I think the tweet is only referring to non-playing staff.?
But we didn't. We cut the player salaries.
I think the nature of the boycott was to send a message and through symbolism while other clubs we should be competing with are free without these controversies. Every club is operating under these circumstances so of course it won't have the same effect. Match day revenue was always the wrong area of focus for the boycott, empty stadiums sends a clear message to the board and the footballing world.I just realised something. Those who were calling for boycotting games in order to hurt Stan’s pockets have inadvertently got their wish for that past five months, with more months to come.
Congratulations. Not attending games didn’t actually hurt Stan’s pockets it hurt Arsenal’s pockets, seeing as match day revenue is so important to the club. Are you happy?
I just realised something. Those who were calling for boycotting games in order to hurt Stan’s pockets have inadvertently got their wish for that past five months, with more months to come.
Congratulations. Not attending games didn’t actually hurt Stan’s pockets it hurt Arsenal’s pockets, seeing as match day revenue is so important to the club. Are you happy?
A boycott or walk out during normal times would have sent a message. A worldwide pandemic is a different matter. When things return to normal, if the fans walked out there would be pressure from sponsors and the possibility of a depreciating asset-unless Kroenke intends to turn Emirates in to a block of flats.I just realised something. Those who were calling for boycotting games in order to hurt Stan’s pockets have inadvertently got their wish for that past five months, with more months to come.
Congratulations. Not attending games didn’t actually hurt Stan’s pockets it hurt Arsenal’s pockets, seeing as match day revenue is so important to the club. Are you happy?
The whole boycotting matches to hurt "Stan" is one of the stupidest things someone could think of doing.
If they are doing it to save themselves money then I get it. But if their aim is to make a person with $7-8bn feel the pinch they will never in their lifetime achieve what they set out to do.
It's like robbing a penny from a millionaire everyday. It's so small in the grand scheme of things it doesnt affect him in the slightest. The club. Yes. But Stan. No.
^^ A lot of his net worth is based on his sports teams. They'll all be taking a hit in these circumstances.
I am not big on boycotts and prefer protests but I think the point is boycotts could hurt income, create bad publicity, can hit sponsors and create a vicious cycle where the guy ends up making a fat profit by selling rather by milking the club over decades.The whole boycotting matches to hurt "Stan" is one of the stupidest things someone could think of doing.
If they are doing it to save themselves money then I get it. But if their aim is to make a person with $7-8bn feel the pinch they will never in their lifetime achieve what they set out to do.
It's like robbing a penny from a millionaire everyday. It's so small in the grand scheme of things it doesnt affect him in the slightest. The club. Yes. But Stan. No.
Could be poised to sell now with the consolidation of the club and the streamlining of different areas. Typically these activities are key M&A activities which is where Tim Lewis' core competencies lie...just a thought.When is this prick going to sell up before he realizes he is in over his head...
So who will now pay for Stan's L.A dream ??
They must be so pissed off about this. Hahaha.