Arsenal Finances

Discussion in 'Arsenal Talk' started by TheLoneFalcon, Sep 22, 2014.

  1. akhil

    akhil Active Member

    Blaming the stadium? We've been mismanaged commercially and in terms of personnel since the Özil deal. Stadium pain pretty much ended in 2014 after the new TV deals kicked in. The new deals affect us as well, we get the increased revenue same as everyone else. If you look at the financial statement we do less than 9 million pounds yearly on the fixed rate bonds. The variable rate bonds aren't being paid back right now from the looks of it and we need about 30 million in the bank for debt servicing guarantees. The stadium generates over 100 million a year, it comfortably pays for itself.

    We have a EL squad on UCL wages and too many assets past their prime or just plain not good enough. We've invested what we had poorly and not recouped any money from sales, that's about it. The bulk of these problems are from the previous regime. The new guys maybe f***ed up on the Ramsey contract. Whether that decision bites us remains to be seen.

    Now as a reaction, we're too cautious to spend any money in year 3 of EL football. It's probably going to be another year until we see this lot can function properly with Edu coming in, but Emery's future is going to be up in the air.
  2. CaseUteinberger

    CaseUteinberger Cazorla (not Carzola ffs)

    Thanks for posting. Not the most uplifting over my morning coffee...
  3. A$AP Unai

    A$AP Unai New Member

    You don't understand numbers? That explains alot!!!!!!
  4. BigPoppaPump

    BigPoppaPump Could Never Wifey An Opp Thot

    Stop quoting me weirdo.
    Tourbillion and Wrighty4eva like this.
  5. db10fan

    db10fan Member

    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.
  6. A$AP Unai

    A$AP Unai New Member

    Sorry didn't know your feelings would be hurt so bad or I would have left it.....
  7. Tourbillion

    Tourbillion Angry 24/7

    **** off with your bullshit in all these threads.
    BigPoppaPump likes this.
  8. A$AP Unai

    A$AP Unai New Member

    Sorry didn't know you were an emo. My sincere condolonces for hurting your 'feelings'.
  9. Iceman10

    Iceman10 Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. krengon

    krengon One Arsene Wenger Trusted

  11. Hunta

    Hunta NOT In A Caravan Trusted

  12. Garrincha

    Garrincha Wilf Zaha Aficionado

    Dindt know FSG put so much in. + they had some crazy big sales.
  13. Hunta

    Hunta NOT In A Caravan Trusted

    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.
  14. neimad

    neimad Well-Known Member

    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!
    Mrs Bergkamp likes this.
  15. devlin_adl

    devlin_adl Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2019
  16. Iceman10

    Iceman10 Well-Known Member

    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".

    Last edited: Jul 29, 2019
  17. Dutch D

    Dutch D Well-Known Member

    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?
  18. FinnGooner

    FinnGooner Well-Known Member

    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.
    Iceman10 likes this.
  19. Gooner Zig

    Gooner Zig AM's Resident Accountant Trusted

    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)
    say yes, SingmeasongSong and Iceman10 like this.
  20. Iceman10

    Iceman10 Well-Known Member

    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).
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019
    Dutch D likes this.

Share This Page

Watch Arsenal Live Streams With

Do Not Sell My Personal Information