AW's 20 years with us. Your assessment?

[Burney]

Well, we know that by not spending a great deal of money, and that by cashing in on our best players, we have ended up in this situation, with a healthy financial position. If we had spent lots of money and hadn't sold our best players, we wouldn't be in this healthy financial position.

I can quite see how this complicated financial stuff is confusing, but look at it this way. If you have two pennies, and you spend them on sweets, tomorrow you will have no pennies but, and this is the crucial part, if you don't spend the two pennies, tomorrow you will have two pennies. And we currently have the two pennies.

Do you see?

It is humbling to see two fine financial brains such as yourself and WES hammering this sort of thing out, I must say. All over my head, of course.

[Sir C]

It is humbling to see two fine financial brains such as yourself and WES hammering this sort of thing out, I must say. All over my head, of course.

It is complicated, isn't it? I suspect counting must be different in Canada, because WES appears to believe that if you spend money, you still have it.

[Luis Anaconda]

How about - and this will be a novel idea for you, I know - you present a counter argument rather than merely insulting someone who has a different opinion than you?

Or are there no valid opinions that you don't agree with?

We've had the argument countless times so little point

[SWv2]

Well, we know that by not spending a great deal of money, and that by cashing in on our best players, we have ended up in this situation, with a healthy financial position. If we had spent lots of money and hadn't sold our best players, we wouldn't be in this healthy financial position.

I can quite see how this complicated financial stuff is confusing, but look at it this way. If you have two pennies, and you spend them on sweets, tomorrow you will have no pennies but, and this is the crucial part, if you don't spend the two pennies, tomorrow you will have two pennies. And we currently have the two pennies.

Do you see?

I am not sure how this confectionery analogy works in this respect.

For example during the perceived by some lean years, if we had 2 pennies and deliberately chose not to spend the 2 pennies then perhaps that may have been a factor in reduced success which in turn did result in certain players leaving as Wes has alluded to.

If we never had the two pennies, which surely is what you and your sort claim, then the analogy is irrelevant.

An important factor to remember in this debate is that no person has ever suggested or championed reckless spending beyond our means (may as well say this now before some fool comes out with the inevitable line about the next or new Leeds …). The counter argument or belief to the one which you hold is that we had money but simply for reasons known to none of us simply chose not to spend it. As indeed is the 100% right of the club and manager.

[World's End Stella]

Well, we know that by not spending a great deal of money, and that by cashing in on our best players, we have ended up in this situation, with a healthy financial position. If we had spent lots of money and hadn't sold our best players, we wouldn't be in this healthy financial position.

I can quite see how this complicated financial stuff is confusing, but look at it this way. If you have two pennies, and you spend them on sweets, tomorrow you will have no pennies but, and this is the crucial part, if you don't spend the two pennies, tomorrow you will have two pennies. And we currently have the two pennies.

Do you see?

I promise not to be as condescending to you as you have just been to me. And as I work in quantitative research for one of the largest investment banks in the world, I'm not convinced you should be lecturing me on finance.

I can't be bothered tearing apart your point above but let me at least point out one example. Do you remember the summer of 2009 when we sold Adebayor and Toure (presumably two of our best players?) for 41mil and bought only Vermaelen for 10mil netting a 30mil profit? It's an example used by many (like Ian Harvey) as to the constraints that Wenger was under.

Well here's an article from that summer with quotes from PHW confirming Wenger had money to spend. If I could be bothered there is a BBC article with a quote from Wenger confirming money was available. So please read below and then explain to me why we made a 31mil profit that summer, was it because of the stadium or some other reason? And if you like, I could extend this example to other summers, like the one in which we sold Cesc and Nasri.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...nal-squad.html

[World's End Stella]

We've had the argument countless times so little point

I've never has this argument with you in my life. And to be honest, I'd just as soon not. Ta.

[Sir C]

I promise not to be as condescending to you as you have just been to me. And as I work in quantitative research for one of the largest investment banks in the world, I'm not convinced you should be lecturing me on finance.

I can't be bothered tearing apart your point above but let me at least point out one example. Do you remember the summer of 2009 when we sold Adebayor and Toure (presumably two of our best players?) for 41mil and bought only Vermaelen for 10mil netting a 30mil profit? It's an example used by many (like Ian Harvey) as to the constraints that Wenger was under.

Well here's an article from that summer with quotes from PHW confirming Wenger had money to spend. If I could be bothered there is a BBC article with a quote from Wenger confirming money was available. So please read below and then explain to me why we made a 31mil profit that summer, was it because of the stadium or some other reason? And if you like, I could extend this example to other summers, like the one in which we sold Cesc and Nasri.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=we...d+2009&start=0

If life has taught me anything, old boy, it is to take precisely no notice whatsoever of bankers when they make the mistake of trying to understand actual real-world money and business. Don't for one second consider me condescending - I'm sure you're excellent at playing with your little Excel programme.

Your rather rambling argument about the summer of £31 million is... pointless. If we hadn't made £31m that summer, we'd now be £31m down, wouldn't we? And whilst we might now look at the figures and see that we could afford to be £31m down, perhaps the directors of the business were keen to err on the side of caution and leave a cash buffer between the club and, you know, bankruptcy, in the case of things not turning out as planned?

[Sir C]

I am not sure how this confectionery analogy works in this respect.

For example during the perceived by some lean years, if we had 2 pennies and deliberately chose not to spend the 2 pennies then perhaps that may have been a factor in reduced success which in turn did result in certain players leaving as Wes has alluded to.

If we never had the two pennies, which surely is what you and your sort claim, then the analogy is irrelevant.

An important factor to remember in this debate is that no person has ever suggested or championed reckless spending beyond our means (may as well say this now before some fool comes out with the inevitable line about the next or new Leeds …). The counter argument or belief to the one which you hold is that we had money but simply for reasons known to none of us simply chose not to spend it. As indeed is the 100% right of the club and manager.

You have no idea what level of spending would have constituted 'reckless' spending during the period in question; we rely on the directors of the business to make those decisions, with their attendent legal requirement to act in the best interests of the company. I rather think they were better informed than you as to the degree of spending which was in the best interests of the club. They may have been more cautious than you would prefer, but, you know, they're in charge.

[World's End Stella]

To be fair to WES (can't believe I am saying that), our report and accounts over that time showed we did have money to spend, and the fact we are a PLC and the board members said the same, if this wasn't the case the board were breaking a lot of Stock Exchange rules imo

Yes, and would have been liable to prosecution had they done so.

The financial reports were clear, the stadium cost us 19mil per year for 25 years and at the end of it we own it. Given that the club was generating revenues in the region of 200mil+ throughout this time and paying salaries of over 100mil+ annually, I'd be curious to know how someone could justify the claim that Wenger's spending was significantly restricted by the stadium. Are they aware that the same revenue streams that supply money for transfers also supply money for wages?

I think the whole 'why didn't Wenger spend money?' question is much more complicated than everyone thinks. I expect it was impacted by an inflated market, the possibility of FFP, an inflated wage bill (certainly considering the age of the players receiving the wages), a commitment to his 'youth experiment' and possibly a personal/philosophical objection.

But the financial statements make it clear that to say we didn't spend because of the stadium, is a nonsense.

[World's End Stella]

If life has taught me anything, old boy, it is to take precisely no notice whatsoever of bankers when they make the mistake of trying to understand actual real-world money and business. Don't for one second consider me condescending - I'm sure you're excellent at playing with your little Excel programme.

Your rather rambling argument about the summer of £31 million is... pointless. If we hadn't made £31m that summer, we'd now be £31m down, wouldn't we? And whilst we might now look at the figures and see that we could afford to be £31m down, perhaps the directors of the business were keen to err on the side of caution and leave a cash buffer between the club and, you know, bankruptcy, in the case of things not turning out as planned?

Perhaps the extra 31mil allowed us to pay relatively young players who had never won anything wages that no one else would.

And in that case the reason we weren't spending was because of Wenger's managerial decisions, not because of the stadium. Had you considered that in your (unbelievably) superficial financial analysis?