AW's 20 years with us. Your assessment?

[Pat Vegas]

Nice piece, I thought. Will probably buy her book, even though it's just a picture volume. At least they got a decent writer to pen the captions.

Bloody good manager too, imo.

I might have slagged him off at times but I love him.

One of the key contributors to turning the Premier league into the global product it is now.
Nobody played football in England like we did under Wenger. It was a joy to watch and exciting times.

[Burney]

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.

Surely where this sort of financial analysis of football clubs breaks down is in the fact that almost uniquely in business, big football clubs do not purchase their most significant capital assets (i.e. top-class, proven players) with a view to achieving a financial return on investment? Such returns sometimes occur, of course, but usually most 'top, top' players are purchased at a significant loss. Indeed, the more successful they are on the pitch and the longer they stay with you, the more of a loss they become, since you recoup less money (or none) through resale.

This means that, in order for such business to stay in the black and not be reliant on player sales for player purchases, it must constantly retain a significant cash reserve to allow for the possibility of further such loss-making investments. Given which, not spending that cash reserve simply because it's there would seem to me to be responsible thing to do, wouldn't it? The fact that there may be 'money to spend' is not a sensible argument for it being spent. Thus, any argument about what 'financial constraints' we did or didn't have has to factor in the necessity of holding onto cash to give one flexibility and security against an uncertain future, surely?

[Sir C]

Surely where this sort of financial analysis of football clubs breaks down is in the fact that almost uniquely in business, big football clubs do not purchase their most significant capital assets (i.e. top-class, proven players) with a view to achieving a financial return on investment? Such returns sometimes occur, of course, but usually most 'top, top' players are purchased at a significant loss. Indeed, the more successful they are on the pitch and the longer they stay with you, the more of a loss they become, since you recoup less money (or none) through resale.

This means that, in order for such business to stay in the black and not be reliant on player sales for player purchases, it must constantly retain a significant cash reserve to allow for the possibility of further such loss-making investments. Given which, not spending that cash reserve simply because it's there would seem to me to be responsible thing to do, wouldn't it? The fact that there may be 'money to spend' is not a sensible argument for it being spent. Thus, any argument about what 'financial constraints' we did or didn't have has to factor in the necessity of holding onto cash to give one flexibility and security against an uncertain future, surely?

This seems to me clear and apparent. Our friends in the banking industry seem untroubled by caution, however. Which is odd really, post 2008. You'd think they'd have learnt something.

[World's End Stella]

Surely where this sort of financial analysis of football clubs breaks down is in the fact that almost uniquely in business, big football clubs do not purchase their most significant capital assets (i.e. top-class, proven players) with a view to achieving a financial return on investment? Such returns sometimes occur, of course, but usually most 'top, top' players are purchased at a significant loss. Indeed, the more successful they are on the pitch and the longer they stay with you, the more of a loss they become, since you recoup less money (or none) through resale.

This means that, in order for such business to stay in the black and not be reliant on player sales for player purchases, it must constantly retain a significant cash reserve to allow for the possibility of further such loss-making investments. Given which, not spending that cash reserve simply because it's there would seem to me to be responsible thing to do, wouldn't it? The fact that there may be 'money to spend' is not a sensible argument for it being spent. Thus, any argument about what 'financial constraints' we did or didn't have has to factor in the necessity of holding onto cash to give one flexibility and security against an uncertain future, surely?

Partly correct, partly not. I haulage firm will purchase a truck and then might amortise the cost over a 5 year period at which point it will be replaced using cash reserves which the corporation planned for as part of its cashflow analysis. Arsenal will account for and pay for players in the exact same way. The truck is an investment which allows the firm to make money, in the same way that a top class player might attract additional commercial revenue to the club or increase the likelihood of a payout in the CL or PL (something else Charles neglected to consider in his analysis).

And the question isn't whether it is sensible to spend the money you have or not, it is whether we had the money in the first place. Some people believe that we had to sell players in order to maintain a high cash balance and that this is entirely down to the costs of funding the stadium. The financial records of the club, and no small amount of common sense, indicate this isn't true.

[SWv2]

Surely where this sort of financial analysis of football clubs breaks down is in the fact that almost uniquely in business, big football clubs do not purchase their most significant capital assets (i.e. top-class, proven players) with a view to achieving a financial return on investment? Such returns sometimes occur, of course, but usually most 'top, top' players are purchased at a significant loss. Indeed, the more successful they are on the pitch and the longer they stay with you, the more of a loss they become, since you recoup less money (or none) through resale.

This means that, in order for such business to stay in the black and not be reliant on player sales for player purchases, it must constantly retain a significant cash reserve to allow for the possibility of further such loss-making investments. Given which, not spending that cash reserve simply because it's there would seem to me to be responsible thing to do, wouldn't it? The fact that there may be 'money to spend' is not a sensible argument for it being spent. Thus, any argument about what 'financial constraints' we did or didn't have has to factor in the necessity of holding onto cash to give one flexibility and security against an uncertain future, surely?

It's all a massively pointless argument anyway as neither you nor I, nor Sir C nor Wes, sit on the board and as such know what was needed and what was not, if we were over cautious and conservative or not, what levels of spending or otherwise were enforced on Wenger and/or what freedom he had.

[Burney]

Partly correct, partly not. I haulage firm will purchase a truck and then might amortise the cost over a 5 year period at which point it will be replaced using cash reserves which the corporation planned for as part of its cashflow analysis. Arsenal will account for and pay for players in the exact same way. The truck is an investment which allows the firm to make money, in the same way that a top class player might attract additional commercial revenue to the club or increase the likelihood of a payout in the CL or PL (something else Charles neglected to consider in his analysis).

And the question isn't whether it is sensible to spend the money you have or not, it is whether we had the money in the first place. Some people believe that we had to sell players in order to maintain a high cash balance and that this is entirely down to the costs of funding the stadium. The financial records of the club, and no small amount of common sense, indicate this isn't true.

No, I'm sorry, but saying 'we had the money' is not the point. You only 'have the money' if you consider it feasible to spend it within the terms of the model of financial prudence under which you operate. Personally, I don't for a moment believe we needed to sell our top players in order to maintain a cash balance, but I also believe that that was the case in no small part because we were prudent in not spending what cash reserves we had.

[World's End Stella]

It's all a massively pointless argument anyway as neither you nor I, nor Sir C nor Wes, sit on the board and as such know what was needed and what was not, if we were over cautious and conservative or not, what levels of spending or otherwise were enforced on Wenger and/or what freedom he had.

Indeed, so people should stop saying that we didn't spend money because we didn't have it, which was the original point.

Especially when the financial statements of the club, which are a matter of legal record, indicate it isn't true.

Hopefully, we all agree now.

[PSRB]

No, I'm sorry, but saying 'we had the money' is not the point. You only 'have the money' if you consider it feasible to spend it within the terms of the model of financial prudence under which you operate. Personally, I don't for a moment believe we needed to sell our top players in order to maintain a cash balance, but I also believe that that was the case in no small part because we were prudent in not spending what cash reserves we had.

There is also the point that we could not compete with the wages being offered by the clubs where the players went, that wage structure is certainly the board's doing not AW

Was there not a little recession going on as well?

[World's End Stella]

No, I'm sorry, but saying 'we had the money' is not the point. You only 'have the money' if you consider it feasible to spend it within the terms of the model of financial prudence under which you operate. Personally, I don't for a moment believe we needed to sell our top players in order to maintain a cash balance, but I also believe that that was the case in no small part because we were prudent in not spending what cash reserves we had.

I meant that that was the point that was originally debated.

But you're sort of making my point for me. Specifically, that the financial position we ended up in was because of the decisions taken by the manager, it was not something that was forced upon the manager.

[World's End Stella]

There is also the point that we could not compete with the wages being offered by the clubs where the players went, that wage structure is certainly the board's doing not AW

Was there not a little recession going on as well?

That would very much surprise me, I would firmly expect that Wenger controlled the wage structure. The board should only care how much money is spent on football, how it is allocated (salaries, transfers, structural upgrades etc) I would expect to be solely determined by Wenger.