Funny. Loadsapeople here defended it at the time.
Funny. Loadsapeople here defended it at the time.
Can I have it instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
Was always a rather touchy subject, he doesn't own the club (just largest shareholder) so it can't be a dividend.... it was for a job that was never explained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
I still do defend it and the other point is we made a £2.9m profit....not difficult to see why he didn't take his £3mQuote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
Yes, we were told to be grateful that he took such a modest stipend. We were also reminded that we are a business, not a football club, so we as customers have no business worrying about the internal affairs of the business of which we are mere customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
Well, I'd always defend the right of a business to pay an agreed amount to another business for an agreed service. I'm not convinced that's particularly radical thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Britain less Europe
How is business done on your planet, m?
Absolutely. "Thanks for your interest in our affairs"
That depends what the service is. So far no-one has been able to tell us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Perhaps it's blow-jobs.
You Not Get Yours Yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Agreed service???Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Tell me more. You were at the board meeting when the service wasn't agreed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
Now then, I understand that Tesco has paid millions to a milk producer over the past year. Please tell me all about the laglities of that deal because clearly YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!
Yes, and no one needs to tell us about it because it's got fúck all to do with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
HMRC, yes. The SFO, perhaps. The general public, no.
:hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
I don't know why everyone get's so upset. Do other clubs have such a business interest in things?
Other clubs fans sit around talking about football. We sit around with our spreadsheets and calculators.
We don't support Tesco though, or give a toss about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
I couldn't even name any of their players.
What if the owner of the business receiving the money was also a significant shareholder in the business paying the money and the service provided was something as nebulous as 'consulting fee' or something similar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Do you see a potential conflict of interest there that other shareholders of the business paying the money might be concerned about?
It's all these geniuses sitting round pontificating about what's legal when they know not the first thing about it that makes me worried for mankind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat Vegas
Well in that case I suppose the other shareholders would ask such a question. Thick lads like you, with zero insight into the internal affairs of the club, might make better use of your time trying to see up a young girl's skirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
In short, it's fúck all to do with us.
True enough, I'm Ocado 'til I die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
No need to shout dear chap... where did I say i know everythiong about it??? It would be like Tesco's paying £2m to a majority shareholder without actually putting the service out to tender. That wouldn't happenQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
They haven't paid anything to a majority shareholder. They paid a company. You're mendaciously insinuating that the money was paid to Kroenke. This is the same tactic as Mo's shameful 'suggestions it might be illegal'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
No smoke without fire, eh? Nudge nudge. Burn the podiatrist's office down!
Well, what it has to do with us is that not only do we have an emotional investment in the company that paid the money, we also put money into that company when we buy tickets to see matches. And as a result we'd like to know that the company is run sensibly and legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
And because of all that, someone posted something about it on an internet board devoted to that company.
If I'm honest, Charles, I'm struggling to see what anyone has done wrong here.
Look, if some know-nothing halfwit on the internet started questioning an invoice paid by MY business and, indeed, making gross insinuations regarding the legality of my business dealings, I would tell them, in no short order, to do one. I'm not sure why Kroenke should be subkected the the rantings of the lunatic fringe without someone introducing a note of reason and fairness.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
When someone introduces a note of reason and fairness please let us know... now calm downQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Sorry, I'm a bit busy to reply, I'm just all over the internet posting about the rumours that you have been involved with certain illegal activities involving people trafficking and drug smuggling. I mean, they're only suggestions at the moment, and they come from people who don't know anything about your white slave trading activities, but still, I think it well worth while passing them on and encouraging idle speculation and and damage to your reutation. Because after all, that sort of thing is fine now, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
You're paying money for 90 minutes entertainment on a Saturday afternoon.You're not investing in the clubQuote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
I do believe you are going stark raving mad... talk about AWIMB going off on a tangent. I don't believe I have started any rumours and have questioned what the £3m was paid for.. the same questions shareholders were asking and didn't get any sort of reasonable response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
I didn't say I was investing in the club, I said we put money into the club. By that I mean the club's entire business model is dependent on people going to see matches, buying merchandise etc etc. And the people that do that are aware of how important they are to the club, and quite right too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurly
Hence it makes perfect sense that someone might comment on it on an internet board devoted to the club.
It's all very well being sorry now, but you really shouldn't need to be told these things at your age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokster
I'd say the gate receipts (our money) is a piddly fraction of the club's income.It's like paying into a Speilberg movie and demanding to know the finances of Amblin GroupQuote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
I think matchday income is about a third of our total revenue.
Edit: of the Club's total revenue, I meant.
Really? Thought it would be nowhere near that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lar d'Arse
Matchday brings in what? 60 thousand paying 50 a head roughly?
3 million
Take away cost of plod/stewards/shop staff/bar staff/electricity and what are you left with?
Not a whole load I would guess
People don't follow corporations that make movies in the same way that football supporters follow a club, Curly. I expect you know this. The supporters contribute to the club not only through gate receipts and merchandise, but also by watching the matches on television. Do you think BT Sport and Sky would have paid billions of pounds to broadcast matches if no one watched them?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurly
The short answer is that Arsenal Football Club does not exist without the supporters and in addition to providing the club with the income it needs, those supporters have an enormous emotional commitment to the club. Therefore it is perfectly sensible and normal for the supporters to have an interest in and be concerned about the financial situation of the club.
So yes, it is our concern.
Oh I agree with most of that BUT yes,you may have concern,yes you may have an interest but any rights in the matter? Don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by World's End Stella
You seem to be reading words that i haven't typed... you'll be talking to yourself nextQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
1st club to break £100m from matchday revenue, it's all them shiny boxesQuote:
Originally Posted by TheCurly
Oh I agree, we have no rights at all. But that is a different argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCurly
Yeah, so roughly 3-4 million a game.As I say,after matchday expense it doesn't leave a hell of a lot.Certainly not enough to top up wages or transfersQuote:
Originally Posted by PSRB
Do you have any idea what matchday expenses are per game? I don't have a rashers.
But one of the main reasons for moving from Highbury was so we could benefit from significant additional revenue. With 22,000 extra bums on seats it has to make a big enough difference and when 7,000 of the total are paying club level/premium prices the difference is even bigger!
I think we turn over more than anyone else in England bar Man Utd. Citeh and ourselves are pretty close but that's only because of their exceptionally dodgy stadium/shirt sponsorship deals etc. We turn over a lot more than Chelsea and Liverpool and a hell of a lot more than tottnumb.
We are however pretty **** at merchandising and sponsorship from what I recall.
Prior to the 2014 renewal of sponsorship deals, and obviously the big new TV deals, Arsenal were highly dependent on matchday income as a percentage of overall revenues. To dismiss the punters as irrelevant to the club's fortunes would be erroneous. They don't need us as much now, of course, but it all helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lar d'Arse
In my planet payment for a service which hasn't been given is called "fraud". Yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C