Arsenal Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2014 - Mod Warning Linked in OP

Mr Blobby

dvemail wrote: »

Can we trust Walcott not to get injured again next season?
Just imagine what we could do if we just lumped some money towards PSG for Cavani or Monaco for Falcao.
I know it may never happen, but shag it, we are never gonna compete with just above average up spearheading our attack.

Cavani cost PSG 60M.. Falcao cost Monaco 60M..

Falcao is also coming back from a pretty serious knee injury.
There is 0% chance of us getting any player like that.

dvemail

Mr Blobby wrote: »

Cavani cost PSG 60M.. Falcao cost Monaco 60M..

Falcao is also coming back from a pretty serious knee injury.
There is 0% chance of us getting any player like that.

Well ya wouldn't let me pick Ballotelli or Lukaku. :pac:
Benzema would be better, Rodrigo from Benfica would be worth a punt.
Would even prefer Wilfied Bony to Remy if it came to it.

Mickeroo

I'd rather Bony to Remy too, he's actually got a pretty great goal scoring record, better than Remy's anyway and he's 2 years younger too.

Would prefer they aim a bit higher though, but if we spent big on a winger (like Griezmann) then we don't need to shell out so much in the striking department.

gosplan

I guess if we had no other strikers come in, Remy would be a good signing.

But Christ if we signed him now?? Before trying anything else??

But that's the problem. Some people are demanding Remy and others are demanding signings now.

bad2dabone

If we got a proper dm, right back, and remi I wouldn't be dissatisfied . But obviously I'd prefer to get a more talented striker, but realistically how much will wenger spend? It's hard to predict.

gosplan

bad2dabone wrote: »

If we got a proper dm, right back, and remi I wouldn't be dissatisfied . But obviously I'd prefer to get a more talented striker, but realistically how much will wenger spend? It's hard to predict.

If we covered the positions that need to be filled like RB and backup keeper, then I'd be happy with one Ozil standard addition in the striker, LW or DMF spot.

If the RB is first choice, then this wouldn't surprise me. Wenger would always go for one or two great addition over what Spurs did last year.

gosplan

What about Khedira?

I mean, he's not getting his game at Real and ticks all the boxes for our DMF.

Plus if they pay crazy money for Suarez, they may be willing to let him go for a decent price.

Alonso's 32 but Illaramendi will be their DMF then.

Either that or if Suarez comes, Di Maria might leave.

Di Maria's awesome but you're never getting into an attacking three of Bale, Ronaldo and Suarez.

So, someone tell Wenger. Just get the RB from Ivory Coast, some random backup keeper and then wait to see what Madrid do.

salmocab

Think the best we can hope for is a decent reserve GK a decent RB really good DMF and a CF of the not quite brilliant but decent enough variety. To be honest I'd be very happy with that, might even sneak in an unheard of 18 year old from equatorial new guinea or some such place.

Gringo180

Linked with Lorenzo Insigne on SSN there, player apparently said he is flattered by the interest such a coach like Wenger is showing in him. Can play on both wings and up front.

tayto lover

Gringo180 wrote: »

Linked with Lorenzo Insigne on SSN there, player apparently said he is flattered by the interest such a coach like Wenger is showing in him. Can play on both wings and up front.

If he can play RB and in goal too I can see us getting him.

Bounty Hunter

Gringo180 wrote: »

Linked with Lorenzo Insigne on SSN there, player apparently said he is flattered by the interest such a coach like Wenger is showing in him. Can play on both wings and up front.

They were probably just reading a day old copy of METRO they found on the tube on the way to work - It was in the BBC rumours section yesterday via METRO

having said that the things that tick the boxes for Arsenal are that despite him not being the most prolific goalscorer (the METRO article listed him as a forward which is a loose term) he is primarily considered a LW but can cover in other AM slots or as a Second striker. Left wing is obviously a position Arsenal could use another play and someone who could play as a support striker to Giroud if you are chasing a game could be helpful too.

Transfermarkt has him down as having a 13,20 Mill. £ market value and considering he has made the 23man Italian squad for the World cup that is not crazy money and might suit Arsenal who as much as they might have it in the bank are not too likely to be spending massive money on several players.

A player like him, A DM, RB and backup GK would be a realistic summer perhaps and if that DM is a top player it could still turn out to be a great one

fulmer1984

Would anyone take a punt on this lad? alfred finnbogason

59 goals in 70 games for Heerenveen is pretty remarkable. Valued at around €10M too

fulmer1984

fulmer1984 wrote: »

Would anyone take a punt on this lad? alfred finnbogason

59 goals in 70 games for Heerenveen is pretty remarkable. Valued at around €10M too

2 words to that - Alfonso Alves

Alfred Borden

If we are gonna take a punt, would love it to be on Bacca or Muriel.

Raf32

Raf32 wrote: »

If we are gonna take a punt, would love it to be on Bacca or Muriel.

Can Toni Collette play a bit? :pac:

tayto lover

Ah feck that. No punts, we want the finished article this time.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Ah feck that. No punts, we want the finished article this time.

Exactly. Surely we're gone beyond punts and risks. If we can pay the bill sure why cant we dine out in a 5 star Michelin for a change?

DenMan

Good luck Yossi.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27747837

DenMan

DenMan wrote: »

Good luck Yossi.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27747837

As honest a player as they come. Gave everything for us during his loan spell.

greendom

greendom wrote: »

Because people were equating cash reserve to transfer fund. That was never going to be the case

Why?

EuropeanSon

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?

Because they are different things?

That seems a silly question.

EuropeanSon

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Because they are different things?

That seems a silly question.

What other club has massive cash reserves?

Quazzie

Deleted User wrote: »

What other club has massive cash reserves?

A LOT of our cash reserves are required as part of the finance restructuring. It took us years to build it up and it is absolutely ludicrous that some people would want to spend it all in one transfer window as if it's some sort of validation that we're in the big boys club with the sugar daddies.

enfant terrible

Quazzie wrote: »

A LOT of our cash reserves are required as part of the finance restructuring. It took us years to build it up and it is absolutely ludicrous that some people would want to spend it all in one transfer window as if it's some sort of validation that we're in the big boys club with the sugar daddies.

"Arsenal have to maintain a debt servicing reserve, which was £24 million in the Interims."

http://swissramble.blogspot.ie/2013/08/arsenal-money-dont-matter-2-night.html

"Arsenal had an incredible £154 million of cash, which is significantly higher than any of their competitors with Manchester United the closest with £71 million (less than half the Gunners’ cash pile). An even more amazing statistic is that Arsenal have almost as much cash as the rest of the Premier League’s other 19 clubs combined (£181 million)"

EuropeanSon

Deleted User wrote: »

What other club has massive cash reserves?

So based on that bit of trivia, you assume we are only keeping that huge pile of cash for kicks and couldn't possibly have a valid reason for it?

:rolleyes:

enfant terrible

EuropeanSon wrote: »

So based on that bit of trivia, you assume we are only keeping that huge pile of cash for kicks and couldn't possibly have a valid reason for it?

:rolleyes:

Wenger said we have such a huge cash balance for when a special talent becomes available, we can pounce.

Quazzie

Quazzie wrote: »

A LOT of our cash reserves are required as part of the finance restructuring. It took us years to build it up and it is absolutely ludicrous that some people would want to spend it all in one transfer window as if it's some sort of validation that we're in the big boys club with the sugar daddies.

Someone else already answered how much of the cash reserve is free.
You realise that spending money tends to lead to success?

EuropeanSon wrote: »

So based on that bit of trivia, you assume we are only keeping that huge pile of cash for kicks and couldn't possibly have a valid reason for it?

:rolleyes:

Go on, make something up. What possible reason is there for keeping all that cash sitting in the bank?

CatInABox

enfant terrible wrote: »

"Arsenal have to maintain a debt servicing reserve, which was £24 million in the Interims."

http://swissramble.blogspot.ie/2013/08/arsenal-money-dont-matter-2-night.html

"Arsenal had an incredible £154 million of cash, which is significantly higher than any of their competitors with Manchester United the closest with £71 million (less than half the Gunners’ cash pile). An even more amazing statistic is that Arsenal have almost as much cash as the rest of the Premier League’s other 19 clubs combined (£181 million)"

Arsenal have to keep 24 million in reserve as required by the debt contracts.
On top of that, repayment on the loans is about 20 million a year.
That means that each year, around 45 million has to be ring fenced just for the debt.

So that still leaves a massive pile of cash, around 100 million.

Buy an Ozil, and that's down to around 60 million.

Buy a Suarez, and that's down to about zero, essentially.

The thing then is, what happens next year?

If we win something and get into the Champions league, then great, it all paid off!

If we don't win anything, and don't get into the champions league? Then we don't make enough money to pay the players, and the debt at the same time.

Just to note, I know that this is all massively simplified, but it's just to point out that spending all the cash is not necessarily the best idea. Some of it, yes, all of it, no.

Of course, if we had Suarez last season, we probably would have won the league. In opposition to that, there's plenty of clubs that have spent lots and not won anything (Spurs last year, Leeds, etc)

enfant terrible

CatInABox wrote: »

Arsenal have to keep 24 million in reserve as required by the debt contracts.
On top of that, repayment on the loans is about 20 million a year.
That means that each year, around 45 million has to be ring fenced just for the debt.

So that still leaves a massive pile of cash, around 100 million.

Buy an Ozil, and that's down to around 60 million.

Buy a Suarez, and that's down to about zero, essentially.

The thing then is, what happens next year?

If we win something and get into the Champions league, then great, it all paid off!

If we don't win anything, and don't get into the champions league? Then we don't make enough money to pay the players, and the debt at the same time.

Just to note, I know that this is all massively simplified, but it's just to point out that spending all the cash is not necessarily the best idea. Some of it, yes, all of it, no.

Of course, if we had Suarez last season, we probably would have won the league. In opposition to that, there's plenty of clubs that have spent lots and not won anything (Spurs last year, Leeds, etc)

Where did you get £24 million I thought it was £14 million.
http://angryofislington.com/2012/10/09/arsenal-accounts-and-finances-all-explained-in-five-minutes/

Did you factor in the new Nike and Emirates deals when doing you calculations which will bolster our income by about £60 million this year?

Also, transfers are usually paid over the length of the players contract, so we are paying about £8.5 million per season for Ozil.

Bounty Hunter

Deleted User wrote: »

Go on, make something up. What possible reason is there for keeping all that cash sitting in the bank?

although in all seriousness I don't think anyone is expecting all of that being kept in the bank however despite it being there I think the counter arguement it that it wont all be spent in 1 go. Wenger wont be spending 100m of what took him so long to build up in just one summer for example but if an exceptional talent in a position Arsenal need becomes available and the price, which can be high, isn't over inflated due to another club (like say Chelsea) getting involved then the cash is there to finance the deal, ala Ozil

CatInABox

enfant terrible wrote: »

Where did you get £24 million I thought it was £14 million.
http://angryofislington.com/2012/10/09/arsenal-accounts-and-finances-all-explained-in-five-minutes/

Did you factor in the new Nike and Emirates deals when doing you calculations which will bolster our income by about £60 million this year?

Also, transfers are usually paid over the length of the players contract, so we are paying about £8.5 million per season for Ozil.

The 24 million figure is the amount of money that Arsenal must keep in reserve as part of our debt obligations. It is not part of the repayments, but more of a safety net that the banks have forced Arsenal into.

The repayments on that loan, according to the Swiss Ramble article that was in my quote, came to about 19 million. I rounded up to 20 million just make it easier for myself, not to deceive.

There is no doubt that Arsenal have more money this year than any other. The TV money is increased, as is the money from commercial dealings. It's not a straight up profit though, the last deal was worth X amount (I can't be bother to go look for it), so the increase is 60 - X million.

Already, some of that has been eaten up. All those players signing new contracts this year didn't do it for the good of their health, they did it because they knew Arsenal can afford to pay them a lot more.

Again, I'm not saying that Arsenal shouldn't spend money, in fact I'll be disappointed if we don't sign at least three decent players, but this talk of blowing it all in one year seems a little foolish to me, and isn't the way I'd run a business.

enfant terrible

CatInABox wrote: »

The 24 million figure is the amount of money that Arsenal must keep in reserve as part of our debt obligations. It is not part of the repayments, but more of a safety net that the banks have forced Arsenal into.

The repayments on that loan, according to the Swiss Ramble article that was in my quote, came to about 19 million. I rounded up to 20 million just make it easier for myself, not to deceive.

There is no doubt that Arsenal have more money this year than any other. The TV money is increased, as is the money from commercial dealings. It's not a straight up profit though, the last deal was worth X amount (I can't be bother to go look for it), so the increase is 60 - X million.

Already, some of that has been eaten up. All those players signing new contracts this year didn't do it for the good of their health, they did it because they knew Arsenal can afford to pay them a lot more.

Again, I'm not saying that Arsenal shouldn't spend money, in fact I'll be disappointed if we don't sign at least three decent players, but this talk of blowing it all in one year seems a little foolish to me, and isn't the way I'd run a business.

We're up £42 million per season just with the Nike and Emirates deal's I believe.

Nike were paying us 8 million per year, Puma are now paying 30 million plus per year.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/football/arsenal/52893/arsenal-puma-kit-deal

The old Emirates deal was 10 million per year, its now 30 million per year.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2237639/Arsenal-spend-money-Emirates-Deal--Ivan-Gazidis.html
We wouldn't blow it all in one season.

Fabregas for example is apparently costing £25 million, Barca seemingly still owe us about £15 million still from the Fabregas and Song deals.
http://www.thescore.com/liga/news/511970

Can we push the boat out and pay the £10 million extra for Fabregas and also add the players we needed before he became available?

Yes we easily can.

bad2dabone

This article speculates that we maintain such huge cash reserves as collateral against debts on loans kroenke sports enterprises has in relation to their US sports teams.

This seems a very plausible reason to me.

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/matt-scott/13109-matt-scott-why-arsenal-s-cash-mountain-may-remain-just-that

salmocab

The transfer money doesn't get paid in one go generally, so a 40 million player might be up front then 3 or 4 payments over 3 or 4 years thats why Barca owe us money still. So making a few big signings won't take all 100 million or whatever the figure we think Arsenal have in the bank, however it would affect future outgoings over the next few seasons. That said if we were buying a top player the seller might be more interested in a slightly lower cash bid just like selling your house, cash is king.

Muirshin Durkin

How does anyone really know what our books are like?, its hardly something Arsenal would leak to the press.

EuropeanSon

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone else already answered how much of the cash reserve is free.
You realise that spending money tends to lead to success?

Go on, make something up. What possible reason is there for keeping all that cash sitting in the bank?

Unlike you, I understand that I'm not going to be able to get all the answers. It's tough, I know, for you to accept that Arsenal football club are not going to be filling you in on the reasons for everything they do.

You'll live, I'm sure.

I do know, however, that cash is one of the least good ways of holding onto value, as it loses value each year through inflation. So it would not be very sensible as a business decision to hold on to a massive lump of cash unless we need to. If I know this, then Gazidis sure as hell does too, and so does Stan Kroenke. They are both very good businessmen, by all accounts. Ergo, a reason must exist.

.jacksparrow.

Muirshin Durkin wrote: »

How does anyone really know what our books are like?, its hardly something Arsenal would leak to the press.

They do. They have to by law. A simple Google is all you have to do.

bad2dabone

bad2dabone wrote: »

This article speculates that we maintain such huge cash reserves as collateral against debts on loans kroenke sports enterprises has in relation to their US sports teams.

This seems a very plausible reason to me.

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/matt-scott/13109-matt-scott-why-arsenal-s-cash-mountain-may-remain-just-that

Meaning the owner isn't doing the best for the club.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Unlike you, I understand that I'm not going to be able to get all the answers. It's tough, I know, for you to accept that Arsenal football club are not going to be filling you in on the reasons for everything they do.

You'll live, I'm sure.

That'll be a "no" then.

Muirshin Durkin

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

They do. They have to by law. A simple Google is all you have to do.

Really, apologies, but by law do we have to know what sort of contract we have in regards to the money in our cash reserve or what sort of limitations we have. Gazidis said we're in negotiations for players but we still have to budget, and last year it seemed our budget was in and around 40mill. The 40million plus 1 bid on Suarez, Ozil costing 40mill, the rest of the deals we tried to get where loans. So i wouldnt be surprised if it was the same this window.

EuropeanSon

Deleted User wrote: »

Meaning the owner isn't doing the best for the club.

That'll be a "no" then.

Good reading ability there, well done!

tayto lover

If you fell out of cyber space into the middle of this thread you'd still know straight away whose thread it was.
We spend a lot of time talking about money in the Arsenal thread.
Sometimes I think we are more Jewish than Spurs.

CatInABox

bad2dabone wrote: »

This article speculates that we maintain such huge cash reserves as collateral against debts on loans kroenke sports enterprises has in relation to their US sports teams.

This seems a very plausible reason to me.

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/matt-scott/13109-matt-scott-why-arsenal-s-cash-mountain-may-remain-just-that

Indeed.

I further speculate that the reason Arsenal are kept so cash rich is actually to do with another part of the Kroenke sports empire: The St Louis Rams.

There's currently no NFL team based in Los Angeles, meaning that it is a relatively untapped market. Kroenke recently bought enough land there to build an NFL stadium, but as we know all too well, building a stadium is no easy task.

In order to build a stadium, you need to finance it with banks and other organisations, which look at the Kroenke empire in totality, not just the Rams part of it. In that case, the plan might be to keep Arsenal cash rich so as to get a better deal on the financing of the new stadium.

/End Speculation.

Also, any publicly traded company must give out a statement of accounts every year, and while they don't have to discuss future plans, they MUST tell the truth about the current situation with the clubs finances, otherwise they could be sued for insider dealing.

Arsenals most recent statement of account is here.

I will admit, it's all gibberish to me, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that the debt servicing reserve is mentioned in there, or in another of the documents that arsenal put out. EDIT: It's at the bottom of page 15 actually, CTRL-F didn't work until I downloaded it for some reason.

batistuta9

tayto lover wrote: »

If you fell out of cyber space into the middle of this thread you'd still know straight away whose thread it was.
We spend a lot of time talking about money in the Arsenal thread.
Sometimes I think we are more Jewish than Spurs.

You wouldn't have a clue what year it is though :pac:

tayto lover

batistuta9 wrote: »

You wouldn't have a clue what year it is though :pac:

Permanent recession?

greendom

tayto lover wrote: »

If you fell out of cyber space into the middle of this thread you'd still know straight away whose thread it was.
We spend a lot of time talking about money in the Arsenal thread.
Sometimes I think we are more Jewish than Spurs.

We probably are. Quite possibly more Jewish. So what ?

bad2dabone

I'd heard what Catinabox has speculated about the Rams too. It's highly plausible. Kroenke might not have taken a penny out of arsenal, yet, or saddled the club with mega debt, but he didn't buy arsenal for the love of the club or football. It's not hard to believe that were being used as a cash rich asset in his empire to help him out with his US projects.

I'm expecting that reserve to grow.

bad2dabone

In other news my 4 year old daughter loves giroud, I was telling her that Bergkamp, Adams and Henry have statues outside the emirates.
"when will Giroud get his own statue? "

" eh, I don't think he will be getting one... "

She was gutted. Who knows maybe he'll score forty goals a season for the next few.

DenMan

France vs Jamaica tonight! Hope our boys will be playing! 8pm KO.

tayto lover

DenMan wrote: »

France vs Jamaica tonight! Hope our boys will be playing! 8pm KO.

Is it on tv?

L'prof

tayto lover wrote: »

Is it on tv?

BT1