I've consistently called it EPL... never never BPL... but still quite a few on this board think EPL is wrong... it should be just PL. They didn't care when I said that EPL was unambiguous when there are other PL's out there like in Scotland. Oh well... glad to hear a Brit say it should be EPL. True. And quite "probably the best" beer. That slogan would crack me up every time I saw it on the hoardings. So half-assured, half-self-deprecating.
The British palette or more accurately lack there of seems to even extend to proper beers. Poor form, really poor form.
Mate don’t group me in that. I hate carling and fosters etc I love a proper beer/ale and good lagers like peroni, red stripe, San Miguel, carlseburg export etc American beer can be piss water as well like bud and corrs light
You live in London now, right? So many good little craft beers popping up the last couple of years. I like a couple of Camden Town's offerings.
Unsurprisingly with interest rates plummeting to new lows, Arsenal are going to restructure their stadium bonds. This means the club will have to pay penalties that will be rolled in, but are likely to halve the yearly payment, plus no need to keep the cash reserve. Last week Arsenal announced that they will redeem their outstanding bonds, which had been part of the debt taken on to fund the construction of the Emirates Stadium. This will be financed by owner Stan Kroenke’s company KSE. The following thread explains what this means #AFC— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) July 13, 2020
I just heard Rory Smith retell the anecdote about Roman flying over Stamford bridge and saying something like “I’ll have that one”, but in Rory‘s version, David Dein said Roman first inquired about buying Arsenal and was told by our bankers UBS that it wasn’t for sale. Hmm.
Arsenal have taken £120m short-term loan from government COVID relief fund. Gotta pay off Özil somehow.
This seems to me like bad optics. If not questionable ethics. I presume this dirt-cheap credit is not intended for football clubs to subsidize player trades or contracts, but I have a hard time believing that it won't be used for that, at least partly. And while the memory of scores of staff layoffs is still pretty fresh. Am I wrong?
I read that Spurs took a similar loan out a few months ago but it totaled 50m more than ours. Supposedly they used half of the loan on transfers.
Arseblog and Amy Lawrence this morning on the former's podcast, specifically said this money can't be used for transfer fees.
And yet we just paid an arm and a leg for Partey This is disgusting when ordinary people are struggling
From a NYTimes article a few days ago: “The NFL has agreed to pay the city and county of St. Louis $790 million to settle as four- year dispute… Rams owner Stan Kroenke… is expected to reimburse the league for most or all of the settlement. The payout comes on top of the $550 million relocation fee that Kroenke paid…. he has also spent roughly $5 billion to build SoFi stadium…” So KSE is well north of $6BB expenses for the Rams. Which makes me wonder whether that could negatively affect Arsenal’s big budget items, e.g. player transfers and wages? Or is that relatively chump change to KSE? As evidenced by our league leading transfer bill last summer??
Most of the Rams expenses should now already be accounted for. While Arsenal's base value and cash reserves no doubt aided Kroenke's initial financing packages by serving as assets for leverage, with the venue complete and generating revenue that product should now be self-sufficient. The ancillary development occuring on site will almost assuredly be ceded to partner developers, both to offset risk and utilize name brand partners. So as to whether or not the new fine will impact Arsenal, I suspect not. Not only will Stan lean hard into the league to cover some of that, I trust the rest will be rolled into a financing package tied to the Rams now that they're far and away the biggest asset in the KSE portfolio. If it does impact Arsenal it shouldn't be that bad, especially since they were involved in this litigation over the summer and still went shopping.
Cash flow might be a problem. The debt incurred by SoFi stadium, the re-lo cost, and the payment of this lawsuit is pretty big and probably requires 8 figure monthly payments. Unless he's able to have an asset appreciating fast enough to roll over the loans he's gonna need a fair amount of cash on a regular basis.
They have not decided, internally, whether all NFL owners or Kroenke's solely are responsible for the fine payment. The best part of that story is that the Attorneys for St. Louis will receive $265.00 million or 35% of that payment.
This isn't exactly a finance posting, but I couldn't find a better thread, at least no one that's been touched in the last 1-2 years, so here it is... https://www.arsenal.com/news/official-voice-vinai-venkatesham Kind of like a "State of the Union" message from our CEO. And I have to say, assuming Vinai wrote it himself, it's better than the hyped up marketing gobbledy gook we often got from Ivan. Especially when he's talking about the men's team, their development, challenges, successes, etc. And one thing that I just realized is that there wasn't too much glowing praise for Mikel, only a few positive implications. Not sure what to make of that. Just Vinai's style? Or perhaps playing his cards carefully, just in case things go sour and they have to part ways?
I don't know if true but read that Kroenke is selling Emirates Stadium to himself (KSE) at £120m then leasing it for 99 years to us at £10m a year. Beats the whole point and struggle we endured in Wengers's time if true. Sounds like a move he would make. Hope it was an April fool's joke because he can actually execute it.
For 120mm I have to imagine you can land a better rate. 30 years at 10mm per I could see. Also, what does this do the flow of other revenues from the facility? Maybe I'm jaded, but Kroenke is a real estate mogul who has built his wealth spinning deals. Until I see otherwise I'll assume this deal is much better for him than for the club.
Years 30-99 are rather attenuated in terms of impact on NPV, no? Assuming a 5% discount rate, value of the deal is > 120m after 19 years. The point of about facility revenue is well taken, though I wonder how much revenue the Emirates pulls in - it's 15 years old now, and there have to be more than enough alternate venues in London for entertainment.