Whoa, hadn't even heard about that West Ham deal. £14m a year is a nice chunk of change. I'm sure they won't have any trouble finding someone to pink up. It may be at wholesale rates though, but who knows. Just goes to show how interconnected all this craziness is. Football simply isn't about 22 guys on a lawn kicking around a bit of inflated leather anymore.

On another note, they should NOT get bailed out. The only way some of these people will learn is for them to feel some pain. Same goes for some of these football clubs.

I agree wholeheartedly, but weak financial clubs tend to get plucked by big investors ala Chelsea.

If you knew the consequences, you'd want a bailout. Depressions don't sound like the best of times to be living in (okay, possible exaggeration).

I agree with Garthy there. The current atmosphere is such that if you are the owner/management at a club, if you do badly, then the chances of your getting bought out (and filling your pockets with foreign wealth) are much higher than if you do your job reasonably well. The incentive to run a club well has been diminished: we're a football boom which will be followed by a bust at some point.

I think you are quite right. In depression, the best asset to hold on to is Gold. For our club the Gold is in form of Wenger and his team.

There are so many parallels here between the credit crunch that has hit the USA and how football is progressing. These companies took big risks on bad investments. They blow up and the government is the one they turn to. Whilst they were making ridiculous profits, did they go over to the government and say "here's a few billion, buy yourself some hospitals and schools"? There has to be consequences for bad behaviour. Likewise with these clubs mortgaged to the hilt and not taking steps to make their business model sustainable, when the crows come home to roost, I want them to get burnt. If not, how will anyone try to do better? Why would they want to?. Better clubs will rise from their ashes.

As for depression not sounding like the best of times, I think many would agree that we're living in such a surreal time now. A lot of things just don't stand up to reason. We're overdue for a return to some semblance of normalcy, even if it's painful in the beginning.

Re-reading all this, it's borderline OT as far as a football forum is concerned (sounds more appropriate for a money board, which I actually have open on another tab), but again the parallels between the housing/credit bubble and the football transfer fee/wage "bubble" are just too stark and are definitely connected.

Sorry guys, I meant the bailout of AIG, not football clubs. AIG is a truly global company and if it went under, it would affect everyone. The chances are it won't because it's just too important, far more than Lehman.



Connected? I don't think house prices has anything to do with it. The EPL has been expanding ever since it started, it's now global and the TV deals are worth billions. The Champions League ditto. With globalisation, more money has gone into the EPL, so more money can be spent on players. Of course when Roman came along transfer fees/wages really started to inflate, for reasons which don't need explaining. Since Roman, more investors have come into the PL, and there is more competition and bidding for single players, hence the price of players/their wages is rising.

It's not just the price of houses that's the issue. It's that a lot of these companies took the bet that the price of housing would continue to soar. As such, they bought all these mortgaged-backed securities. When people started to default on their mortgages, the value of these securities began to deteriorate. This has led to big losses for many. The net result is that these banks now have a lot less money and a lot less availability to money since those who are able to step in to provide capital are either unwilling or unable to help. How does all this apply to football? The access to large amounts of capital has been hampered and this applies to anyone looking for money these days. I'd imagine that a project like the Emirates Stadium would have fallen on very hard times had it been proposed for the 2007/2008. Right now, it is the clubs without a billionaire owner who are "living above their means" are the ones that will get pinched.

Also, you'd have to imagine that many of these investors are being affected by the current squeeze. The Hicks-Gillette partnership may be just one of these. They bought LFC with debt, not with their own $$$, then proceed to roll that onto the clubs balance sheet. I strongly believe they intended to "flip" the club for some profit but something just didn't pan out. Do you know just how risky that situation potentially is? Like someone had pointed out (can't remember which thread), had LFC not made the CL last year or even this year, they'd have had significant revenue shortages which could have made their "sorta-ok" situation a whole lot worse.

It's this kind of business that I would like to leave football. It's too risky and it has little to no relation to what happens on the football pitch. So what I was saying was that the clubs who are mortgaging their future with expectation of riches today at the expense of any prudent long-term planning should be allowed to go the route of the dodo if only for the reason that they should serve as an example of how not to do business.

Arsenal Holdings plc: Financial results
http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archiv ... ear-end-ma

Results for the year ended May 31, 2009:

• Group turnover increased to £313.3 million (2008 - £223.0 million) reflecting income generated from cup competitions and property sales.
• Match day revenue was increased to £100.1 million (2008 - £94.6 million), mainly as a result of progress to the UEFA Champions League and FA Cup semi-finals.
• Operating profits (before depreciation and player trading) in the football business were £62.7 million (2008 - £59.6 million).
• The completion of sale of 208 (2007 – Nil) private apartments at Highbury Square contributed £88.0 million of revenue (2008 - £15.2 million) and boosted the operating profit from property activities to £7.8 million (2008 – Nil).
• Profit after tax of £35.2 million (2008 - £25.7 million) was a record for the Group.
• Since the end of the financial year there have been a number of further positive developments in relation to the Group’s Highbury Square project:
• Of the 655 private apartments in the development, sales have now completed on 445 units with a cumulative sales revenue value of £172.4 million.
• The balance on the bank loan used to fund the project has been substantially reduced to £47 million and agreement has been reached to refinance the loan and extend its term to December 2010.

Commenting on the results for the year, Peter Hill-Wood, non-executive Chairman, said:

“The Group’s profits have now risen in each of the three years in which Emirates Stadium has been our home. This is excellent news although I should perhaps stress that making and reporting profits is not in itself the primary objective for the directors. First and foremost we are supporters of this great football club and, as such, our main goal will always be the achievement of success for Arsenal on the field. The Group’s profitability is important because it is a by-product of running the Club as a solvent and successful business, which in turn allows us to maximise the level of investment in the playing staff and in the future development of the Club.”

Ivan Gazidis, Chief Executive, said:

“Clearly, the Club already has a first class stadium, an excellent world-wide reputation and outstanding core support. Football is a hugely competitive and fast moving business and we must ensure that Arsenal is not just keeping pace but setting the pace, both on and off the field. The Club is superbly positioned for the future and I am tremendously excited about the opportunities we have ahead of us.”

The directors are responsible for the maintenance and integrity of the corporate and financial information included on the company's website. Legislation in the United Kingdom governing the preparation and dissemination of financial information differs from legislation in other jurisdictions.

That's just Highbury Square, not the stadium.

Total debt is £297m

Half-year financial results announced
Significant reduction in group's debt following progress at Highbury Square
http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archiv ... -announced

• Profit before tax of £35.2m (2008 - £24.5m) with increased contributions from both the Group’s football and property businesses.
• Sale of 261 apartments at Highbury Square generated revenue of £96.6m (2008 - £58.4m) with all proceeds used in repayment of the project’s bank debt. The Group’s property business recorded a pre-tax profit of £9.3m (2008 - £4.9m).
• Pre-tax profit from the Group’s core business of football increased to £25.8m (2008 - £19.7m).
• Completed first stages of a programme of capital investment in the appearance and “Arsenalisation” of Emirates Stadium.
• Further significant investment in determined policy of re-signing first team players to new long-term contracts.
• By 30 November 2009, the Group’s total net debt had been reduced to £203.6m (31 May 2009 - £332.8m).
• Since 30 November, there have been a number of further positive developments in relation to the Group’s property projects:
• Of the 655 private apartments in the Highbury Square development, sales have now completed on 524 units with a cumulative sales revenue value of £217.0m.
• The balance on the Highbury Square bank loan has been further reduced, from £35.7m at 30 November, to £12.9m (31 May 2009 – £123.6m).
• Sale of part of the Queensland Road development site means that the Group’s other property activities are now debt free.

Commenting on the interim results, Peter Hill-Wood, non-executive chairman, said: “I am pleased to report that the Group has delivered another profitable set of results for the first six months of the financial year. There has been remarkable progress at Highbury Square over the last twelve months and it is clear that the next couple of years will see our property activities delivering surplus cash. This is very good news, although I would not want to speculate on the exact quantum or timing of this. How we will use this surplus remains undecided but, in addition to investing in the team, I think we will examine investment in Club projects and infrastructure, both in and around Emirates Stadium, which will provide a long lasting benefit to the Club and our tremendous, loyal supporters. Looking ahead, our strong financial base allows us time to take a measured and diligent approach to determining the Club’s direction beyond our move to Emirates Stadium and into the next phase of growth.”

As far as I understand, that's very good news. Nice to hear that things are moving forward at Highbury Square as well.

Thinking about the financial malaise Man Utd are in, I would be interested if some of their fans would like to swap their fuller trophy cabinet against our better financial situation. I know it's not that easy, firstly you don't have to choose because a club can be successful and in a good financial situation (or the other way around), and secondly Man Utd aren't in debts because they spent all their money on expensive players (which still doesn't equal success) but because of the Glazers. But still, if I see Man Utd fans (rightly!) bragging about their trophies and their success and occasionally disesteem Wenger because "he hasn't won anything in X years", I think they forget the circumstances Wenger is working in, and I think I prefer things to be this way rather than my club draining in debts but winning the treble if I really had to choose. It's an unfair and misleading comparison at some points, I know, it was just a thought.

It does put into perspective why the club is still so prudent, but 131 flats left with only £12.9 million associated debt that should at least bring in say £200k each - £26.2 million so another £10 million prudently could be added to our profit/reduced off our debt next year.

It is a double edged sword though, the less debt we have the more atractive we are to invest in. I'd hate for us to get debt free and then Usmanov come in and saddle us with debt against his investment like the Glazers did with Mancheter United.

Average of about 370k each, i'm too thick to work out the amount, about 43m i think.

People knock Arsene Wenger for not buying or spending £30m to bring in Villa or whatever but at the end of the day we won't 'do a Pompey' he's a clever man, a money man and an economist. He knows what he is doing and he is going to, one day, leave this club in a very god position where it will be the richest club in the world.

Arsene does everything for the love of the club and the club is run exceedingly well by everyone who is a part of it, these results confirm that to any doubters.

48.47 million if those are the correct prices.

These results look extremely promising across the board. The recent progress in cutting down our debts looks huge to me. The total debt has been reduced by 1/3 in only 6 months, the property debt has been almost eliminated and looks to make about a 30 million profit in the next few months. And lastly a small increase in profit which looks set to increase even further with the improvement of onfield performance and reduction of debt and associated interest payments.