Let's hope we don't start with one time wantaway TJ imo.
Let's hope we don't start with one time wantaway TJ imo.
Ah, just the man. This Wenger/bank business; is that common practise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ears are alight
Tottenham's heads have gone apparently; the team's on the beach in Dubai already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ears are alight
So, it's on.
Happy to give you an opinion, but what do you mean exactly, "this Wenger/bank business"?
This here. Is it normal for banks to insist upon personal loyalty pledges from specific company officials?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/...rsenal-fans-a/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ears are alight
We'll probably concede firstQuote:
Originally Posted by Ears are alight
Ah right. Yes, that can and does happen if particular management figures are thought to be key to delivering results.
OK. Right. I was thinking it's only actually binding in the same sense that *all* Wenger's contracts are binding; simply because He says they are?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ears are alight
Well, we've abolished slavery a fair while ago so all employment contracts are capable of being terminated. What matters here is the consequences of that happening. If banks lend money to the club for repayment over 20 years with interest paid at a specific rate, the club can plan its cashflows with greater certainty. Which is what you need is you've just borrowed to the hilt to build a new ground. But the banks want as much certainty as they can get that the club will continue to be run well in order to commit for that length of time.
What seems to be hinted at in the article is that the banks also wanted the ability to renegotiate the terms of the loan if Wenger were to quit or even had he been fired. I would guess fomr this that Wenger no longer being the manager would have triggered a default clause in the loan agreements, enabling the banks to demand immediate repayment if they wished to, or else to increase the rate of interest they were being paid to reflect greater risks, perhaps to introduce some repayment instalments in the early years that otherwise were fully backended etc, etc.
Of course I also think Wenger, simply put, is an honourable man and seeing that others were relying on him being there for the duration in order to be able to assemble the stadium financing for a project that was in great part of his making, he was happy to commit to that, and see it through. Don't forget that all of this Emirates project was really, really difficult to get done, and it's a stunning achievement in its own right.
The now allegedly much missed David Dein had preferred an alternative, simpler idea of knocking Highbury down and doing a permanent groundshare at the new Wembley with Spurs a la Inter/AC Milan at the San Siro. Of course in his mind that would have gone along with him running the FA as well.
Thank god (and Wenger) that that didn't happen.
Supposedly if they'd known how hard it was going to be to build Ashburton Grove, they would never have done it. What then, I wonder? Wembley with Spurs? Olympic stadium in 2016? Still in The Arsenal Stadium, as many grumblies would like to be? We could have ended up the only 'big' london club in a sub-40k capacity ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ears are alight
Well, who knows? I'm happier with what we've done than any of the alternatives you've mentioned. Staying at Highbury would have eventually failed us for lack of scale, although with perfect hindsight the ideas we had around the turn of the millennium on the need to prioritise growth in matchday revenue to catch up and compete with the 70,000 seat Old Trafford behemoth seem quite quaint now we know how ridiculous the broadcasting income has become in the meantime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
They do seem to be putting unneccesary pressure on themselves by talking up finishing above us. Just need Everton to get a result tonight so at least the :barcode: have something to play for at the weekendQuote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
I do wonder if the most recent domestic levels of TV monies are sustainable, though. BT won the CL rights with a sealed bid for a commercially unrealistic sum, presumably subsidised by their landline infrastructure monopoly. Sky, under attack from BT, and whose existence surely depends on PL football, offered an even more ridiculous sum to secure the PL rights, which they are now passing on to the consumer as a higher price for much less product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ears are alight
The whole thing is a farce anyway, as the laws on a competitor to Sky were supposed to benefit the consumer, and the consumer is clearly not benefitting. It would only be real competition if they could chose whether to watch a given match on either Sky or BT.
The whole thing all seems a bit ITV digital to me.
Great reply, thank you very much!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ears are alight
Why wouldn't this aspect of the agreement have been announced at the time? It would've been excellent news for us surely.
Or was it, and I missed it.
I think we'll have won the European Cup before the money runs out, so who cares about sustainable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
It should be others who have to worry more about sustainable. We'll still have the bumper gate receipts from our fantastically loyal fanbase.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
We won't win the European Cup though.
See, a less magnanamous type would say "Hah, see reg? I ****ing told you!" but not me, oh no. I'm better than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
What did you tell me?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jorge
And that sums up my chronic lack of gravitarse :-(Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
Sorry. I like old Veng but it troubles me slightly when He seems to sniff and suggest that we are just like any other club and He'd just as soon go off and do His time at Real Madrid or wherever else, that He feels He's doing us a favour by staying. Or, as in this case, that the banks have tied His hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jorge