- Oct 19, 2004
- 39,837
- 50,713
I am sick of you presenting your opinion as cast iron fact. Underwriting a share issue was hardly "stealing a big chunk of the club". It was a manouvre but hardly stealing from under peoples noses. the city and anyone interested in share ownership understood exactly what they were doing and why and were welcome to participate if they chose so to do. Surely you would rather we had one major shareholder able to impliment strategy than a the type of squabbling that nearly dragged Arsenal apart.
We arew a PLC, there is no getting round the fact that there is an obligation to be profitable, but as you well know, in the football industry it is only from a position of fiscal strength that footballing success can be built. It is therefore not as simple as ENIC only being concerned with fattening their cash cow. It has more likely involved a strategy that is aimed at dual purpose compromise. Players like Malbranque, Chimbonda, Berbatov, Zokora do not fit in completely with your balance sheet theory - please don't try to tell me that they do - they certainly don't to the degree that you would have us all believe any more than they have to as a going concern has to.
You constantly ignore the unique nature of football and misunderstand and misrepresent the inevitable compromise/trade off involved. You refuse to realise that the majority of proffesional football clubs fail to even make a profit and that severely hampers their footballing progress.
We would all love to see the club go out and by a few players of a certan ilk but that is not sustainable. It is a short term fix that "MIGHT" lead to something else but the strategy in place is far more likely to provide long term, sustainable platform on which one day we may spring, whilst at the same time guaranteeing we don't implode like many others due to a couple of poor seasons.
We arew a PLC, there is no getting round the fact that there is an obligation to be profitable, but as you well know, in the football industry it is only from a position of fiscal strength that footballing success can be built. It is therefore not as simple as ENIC only being concerned with fattening their cash cow. It has more likely involved a strategy that is aimed at dual purpose compromise. Players like Malbranque, Chimbonda, Berbatov, Zokora do not fit in completely with your balance sheet theory - please don't try to tell me that they do - they certainly don't to the degree that you would have us all believe any more than they have to as a going concern has to.
You constantly ignore the unique nature of football and misunderstand and misrepresent the inevitable compromise/trade off involved. You refuse to realise that the majority of proffesional football clubs fail to even make a profit and that severely hampers their footballing progress.
We would all love to see the club go out and by a few players of a certan ilk but that is not sustainable. It is a short term fix that "MIGHT" lead to something else but the strategy in place is far more likely to provide long term, sustainable platform on which one day we may spring, whilst at the same time guaranteeing we don't implode like many others due to a couple of poor seasons.