Arsene Wenger: Uefa must come down hard on Man City

[Damocles]

I edited it in to find his first purchase back in 1991.

Either way, the poster was wrong for two reasons:

Fiszman wasn't the majority shareholder until late 1999

Fiszman did not pay anywhere close to £50m for those shares.

 

[joecorrigan]

You mean he doesn't have our best interests at heart?

Damn you Wenger!!!!!

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

It's not the place of a football manager to make statements of that nature.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite, as he genuinely believes in self-sustainability. His rejection of PSG's advances and his opposition to Usmanov joining the AFC board are evidence of that.

I just want to clarify something about Fiszman and the 50 million.

50 million at the time constituted more than half of Fiszman's worth. He did not spend it on footballers. It was spent on acquiring the majority shareholding in the club. He also underwrote (guaranteed) the Bergkamp fee. That's it.

For evidence Arsenal's accounts from that period are freely available. There is no 50 million outside investment, no matter how often it is repeated on Bluemoon (based on a Tony Adams quote of all sources).

Even the Bergkamp fee was ultimately paid by the club. The likes of Henry, Pires and the new training ground were financed by player sales (Anelka) and increasing revenues. Again the audited club accounts bear testimony to this.

Fiszman did change the culture of the club though. Previously run by generations of Old Etonians as a hobby, it now became more business like.

I have no beef with the City way, the PSG way or the Chelsea way, nor do I think everything at AFC is wonderful. Apart from the ticket prices there is the trophy drought. In the decade pre-Fiszman/Bergkamp/Wenger the club won a lot of trophies. Over the last decade it obviously hasn't.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but the often peddled line that Fiszman was no different to the Royal families at City and PSG or Mr Abramovich at Chelsea is factually wrong, no matter how often it is repeated.

I hope the moderators will allow this post to stand.

Cheers.

I bothered to look into this. It is nonsense.

Fiszman bought 7,500 shares of Arsenal before they boomed and though the price is private, the markets they were trading on valued Arsenal's stock at £1,350 at the time.

You're off by about £40m.

EDIT: Hold on, found his first purchase of 10,000 shares in 1991. Arsenal shares aren't floating at the time but if we presume their value doubled in that time which seems apt, then that's another £7m.

So Fiszman spent at the maximum £17m and the minimum £13m to acquire a 33% share of Arsenal. He was never the majority shareholder.

United sold shares on three occasions in the late 1980s and then floated to provide their manager with funds to rebuild the team. Fiszman bought shares in Arsenal and the money was used for exactly the same purpose. According to Wenger now people who do such things are "sugar daddies" who are involved in "financial doping". It is arguable that Wenger now believes in the "break even" principle because it's now in Arsenal's interest. Kroenke believes in it because he won't have to make any investment, ever.

 

[Balti]

It's not the place of a football manager to make statements of that nature.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite, as he genuinely believes in self-sustainability. His rejection of PSG's advances and his opposition to Usmanov joining the AFC board are evidence of that.

I just want to clarify something about Fiszman and the 50 million.

50 million at the time constituted more than half of Fiszman's worth. He did not spend it on footballers. It was spent on acquiring the majority shareholding in the club. He also underwrote (guaranteed) the Bergkamp fee. That's it.

For evidence Arsenal's accounts from that period are freely available. There is no 50 million outside investment, no matter how often it is repeated on Bluemoon (based on a Tony Adams quote of all sources).

Even the Bergkamp fee was ultimately paid by the club. The likes of Henry, Pires and the new training ground were financed by player sales (Anelka) and increasing revenues. Again the audited club accounts bear testimony to this.

Fiszman did change the culture of the club though. Previously run by generations of Old Etonians as a hobby, it now became more business like.

I have no beef with the City way, the PSG way or the Chelsea way, nor do I think everything at AFC is wonderful. Apart from the ticket prices there is the trophy drought. In the decade pre-Fiszman/Bergkamp/Wenger the club won a lot of trophies. Over the last decade it obviously hasn't.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but the often peddled line that Fiszman was no different to the Royal families at City and PSG or Mr Abramovich at Chelsea is factually wrong, no matter how often it is repeated.

I hope the moderators will allow this post to stand.

Cheers.

I bothered to look into this. It is nonsense.

Fiszman bought 7,500 shares of Arsenal before they boomed and though the price is private, the markets they were trading on valued Arsenal's stock at £1,350 at the time.

You're off by about £40m.

EDIT: Hold on, found his first purchase of 10,000 shares in 1991. Arsenal shares aren't floating at the time but if we presume their value doubled in that time which seems apt, then that's another £7m.

So Fiszman spent at the maximum £17m and the minimum £13m to acquire a 33% share of Arsenal. He was never the majority shareholder.

United sold shares on three occasions in the late 1980s and then floated to provide their manager with funds to rebuild the team. Fiszman bought shares in Arsenal and the money was used for exactly the same purpose. According to Wenger now people who do such things are "sugar daddies" who are involved in "financial doping". It is arguable that Wenger now believes in the "break even" principle because it's now in Arsenal's interest. Kroenke believes in it because he won't have to make any investment, ever.

hypocrites galore

 

[Newman Noggs]

Arsenal, United, Liverpool. Same pig, different shirt.

 

[Constellation]

It's not the place of a football manager to make statements of that nature.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite, as he genuinely believes in self-sustainability. His rejection of PSG's advances and his opposition to Usmanov joining the AFC board are evidence of that.

I just want to clarify something about Fiszman and the 50 million.

50 million at the time constituted more than half of Fiszman's worth. He did not spend it on footballers. It was spent on acquiring the majority shareholding in the club. He also underwrote (guaranteed) the Bergkamp fee. That's it.

For evidence Arsenal's accounts from that period are freely available. There is no 50 million outside investment, no matter how often it is repeated on Bluemoon (based on a Tony Adams quote of all sources).

Even the Bergkamp fee was ultimately paid by the club. The likes of Henry, Pires and the new training ground were financed by player sales (Anelka) and increasing revenues. Again the audited club accounts bear testimony to this.

Fiszman did change the culture of the club though. Previously run by generations of Old Etonians as a hobby, it now became more business like.

I have no beef with the City way, the PSG way or the Chelsea way, nor do I think everything at AFC is wonderful. Apart from the ticket prices there is the trophy drought. In the decade pre-Fiszman/Bergkamp/Wenger the club won a lot of trophies. Over the last decade it obviously hasn't.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but the often peddled line that Fiszman was no different to the Royal families at City and PSG or Mr Abramovich at Chelsea is factually wrong, no matter how often it is repeated.

I hope the moderators will allow this post to stand.

Cheers.

I bothered to look into this. It is nonsense.

Fiszman bought 7,500 shares of Arsenal before they boomed and though the price is private, the markets they were trading on valued Arsenal's stock at £1,350 at the time.

You're off by about £40m.

EDIT: Hold on, found his first purchase of 10,000 shares in 1991. Arsenal shares aren't floating at the time but if we presume their value doubled in that time which seems apt, then that's another £7m.

So Fiszman spent at the maximum £17m and the minimum £13m to acquire a share of Arsenal. He was not the majority shareholder at this point. He paid another £7m in 1999 to take it to 33%.

This does not explain his investment into Arsenal at all

Your calculation is probably broadly correct in terms of what it cost him to buy the shares. Also you are right to pull me up on "majority" shareholder when I should have said "largest".

That's it though. There was no 50 million. Not a penny worth of direct investment anywhere on the books, apart from underwriting the Bergkamp fee.

Underwriting is not a loan, let alone a gift. Simply a guarantee the club would pay the transfer fee and stick to whatever payment terms were agreed with Inter Milan at the time.

As I said initially, 50 million was the equivalent of more than half of Fiszman's assets at the time. Even if he had wanted, he would not have been able to raise that cash.

The 50 million don't appear in any accounts because they didn't exist. One Tony Adams quote and Bluemoon's total belief in the quote change nothing.

Danny Fiszman did three things:

1) bought AFC shares
2) underwrote a signing (Bergkamp)
3) with David Dein changed the culture of the club.

At the time of his first share purchase in 91, Arsenal had just won their second championship in 3 seasons. Rather different to Chelsea or City.

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

go take your face for a shit Le Arse......moaning french fuckwit who has failed to win anything for a hell of a long time

hope Hull beat those fuckers in the final

 

[Bilboblue]

It's not the place of a football manager to make statements of that nature.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite, as he genuinely believes in self-sustainability. His rejection of PSG's advances and his opposition to Usmanov joining the AFC board are evidence of that.

I just want to clarify something about Fiszman and the 50 million.

50 million at the time constituted more than half of Fiszman's worth. He did not spend it on footballers. It was spent on acquiring the majority shareholding in the club. He also underwrote (guaranteed) the Bergkamp fee. That's it.

For evidence Arsenal's accounts from that period are freely available. There is no 50 million outside investment, no matter how often it is repeated on Bluemoon (based on a Tony Adams quote of all sources).

Even the Bergkamp fee was ultimately paid by the club. The likes of Henry, Pires and the new training ground were financed by player sales (Anelka) and increasing revenues. Again the audited club accounts bear testimony to this.

Fiszman did change the culture of the club though. Previously run by generations of Old Etonians as a hobby, it now became more business like.

I have no beef with the City way, the PSG way or the Chelsea way, nor do I think everything at AFC is wonderful. Apart from the ticket prices there is the trophy drought. In the decade pre-Fiszman/Bergkamp/Wenger the club won a lot of trophies. Over the last decade it obviously hasn't.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but the often peddled line that Fiszman was no different to the Royal families at City and PSG or Mr Abramovich at Chelsea is factually wrong, no matter how often it is repeated.

I hope the moderators will allow this post to stand.

Cheers.

I bothered to look into this. It is nonsense.

Fiszman bought 7,500 shares of Arsenal before they boomed and though the price is private, the markets they were trading on valued Arsenal's stock at £1,350 at the time.

You're off by about £40m.

EDIT: Hold on, found his first purchase of 10,000 shares in 1991. Arsenal shares aren't floating at the time but if we presume their value doubled in that time which seems apt, then that's another £7m.

So Fiszman spent at the maximum £17m and the minimum £13m to acquire a share of Arsenal. He was not the majority shareholder at this point. He paid another £7m in 1999 to take it to 33%.

This does not explain his investment into Arsenal at all

Your calculation is probably broadly correct in terms of what it cost him to buy the shares. Also you are right to pull me up on "majority" shareholder when I should have said "largest".

That's it though. There was no 50 million. Not a penny worth of direct investment anywhere on the books, apart from underwriting the Bergkamp fee.

Underwriting is not a loan, let alone a gift. Simply a guarantee the club would pay the transfer fee and stick to whatever payment terms were agreed with Inter Milan at the time.

As I said initially, 50 million was the equivalent of more than half of Fiszman's assets at the time. Even if he had wanted, he would not have been able to raise that cash.

The 50 million don't appear in any accounts because they didn't exist. One Tony Adams quote and Bluemoon's total belief in the quote change nothing.

Danny Fiszman did three things:

1) bought AFC shares
2) underwrote a signing (Bergkamp)
3) with David Dein changed the culture of the club.

At the time of his first share purchase in 91, Arsenal had just won their second championship in 3 seasons. Rather different to Chelsea or City.

And as I said, the money he pumped in to the club, helped you challenge for trophies, as has Sheik Mansours investment.

Only problem is for you hypocrites, that has been at your expense, awwwww diddums, now kindly do one.

 

[Damocles]

Your calculation is probably broadly correct in terms of what it cost him to buy the shares. Also you are right to pull me up on "majority" shareholder when I should have said "largest".

That's it though. There was no 50 million. Not a penny worth of direct investment anywhere on the books, apart from underwriting the Bergkamp fee.

Underwriting is not a loan, let alone a gift. Simply a guarantee the club would pay the transfer fee and stick to whatever payment terms were agreed with Inter Milan at the time.

As I said initially, 50 million was the equivalent of more than half of Fiszman's assets at the time. Even if he had wanted, he would not have been able to raise that cash.

The 50 million don't appear in any accounts because they didn't exist. One Tony Adams quote and Bluemoon's total belief in the quote change nothing.

Danny Fiszman did three things:

1) bought AFC shares
2) underwrote a signing (Bergkamp)
3) with David Dein changed the culture of the club.

At the time of his first share purchase in 91, Arsenal had just won their second championship in 3 seasons. Rather different to Chelsea or City.

Your accounts aren't freely available online anywhere, I had to spend a fiver at Companies House you bastards.

Anyway, by 1995 Arsenal had already received £15m in shareholder funds. Along with the purchase price this "Fiszman spent £50m" is starting to take shape.

 

[Henkeman]

Your calculation is probably broadly correct in terms of what it cost him to buy the shares. Also you are right to pull me up on "majority" shareholder when I should have said "largest".

That's it though. There was no 50 million. Not a penny worth of direct investment anywhere on the books, apart from underwriting the Bergkamp fee.

Underwriting is not a loan, let alone a gift. Simply a guarantee the club would pay the transfer fee and stick to whatever payment terms were agreed with Inter Milan at the time.

As I said initially, 50 million was the equivalent of more than half of Fiszman's assets at the time. Even if he had wanted, he would not have been able to raise that cash.

The 50 million don't appear in any accounts because they didn't exist. One Tony Adams quote and Bluemoon's total belief in the quote change nothing.

Danny Fiszman did three things:

1) bought AFC shares
2) underwrote a signing (Bergkamp)
3) with David Dein changed the culture of the club.

At the time of his first share purchase in 91, Arsenal had just won their second championship in 3 seasons. Rather different to Chelsea or City.

Your accounts aren't freely available online anywhere, I had to spend a fiver at Companies House you bastards.

Anyway, by 1995 Arsenal had already received £15m in shareholder funds. Along with the purchase price this "Fiszman spent £50m" is starting to take shape.

£15 million shareholder funds would amount to around 75% of annual turnover in itself at the time. A lot.