Which has been the case for '06 until '16(?) aswell. With the difference being Liverpool and Tottenham now have two managers who can make the most of what’s available. Arsenal has performed rather consistently over the past 13 years in the 70-80 point range.
What amazes me on here is one or two people saying it was the directors managing the club badly and that Kroenke had nothing to do with it and was just a silent investor. Also that because he had a minority investor Kroenke didn’t have power.
Thing is that Stan Kroenke has been a director since October 2008. His son Josh is in his 6th year as a Director also. Minority shareholder Usmanovs name on the list of companies house directors before he sold up - guess what? Not there!
Also as 67 percent majority shareholder of course you have control of the club. Example, Usmanov says let’s fund the club with a big investment and new share issue. Kroenke says no. Gazidis says let’s lose Wenger (and I accept this was paper talk). Kroenke says no - let’s give him a 2 year extension resulting in a 17m pay off a year later which we can ill afford according to the club and we can’t even afford to make a transfer payment at the last transfer window!
Anyway don’t worry we can afford to pay 40m in the last two years accounts as per companies house on servicing and paying down debt. A further 20m in corporation tax payments because our profits are so large even after the debt servicing and Wengers 17m compensation payment.
Anyway I’m sure I’ll get some nutter on here telling me I’m making it all up again and suffering delusions.
I see overnight that there is now more paper talk of Auba potentially leaving. Another one of our best seeing it’s a shit show and starting to want away from this terrible regime while we keep the players most fans are desperate to see go instead.
No idea when this insanity is going to end. The death spiral continues.
2 Likes
The thing is City, Utd, Chelsea, Pool always had far more player assets than us. Our relative success over Utd/Pool was down to ageing players like Cazorla, Alexis Sanchez, Ozil, Rosicky, Mertesacker, Podolski, Kosceilny.
After Wenger started buying established players in 25-26 age bracket, so Cazorla, Ozil, Podolski, Giroud, Alexis to offset losing our best players they were always going to need replacing 5 years down the line
The onset of shit football started when our midfield lost Cazorla, Rosicky, Wilshere (to injuries) in a few short years. In actual fact the quality dropped when Cesc left and continued to drop.
The disaster was signing Mustafi and Xhaka as our big signings. But the fact we were in a position where we needed 2 players to be a success speaks volumes on how thin on the ground our squad was.
5 Likes
Anyone know what the Player Trading Revenue from our financial reports constitutes? I thought it might be positive net spend but it doesn’t match up to that.
?
In note 3 on turnover of the Arsenal Holdings accounts the player trading revenue is payments for players we loan out. Not sure if that’s what you were asking?
1 Like
I haven’t looked at report, but keep in mind that when WE normally refer to netspend on transfers we are using total fees both ways THAT year.
From an actual accounting perspective purchases are amortized over period of contract, whereas sales are counted that year. The added complexity is when sale happens, it is done with period of contract remaining, so those final years get accelerated to cost - I assume to that year.
I’ll do an example later. Tbf, I can’t claim I am 100% correct on all this, but I am pretty sure and have a good understanding of accounting and asset management.
1 Like
That’s exactly what I was looking for, thanks mate.
Ahh well totally separate topic then 
Which report do you mean? The 2018 one?
In all our annual reports our revenue is broken down into parts and player trading is one of them
1 Like
I am surprised you were not feeling that way before that bit of news.
I thought maybe new accounts had been released and I was missing out.
Oh, sorry for misleading you. I was just looking through the old accounts.
1 Like
In the 7 years of accounts to 31 May 2018 Arsenal’s net cost on player trading was just £112m. This is very much lower than the net transfer spend figures I see quoted on here and is a more representative set of numbers on the net cost of buying in and selling players. I would suggest this is to tiny compared with the average of the other clubs in the top 10 richest in the world and explains entirely why we are no longer in the Champions league and indeed didn’t get beyond the first knockout stage of the CL while we were in it over this period.
Finance charges over the same period on the debt taken on was £96m. Corporation tax was £33m. We paid a huge amount in addition in loan repayments on top of the finance charges.
Profit after tax was £151m over this 7 year period and after the charges mentioned above.
I haven’t yet added up what Kroenke spent buying his 100 percent or what he’s also taken out in management and director fees. I think he’s spent less than 900m to buy the club though and it has a purported value over 1500m leaving him with a capital gain to date of 600m.
In the meantime the team has gone down the shitter more and more and the death spiral continues. The fans pay for all this.
The Kroenkes sit on our Board over that time (not Usmanov) and have control through their majority ownership. They get rich out of us while they take the team down and down. We’re mugs for putting up with this and those that defend his ownership or say oh it’s not really that bad - in my opinion need their heads examined.
This situation stinks. Kroenke out!!
3 Likes
There’s also people that say oh Kroenkes just a silent investor who leaves the management of the club to others so it’s not his fault. They ignore the 3m per year management charge for his strategic and advisory services - more on average by some distance on what Gazidis was earning. Wenger and Gazidis were definitely part of the problem but the biggest problem is still here and it isn’t getting any better!
2 Likes
That only happened twice though, by all accounts wasn’t his idea and was stopped when it became a public issue. We also have no knowledge of where the money went but it presumably was to the KSE parent company and not into Stans pockets.
In other words that whole thing gets overblown in terms of significance.
2 Likes
The accounts say it was to KSE which it says he owns so I’d say it is in his pockets. I accept it says he’s waived it the year after the first two years payments but it suggests that he’s still doing the services, just not getting paid for them.
Of course it’s at least a lot his idea. If it wasn’t then he never would’ve charged it.
My main point though is to illustrate that he’s not just a silent investor not involved in the direction and running of the club and who’s innocent of the mess we find ourselves in as some on this site try to portray.
He’s behind this mess left, right and centre.
2 Likes
Gazidis wasn’t very good at his job. There I said it. 
3 Likes
3 Likes
Gazidis and Wenger said a lot of things.
Unfortunately most of those things were lies.
It’s a shame that so many people believed them and went along with it.
2 Likes