Discussion in 'Arsenal Talk' started by TheLoneFalcon, Sep 22, 2014.
You don't understand numbers? That explains alot!!!!!!
Stop quoting me weirdo.
Interesting analyses on our finances. But, if we are really negotiating to buy all of Zaha, Tierney, and Saliba, then our transfer budget this summer must be around GBP 100 mln. If we spend that wisely, not necessarily on those three, IMO we could really improve the team with this priority : CM>LB>CB>RB>FW.
Sorry didn't know your feelings would be hurt so bad or I would have left it.....
**** off with your bullshit in all these threads.
Sorry didn't know you were an emo. My sincere condolonces for hurting your 'feelings'.
The Saliba deal with loan-back will be paid in installments, an arrangement with St. Etienne, so it is not straightforward to take the transfer fee for that one and say it could easily be spent on something else.
Dindt know FSG put so much in. + they had some crazy big sales.
They paid for their ground work so that the money from TV etc could go on transfers.
No different to oil club owners putting money in, only Liverpool’s owners money went on the stadium.
We went all in thinking FFP would be our saviour and it's come back to haunt us. We are now trying to play catch up with a supposedly much smaller budget than our competitors. If you didn't laugh you'd cry at this!
This isn't quite true. FSG lent Liverpool £100m to build the main stand, of which £10m has been repaid. They also paid £300m to buy the club. However, that money was paid to the banks rather than the existing owners (due to the whole Hick and Gillette situation), so it is being treated as an investment in the club, unlike the money Kronke spent to buys up the shares in Arsenal. Long story short, FSG has spent a total of £390m on Liverpool to date, and Kronke has spent £550m to buy the final 30% of Arsenal from Usmanov. Kronke's total investment in Arsenal in much larger than FSG's investment in Liverpool, neither have spent money on the squad.
This was actually a key part of the Swiss Ramble analysis, although it got a bit lost within an overall narrative. Extra £40m a year. Doesn't matter if other clubs are seeing an increase also, from prior windows and despite the loss last year I would estimate even £70m this summer for transfers was *easily* doable, not the £45m figure that had come from wherever.
Important to note at this juncture because some are asking questions about whether we have to sell a high value asset to make up for Pepe (Pepe paid for in installments, around 20m this summer, 52m spread over rest of contract). We are not forced into doing such at all. We can just offload a few peripheral players as we naturally would do based on assessments of being "deadwood".
So what did other clubs do that we neglected to do for these gaps in commercial deals to widen that much? Is it just that our shirt deal was poorely timed?
Can we close the gap again?
I think the 7 year shirt deal done with emirates in conjunction with the stadium naming rights was poor. During that time other teams renewed their shirt sponsorships at least once, some even twice, and managed to hike up the deals past us. Those were the first years the PL broadcasting rights started hiking aggressively, inflating the kit deals as well. No data to support this claim, but that's how I see it. At least part of the reason.
This is true however doesn't paint the full picture as you mentioned above. FSG gave Liverpool 100m loan at below market rate interest rates and has no fixed repayment date (it's like 1.1%) to increase the capacity of Anfield while at the same time freeing up cash flow to spend on purchases. Can you imagine Kroenke renegotiating our stadium debt or paying off the balloon payment for the debentures, which I think will be 50m in 2034 (not certain of the date)
In part that is where the Swiss Ramble narrative with the tables and charts has slightly hidden that we have an extra £40m a year from this summer based on the new Adidas deal and new Emirates deal. No doubt though that Gazidis was poor in looking at secondary commercial deals outside kit sponsorship and stadium naming rights. Manchester United for example have over 25 deals with commercial "partners". This is an area I think our executives should focus on.
Where we are after the new Adidas and Emirates deals is we are fine when it comes to Sp**s, Chelsea, and Liverpool. When it comes to United, our new Adidas deal gives us around £65m a season, whereas for United they already had a £750m deal over 10 seasons signed with Adidas starting 2015 (there were some CL football stipulations for max. payouts, iirc, not sure if all satisfied). Manchester City commercial deals are somewhat artificial, IMO (Middle East money).
Q) Where did the "£40m restricted transfer budget" come from?
A) "Arsenal Supporters Trust" (AST), where constant whinges every summer about restricted budgets, even if not accurate, gain attention, and suit their agenda. Lazy journalists such as John Cross then report their numbers as fact without noting the source.
(as explained above, we clearly have ability to spend well over £40m net this summer based on new commercial deals kicking in)
from the outside looking in, there is only one thing an analyst can do: use the club's financial statements to calculate free cash flow that can be spent on transfers.
i did the numbers myself several pages back and also got to 45M for this summer. that value simply represents what we generated last season and assumes we spend it all on transfers (by the way, this has been the case for the prior two summers, though i havent gone back further than that).
how would i reconcile such a limited budget with the pepe rumors? there are several things the club can do to spend beyond the 45M. for example, they can draw down from the massive cash reserve, or they can spend money today in anticipation of receiving higher revenue from our new sponsorships. they can also sell players or limit other types of investment going forward.
the fact is, this is the first summer where gazidis is no longer at the club, and we have two new executives who would ostensibly like to make an impression to win over the fans. it wouldn't surprise me at all if they managed our finances more aggressively for a while -- there is flexibility to do that.
but, without any inside information re: management's plan, there is no way for an outside analyst to account for that kind of stuff.
Watch Arsenal Live Streams With StreamFootball.tv