Reply With Quoteexplaining why that wasn't possible a the time, they still persisted.
Who were the main offenders? I am yet to see a full written apology and acceptance that they will learn to respect what their betters say in future.
I hate these rumours now.
Because actually we can sign these type of players now.
More attacking midfielders
explaining why that wasn't possible a the time, they still persisted.
Who were the main offenders? I am yet to see a full written apology and acceptance that they will learn to respect what their betters say in future.
on the wages of bostonbrians like Denilson et al.
Also, several respected sources such as the blogger SwissRamble seem to believe we were unduly parsimonious during the latter austerity years.
What exactly has changed financially since the period we had to sell our best player every summer?
Which was always denied strongly by some on here. The club have admitted to that since then.
the sponsorship with Emirates was first taken out, we needed a big, immediate cash injection to help secure the bank financing for the stadium. This meant Emirates had the negotiating advantage as we were the ones that needed an 'advance' on the money which would usually be drip-fed every year.
Since then, we have re-negotiated the deals and now get a far greater sum per annum than we did before.
We also have the Puma kit deal, where Puma paid a ridicules amount to make our kits.
And the TV deal was re-negotiated.
And FFP means that clubs now need to sell before they can buy, which plays to our advantage.
they also knew well in advance what sums were likely to be achieved well before the expiry date (certainly did with the TV one). So if a business knows it is going to collect a lot more revenue in 12-18 months time, there is nothing wrong with spending some of that money before that date, they would still have been fine on FFP rules.
Also, if you look at previous report and accounts, we had quite alot more money than we ever spent.
There is also the small case of board members making comments that we did have available cash, the fact we are a PLC means that they cannot lie about this or they breach stock exchange regulations.
2 sides to every story
A simplistic though accurate re-stating of certain truths will only ever allow one side of an argument to be represented.
Nobody has touched upon structured investment from the clubs owners over and above their individual investments in the ownership, speculation if you will in the form of Directors Loans to be repaid once the monies rolled in, or indeed to be paid back from incremental profits. We are after all owned by some seriously wealthy individuals. I suppose this really falls into the realms of ‘ambiiton’ that many used as a negative to berate us with for a period.
Managed debt. Nobody would ever suggest lunatic irresponsible spending.
Now the final suggestion above may lead to accusations of sugar-daddying which of course is the one thing most Arsenal fans hate about other clubs.
He's got it perfected.
That is all part of his game. Ignore it.
Richard is a gift really. On occasion his absence, perhaps on Doctor stuff, can allow one’s mind to put him into that compartment we all use for annoying things we like to ignore. Then he comes back and reminds us all of what an incorrigible bell-end he is.
All a game mind you. A persona designed with the target of allowing him access up one or two other poster’s arseholes as far as is humanly possible.
Posting Permissions