > available.'
>
> See the 'group' cash balance there? - that's not the FC cash balance -
> if you think the board are about to release that then you're deluded.
>
Did you see Football Related Income on the figures. £177m. Without the
football side there is no 'group'. Did you see the direct quote from
Edelman, £70m available to Arsene.
> That 'cash reserve' is there for other stuff - like keeping the wolf
> from the door when the banks come calling.
You are more of a clown then RD. No fucking financial nous, you will keep
posting bollocks in this thread thinking someone will believe you. We have
just released record figures, become the highest turnover football club in
the league, have reduced our outgoings on the debt to £18m a year in the
process, but we have 'the wolves at the door' LOL.
I think we'll make ends meet eh? LOL.
Banks don't knock on the door of a £200m company with £73m cash in the bank.
SteveH
> > See the 'group' cash balance there? - that's not the FC cash balance -
> > if you think the board are about to release that then you're deluded.
> >
>
> Did you see Football Related Income on the figures. £177m. Without the
> football side there is no 'group'. Did you see the direct quote from
> Edelman, £70m available to Arsene.
Just like Beneathus had loads to spend, too. But spent around half what
the Yanks had promised.
Talk is cheap, top-class players aren't.
As for the 'no football, no group' argument - I'd say that, given
current Arsenal investments, the 'group' would be making more money
without the football club - purely from the property market.
> > That 'cash reserve' is there for other stuff - like keeping the wolf
> > from the door when the banks come calling.
>
> You are more of a clown then RD. No fucking financial nous, you will keep
> posting bollocks in this thread thinking someone will believe you. We have
> just released record figures, become the highest turnover football club in
> the league, have reduced our outgoings on the debt to £18m a year in the
> process, but we have 'the wolves at the door' LOL.
>
> I think we'll make ends meet eh? LOL.
>
> Banks don't knock on the door of a £200m company with £73m cash in the bank.
Oh yes they do.
£5.6m profit leaves you teetering on the edge of not being able to fund
the debt. At which point the cash reserves will disappear very quickly.
Mark V.
> As Britains richest club that is.
>
> http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
Assuming he really has those sorts of funds available (I find all and
none of the arguments downthread persuasive), how do you suppose he'll
spend his cool 70? Will he buy 45 sixteen year-olds from France and
Spain and loan them all out to Birmingham? Is there a big fish he'll
try to bag during the winter transfer window? I imagine that by then
someone will be injured and two or three folks will be off in Africa
and he may be in need of an expensive stopgap or two.
Doublegooner
We assume you have direct access to The Arsenal board & their future
business plan ?
Any 'future maintanance would be financed from turnover. I doubt it is taken
from the nett profit or cash reserves.
>
> If, by chance, you finish outside the top 4 this season and come away
> without silverware again, money will be drained from that 'cash reserve'
> to keep the banks happy.
I believe the club have built into their future projections missing out on
CL for a season or so. Of course future income/ turnover / profit can be
affected by results on the pitch. That applies to all clubs. This quite
possibly is an even bigger worry to Utd. Our debt has been refinanced &
fixed at a manageable level.
I will agree to that the club's finances could well be affected should
Wenger finish after his next three years contract. Again this applies to Utd
and again could be even more worrying with the high level of high cost debt.
>
> But I wouldn't expect anyone who thinks it's great that they have the
> best match day revenue entirely based on ripping off fans to understand
> this.
The above does not warrant a reply.
Doublegooner
> Doublegooner <double...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "SteveH" <st...@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1i4yajj.11gz0xjtjl8nwN%st...@italiancar.co.uk...
> > > <wany...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
> > > > Old Trafford though.
> > >
> > > Doesn't surprise me in the slightest when you consider that the
cheapest
> > > Arsenal season ticket is more expensive than the most expensive United
> > > season ticket.
> > >
> > > It's all very well jumping up and down at these turnover figures - but
> > > they're heavily funded by the paying fans.
> >
> > Bit like a Tesco's turnover being funded by shoppers !
>
> Not even close to being the same - buying a ticket to watch a game
> doesn't buy you a share in the club, ffs.
Who suggested it did ?
>
> I'll leave it now, as you obviously haven't got the slightest clue about
> this kind of stuff.
Not seen anything in your threads that demonstrates that you have a clue.
SteveH
> > > Bit like a Tesco's turnover being funded by shoppers !
> >
> > Not even close to being the same - buying a ticket to watch a game
> > doesn't buy you a share in the club, ffs.
>
> Who suggested it did ?
Trying to do too many things at once - read that as takeover, not
turnover.
Erm, yes, kind of, I suppose.
But, as a Tesco shopper, are you proud of them for making ever larger
profits? - no, thought not.
> > I'll leave it now, as you obviously haven't got the slightest clue about
> > this kind of stuff.
>
> Not seen anything in your threads that demonstrates that you have a clue.
I'm not the one burying my head in the sand about the realities here -
pre-tax profits were £5.6m last year - and I've now found that was
excluding player dealings. So there's not a lot to play with there.
The 'cash reserves' will not be used to fund players.... they haven't in
the past, so why should they now?
RED DEVIL
<be...@bertware.cotton.com> wrote:
>
>"Diablos Rojos" <M.B.@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:5lpmtkF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Bert Bertolli" <be...@bertware.cotton.com> wrote in message
>> news:3tmdnc9_RKkNP2rb...@bt.com...
>> >
>> > "Diablos Rojos" <M.B.@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:5lpklnF...@mid.individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Google Beta User" <wany...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > As Britains richest club that is.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Operating figures which include the sale of the apartments that are
>built
>> > on
>> >> the old Highbury, which have pumped up this years figures.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > I reckon I must be tired. I can't see the statement saying that turnover
>> > has
>> > been inflated by the sales on the Highbury Square units.
>>
>> Read more carefully then in the link you provided and it says that funds
>> have been included from the Highbury development and theres more to
>follow.
>>
>
>2007 2006
> GBPm GBPm
> Football
> Turnover 177.0 132.1
> Operating profit * 42.2 13.4
> Profit before tax and
> exceptional items 20.8 16.8
>
> Property development
> Turnover 23.8 5.1
> Operating profit * 9.0 0.3
> Profit before tax and
> exceptional items 6.1 (0.9)
>
> Group
> Turnover 200.8 137.2
> Operating profit * 51.2 13.7
> Profit before tax and
> exceptional items 26.9 15.9
>
> * = Operating Profit stated before
> depreciation and player trading costs
>
>The property development business recorded the sale of the development site
>at
>Drayton Park for some GBP23.5 million. We continue to progress and invest in
>two further major property development sites. The larger of these is
>Highbury
>Square where the construction and development work on the conversion of
>Highbury into apartments and penthouses is being financed through a separate
>bank facility arranged specifically for that purpose. Assembly of the
>smaller
>development site at Queensland Road is very close to being complete and we
>are
>currently preparing a revised comprehensive planning application. The
>combined
>sales value of these two development sites is expected to be comfortably in
>excess of GBP300 million and we expect the Group's property activities to
>contribute positive net cash of some GBP90 million over the next three years
>
In other words you are on very rocky ground once you sell off all your
real estate. You still have a large debt (the club calls it managed
debt) and it'll be ok as long as you
a. Make the Champions League every season
b. Continue to sell out your stadium
if, within 5 years you fail at either of these targets, you could be
in some very serious trouble.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
RED DEVIL
wrote:
>Doublegooner <double...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Bit like a Tesco's turnover being funded by shoppers !
>> >
>> > Not even close to being the same - buying a ticket to watch a game
>> > doesn't buy you a share in the club, ffs.
>>
>> Who suggested it did ?
>
>Trying to do too many things at once - read that as takeover, not
>turnover.
>
>Erm, yes, kind of, I suppose.
>
>But, as a Tesco shopper, are you proud of them for making ever larger
>profits? - no, thought not.
>
>> > I'll leave it now, as you obviously haven't got the slightest clue about
>> > this kind of stuff.
>>
>> Not seen anything in your threads that demonstrates that you have a clue.
>
>I'm not the one burying my head in the sand about the realities here -
>pre-tax profits were £5.6m last year - and I've now found that was
>excluding player dealings. So there's not a lot to play with there.
>
>The 'cash reserves' will not be used to fund players.... they haven't in
>the past, so why should they now?
I wouldn't talk to doublegooner about finance, his idea of being
fiscally conservative is not paying his debts.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
RED DEVIL
<NOcupr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>RED DEVIL wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:06:37 -0000, Google Beta User
>> <wany...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As Britains richest club that is.
>>>
>>> http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>>
>> Best read it again...lol
>
>Explain then.
>
Which part don't you understand?
RED DEVIL
Champions!
RED DEVIL
>On Sep 24, 7:17 am, "Diablos Rojos" <M...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Google Beta User" <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > As Britains richest club that is.
>>
>> >http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>>
>> Operating figures which include the sale of the apartments that are built on
>> the old Highbury, which have pumped up this years figures.
>
>Ok.
>
>I figure the sale of those apartments are part of Arsenal's revenue
>available to you though.
>
>And I forgot to check if debt or expenses were included, but even then
>they certainly haven't spent as much as we have, nor do they have
>Glazer's debt like you lot do.
>
>I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
>Old Trafford though.
You were correct to doubt that
RED DEVIL
Champions!
James Farrar
wrote:
>I'm not the one burying my head in the sand about the realities here -
>pre-tax profits were £5.6m last year
{{fact}}
>and I've now found that was excluding player dealings.
Operating profits always exclude player transfers. Arsenal made a net
/profit/ on transfers, so the actual profit made was greater than the
£51.2 million quoted.
I'l ask again: where does your figure of £5.6 million come from? It's
certainly not from the plc's results statement
(http://www.plusmarketsgroup.com/story.shtml?ISIN=GB0030895238&NewsID=25781).
RED DEVIL
>On Sep 24, 8:46 am, RED DEVIL <REDDE...@xxxbellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:06:37 -0000, Google Beta User
>>
>> <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >As Britains richest club that is.
>>
>> >http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>>
>> Best read it again...lol
>>
>> RED DEVIL
>
>I read it again and saw:
>
>"Arsenal today revealed their status as Britain's richest football
>club following figures released this morning which show their move to
>the Emirates Stadium helped increase turnover to more than £200m.
>The report - for the year ending May 31, 2007 - also revealed group
>operating profits up by an astonishing 274%, to £51.2m. These well
>exceed the likes of Manchester United...."
>
>I'm not an economist or financial analyst, so perhaps there was a
>hidden message. What did I miss?
If the Guardian tells you that your bank account has 50,000 in it and
you look and only find 20,000 who would you believe?
Arsenal have a very good PR company handling their business and
they are putting a brave face on things for you. But I'd be concerned
if I was you.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
RED DEVIL
wrote:
>On 24 Sep, 15:02, wanyik...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 8:46 am, RED DEVIL <REDDE...@xxxbellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:06:37 -0000, Google Beta User
>>
>> > <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >As Britains richest club that is.
>>
>> > >http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>>
>> > Best read it again...lol
>>
>> > RED DEVIL
>>
>> I read it again and saw:
>>
>> "Arsenal today revealed their status as Britain's richest football
>> club following figures released this morning which show their move to
>> the Emirates Stadium helped increase turnover to more than £200m.
>> The report - for the year ending May 31, 2007 - also revealed group
>> operating profits up by an astonishing 274%, to £51.2m. These well
>> exceed the likes of Manchester United...."
>>
>> I'm not an economist or financial analyst, so perhaps there was a
>> hidden message. What did I miss?
>
>You don't expect a financial analyst in The Guardian to know what he's
>talking about do you?
>
>Best to ship over some know nothing from the US who played for
>Macclesfield 50 years ago to analyse them instead.
lol..
Better than being a wannabe yuppie who started being an Arsenal fan
when Wenger arrived and who stated that David Dein was the person he
admired most in the world.
Ian, you don't understand what you are talking about, admit and
retreat away in humble defeat.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
SteveH
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:03:39 +0100, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
> wrote:
>
>
> >I'm not the one burying my head in the sand about the realities here -
> >pre-tax profits were £5.6m last year
>
> {{fact}}
>
> >and I've now found that was excluding player dealings.
>
> Operating profits always exclude player transfers. Arsenal made a net
> /profit/ on transfers, so the actual profit made was greater than the
> £51.2 million quoted.
That's only on one part of the business.
I work for a business where my part of it makes a significant profit,
but this is dragged down by losses elsewhere.... which is exactly the
situation Arsenal are in.
> I'l ask again: where does your figure of £5.6 million come from? It's
> certainly not from the plc's results statement
> (http://www.plusmarketsgroup.com/story.shtml?ISIN=GB0030895238&NewsID=25781).
Profit before tax after exceptional items = £5.6m.
Right at the top of the balance sheet.
That's the overall group profit.....
Some hefty long-term debts on that balance sheet, too. Gambling against
events 20 years into the future is not a good thing in football.
And yes, I know United are in the same position - but at least we are
realistic about it.
RED DEVIL
<M.B.@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Ian" <ianharv...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1190643030.0...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On 24 Sep, 13:36, "Diablos Rojos" <M...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "Ian" <ianharveygoo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1190636969.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 24 Sep, 12:17, "Diablos Rojos" <M...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >> "Google Beta User" <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >> messagenews:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >> > As Britains richest club that is.
>>>
>>> >> >http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>>>
>>> >> Operating figures which include the sale of the apartments that are
>>> >> built
>>> >> on
>>> >> the old Highbury, which have pumped up this years figures.
>>>
>>> > and when you take this out, it's still a higher turnover than Man U,
>>> > but with a far, far, far lower debt repayment.
>>>
>>> > Any comment?
>>>
>>> Yes it worries me that the Glazers will look at your figures see that we
>>> have a far bigger gate and fanbase and think they'll rip us off as much
>>> as
>>> you lot are obviously getting done.
>>
>> I think they realise that Arsenal have a far wealthier fan base.
>>
>
>yeah whatever you're all millionaires down in the smoke and we're all poor
>peasants who live in huts crafted from dung and corrugated iron. Stands to
>reason the more you charge for tickets the poorer fans get driven away.
>
We might be poor peasants but at least we understand financial
statements and have the ability to see past a crafted PR presentation.
The numbers are there if the Arse fans want to take the time to read
them (allowances have to be made for the Ian Harvey's of the world who
do not have the education nor enough grey matter to understand).
They're in trouble and will be probably bought by a Russian before
too long and all they can think of is to hurl insults at other fans
who were kind enough to try to explain what a mess they are in.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
wany...@gmail.com
> If the Guardian tells you that your bank account has 50,000 in it and
> you look and only find 20,000 who would you believe?
> Arsenal have a very good PR company handling their business and
> they are putting a brave face on things for you. But I'd be concerned
> if I was you.
I'm not an Arsenal fan, but I like them a lot and always wish them
well. They've consistently had the best crop of babies in the European
big leagues, and have been THE standard of attacking football in
England for about a decade. I hope they win the league if we don't.
Anyway. Like I said I am admittedly not an expert in this area. The
link posted by 'James Farrar' shows some more official statements. Are
those wrong too?
As far as the PR firm, surely it is a HUGE risk legally to lie about
this stuff? Seems like you're confusing the messenger with the message
here. The Guardian is not the source of Arsenals' financial
statement.
SteveH
> On Sep 24, 2:25 pm, RED DEVIL <REDDE...@xxxbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > If the Guardian tells you that your bank account has 50,000 in it and
> > you look and only find 20,000 who would you believe?
> > Arsenal have a very good PR company handling their business and
> > they are putting a brave face on things for you. But I'd be concerned
> > if I was you.
>
> I'm not an Arsenal fan, but I like them a lot and always wish them
> well. They've consistently had the best crop of babies in the European
> big leagues, and have been THE standard of attacking football in
> England for about a decade. I hope they win the league if we don't.
That's media hype - the 'babies' have an average age in the same
ball-park as United's team.
> Anyway. Like I said I am admittedly not an expert in this area. The
> link posted by 'James Farrar' shows some more official statements. Are
> those wrong too?
No, but his interpretation of them is wrong.
> As far as the PR firm, surely it is a HUGE risk legally to lie about
> this stuff? Seems like you're confusing the messenger with the message
> here. The Guardian is not the source of Arsenals' financial
> statement.
The PR firm are making the same mistake as James and only quoting core
football figures, not overall group figures, which are the important
ones.
Le Dieu
<wany...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190658616.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 2:25 pm, RED DEVIL <REDDE...@xxxbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> If the Guardian tells you that your bank account has 50,000 in it and
>> you look and only find 20,000 who would you believe?
>> Arsenal have a very good PR company handling their business and
>> they are putting a brave face on things for you. But I'd be concerned
>> if I was you.
>
> I'm not an Arsenal fan, but I like them a lot and always wish them
> well. They've consistently had the best crop of babies in the European
> big leagues, and have been THE standard of attacking football in
> England for about a decade.
As I've already pointed out to you, they can't have been THE standard of
attacking football if United have attacked more successfully, scored more
goals and won more trophies over the last ten years.
HTH
A. Dieu.
RED DEVIL
wrote:
>Bert Bertolli <be...@bertware.cotton.com> wrote:
>
>> > See the 'group' cash balance there? - that's not the FC cash balance -
>> > if you think the board are about to release that then you're deluded.
>> >
>>
>> Did you see Football Related Income on the figures. £177m. Without the
>> football side there is no 'group'. Did you see the direct quote from
>> Edelman, £70m available to Arsene.
>
>Just like Beneathus had loads to spend, too. But spent around half what
>the Yanks had promised.
>
>Talk is cheap, top-class players aren't.
>
>As for the 'no football, no group' argument - I'd say that, given
>current Arsenal investments, the 'group' would be making more money
>without the football club - purely from the property market.
>
>> > That 'cash reserve' is there for other stuff - like keeping the wolf
>> > from the door when the banks come calling.
>>
>> You are more of a clown then RD. No fucking financial nous, you will keep
>> posting bollocks in this thread thinking someone will believe you. We have
>> just released record figures, become the highest turnover football club in
>> the league, have reduced our outgoings on the debt to £18m a year in the
>> process, but we have 'the wolves at the door' LOL.
>>
>> I think we'll make ends meet eh? LOL.
>>
>> Banks don't knock on the door of a £200m company with £73m cash in the bank.
>
>Oh yes they do.
>
>£5.6m profit leaves you teetering on the edge of not being able to fund
>the debt. At which point the cash reserves will disappear very quickly.
Wasting your time
Those Arsenal fans that really do understand choose to bury their
heads in the sand while those who haven't a clue parrot the PR
provided bollocks.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
RED DEVIL
wrote:
>James Farrar <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:03:39 +0100, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I'm not the one burying my head in the sand about the realities here -
>> >pre-tax profits were £5.6m last year
>>
>> {{fact}}
>>
>> >and I've now found that was excluding player dealings.
>>
>> Operating profits always exclude player transfers. Arsenal made a net
>> /profit/ on transfers, so the actual profit made was greater than the
>> £51.2 million quoted.
>
>That's only on one part of the business.
>
>I work for a business where my part of it makes a significant profit,
>but this is dragged down by losses elsewhere.... which is exactly the
>situation Arsenal are in.
>
>> I'l ask again: where does your figure of £5.6 million come from? It's
>> certainly not from the plc's results statement
>> (http://www.plusmarketsgroup.com/story.shtml?ISIN=GB0030895238&NewsID=25781).
>
>Profit before tax after exceptional items = £5.6m.
>
>Right at the top of the balance sheet.
>
>That's the overall group profit.....
>
>Some hefty long-term debts on that balance sheet, too. Gambling against
>events 20 years into the future is not a good thing in football.
>
>And yes, I know United are in the same position - but at least we are
>realistic about it.
We're in a shitload of trouble, but we (well most of us) understand
that. And we aren't financing a new stadium, we own ours.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
SteveH
> >Ł5.6m profit leaves you teetering on the edge of not being able to fund
> >the debt. At which point the cash reserves will disappear very quickly.
>
>
> Wasting your time
>
> Those Arsenal fans that really do understand choose to bury their
> heads in the sand while those who haven't a clue parrot the PR
> provided bollocks.
Didn't we do this last year with Liverpool and the takeover - how it
would never happen to them, because they're built on such solid
foundations and reliable board members?
But then it did, and they are going to really struggle to fund their
debts once the new stadium is built - unless they ditch Beneathus and
find a manager who can deliver the Premiership.
RED DEVIL
>On Sep 24, 2:25 pm, RED DEVIL <REDDE...@xxxbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> If the Guardian tells you that your bank account has 50,000 in it and
>> you look and only find 20,000 who would you believe?
>> Arsenal have a very good PR company handling their business and
>> they are putting a brave face on things for you. But I'd be concerned
>> if I was you.
>
>I'm not an Arsenal fan, but I like them a lot and always wish them
>well. They've consistently had the best crop of babies in the European
>big leagues, and have been THE standard of attacking football in
>England for about a decade. I hope they win the league if we don't.
>
Of course you do, if you don't and they don't then it's more than
likely 'we' will and that's the worse nightmare for the likes of you.
>Anyway. Like I said I am admittedly not an expert in this area. The
>link posted by 'James Farrar' shows some more official statements. Are
>those wrong too?
They are correct, but contain an enormous amount of 'spin'
>As far as the PR firm, surely it is a HUGE risk legally to lie about
>this stuff? Seems like you're confusing the messenger with the message
>here. The Guardian is not the source of Arsenals' financial
>statement.
>
PR firms do not 'lie' about anything. They are taken on board to turn
negatives into pluses at least as far as the average Joe is concerned.
We have much of the same thing at United and to be fair some choose to
believe it.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
RED DEVIL
Aye, but the Guardian and Alan Green says they are the "standard"
lol..you couldn't write this stuff
RED DEVIL
Champions!
Pope Pompous XVIII
> As Britains richest club that is.
> http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
hehehehe
good to see the Mancs doing their nut over this! Great stuff Google.
as for me I'd gladly pay 200 pound to watch Arsenal, knowing the
football would be value for money. If I gave the Scum 200 pound half
of it would go in bribes to Everton, a third to Mr Dean the referee who
"lives locally" and the rest to Jack Daniels
No thanks. I'm not spending my hard earned to do that. Give me Arsenal
any day over the Scum -- money well spent if you ask me.
But I digress. Nice to see all the Scummers running round in circles
doing their head in over this. LOL! So funny!!
--
+ His Holiness Pope Pompous XVIII
"We can be efficient and that is linked with how much we keep the feet
on the ground, wanting to improve, because the football we want to play
demands humility, and as soon as you lose a little bit of that you are
in trouble" -- Arsene Wenger
RED DEVIL
wrote:
>RED DEVIL <REDD...@xxxbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> >£5.6m profit leaves you teetering on the edge of not being able to fund
>> >the debt. At which point the cash reserves will disappear very quickly.
>>
>>
>> Wasting your time
>>
>> Those Arsenal fans that really do understand choose to bury their
>> heads in the sand while those who haven't a clue parrot the PR
>> provided bollocks.
>
>Didn't we do this last year with Liverpool and the takeover - how it
>would never happen to them, because they're built on such solid
>foundations and reliable board members?
And did they listen?
No..they were going to have unlimited funds to spend.
>But then it did, and they are going to really struggle to fund their
>debts once the new stadium is built - unless they ditch Beneathus and
>find a manager who can deliver the Premiership.
Impossible
RED DEVIL
Champions!
wany...@gmail.com
> On 24 Sep, 12:17, "Diablos Rojos" <M...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Google Beta User" <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1190631997....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > >http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>
> > the old Highbury, which have pumped up this years figures.
>
> and when you take this out, it's still a higher turnover than Man U,
> but with a far, far, far lower debt repayment.
>
> Any comment?
So the debt isn't fatal. Steve H was saying to "look at the debt"
which means Arsenal are NOT the most lucrative club.
You, and the report, and the media..(or the "PR Firm") OTOH are
indicating that Arsenal are in a good position.
Is it just a matter of how you interpret the numbers?
Two sets of people (United fans on one hand & the media, Arsenal
ownership on the other) arriving at different conclusions from the
same set of data.
Mighty Mouse
"RED DEVIL" <REDD...@xxxbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:s9vff3hhgg1asek5h...@4ax.com...
It's a good job that we have such a bloody great side then isn't it. Average
age in the mid to low twenties. Should win everything for the next 5 years
at least. That will do nicely.
Doublegooner
I'd say the lenders would have some call on that, although I guess
property/land values would be lower in that part of Manchester.
Swerve
"Pope Pompous XVIII" <popepomp...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:mn.c4a97d798...@mymessageidamoi.toto...
> Google Beta User brought next idea :
>> As Britains richest club that is.
>
>> http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>
> hehehehe
>
> good to see the Mancs doing their nut over this! Great stuff Google.
>
> as for me I'd gladly pay 200 pound to watch Arsenal, knowing the football
> would be value for money. If I gave the Scum 200 pound half of it would
> go in bribes to Everton, a third to Mr Dean the referee who "lives
> locally" and the rest to Jack Daniels
>
> No thanks. I'm not spending my hard earned to do that. Give me Arsenal
> any day over the Scum -- money well spent if you ask me.
>
Oh I dont know, we usually get a good game when we play you, often hugely
enjoyable, in fact.
Do you not enjoy them?
Google Beta User
> >Anyway. Like I said I am admittedly not an expert in this area. The
> >link posted by 'James Farrar' shows some more official statements. Are
> >those wrong too?
>
>They are correct, but contain an enormous amount of 'spin'
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=466204&cc=5901
The revelation of Arsenal's wealth is an ample response to those
critics who questioned the effect the cost of relocation to Ashburton
Grove would have on the club, and in particular Wenger's transfer
funds.
But after reiterating that Wenger did not spend all his budget this
summer, delighted managing director Keith Edelman claimed the
Frenchman would now have previously unheard of sums available to
reinforce his squad.
James Farrar
wrote:
>Profit before tax after exceptional items = £5.6m.
Ah, right. "Exceptional items"; that is, the costs of refinancing the
stadium debt; funnily enough, exceptional items means that they won't
recur.
SteveH
James Farrar
wrote:
>The PR firm are making the same mistake as James and only quoting core
>football figures, not overall group figures, which are the important
>ones.
Actually, I was quoting the overall group figures excluding
exceptional items that distract the attention away from the state of
the group going forward.
Much as you might like to imply that the £5.6m figure is appropriate
for consideration of /future/ business (and like it to be
appropriate!), it clearly isn't.
Gabbage
It's a shareholder report. They can't make up the numbers. The press
release is ABOUT the stock report.
cupra
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:31:20 +0100, " cupra"
> <NOcupr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> RED DEVIL wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:06:37 -0000, Google Beta User
>>> <wany...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As Britains richest club that is.
>>>>
>>>> http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>>>
>>
>> Explain then.
>>
> Which part don't you understand?
Haven't read it yet since I've just finished an 18hr day - can you précis
your issues and concerns about our finances in your own view?
ianharv...@yahoo.co.uk
> "Diablos Rojos" <M...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5lpu0rF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bert Bertolli" <b...@bertware.cotton.com> wrote in message
> >news:QJOdnQSO8ocAImrb...@bt.com...
>
> > > "Diablos Rojos" <M...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:5lpsraF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > >> "Bert Bertolli" <b...@bertware.cotton.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:IPmdnY28tMm7IGrb...@bt.com...
>
> > >> AND?
>
> > > There is no income from Highbury Square in those figures. It does state
> > > they
> > > will contribute to turnover over the next 3 years though.
>
> > £24million from Highbury properties included in those figures.
>
> Ah right, that isn't from Highbury. It is from a development they agreed to
> with Islington Council to regenerate an area close to Drayton Park to
> provide some cheap housing and a health centre (although the health centre
> has been put on hold as the NHS trust didn't take up the option). It does
> mean that is has pushed the overall turnover up by 13% or so. So without
> property income, football turnover was £177m, with £23.8m as added income.
> Total, £200.8m
It's actually £190m with the catering revenue.
Pope Pompous XVIII
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:06:37 -0000, Google Beta User
>>> <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As Britains richest club that is.
>>
>>>> http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2175876,00.html
>>> Best read it again...lol
>>
>>
>> I read it again and saw:
>>
>> "Arsenal today revealed their status as Britain's richest football
>> club following figures released this morning which show their move to
>> the Emirates Stadium helped increase turnover to more than £200m.
>> The report - for the year ending May 31, 2007 - also revealed group
>> operating profits up by an astonishing 274%, to £51.2m. These well
>> exceed the likes of Manchester United...."
>>
>> I'm not an economist or financial analyst, so perhaps there was a
>> hidden message. What did I miss?
> You don't expect a financial analyst in The Guardian to know what he's
> talking about do you?
> Best to ship over some know nothing from the US who played for
> Macclesfield 50 years ago to analyse them instead.
LOL! Touche
DRIVEL is the biggest arsehole in these ngs Ian but of course there's
no need for me to tell you that
Pope Pompous XVIII
hehehehehe
Complete Silence ??
hehehehe
Pope Pompous XVIII
> Luther Root <Luthe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 12:48 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>>> Luther Root <Luther.R...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 25, 12:20 am, st...@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
>>>>> <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I did not think Emirates would bring in more cash than the expanded
>>>>>> Old Trafford though.
>>>
>>>>> Doesn't surprise me in the slightest when you consider that the
>>>>> cheapest Arsenal season ticket is more expensive than the most
>>>>> expensive United season ticket.
>>>
>>>>> It's all very well jumping up and down at these turnover figures -
>>>>> but they're heavily funded by the paying fans.
>>>> Better to be funded by the fans, rather than a megalomaniac Russian
>>>> oligarch, I say. Or for matter, debt taken-out in the club's name to
>>>> finance the purchase of non-income generating assets.
>>>
>>> The point is that the fans are paying way over the odds for tickets and
>>> getting what in return?
>>
>> The most attractive football played in the country,
> Oh, well, that's OK then.
> It's fine to charge fans significantly more than everyone else, so long
> as you play pretty football. Even if this does mean an empty trophy
> cabinet.
yes but Arsenal don't offer bungs to Everton and West Ham and the like.
It's hard to compete for trophies when your rivals are sending out
brown envelopes stuffed with cash every Wednesday evening to their
opponents that weekend.
RED DEVIL
wrote:
ahh..bless him
You'd be ok if it wasn't for the fact that United's squad is about the
same age (but without all the media hype). I'm very glad you think you
have a "great side" and that you believe they are going to win
"everything" I'll remind you of this post when the cold weather comes
and your "kids" are bogged down and dropping points. The Premiership
is a marathon not a sprint.
RED DEVIL
Champions!
RED DEVIL
Have you ever checked them?
RED DEVIL
Champions!