I don't get why they don't sell some preference shares to fans, and for the entire group, not just the club itself.
I dunno but the main article I remember reading was: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/17/arsene-wenger-title-arsenal-fans-unhappy Which said: Again, it would just be GREAT if Arsenal would post VIDEO of the ENTIRE meeting. Then we could all see & hear for ourselves without any added spin doctors.
Not sure how I could've made an assertion about Tim Stillman, when I don't know or read him. Tonerl, it's a good idea not to put words in other people's mouths right?
Thought I would bump this thread. Anyone got any concrete info ( Deloite and Touhe, etc$ or data on our new financial deals, sponsorships, how much of a revenue gap still remains with the top money clubs (2 Spanish giants, Bayern, Mancs)? New debt levels too
Time to bump up this thread with this excellent article from the ever brilliant Swissramble on the AFC 2013/2014 annual report. Great work. Glad to be a fan of a club so well managed. Now to you, Arsene! "To sum up Arsenal’s financial condition, we could do a lot worse than quoting Ivan Gazidis: “The club is in excellent shape, both on and off the pitch”, adding that “we are well placed to deliver.” That is undoubtedly true. While not expecting a club like Arsenal to suddenly adopt a “balls out, pedal to the metal” attitude, it is clear that something has changed in Arsenal’s ability (and willingness) to spend" http://swissramble.blogspot.ch/2014/09/arsenal-money-changes-everything.html
On a related note, reading that the legendary Madrid stadium is now called Abu Dhabi Santiago Bernabeu, I hope one day that we won't have to be reliant on selling stadium naming rights so that we can call it "Highbury" once more. It's not that far from the original grounds - just wishful thinking.
Don't get why Real Madrid need the money, but then I guess they want another galactico or some such.... I was surprised we only made 4 million in profits.
So our match day income is competitive with the best. Our TV revenue is excellent given the popularity of the PL. But oor sponsorship income is probably still way behind and lacking, even after the new Puma deal. What will it take to come close to the Mancs, Bayern and two Spanish sides? They have at least a 100 mil advantage that seems insurmountable. I discount Citeh and PSG "spmsorship" deals everyone knows these are fraudulent and farcical.
I agree with the conclusion of the website; the club is in excellent shape. However, I had some time, so I want to show you the problems that often arise with these types of analysis. I have linked the actual annual report from 2012/2013. http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_file...1380277138_Arsenal_Holdings_plc_-_Annual_.pdf Excluding the garbled nature of the Swiss Ramble report (it jumps around too often often switching subjects, confusing cash and operating profit), the report starts off fine. However, in the middle, it starts to get misleading. I want to point out this one area since it's been brought up in the past. The report says: "What is encouraging for Arsenal is that they are no longer so reliant on player sales or property development to make money, so the core business is improving. In previous years, much of the club’s excellent financial performance has been down to profits from player sales (e.g. £65 million in 2011/12, £47 million in 2012/13) and property development (e.g. £13 million in 2010/11, £11 million in 2009/10). Excluding those once-off factors would have meant that Arsenal actually made substantial losses in the previous two years: £31 million in 2011/12 and £45 million in 2012/13. This is now down to a far more manageable £3 million loss in 2013/14. This is where I think the report misleads most unseasoned readers since most readers hear "losses" and think of 'cash losses' instead of accounting losses, which mean very little with regard to club's vitality. If you actually look at the numbers, you will see that. I will show you. Take 2013 for example (since that's the only year I looked at and can show my point easily). According to Swiss Ramble, the club would have lost 45 million GBP if you would have excluded 'Property Profit' and 'Profit from Player Sales'. That sounds horrible. But the measely 1.6 million Football Profit shown above is derived by using inflated accounting expenses (such as depreciation and amortization) that has nothing to do with cash. You can see this two ways on the annual report: Number ONE: You can look at the P&L statement. They break out their revenue (or turnover) on page 44. Excluding Player Trading and Property Development revenue, the Footballing side made 241,227 million. 2013 Gate and other match day revenues: 92,780 Broadcasting: 86,025 Retail and licensing 18,057 Commercial 44,365 TOTAL 241,227 EXCLUDE: Property development 37,549 Player trading 1,598 TOTAL 280,374 Now, look at the operating expenses (pg 45 #4) Non Cash Expenses Amortisation of goodwill 213 Amortisation of player registrations 41,349 Impairment of player registrations 5,672 Depreciation and impairment 12,294 TOTAL 59,528 Cash Expenses Staff costs (see note 6) 154,490 Other operating charges 61,559 Total Cash Expenses 216,049 Total Footballing expenses 275,577 Property development Expenses Cost of property sales 33,078 TOTAL ARSENAL EXPENSES 308,655 It is clear that 59.5 million GBP of those expenses used to calculate the measely 1.6 million in cash profit is not cash related; and therefore, shouldn't be viewed as true expenses. That should be added back into cash. The true amount of cash generated was 25 million (before debt and taxes). NUMBER TWO: You can look at the group's (Arsenal Holding's) Notes to the Consolidated Cash Flow Statement (pg 61 note #27 - (a) Reconcilation of Operating Loss to Net Cash Inflow from Operating Activities). This takes the "operating" loss of the group of 28.2 million and brings it back to how much true cash the group made during that period, which is 53.3 million. Of that 53.3 million,at least 24 million is directly related to the Property Development side (Decrease in Stock of $24,158 & pPofit on Tanglible Assets of 53). While I can't tie this one directly into the approach above given that all of the expenses aren't broken out well on this Group's statement(about 4 million is unaccounted for), it shows that the Footballing side brought in at least 25 million in cash (before debt and taxes). Isn't that misleading? It surely doesn't show a loss of 45 million. Now, this is the part that really frustrates me. SwissRamlb lgoes on about making a profit on player trading of 47 million GBP. We sold players whose contracts were worth 47 million, but we didn't get all of that cash upfront. It's not money in the bank. ; it is an accounts payable. Again, if you look at the actual statements on page 62 (d), you will see that in 2013 we actually paid $65,041 on players' contracts (I assume installment payments for existing players) and received 39,126 in money owed to us on players, so we lost money on players (net), although we are owed money in the future for the players we have sold. If you wanted to see whether the Footblling side could "stand alone" without money from player acquistions and sales, you would need to take this 26 million net cash expense out of the 2013 expenses as well. doing that increases cash even more. The true story is a lot different than how the website presents it. That's why I prefer looking at the statements themselves. Swiss Ramble doesn't do a good job explaining the difference between operating profit and cash; and therefore, it's doing a disservice to the average reader. .
Wanye, Im not a financial person but if I am reading your summary correctly then accounting losses are in fact good, no? They are not tied to the actual cash but they reduce our tax burden - is that how it works?
I can't speak to this because I am not sure how taxes are calculated in the the UK. I know it's different from in the US. However, in the US, you have book depreciation (what we are talking about) and tax depreciation. They aren't always calculated the same, but yes, you can use depreciation against your profit and lower your tax burden.
Thanks for the analysis, but in fairness I think he captures it well in the last section wrt the cash on hand. As he says, we can't know the financial obligations and accounts payable fully wrt to player trading and how it weighs on the cash reserve. But with 200m in the bank and an increase of 40m year over year it's 100% clear to even the most retarded fan that we could and should have bought another CB and a holding mid this summer. Just like it was clear exactly one year ago that we needed a backup/challenger for Giroud and didn't get one. Honestly, it baffles the mind that I have to watch us get pounded by Dortmund because we couldn't move the ball or win it back, see us fill out a team sheet with no defensive cover, call up reserves to play a cup game, and then read we've got 200m in the bank and are looking at a very cash friendly next two years with the puma deals and the new CL money coming online.
Yes. When you pay 42m for Ozil - this is a capital outlay and not tax deductible as an expense. However the depreciation in the value of his contract is a tax deductible loss. The 42m is amortised over the 5 years of his contract. So you can basically write off 8m per year. These are purely balance sheet entries which have nothing to do with the schedule of payments to Real.
Nice Analysis I think the chart which pretty much shows whats been happening with cash is this one In other words its been piling up around their ears since 2012 The other thing Swiss might not have expressed clearly enough is that this chart represents @ the balance date. Since that time there has been a record cash outlay - so it might have taken a bit of a hit.
Bullshit! 19 other clubs in the prem all start 2 CBs. Don't tell me a top 4 club can't poach a CB from a smaller club to be 3rd choice. There are literally hundreds of options that would be better than playing monreal at CB. He doesn't have to be a world beater, but a club that is in 4 competitions needs 4 bodies that can fill in at CB. Agree with you on the DM though....maddening.
because Barcelona paid 15 million for a guy who isnt that good and in the last year of his contract just to sit on their bench. Id do sell him again too. name the one you want then? Chelsea dont have a 3rd choice CB either (well Ivanovic is, but he also starting RB). Liverpool paid 20 million for Loveren who has been abject... AND HE STARTS! United wishes they had one centerback, let alone a 3rd one. Name who you would have bought and felt comfortable with stepping into the first team? Here is the truth most of us dont want to admit, there arent that many quality centerbacks out there. There really aren't that many quality players out there outside of the central midfield positions (either holding, a #8 or an attacking mid). Id love to buy someone to be a stand in defender, but Id rather not have that player be an albatross either. Thats how you get stuck with a guy like Squillaci. FWIW, Chambers is our 3rd CB, not Monreal.
Holding mid perhaps but who are the CBs or defenders that are linked with us? Oil rich city brough int Mangala and Sagna. Barca settled for Vermaelen. It's quite possible we tried but couldn't convince anyone to come here. Sometimes, it's not the money. Take Hummels or Sokratis, arguably it's a lateral move and they'd have to compete for a spot.
Good CBs want to start, and there aren't that many of them - it isn't easy to get a good player to sit on the bench. And frankly, I wouldn't want us to sign a player who's happy sitting on the bench. That leaves the Squillaci option, and none of us wants that. The more glaring issue, IMO, is the repeated failure to sign a D(eepest)M. If the tactics require a player so unique that there are only two or three players in the world that can play the role, perhaps a change to tactics is necessary?
So you want me to list players who would be good 3rd/4th choice. Okay, here are some options. 1) don't sell your 3rd choice unless you've got another option...make him see out his contract. 2) keep Miquel 3) bring back Song as a CB...he played there a bit for us and was better than djourou or senderos. 4) get an experienced player or another youth option...Liam ridgewell, hangeland, fazio, Alderweireld, Lindsay rose all moved in the summer...not saying any of these players are great, but they are a sample that were available. I'm sure you will dismiss them all as being tweety 3.0, but it's evidence enough that a club with 200m in the bank and a network of scouts should have been able to get us some depth in if it was a priority. Ya, chambers is 3rd choice, but he is also 2nd choice RB. We started the campaign with 6 defenders plus Hayden and Bellerin who barely even got preseason games. 6 senior players and 2 call-ups for 4 positions for 60 games. I mean fcuk, our 4th choice CB is 150 lbs! That's some joke, right?
1) Barcelona overpaid for someone to move from our bench to their bench 2) Why keep Miquel? He isn't going to make it at Arsenal. He was sold to a Championship side. If Miquel got in a match, you all would be pissing your pants and cursing Wumger for not having a better CB than Miquel. Why hold him hostage when he should be playing? 3) Song, lol. Now you're trolling. 4) Hangeland is slow and old. Alderweireld is legit pants. These are bottom barrel guys you want to be a 3rd choice CB. You basically want another Squillaci.