Wenger: £15-20m Profit Required

Toledo, my point is most clubs don't make a profit. Here is a link to the Premier League that proves it. The lower the league the less m oney they make but they still have wages etc to pay. Historically people bought clubs for love of the club not to make money and this is mostly still the case - until this generation of football club owner sells up.

See the link that I provided to Shwan below:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/the-debt-league-how-much-do-clubs-owe-1912244.html

 

United only made the profit they made by not spending the £80m they got from selling Ronaldo.

Arsenal's interest payment is £20m.

 

To maximise his bonuses, perhaps?

 

Bloody hell Shwan - stop arguing with me ! You don't know what you are talking about. I proved it with regard to club owners and profits and I am again now.

Cristiano Ronaldo was sold officially on the 1st July 2009. According to your BBC link the reporting period is from the year until the end of June, therefore the 30th June 2009 is the last day of the reporting period. The transaction for Ronaldo would be classed as a 2010 - 2011 transaction.

 

No I understand your point about most clubs making a profit, but the point I was making is that we should be happy that the owner is taking a profit, because he has more reason for us to be successful and we have a lot more people interested in buying Arsenal, if he needs to sell.

 

Toledo, thats one way of looking at it ..... another way is .. while he is making a profit without investing much or anything (Arsenal being self sufficient) he would also be very happy - getting money for nothing and all that.

 

Might be true of the Liverpool pair, or the Glaziers, but Kronke invested quite a lot buying Arsenal, this was no leveraged buyout.

 

- with no risk.

 

You are right Shwan I got my years mixed up with the Ronaldo deal

 

From an investment point of view, I would have thought this would be relatively high risk, but it certainly isn't no risk.

 

Why is it high risk ? He would've seen Arsenal's books and realised the chances of him needing to dip into his own pockets was slim to none. Low to no risk, especially after moving to the Emirates and having all those flats to sell, money coming in was never going to be an issue.

 

Kroenke has taken over & is rapidly improving the commercialisation of the club. The domestic market is almost maxed out, it's overseas that is needed now. Hence the tours to the far east, and this year Africa as well. They're turning Arsenal into a global brand, and I'm hoping the next set of accounts will reveal that it's working. If Kroenke increases the income by 30m, and takes 10m of it for himself, then that's fine by me. If he doesn't increase it, and takes money out, I'd have issue with that, but traditionally that's not how he works.

 

It goes to show how dead our board was before - we took too long to expand marketing to Asia and Africa, if I'd have known about the levels of income available during Far East tours, I'd have preferred that to the sodding Emirates Cup !

 

I don't think other people wanting to buy Arsenal would be of much importance to the fans tbh but i do agree that if the owner is increasing the revenue streams then him getting a cut isn't a bad thing.

I don't think Arsenal should need to make profit EVERY season unless it is for paying interest payments.

 

They need to make a profit on average. The more I think about it, the more a 15m profit is probably interest linked. After all the debt is paid, that 15m will become profit for Kroenke if he wants - and that will mean there's 0 difference seen by the club. So if Kroenke can increase the income, and keep taking that flat rate 15m, the club benefits

 

Because...they lose 15m on interest payments per year at the moment, and that converts to 15m going to Kroenke per year...but he increases the income for the club, then the club benefits financially, and with nothing to do with the money they'll eventually get so bored of counting the pennies they'll spend them on fantastic players and Arsenal will conquer both this Universe, then research other Universes and conquer them too!! simples!

 

toledo - I see you are still writing the opposite to everything I say - even if yout point is absurd.
Since when was buying a major stake, with more shareholders in your pocket, a new superb 60k seater sellout stadium,
a manager who turns a cheap squad into regular CL entry a high risk investment?
With that point of view I imagine you would not buy a £20 football to kick - in case it burst?

 

I think you'll find that Mike Ashley has only given Newcastle an interest free loan to cover all their debts, basically he's an official guarentor of the funds. As for the Ronnie deal, not sure how each club works but I've heard this from a roadshow with Niall Quinn that Sunderland spread the transfer fee's across the length of a players contract in their balance sheets.

So if we sign a player for £10m on a 5 year deal it'll show each year of his contract at the transfer fee of £2m.

I'm not an accountant and don't claim to be so not sure if that's good or bad?

 

I'm no accountant either but I think this refers to assets.
If you buy a player and tie him to a 5 year contract then his value will depreciate by 20% each year he completes, or if you sign someone to a 3 year deal they'll depreciate 33% every year - this is used to accurately value any company/club.

 

The contract term will be deemed the life of the asset. Re-signing a fresh contract COULD mean re-depreciating the remaining balance over the new term.....