I think we will struggle to make a profit this summer. RvP won't get that much, as it will be his last year of his contract and his injury record is hoorendous.
Beyond that who else have we got to sell? Wilshere would get a fortune, but it will also be the last straw for many a Gooner. Beyond that there aren't any money makers in the squad.
The quote isn't one hundred percent accurate, the genuine one is that he just needs to make 20m profit every season (not all from transfers). Which shouldn't be too hard with the last of the buildings being sold this year.
Van Persie could fetch up to £30 million considering the form he has been showing - despite his age and injury record.
That is the kind of offer I would expect from City or Real. I couldn't see him leaving to go to any other team (unless Barca want to offer us some decent money for once).
However, I would be surprised if he left at all. He may as well stay at Arsenal where he is adored and is the main man. We have stuck by him through all his injury lay offs and he scores plenty of goals for us.
I think it is one of those things that Arsene didn't mean to say(slip up), but it's refreshing to hear a bit of transparency from someone at the club.
The money makers will be there each season. This season we have rvp, song and walcott. Next season we will have chamberlain, wilshere, koscielny.
Well, that would explain alot. At least it's understandable, If he had 35mil to spend in Jan maybe he's saving it for the summer incase he does move on and someone else comes in, so that they have a big purse to spend. All speculation of course.
I don't think those quotes are real tbh. Wenger is too clever to let something like that slip. If it is real, then it really wouldn't surprise me.
If this is a real quote then I am baffled why it took Wenger so long to say something like this, it would have help fans in managing their expectations over the years. Especially in the transfer market and the measuring of our achievements...
Hmmm...if the quotes are real, then this is pretty big news, and proves that Wenger is held back in terms of spending by the board.
I cant really see Wenger letting something like this slip, but they have used speech marks, so legally, Wenger must have said it. But then again, the papers don't really care whats legal these days...they could have just made it up, or mis-interpreted it...
5/9.
Hmmm. This is interesting. I understood that we were past the worst of our debt and were left with long-term, low-interest loans, a mortgage in essence. Why do we still have to keep selling players to finance this healthy, normal debt? Is there no other way we could go about sustaining ourselves whilst paying back the remainder of the debt?
I'll be very interested in seeing the end of year accounts this May for several reasons.
1) I'd like to see what money we've earned from the remainder of the property we had left to sell, which according to Gazidis would have made us pure profit
2) I'd like to see how much of an overall profit we'll have made considering the handsome profit in player sales made last January.
3) I'd like to see if our wage bill has gone down considering the sales of players like Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy, or if the wages for the new players brought in has evened us out on that front.
4) I can't wait to see if our new ownership have boosted our financial performance in terms of commercial sponsorship, one of the reasons they were allowed in.
If we make a healthy financial profit, and all the signs look good that we will, then I'll be amazed if we have to sell more key players yet again this summer. Won't the interest repayments have been seriously reduced. Should be interesting. How much longer are we going to have to contend with our best players being sold?
I think we are relying on player profits for now, and this will be the case until we can sell/release our deadwood squad players and lower the wage bill.
Also, 2014 will be an interesting year, as we will finally be free of the sponsorship's who paid the money upfront to finance our stadium and renegotiate for a bigger deal which would then generate pure profit in the 10's of millions.
comment by Arsene Wengers Wife (U5865)
posted 8 hours, 26 minutes ago
The quote isn't one hundred percent accurate, the genuine one is that he just needs to make 20m profit every season (not all from transfers). Which shouldn't be too hard with the last of the buildings being sold this year.
-------------------------------------------------------
This
read the article with your cynical head on and this paragraph (the key one) jumps out at you
"Wenger, who sold Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri for nearly £60m last summer, said: “You should know that each season, it is imperative to show a profit of between fifteen and twenty million pounds. I would add that the purpose of a coach is to always buy at a price he sees fit."
they make it sound as though he is talking about making a profit on transfers, but he isn't. he's talking about the club making a profit.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Stan Kroenke is looting the club.
---------------------------------------------------
that's bordering on defamation - he hasn't taken a penny out of the club as far as any of us know - unless you are claiming he is hiding it in the accounts - which would be a crime you'd be accusing him of with no proof whatsoever.
that's bordering on defamation
-----------------------------
It is not meant to be and I am surprised that the comment has been deleted. However as the word has different meanings to different people, I will rephrase it.
Stan Kroenke is demanding that a sports club generate profits. For what purpose?
Net profits are generated after debt payments, interest payments etc. So what purpose would necessitate profits if they aren't going to to be used for his other businesses states side. He is at the moment bidding for LA Dodgers. Where is he getting the money from?
Stan Kroenke's aim is to fund his franchises in the US to the detriment of Arsenal Football club. Better?
If you really think it is unusual for sports clubs to generate profit, then i think you need think again.
Clubs are businesses - Stan is a businessman - The sole point of business is to make a profit.
If you really think it is unusual for sports clubs to generate profit, then i think you need think again.
-------------------------------
Actually its very unusual for Sports clubs to generate profits outside of the US where you have revenue sharing. The only sports which work on a similar model to football in this country is Baseball. And even that has a lot of revenue sharing. Thats why analysts are warning against Stan Kroenke investing in the dodgers. They frankly believe that he doesn't understand what he is getting himself into. The most successful Sports franchises in the world are NY Yankees and Real Madrid. It is announced as a public holiday when the Yankees make a profit. In fact $10-20m is regarded as a huge success. When you understand that $10-20m is less money than they give to their individual players in their starting line up as base salary, shows why Sports are not profit centres.
This is problem is extreme in Europe. Real Madrid generate profits because they have individual TV rights. That don't exist in this country. Thats why clubs in the UK generally target break-even. Not making profits. Thats what it was under Danny Fiszman. This has obviously changed.
To achieve minimal profits in the premiership requires huge success to attract sponsorships. To achieve success you need top players. To buy and retain top players requires vast amounts of money. Far more money than can be generated from commercial deals below the top 4. This leads to catch 22 situation and no profits unless you can keep a top 4 place. Which you cannot do without buying top players!
Look at the money Liverpool have spent since the takeover, or Chelsea, or Man City. Do you think they will recover that in 10 years in profits?
Clubs are businesses - Stan is a businessman - The sole point of business is to make a profit.
------------------------
Roman Abramovich is also businessman. And a more successful one than Stan Kroenke.
No one in their right mind invests in the premier league to generate profits. Those who have are trying to get out. Lerner has been trying to sell. Hicks/Gillete have sold. Glazers are doing an IPO to get out. The Liverpool owners background is in Baseball so they have a little better understanding of the business model. Americans who consider 'Sports' as profit centres usually end up regretting what they have got into.
i'm guessing he means the money of paying back the bonds, i doubt he means it as a transfer policy, if true i worry about the champions league. from the figures that the club release i would say that he means through the bonds. we do need to trim down our squad however:
denilson
bendtner
scallaci
traore
park
rosicky
chamakh
arshavin
all of these could go with only a midfielder and striker coming in.
Roman Abramovich is also businessman. And a more successful one than Stan Kroenke.
No one in their right mind invests in the premier league to generate profits. Those who have are trying to get out. Lerner has been trying to sell. Hicks/Gillete have sold. Glazers are doing an IPO to get out. The Liverpool owners background is in Baseball so they have a little better understanding of the business model. Americans who consider 'Sports' as profit centres usually end up regretting what they have got into.
---------------------------------
How is RA a better businessman? How much has he spent on Chelsea? How much has he made? What effect has the decisions he's made at Chelsea affected his potential at making a profit, from buying players that don't fit in to hiring and firing coaches at will...? Yep, such a better businessman.
Then there are the examples of owners you've mentioned. With the business model they've followed, of course they (the majority anyway) aren't going to make a profit. It's their money on the line. With Arsenal, the great thing is that the club looks to invest the money it makes back into the club, essentially living within its means. Therefore, the likelihood of making a profit is higher. Something we've been doing... maybe not every year, especially with the move from Highbury and the property crash, but still something we've been doing. It may be unusual, but it isn't impossible for clubs / sports to generate profits.
Lastly, what evidence is there to support your assertion that Kroenke is using profits from Arsenal to fund his business ventures in America?
How is RA a better businessman? How much has he spent on Chelsea? How much has he made?
-------------------------------------
You have completely missed the point. Try reading the entire thread if you want to get into a discussion. The point is that businessmen do not get involved in football to make money. They know from the beginning that football is loss leader. There were a few American franchise owners who thought it was possible to make money from football as a single entity businesses. They have discovered to their cost with massive losses on investments that is not possible. Those names I have quoted all want to sell up and are desperate to find buyers. I believe if Kroenke is unable to move the Rams franchise to UK , he will do just that. But till then he will take money out of Arsenal. Thats what generating profits implies.
essentially living within its means
---------------------------------------
What does that mean?
Lastly, what evidence is there to support your assertion that Kroenke is using profits from Arsenal to fund his business ventures in America?
----------------------------------------
I have written articles with links to interviews. And they are easy enough to google. The Guardian has a good analysis if you actually support Arsenal and want to find out I suggest you do.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/11/stan-kroenke-arsenal-takeover
Kroenke has point blank refused to rule out paying dividends. Something that the previous owners were on record for promising never to do with covenants.
Arsene Wenger's admission that he NOW has to generate profits for the club makes it obvious that Kroenke's funding for the Arsenal takeover and the new takeover being launched for Dodgers after buying St Loius Rams comes from Arsenal's cash reserves as explained in the article.
Arsene Wenger's admission that he NOW has to generate profits for the club makes it obvious that Kroenke's funding for the Arsenal takeover and the new takeover being launched for Dodgers after buying St Loius Rams comes from Arsenal's cash reserves as explained in the article.
-----
Time will shortly prove you correct or incorrect. But I still find this theory ridiculous and your proof of asset-stripping weak and circumstantial, so I'll believe it when I see it.
You are implying that Kroenke, the ostensible heir to the Walmart chain and one of the richest businessmen in the world would loot Arsenal's cash reserves to fund other sporting projects. Did he loot one of his American football teams to fund the purchase of Arsenal?
What has changed for us since Kroenke took over? Very little. What did Kroenke say about his takeover of Arsenal? That he would not interfere with the self-sustaining model on which we're based. We continue to sell established players to guarantee an overall profit thus paying off the stadium debt as soon as possible. He never once claimed that he would be a sugar-daddy saviour, and yet for being consistent in that claim he's being accused of looting?
Your assertations will remain as conjecture and guesswork until May's end-of-year accounts are released, although speculation on this front can feasibly continue beyond that even if he is vindicated. Btw, Gazidis stated in his interview after the Villa game that dividends would not be paid out and I believe him, because he starts stammering when asked if we're looking at players to sign (a sure sign that he's towing the company line).
I don't disregard your theory wholesale, but at this juncture it's that and no more based on circumstantial speculation, yet you keep offering it up as irrefutable evidence proving you right. Your theory is intriguing and keeps me coming back for more, but why not wait for some hard evidence before declaring it as fact?
Sign in if you want to comment
Some Honesty?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 6/2/12
I think we will struggle to make a profit this summer. RvP won't get that much, as it will be his last year of his contract and his injury record is hoorendous.
Beyond that who else have we got to sell? Wilshere would get a fortune, but it will also be the last straw for many a Gooner. Beyond that there aren't any money makers in the squad.
posted on 6/2/12
The quote isn't one hundred percent accurate, the genuine one is that he just needs to make 20m profit every season (not all from transfers). Which shouldn't be too hard with the last of the buildings being sold this year.
posted on 7/2/12
Van Persie could fetch up to £30 million considering the form he has been showing - despite his age and injury record.
That is the kind of offer I would expect from City or Real. I couldn't see him leaving to go to any other team (unless Barca want to offer us some decent money for once).
However, I would be surprised if he left at all. He may as well stay at Arsenal where he is adored and is the main man. We have stuck by him through all his injury lay offs and he scores plenty of goals for us.
posted on 7/2/12
I think it is one of those things that Arsene didn't mean to say(slip up), but it's refreshing to hear a bit of transparency from someone at the club.
posted on 7/2/12
Even if accidental!
posted on 7/2/12
The money makers will be there each season. This season we have rvp, song and walcott. Next season we will have chamberlain, wilshere, koscielny.
posted on 7/2/12
Well, that would explain alot. At least it's understandable, If he had 35mil to spend in Jan maybe he's saving it for the summer incase he does move on and someone else comes in, so that they have a big purse to spend. All speculation of course.
posted on 7/2/12
I don't think those quotes are real tbh. Wenger is too clever to let something like that slip. If it is real, then it really wouldn't surprise me.
posted on 7/2/12
If this is a real quote then I am baffled why it took Wenger so long to say something like this, it would have help fans in managing their expectations over the years. Especially in the transfer market and the measuring of our achievements...
posted on 7/2/12
Hmmm...if the quotes are real, then this is pretty big news, and proves that Wenger is held back in terms of spending by the board.
I cant really see Wenger letting something like this slip, but they have used speech marks, so legally, Wenger must have said it. But then again, the papers don't really care whats legal these days...they could have just made it up, or mis-interpreted it...
posted on 7/2/12
5/9.
Hmmm. This is interesting. I understood that we were past the worst of our debt and were left with long-term, low-interest loans, a mortgage in essence. Why do we still have to keep selling players to finance this healthy, normal debt? Is there no other way we could go about sustaining ourselves whilst paying back the remainder of the debt?
I'll be very interested in seeing the end of year accounts this May for several reasons.
1) I'd like to see what money we've earned from the remainder of the property we had left to sell, which according to Gazidis would have made us pure profit
2) I'd like to see how much of an overall profit we'll have made considering the handsome profit in player sales made last January.
3) I'd like to see if our wage bill has gone down considering the sales of players like Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy, or if the wages for the new players brought in has evened us out on that front.
4) I can't wait to see if our new ownership have boosted our financial performance in terms of commercial sponsorship, one of the reasons they were allowed in.
If we make a healthy financial profit, and all the signs look good that we will, then I'll be amazed if we have to sell more key players yet again this summer. Won't the interest repayments have been seriously reduced. Should be interesting. How much longer are we going to have to contend with our best players being sold?
posted on 7/2/12
*2) - last summer.
posted on 7/2/12
I think we are relying on player profits for now, and this will be the case until we can sell/release our deadwood squad players and lower the wage bill.
Also, 2014 will be an interesting year, as we will finally be free of the sponsorship's who paid the money upfront to finance our stadium and renegotiate for a bigger deal which would then generate pure profit in the 10's of millions.
posted on 7/2/12
comment by Arsene Wengers Wife (U5865)
posted 8 hours, 26 minutes ago
The quote isn't one hundred percent accurate, the genuine one is that he just needs to make 20m profit every season (not all from transfers). Which shouldn't be too hard with the last of the buildings being sold this year.
-------------------------------------------------------
This
posted on 7/2/12
read the article with your cynical head on and this paragraph (the key one) jumps out at you
"Wenger, who sold Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri for nearly £60m last summer, said: “You should know that each season, it is imperative to show a profit of between fifteen and twenty million pounds. I would add that the purpose of a coach is to always buy at a price he sees fit."
they make it sound as though he is talking about making a profit on transfers, but he isn't. he's talking about the club making a profit.
posted on 7/2/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/2/12
Stan Kroenke is looting the club.
---------------------------------------------------
that's bordering on defamation - he hasn't taken a penny out of the club as far as any of us know - unless you are claiming he is hiding it in the accounts - which would be a crime you'd be accusing him of with no proof whatsoever.
posted on 7/2/12
that's bordering on defamation
-----------------------------
It is not meant to be and I am surprised that the comment has been deleted. However as the word has different meanings to different people, I will rephrase it.
Stan Kroenke is demanding that a sports club generate profits. For what purpose?
Net profits are generated after debt payments, interest payments etc. So what purpose would necessitate profits if they aren't going to to be used for his other businesses states side. He is at the moment bidding for LA Dodgers. Where is he getting the money from?
Stan Kroenke's aim is to fund his franchises in the US to the detriment of Arsenal Football club. Better?
posted on 7/2/12
If you really think it is unusual for sports clubs to generate profit, then i think you need think again.
Clubs are businesses - Stan is a businessman - The sole point of business is to make a profit.
posted on 7/2/12
If you really think it is unusual for sports clubs to generate profit, then i think you need think again.
-------------------------------
Actually its very unusual for Sports clubs to generate profits outside of the US where you have revenue sharing. The only sports which work on a similar model to football in this country is Baseball. And even that has a lot of revenue sharing. Thats why analysts are warning against Stan Kroenke investing in the dodgers. They frankly believe that he doesn't understand what he is getting himself into. The most successful Sports franchises in the world are NY Yankees and Real Madrid. It is announced as a public holiday when the Yankees make a profit. In fact $10-20m is regarded as a huge success. When you understand that $10-20m is less money than they give to their individual players in their starting line up as base salary, shows why Sports are not profit centres.
This is problem is extreme in Europe. Real Madrid generate profits because they have individual TV rights. That don't exist in this country. Thats why clubs in the UK generally target break-even. Not making profits. Thats what it was under Danny Fiszman. This has obviously changed.
To achieve minimal profits in the premiership requires huge success to attract sponsorships. To achieve success you need top players. To buy and retain top players requires vast amounts of money. Far more money than can be generated from commercial deals below the top 4. This leads to catch 22 situation and no profits unless you can keep a top 4 place. Which you cannot do without buying top players!
Look at the money Liverpool have spent since the takeover, or Chelsea, or Man City. Do you think they will recover that in 10 years in profits?
posted on 7/2/12
Clubs are businesses - Stan is a businessman - The sole point of business is to make a profit.
------------------------
Roman Abramovich is also businessman. And a more successful one than Stan Kroenke.
No one in their right mind invests in the premier league to generate profits. Those who have are trying to get out. Lerner has been trying to sell. Hicks/Gillete have sold. Glazers are doing an IPO to get out. The Liverpool owners background is in Baseball so they have a little better understanding of the business model. Americans who consider 'Sports' as profit centres usually end up regretting what they have got into.
posted on 7/2/12
i'm guessing he means the money of paying back the bonds, i doubt he means it as a transfer policy, if true i worry about the champions league. from the figures that the club release i would say that he means through the bonds. we do need to trim down our squad however:
denilson
bendtner
scallaci
traore
park
rosicky
chamakh
arshavin
all of these could go with only a midfielder and striker coming in.
posted on 7/2/12
Roman Abramovich is also businessman. And a more successful one than Stan Kroenke.
No one in their right mind invests in the premier league to generate profits. Those who have are trying to get out. Lerner has been trying to sell. Hicks/Gillete have sold. Glazers are doing an IPO to get out. The Liverpool owners background is in Baseball so they have a little better understanding of the business model. Americans who consider 'Sports' as profit centres usually end up regretting what they have got into.
---------------------------------
How is RA a better businessman? How much has he spent on Chelsea? How much has he made? What effect has the decisions he's made at Chelsea affected his potential at making a profit, from buying players that don't fit in to hiring and firing coaches at will...? Yep, such a better businessman.
Then there are the examples of owners you've mentioned. With the business model they've followed, of course they (the majority anyway) aren't going to make a profit. It's their money on the line. With Arsenal, the great thing is that the club looks to invest the money it makes back into the club, essentially living within its means. Therefore, the likelihood of making a profit is higher. Something we've been doing... maybe not every year, especially with the move from Highbury and the property crash, but still something we've been doing. It may be unusual, but it isn't impossible for clubs / sports to generate profits.
Lastly, what evidence is there to support your assertion that Kroenke is using profits from Arsenal to fund his business ventures in America?
posted on 7/2/12
How is RA a better businessman? How much has he spent on Chelsea? How much has he made?
-------------------------------------
You have completely missed the point. Try reading the entire thread if you want to get into a discussion. The point is that businessmen do not get involved in football to make money. They know from the beginning that football is loss leader. There were a few American franchise owners who thought it was possible to make money from football as a single entity businesses. They have discovered to their cost with massive losses on investments that is not possible. Those names I have quoted all want to sell up and are desperate to find buyers. I believe if Kroenke is unable to move the Rams franchise to UK , he will do just that. But till then he will take money out of Arsenal. Thats what generating profits implies.
essentially living within its means
---------------------------------------
What does that mean?
Lastly, what evidence is there to support your assertion that Kroenke is using profits from Arsenal to fund his business ventures in America?
----------------------------------------
I have written articles with links to interviews. And they are easy enough to google. The Guardian has a good analysis if you actually support Arsenal and want to find out I suggest you do.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/11/stan-kroenke-arsenal-takeover
Kroenke has point blank refused to rule out paying dividends. Something that the previous owners were on record for promising never to do with covenants.
Arsene Wenger's admission that he NOW has to generate profits for the club makes it obvious that Kroenke's funding for the Arsenal takeover and the new takeover being launched for Dodgers after buying St Loius Rams comes from Arsenal's cash reserves as explained in the article.
posted on 7/2/12
Arsene Wenger's admission that he NOW has to generate profits for the club makes it obvious that Kroenke's funding for the Arsenal takeover and the new takeover being launched for Dodgers after buying St Loius Rams comes from Arsenal's cash reserves as explained in the article.
-----
Time will shortly prove you correct or incorrect. But I still find this theory ridiculous and your proof of asset-stripping weak and circumstantial, so I'll believe it when I see it.
You are implying that Kroenke, the ostensible heir to the Walmart chain and one of the richest businessmen in the world would loot Arsenal's cash reserves to fund other sporting projects. Did he loot one of his American football teams to fund the purchase of Arsenal?
What has changed for us since Kroenke took over? Very little. What did Kroenke say about his takeover of Arsenal? That he would not interfere with the self-sustaining model on which we're based. We continue to sell established players to guarantee an overall profit thus paying off the stadium debt as soon as possible. He never once claimed that he would be a sugar-daddy saviour, and yet for being consistent in that claim he's being accused of looting?
Your assertations will remain as conjecture and guesswork until May's end-of-year accounts are released, although speculation on this front can feasibly continue beyond that even if he is vindicated. Btw, Gazidis stated in his interview after the Villa game that dividends would not be paid out and I believe him, because he starts stammering when asked if we're looking at players to sign (a sure sign that he's towing the company line).
I don't disregard your theory wholesale, but at this juncture it's that and no more based on circumstantial speculation, yet you keep offering it up as irrefutable evidence proving you right. Your theory is intriguing and keeps me coming back for more, but why not wait for some hard evidence before declaring it as fact?
Page 1 of 2