Richard '****' Law

[The_Roadrunner]

Re: Richard '****' Law

So now he's an awesome magician, but a season or two ago he was a **** and told to GTFO along with Wenger, Gazidis, and Kroenke. ******* hilarious. And, no, I don't get tired of being right.

To be fair, Kroenke's history owning sports teams was not exactly one to be inspired by or place faith in.

He took over the NHL's Colorado Avalanche the year they won the Stanley Cup and they have not been back to the Stanley Cup finals since then. He became full owner of the St. Loius Rams in 2010 and they have been mediocre ever since. He took over the Denver Nuggets in 2000 and he had one of the NBA top talents in Carmelo Anthony but a true title challenging team was never built around Anthony instead it seemed like they liked him selling jerseys and just making it to the playoffs rather than contend for a championship.

So there were legitimate reasons to question if a Kroenke owned Arsenal would truly do what it takes to win the Premier League again and the Champions League. He wasn't on the Board that planned the Emirates after all so he did have a bit to prove IMO. And it wasn't even just anonymous fans on the interwebz. Remember even our former board member Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith came out saying she regretted selling her shares to Kroenke.

Fortunately for us the FA Cup win and this summer's transfer window show very positive signs. But there is still a way to go to winning the PL and CL so hopefully Kroenke really does intend to challenge at the highest level. This is the most excited I've been for a season in 9 years.

 

[AnthonyG]

Re: Richard '****' Law

So now he's an awesome magician, but a season or two ago he was a **** and told to GTFO along with Wenger, Gazidis, and Kroenke. ******* hilarious. And, no, I don't get tired of being right.

To be fair, Kroenke's history owning sports teams was not exactly one to be inspired by or place faith in.

Nah, for me there is no 'to be fair', no excuses (for some). I (and others) spent years trying to explain the situation in the face of outright xenophobia and scare-mongering, and don't even get me started on the utter ignorance associated with US sports on this 'site. Some people who pass themselves off as experts barely understand football.

It was never a case of no criticism allowed, but much more a case of so many thinking all criticism is constructive or justified. (Not to mention the sheer arrogance of some thinking they knew everything). I and others showed sense, patience, and understanding in the face of endless verbal excretions.

This is a time to move forward, to enjoy, but it is also a reminder that it's how you act during times of adversity that define you. On that front we have several score failures right here. But, yeah, I'm excited too.

 

[entropy13]

Re: Richard '****' Law

To be fair, Kroenke's history owning sports teams was not exactly one to be inspired by or place faith in.

He took over the NHL's Colorado Avalanche the year they won the Stanley Cup and they have not been back to the Stanley Cup finals since then. He became full owner of the St. Loius Rams in 2010 and they have been mediocre ever since. He took over the Denver Nuggets in 2000 and he had one of the NBA top talents in Carmelo Anthony but a true title challenging team was never built around Anthony instead it seemed like they liked him selling jerseys and just making it to the playoffs rather than contend for a championship.

So there were legitimate reasons to question if a Kroenke owned Arsenal would truly do what it takes to win the Premier League again and the Champions League. He wasn't on the Board that planned the Emirates after all so he did have a bit to prove IMO. And it wasn't even just anonymous fans on the interwebz. Remember even our former board member Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith came out saying she regretted selling her shares to Kroenke.

Fortunately for us the FA Cup win and this summer's transfer window show very positive signs. But there is still a way to go to winning the PL and CL so hopefully Kroenke really does intend to challenge at the highest level. This is the most excited I've been for a season in 9 years.

False dichotomy. Kroenke isn't a Mark Cuban/Jerry Jones type of guy (and both of which incidentally own Dallas-based teams ). How then will he have direct influence when he's typically the "indirect" kind of owner?

Although he'll pay for the stadium (like with the Avalanche, the Rapids, and the Nuggets), he won't necessarily pinpoint possible draft picks, trade targets, etc.

 

[Anzac]

Re: Richard '****' Law

Both this and the new AW thread reek of self righteous BS.

 

[AnthonyG]

Re: Richard '****' Law

Both this and the new AW thread reek of self righteous BS.

 

[Anzac]

Re: Richard '****' Law

Both this and the new AW thread reek of self righteous BS.

Bring it...

 

[AnthonyG]

Re: Richard '****' Law

Bring it...

 

[Anzac]

Re: Richard '****' Law

Bring it...

Tosser

 

[AnthonyG]

Re: Richard '****' Law

 

[stiiphunn]

Re: Richard '****' Law

People see what they want to see .

Spot on.

Clearly, after our FA cup win in 2005 people seem to forget that 3 of our rivals appeared in multiple Champions League finals (Liverpool *2, Chelsea *2, United *3) winning one each making Chelsea the first London team to win the Big Cup, meanwhile, we were constantly rebuilding losing out to Barcelona due to another player sent off under the Wenger era.

We lost captain after captain each one losing faith in Wengers ability to challenge. Henry “I wanted to be in a competitive team and I thought at the time that the way the club was going wasn’t the way that I was seeing it,” "It was hard and I cried - it wasn't an easy thing to do. But the team wasn't going the way I wanted it to. I don't regret leaving”. We know about RVP and his statement and of course Fabregas saying if Wenger was in Spain after 3 years he would have been sacked. Captains aside departing players from Nasri to Flamini have all challenged the direction the club was going, and in th directors box with David Dein departing over the failure to float on the stock exchange and then of course he backed Stan then turned on him. None the less what we seen was people in the inner circle challenging the direction of the club, the plan laid out clearly wasnt working.

On the pitch we went through our second biggest trophy drought in the post war period, suffered a club record loss of 8 -2 to Man Utd alongside numerous other embarrassing defeats, got beat by Birmingham in the Carling Cup final, declined and continued to decline in comparison to our nearest rivals to the point they were no longer our rivals, Sp**s became our new competition in the league alongside Everton, with Sp**s a food poisoning away from derailing the 2014 plan, yet there was no change.

We steadily improved our cash reserves over 100m and yet still didnt spend it, meanwhile new clubs were coming in and changing the game we remained stagnate and stubborn in the face of relentless change.

Yes its great to be right, but there was a lot going wrong with the club, players leaving, boardroom rifts,and most importantly continued failure on the pitch. Even a man who is wrong 99 times out of 100 is right once in this instance somehow unknown to me we managed to hang on by the skin of our teeth and are now reaping the rewards for it, but it was a long hard travelled road. Fair play to Ant for staying true to himself over that period as someone who has pumped thousands in to Arsenal, has taken flack of every football fan I caved I couldnt see nothing but darkness. Good lad yourself.

As for Ivan I feel a tad sorry for him the vitriol directed toward him I feel is because he is American and as viewe as Stans man


<a class="postlink" href="http://www.givemesport.com/424058-thierry-henry-reveals-details-behind-arsenal-departure" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.givemesport.com/424058-thier ... -departure</a>" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/thierry-henry-wants-arsenal-manager-3050652#.UuU25LvFIy4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... uU25LvFIy4</a>" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't want to get involved in this debate again - I've said pretty much everything there is to be said these past 8 years. This cash argument, however, is fairly annoying. People keep bringing it up without actually trying to understand what this cash was for. For example, if you take a quick look at the 2012/2013 Annual Report, you will find a number of references to this cash reserves - at one point, in the Cash And Short-Term Deposits section, you will find the following explanation: "The Group is required under the terms of its fixed rate bonds and floating rate bonds to maintain specified amounts on bank deposit as security against future payments of interest and principal. The Group uses short-term bank treasury deposits as a means of maximising the interest earned on its cash balances". It is also mentioned that "certain minimum bank deposits are required to be maintained as part of the security for the Group’s debt finance balances. The Group monitors its compliance with the applicable terms of its debt finance arrangements on a continuous basis and regularly reviews its forecast cash flow to ensure that both its business segments hold an appropriate level of bank funds at all times". I understand this doesn't cover Arsenal's entire cash reserves but still covers a significant portion of it. We obviously don't know the ins and outs of all Arsenal's financial arrangements. Maybe there are additional restrictions that we simply don't know about, or maybe these cash reserves were meant to serve a different purpose at some point in time.

I just find it unbelievable that people are willing to believe that the Board and Wenger were happy to keep these cash reserves untouched just for the sake of it. Everyone at the club explained that there were some financial constraints which Arsenal had to deal with these last 10 years. It wasn't a secret and it was there for everyone to see. Yet, some people chose, and keep choosing, to ignore that fact. Did people seriously believe that Wenger would have decided to go with Chamakh if he could have gotten ,e.g., Sanchez instead? Did people seriously believe that Wenger was willing to put up with so many average players just because he wanted to prove everyone that he could do it on the cheap?

From the very beginning, there was a clear plan and we all knew what this plan entailed. The club as a whole stuck to that plan and they're reaping the rewards today. Crucially, they will continue to benefit from it in the coming years/decades. The club did a brilliant job and, as an Arsenal fan, it's been a great privilege to be able to witness the transformation of our club. Incidentally, and less importantly, this is also a big f@ck you to all the doubters - the medias, the pundits, and some of the Arsenal fans who were more than happy to (i) bash pretty much everyone at the club, and (ii) come up with ridiculous theories about the club (e.g. the shareholders only cared about their dividends, Wenger's gone insane and wants to carry out his youth project no matter what, etc).

 

[Anzac]

Re: Richard '****' Law

^ IIRC the reports were that under the terms of the stadium investment by the sponsors we were required to retain 30% of our available revenues per season. SwissRamble had questioned our purpose/use re Cash Reserves these past 2-3 seasons.

The stadium payments have been covered since the move - we have NOT paid anything off in advance & we were MORE vulnerable during the construction whilst we were still at Highbury.

Essentially we have ridden our luck for a decade to wait for the new improved primary sponsorship deals, and for our Cash Reserves to almost balance the remaining debt. We now generate 70m+ per season in usable funds.

I suspect that 'The Invincibles' enabled us to ride out the initial vulnerability during the construction period, and then we quickly switched to the youth project post 2008 to maximise the re-sale value from 'The Invincibles' to fund us going forward into the next phase post the move. We then looked to get the most from the Youth project as the long term core to the squad (to minimise expenditure whilst our cash flow remained in single figures), whilst we maintained profit margins towards this outcome whereby our Cash Reserves can cover the debt, whilst our new revenue streams enable us to shop at Harrods rather than K-Mart.

 

[Toast]

Re: Richard '****' Law

This thread derailed pretty quickly. **** Law hasn't even been mentioned on this page...

 

[FinnGooner]

Re: Richard '****' Law

If only his parents had just named him **** in stead of ****.

 

[bingobob]

Re: Richard '****' Law

"The Group is required under the terms of its fixed rate bonds and floating rate bonds to maintain specified amounts on bank deposit as security against future payments of interest and principal".

It would be safe to assume under the above terms we were required to hold money from the get go as a security, or within a limited time to have the money put away. On that premise anything beyond the required threshold was not held as security but simply held for reasons unknown - an educated guess of mine would be failure to reach the CL would have allowed us to access the difference between the threshold and the excess as it was, luckily, that event never occurred – other than as stated to take advantage of treasury deposits, probably short term GILTs which would be acceptable as a security to a bank. You should be able to ascertain by looking at the records what figure was held almost immediately after the loans were granted as the figure required by the bank for security purposes.

Either way though it is great that we are in the position we are in even if I would have steered the boat in another direction given the changing environment over the last 9 years. Upwards and onwards.

*EDIT* Didnt realise Ivan was South African - I just put two and two together as he was associated with the MLS and assumed he was American. I think it stands though that a lot of the hatred directed at him is because he was viewed as Stans man.

 

[Rex Stone]

Re: Richard '****' Law

One thing that always f****d me off in the Gazidis criticism was the huge amount of "Piers" type fans who were demanding that David f*****g Dein got his job back.

Guy sold us down the river on multiple occasions, the Graham bung incident, the fact we'd probably be left without a stadium right now and how coincidentally all of his sons clients who were at the club pushed for moves in disrespectful ways.

I've only come around to Gazidis in the last couple of years but I've always preferred him to Dein, guy didn't give a jot about our club.

 

[spartandre217]

Re: Richard '****' Law

I think Law's success or failure this summer is a tad multi-faceted.

1.
I think the lifting of financial constraints on the club and the possibility of leveraging our new commercial deals has allowed us to take a bit more risk with regards to signing players. A bit speculative but I think we do get a percentage of the revenue generated by kit sales. Marquee players sell more shirts.

2.
Less downside risk of big signings on purely financial reasons. We can now better afford to sign big players and lose them for significant parts of the year or just perform poorly. Imagine a situation where we signed Hazard a number of years back. If he were injured, or had a poor few seasons that would be a significant chunk of our available transfer related capital tied up for that window. With a larger number of signings we could mitigate that risk somewhat.

Option A: Buy a brilliant player for 25m pounds
Option B: Buy a player with 80% of Option A's ability for 10m pounds.

Basically we've been taking Option B every time for the past couple of years. This is turn leads to Wenger dithering on deals.


3.

It's been rumored that we've taken the handling of minutiae of deals out of Wenger's hands. i.e Wenger provides the list of players he likes/wants and their priority and expected cost. Gazidis et al go out and get a detailed breakdown of their cost (salary & fee) either through an external financial firm and/or an internal team. We send Law out to negotiate with the players/clubs using our valuation as a basis for the deal. Law returns to Gazidis & Wenger with a list of deals negotiated or being negotiated with clubs/players. While understanding the finances available, we make decisions on who to pull the trigger on.



Speculative, but this year's business smells of warm oil and metal. A smoothly running machine and there is no way the old way of doing things has resulted in this.

 

[The_Roadrunner]

Re: Richard '****' Law

To be fair, Kroenke's history owning sports teams was not exactly one to be inspired by or place faith in.

He took over the NHL's Colorado Avalanche the year they won the Stanley Cup and they have not been back to the Stanley Cup finals since then. He became full owner of the St. Loius Rams in 2010 and they have been mediocre ever since. He took over the Denver Nuggets in 2000 and he had one of the NBA top talents in Carmelo Anthony but a true title challenging team was never built around Anthony instead it seemed like they liked him selling jerseys and just making it to the playoffs rather than contend for a championship.

So there were legitimate reasons to question if a Kroenke owned Arsenal would truly do what it takes to win the Premier League again and the Champions League. He wasn't on the Board that planned the Emirates after all so he did have a bit to prove IMO. And it wasn't even just anonymous fans on the interwebz. Remember even our former board member Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith came out saying she regretted selling her shares to Kroenke.

Fortunately for us the FA Cup win and this summer's transfer window show very positive signs. But there is still a way to go to winning the PL and CL so hopefully Kroenke really does intend to challenge at the highest level. This is the most excited I've been for a season in 9 years.

False dichotomy. Kroenke isn't a Mark Cuban/Jerry Jones type of guy (and both of which incidentally own Dallas-based teams ). How then will he have direct influence when he's typically the "indirect" kind of owner?

Although he'll pay for the stadium (like with the Avalanche, the Rapids, and the Nuggets), he won't necessarily pinpoint possible draft picks, trade targets, etc.

Not sure how its a false dichotomy when I never set up an either/or choice.

Just saying there was reason to be skeptical of Kroenke who has never owned a champion team except the Colorado Avalanche who won the year he took over and was built under previous management.

I personally was not about to have blind faith in him and felt he had to prove himself.

 

[TheLoneFalcon]

Re: Richard '****' Law

Bob , Ivan's actually from South Africa and went to Manchester Grammar school then Cambridge .

Honestly just relieved that we are moving ahead as a football club. It's honestly quite exciting to see a long term plan come to fruition .

Knew there was a reason I like him!

 

[Jury]

Re: Richard '****' Law

Solved. Far left, apparently. Well it's ****ing ruined it for me. Well done GDeep.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.lancenet.com.br/gremio/Richard-Orlandelli-Kroeff-Credito-Divulgacao_LANIMA20101203_0021_26.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.lancenet.com.br/gremio/Richa ... 021_26.jpg</a>

 

[Rex Stone]

Re: Richard '****' Law

He looks like the kind of guy who gets killed off in a Schwarzenegger movie ffs