Liverpool enter talks with Saudi Arabian and Qatari consortiums over a potential £3BILLION takeover

[J-V]

12 minutes ago, navbasi said:

They're hoping that Qatar comes to their rescue before any questions are asked..... A bit like they're all hoping that Arsenal win the league and then they can say... "See, you don't need State money to compete.. Arsenal just did it...."

 

They've spent a fortune.

[Barrington Womble]

58 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

By defintion they are a living and breathing thing like any other LLC.

 

If Ashley is a like for like model then their valuation will be unaffected by success. His wasn't.

I phrased that wrong. What I meant was, FSG isn't a single thing making decisions only for one individual. They are a broad spectrum of different investors, just like LFC would be if FSG let go of 40% of Liverpool to 15 different wealthy investors. This idea nobody would invest in LFC for a minorty stake is just wrong, because ultimately it's how we're owned now. 

[navbasi]

1 hour ago, J-V said:

 

They've spent a fortune.

That’s the thing, nobody ever seems to mention that…. Arsenal have somehow been portrayed as some sort of plucky underdog that have done it all the right way through coaching. 

 

They’ve spent £415m (net) since 2019 when Arteta took over.  

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

I phrased that wrong. What I meant was, FSG isn't a single thing making decisions only for one individual. 

Understood. Few top clubs are though right?

[Barrington Womble]

2 minutes ago, navbasi said:

That’s the thing, nobody ever seems to mention that…. Arsenal have somehow been portrayed as some sort of plucky underdog that have done it all the right way through coaching. 

 

They’ve spent £415m (net) since 2019 when Arteta took over.  

Is that more net than klopp has had since 2015? 

[Barrington Womble]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

Understood. Few top clubs are though right?

I think although it's sovereign fund, I think you can say the oil state clubs are, because they're in service of their ruler. Abramovic was too.  And the glazers was a family affair until they floated 10%. And isn't kroenke just him? (I don't know much about him). 

 

But this was my point anyway. It's really not unusual for someone rich to stick their money in and let someone else control the asset..they don't all need to be in charge. 

[an tha]

27 minutes ago, navbasi said:

That’s the thing, nobody ever seems to mention that…. Arsenal have somehow been portrayed as some sort of plucky underdog that have done it all the right way through coaching. 

 

They’ve spent £415m (net) since 2019 when Arteta took over.  

Well done to them still acting like a big club despite not being in the european cup - i hope we show same ambition if we fall out of it and don't start all the 'ooh we can't spend because we have missed out on the top 4' bollocks.

[an tha]

2 hours ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Have the football authorities not thought that the 3rd highest earning club in world football struggling to compete financially might be a bad sign for the long term future of the game.

They might if the 10th highest for example wasn't competing financially.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, an tha said:

Well done to them still acting like a big club 

 

They fired a shitload of staff and had to have players agree a pay cut in 2021.

 

They have outstanding debt of over 500 mil -- like a big club would do.

[an tha]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

They fired a shitload of staff and had to have players agree a pay cut in 2021.

 

They have outstanding debt of over 500 mil -- like a big club would do.

500m of debt - really?

[an tha]

Even if that debt is right - nobody gives a toss anyway it never gets paid or it is serviced over 20/30 years and makes no odds.

 

Bottom line is football now is a filthy business and we can claim to be doing it the 'right' way and all that and to be fair last 4/5 years we can say we have been right and we have the pots - but it feels like the game is moving again to another level of financial cuntishness and we are in danger of being left behind - the nice guys left at the side of the dance floor whilst the cunts pull all the women and get a shag

 

[TheHowieLama]

5 minutes ago, an tha said:

500m of debt - really?

Total debt including player monies owed and Barclays approaching £500m.

— AST (@AST_arsenal) June 2021

 

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, an tha said:

but it feels like the game is moving again to another level of financial cuntishness and we are in danger of being left behind 

 

Agreed -- pretty much everyone is in the same danger. Including big clubs like Arsenal. 

[an tha]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Agreed -- pretty much everyone is in the same danger. Including big clubs like Arsenal. 

Football club debt is a ridiculously complex full of smoke and mirrors shitshow that it is hard to know what is what...

 

Ultimately if a club can and does still spend to be competitive and stays solvent that appears to be about as much as really matters.

 

Decent article here about Arsenal's finances from December:

 

 

https://theathletic.com/3965749/2022/12/04/arsenal-45m-loss-january-gabriel-jesus/

 

 

What of Arsenal’s debt?

It’s difficult to talk in too much detail about Arsenal’s debt, especially until the full financial accounts are released to Companies House. This is expected to happen in February 2023.

Arsenal have a £70million working capital facility with Barclays Bank, as well as support from the owners. The report states that additional funding “is provided by the ultimate parent company, KSE UK Inc, which is wholly owned by the ultimate controlling party, Mr E. S. Kronke”. Kroenke has provided funds to refinance the stadium finance bonds, to the tune of some £32.2m, and for working capital as required.

The money Kroenke has provided, however, is not a gift — it is a loan from the group’s parent company, KSE UK Inc. The interest rate on these loans remains private, although The Athletic has been told the terms are favourable to the club. The loan is repayable on two years’ notice, but as yet, no such notice has been received.

With interest rates on the rise, it will be interesting to see how Arsenal continue to manage their debt.

Unsurprisingly given the financial results, no dividends were paid out to the club’s directors.

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, an tha said:

Football club debt is a ridiculously complex full of smoke and mirrors shitshow that it is hard to know what is what...

 

 

It is a pretty simple line item. Every club has it and reports it. 

 

Personally I do not see Arsenal's strategy over the last 18 months as sustainable. You do. No fuss.

I can remember when folks were out of their gourds at ownership loading debt onto the club.

[an tha]

4 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

It is a pretty simple line item. Every club has it and reports it. 

 

Personally I do not see Arsenal's strategy over the last 18 months as sustainable. You do. No fuss.

I can remember when folks were out of their gourds at ownership loading debt onto the club.

All the different ways it is structured - who it is from, over how long, linked to what blah blah blah is what i meant - but yeah no biggie

 

All fans care about mostly is what happens on the park and is the club doing what needs to be done to be successful.

 

We can say our club has over last 5 years as the success has been there - we are now entering a time when clearly money needs to be spent to kick us on again and time will tell if we do enough.....sitting not doing enough but pointing at a good financial report is not really going to excite too many is it....

[LFC 6 Times]

FSG need to go. They’re becoming a parody of themselves. The leaks about budget being contingent on CL qualification considering we spend like a bottom half team when we have qualified are beyond infuriating.

[Scott_M]

[navbasi]

11 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

Is that more net than klopp has had since 2015? 

Jurgen Klopp since October 2015:

 

51 Players Bought: £661,250,000

49 Players Sold: £478,200,000

 

Net Spend: £183,050,000

[TD_LFC]

14 minutes ago, navbasi said:

Jurgen Klopp since October 2015:

 

51 Players Bought: £661,250,000

49 Players Sold: £478,200,000

 

Net Spend: £183,050,000

 

Arsenal lost lots of valuable assets for free because of poor squad management/discipline issues etc where we've been very good at getting rid of players we don't need (or good prices for players who wanted to leave in Coutinho's case).

 

Net spend reflects that, as a metric for investment it's largely useless.

 

It's only real use is generating clicks for the likes of Sky Sports when they whack it in a table at the end of every transfer window and people get to decide/argue whether they won or lost the window off the back of it.

 

 

 

 

[Harry Squatter]

7 hours ago, LFC 6 Times said:

FSG need to go. They’re becoming a parody of themselves. The leaks about budget being contingent on CL qualification considering we spend like a bottom half team when we have qualified are beyond infuriating.

They and their little lackeys like Pearce and Joyce seem to enjoy winding up our fanbase over it. 

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, TD_LFC said:

 

Arsenal lost lots of valuable assets for free because of poor squad management/discipline issues etc where we've been very good at getting rid of players we don't need (or good prices for players who wanted to leave in Coutinho's case).

 

Net spend reflects that, as a metric for investment it's largely useless.

 

It's only real use is generating clicks for the likes of Sky Sports when they whack it in a table at the end of every transfer window and people get to decide/argue whether they won or lost the window off the back of it.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why you think it is useless. Does the sale of players not count or something? It's as relevant a metric as anything in running a football club, from salaries to the commercial revenues. Do you think if LFC had not been good at selling players, they would have bought the same players regardless? 

[Carra_is_legend]

9 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

I don't understand why you think it is useless. Does the sale of players not count or something? It's as relevant a metric as anything in running a football club, from salaries to the commercial revenues. Do you think if LFC had not been good at selling players, they would have bought the same players regardless? 

 

I bet you laughed when you wrote that

[KevieG]

1 hour ago, TD_LFC said:

 

Arsenal lost lots of valuable assets for free because of poor squad management/discipline issues etc where we've been very good at getting rid of players we don't need (or good prices for players who wanted to leave in Coutinho's case).

 

Net spend reflects that, as a metric for investment it's largely useless.

 

It's only real use is generating clicks for the likes of Sky Sports when they whack it in a table at the end of every transfer window and people get to decide/argue whether they won or lost the window off the back of it.

 

 

 

 

 

We don't invest in Alison and VVD without selling Coutinho. 

 

We are effectively a sell to buy club when it comes to transfer spend. 

 

 

[navbasi]

2 hours ago, Scott_M said:

"Yet given the Qataris are set to continue with a majority stake in PSG it would cause complications if they were to also acquire a Premier League club who compete in the same European club competitions. Under UEFA regulations, if two clubs majority-owned by the same entity qualify for competitions such as the Champions League, only one of the teams is allowed to enter...."