Arsenal Thread - 2022/23

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

Because hypothetically if you spend a billion in year 1-5, then you can use the existing squad base to sell and net incomings with outgoings in the forthcoming years. Then you can claim a 0 net spend despite sitting on a billion pounds squad.

Someone make this make sense please?

 

[horlock_was_super]

Someone make this make sense please?

I think it’s just the usual -

“City money bad so we’re allowed to make up bollocks about how we come by ours and get creative explaining it.”

 

[blueparrot]

Because hypothetically if you spend a billion in year 1-5, then you can use the existing squad base to sell and net incomings with outgoings in the forthcoming years. Then you can claim a 0 net spend despite sitting on a billion pounds squad.

Alternatively and not hypothetically you can buy 2 squad players for about 28 million and sell them to Arsenal a few years later for about £80 mill. Then buy Haaland for £51 and Alvarez for £20 mill thats good for less than zero net spend too.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

To be fair, those arguing about organic growth do tend to mean no owner investment.

It’s just a ridiculous concept that football itself (and those clubs that bang on about organic growth) made impossible for anyone else to follow if they wanted to be successful.

In that case United must be undergoing "organic shrinkage."

 

[meltonblue]

In that case United must be undergoing "organic shrinkage."

And long may it continue :)

 

[GunnerGer]

The concept of FFP is fine but it has been abused by certain clubs. You can't take FFP seriously when clubs like Barca, Real, MUFC, and Juventus build up billions of pounds of debt which their owners never pay back. The whole foundation of MUFC is built on huge loans from US banks but the money owed has not been reduced in ten years.
The press say United's wealth is "organic growth" but there is absolutely nothing organic about their business model. The Glazers have invested nothing in the infrastructure or the local community. They don't even pay any taxes in the UK and hide their wealth in the Cayman Islands. But apparently they are the "good guys." It is absurd.

Yep, correct, that's why I said I don't know the best way to implement it. I'm all for new investors, investing money to make the club they own better. It's more about protecting clubs against investors that might do something to put those clubs in trouble.

As a Rangers fan I've experienced it myself. Had 1 owner that decided to use EBT's to pay a lot of his employees when he was advised they were a legal loophole, that resulted in HMRC chasing us for tens of millions down the line. This meant he sold the club for £1 to an even dodgier owner, that tried to fund the club using future season ticket income and didn't pay any PAYE which then forced us into Adminstration then liquidation.

Obviously these are totally different situations to Billionaires taking over club and investing properly, im just using it as an example of how clubs are at the whims of owners and its not always a fairy tale.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Horrible snidey/whinging/cheating cunts.

 

[hammocity]

Alternatively and not hypothetically you can buy 2 squad players for about 28 million and sell them to Arsenal a few years later for about £80 mill. Then buy Haaland for £51 and Alvarez for £20 mill thats good for less than zero net spend too.

Alvarez was only £14m!

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Hypothetically. Would you rather Arsenal had owners who spent their own money on players to improve the team or owners that put it in their own bank accounts despite the wailing and nashing of teeth from the teams supporters.

This hole - how far you going?

 

[halfcenturyup]

In that case United must be undergoing "organic shrinkage."

I have suffered from that the last few years.