|
Taff posted:Good news, I do indeed. Heres a small portion of the horrors that awaited me when I came to work that day Some men just want to watch the world burn.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 16:00 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 09:48 |
|
plase do not joke about Taff's sexuality in a serious thread edit: sorry I thought that said bum, please ignore this post
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 17:20 |
|
So I guess Stan has gotten another 500 shares, hopefully we can get a takeover, could use that walmart money.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 18:05 |
|
kri kri posted:So I guess Stan has gotten another 500 shares, hopefully we can get a takeover, could use that walmart money. I hope not. There isn't much desire from Arsenal fans in London for either Kroenke or Usmanov to launch a takeover bid. I don't think it's going to happen anyway. Every couple of months for almost two years there are reports of how Kroenke or Usmanov are about to launch a takeover bid when they buy shares, but it never materialises. I think Arsenal's valuation is far too high for two people who'd only be in it for the money.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 18:26 |
|
Quanta posted:I hope not. There isn't much desire from Arsenal fans in London for either Kroenke or Usmanov to launch a takeover bid. I don't think it's going to happen anyway. Every couple of months for almost two years there are reports of how Kroenke or Usmanov are about to launch a takeover bid when they buy shares, but it never materialises. I get the impression that Stan's a more traditional form of "in it for the money". He brings expertise in getting Americans to cough up money for sporting teams. Arsenal are WAY under utilised as a global brand. The guy could make us richer, and himself richer, at the same time. Buying up shares will be partly to block Usamov and partly because a richer Arsenal, fully exploiting their commercial markets are worth more than the shares currently trade at.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 21:05 |
|
Masonity posted:I get the impression that Stan's a more traditional form of "in it for the money". He brings expertise in getting Americans to cough up money for sporting teams. Arsenal are WAY under utilised as a global brand. The guy could make us richer, and himself richer, at the same time. Buying up shares will be partly to block Usamov and partly because a richer Arsenal, fully exploiting their commercial markets are worth more than the shares currently trade at. When Kroenke bought the Colorado Rapids of MLS he was seen as something of a savior of the team because at the time the team was owned by AEG, an entertainment conglomerate that back then owned like 6 MLS teams (in a 10 team league). I think they owned the Metrostars (Now owned by Red Bull and renamed to the New York Red Bulls), San Jose Earthquakes (who moved to Houston and became the Houston Dynamo and are still owned by AEG. A new ownership group now owns a new incarnation of the San Jose Earthquakes), Los Angeles Galaxy (Still owned by AEG), Colorado Rapids, DC United (Sold to DC United Holdings), and Chicago Fire (Sold to Andell Holdings). Also at the time the Dallas Burn (Renamed to FC Dallas), Columbus Crew, and Kansas City Wizards (sold to OnGoal, and recently rebranded to Sporting Kansas City) were owned by Lamar Hunt, so owners owning multiple teams was not unheard of. Colorado were definitely on the bottom of AEG's priority list and were getting shafted with TV broadcasts of away games, horribly oppressive security, and no stadium plans (they paid rent to play in the Denver Broncos american football stadium). In comes Stan Kroenke with his wife's Wal-Mart billions to save the day... but he really didn't. Costs were cut, ticket prices increased, they brought in cheerleaders, they changed the team colors and crest (to align with the other Denver sports teams that Kroenke owned, the Denver Nuggets of the NBA and the Colorado Avalanche of the NHL), there was a management shakeup that ended up being for the worse. There was talk of renaming the team (to coincide with the new color and crest) to Arsenal Colorado because of his link with Arsenal but Nike owns the rights to the Arsenal trademark in the US when related to soccer and were not willing to let an Adidas sponsored league field a team called Arsenal. Fan-favorite players were sold off, the broadcasting situation became even worse. One season only 6 (of 16) away games were available on TV, and while they did fire the worst coach the Rapids had ever seen up to that point they hired one that would do even worse, and they kept him for 3 miserable seasons before he finally resigned over some spur of the moment tiff with the ownership. They are doing a lot better now, but that's mostly due to luck and the extreme parity of MLS. The Rapids actually won the championship last season (the champion is crowned in a post-season knockout tournament based on where teams placed in the table for the regular season). The Rapids barely made it into the playoffs after being denied entry the 2 previous seasons and were able to get a good run of form during the playoffs and won the title. It was a sobering reality though to see the team being treated like dirt by it's savior by basically taking what little AEG was doing to keep the team competitive and downsizing on that after making so many promises to the contrary. Admittedly they did build the Rapids a pretty nice stadium but there was a point last season before they did well in the playoffs that the stadium seemed like nothing more than the shiny part of the polished turd that the Rapids had become over the time that Kroenke took over. GutBomb fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Mar 28, 2011 |
# ? Mar 28, 2011 21:37 |
|
That sounds like what Hicks and Gillett would have done if the credit crunch had not happened, GutBomb. Are Arsenal really underutilized in terms of branding? I thought the club's marketing department was doing pretty well.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 23:15 |
|
TyChan posted:Are Arsenal really underutilized in terms of branding? I thought the club's marketing department was doing pretty well. quote:By way of example, in the 2009/2010 season whilst Arsenal had total revenues of £224.4m and Tottenham £119.8m, Manchester United had total revenues of £286.4m. Manchester United exceeded the revenues of Arsenal and Tottenham on all three key components: matchday (stadium revenues), broadcasting, and most notably commercial revenue where it generated £81.4m (Deloitte, 2011, page 11) to Arsenal's £44m (Deloitte, 2011, page 13) and Tottenham's £31.5m (Deloitte, 2011, page 20). I'm going to go with 'yes', based on those commercial revenue figures. I don't think Arsenal should be making the same as United, based on recent success for one, but they should be closer to us than they are to Spurs. If I recall correctly the order of teams by commercial revenue is United, Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Spurs. I'm pretty sure United have the highest premier league revenues in all 3 categories: the Glazers are utter scum but from a money-making perspective they know what they're doing. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 28, 2011 |
# ? Mar 28, 2011 23:36 |
|
That does put them closer to us than to Spurs though? e: Durrr, didn't read that properly, sorry.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 23:37 |
|
How the hell does City make so much? Does it count renting out the stadium for concerts and that?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 23:47 |
|
Couch posted:How the hell does City make so much? There is a special category of ticket for directors/owners which are £100M each. This enables the club to thumb its nose at the UEFA money rules.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 23:50 |
|
Isn't a large part to do with them owning and rejuvenating a massive area around the COMS so that all of it counts as income without it counting towards expenditure or something weird?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2011 23:57 |
|
sebzilla posted:There is a special category of ticket for directors/owners which are £100M each. This enables the club to thumb its nose at the UEFA money rules. Surely they can't get away with that?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2011 00:23 |
|
Remember this is just commercial activity, doesn't include matchday or broadcasting, it's basically sponsorship/partnership deals. quote:Commercial revenue more than doubled to £46.7m (€57.0m) and was the principal driver of the club’s overall revenue growth. 2009/10 was the first year of improved shirt sponsorship and kit supply deals with Etihad Airways and Umbro respectively. The new Umbro deal facilitated merchandising revenue growth of 60% to £7.9m (€9.6m). The club has focussed on expanding its commercial partnership portfolio, revenue from which grew five fold in 2009/10, including deals with the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority, Etisalat, and Aabar all of which are based in the Middle East. Further growth in this area is anticipated in 2010/11 as a result of additional deals, including those with Heineken and Jaguar. delicious beef fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Mar 29, 2011 |
# ? Mar 29, 2011 00:33 |
|
TyChan posted:That sounds like what Hicks and Gillett would have done if the credit crunch had not happened, GutBomb. it could definitely be better. One thing is most of our current deals were made before the emirates and were front loaded to help pay for it which is why our shirt deal is something like £18m a year when it should be much higher according to most sources i've read
|
# ? Mar 29, 2011 07:50 |
|
Don't forget that we haven't been on any money spinning pre season tours yet. Rumour is we're going to finally do one this year.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2011 08:12 |
|
hrolf posted:Surely they can't get away with that? We can't. Remember we have one of the largest stadiums and it's generally 95% or more filled so we get significantly more matchday revenue than Everton or even Liverpool.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2011 13:15 |
|
Jollzwhin posted:We can't. Remember we have one of the largest stadiums and it's generally 95% or more filled so we get significantly more matchday revenue than Everton or even Liverpool. Pretty empty for cup matches tho?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2011 13:44 |
|
Jollzwhin posted:We can't. Remember we have one of the largest stadiums and it's generally 95% or more filled so we get significantly more matchday revenue than Everton or even Liverpool. Does the club get all the ticket revenue or does the city get some of it?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2011 15:21 |
|
Jollzwhin posted:We can't. Remember we have one of the largest stadiums and it's generally 95% or more filled so we get significantly more matchday revenue than Everton or even Liverpool. This isn't true at all. Liverpool turnover £43m a year from matchdays, compared to £24m for City.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2011 18:53 |
|
Jollzwhin posted:We can't. Remember we have one of the largest stadiums and it's generally 95% or more filled so we get significantly more matchday revenue than Everton or even Liverpool. Pretty sure Everton make about £22m in matchday, City about £25m and Liverpool around £40m. Edit: sorry midnight-, awful app didn't load your post.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 00:40 |
|
Newcastle posted an edited version of their accounts up to June 2010Newcastle posted:Operating loss including transfers: £17.1m (£15.2m) So this was before the PL money is added, wonder what this years accounts look like. Whats interesting to note from the local paper article is this Newcastle Journal posted:
Thats pretty loving major savings on something so basic. I wonder if other clubs have tried similar things.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 13:53 |
|
liverpool ceo ian ayres says they're looking at naming rights partners for the stadium (which seems to confirm they're going to build a new one?)
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 13:59 |
|
Championship really should try to negotiate a better TV deal.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 14:01 |
|
Chuggo posted:liverpool ceo ian ayres says they're looking at naming rights partners for the stadium (which seems to confirm they're going to build a new one?)
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 14:03 |
|
The Sun could afford a cheeky £200m bid for the rights.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 15:46 |
|
Cuban Chowder Factory posted:The Sun could afford a cheeky £200m bid for the rights. Or they could just make sure that it's filled to the rafters with home fans every 2 weeks... By calling it the Job Center Plus Stadium.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 16:00 |
|
Here is a video of a wanker http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9439080.stm "I know you have a team like Leeds go up from League One and go straight into contention for a playoff spot in the Championship but that really doesn't happen every season" League One promotees still in the Championship+: 2009/10: Norwich, Leeds, Millwall 2008/09: Leicester, Scunthorpe 2007/08: Swansea, Nottingham Forest, Millwall 2006/07: Bristol City, Blackpool (now Prem) (Scunthorpe went up here too) 2005/06: Barnsley 2004/05: Hull City (ex-Prem) But hey, League One and below are worthless.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 17:41 |
|
Masonity posted:Or they could just make sure that it's filled to the rafters with home fans every 2 weeks...
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 17:53 |
|
Masonity posted:Or they could just make sure that it's filled to the rafters with home fans every 2 weeks... Maybe it'd be good if we sold a bunch of plastic flags and poo poo too, eh? We need to fill up the entire stadium with plastic fans, after all.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 22:28 |
|
Homura posted:Maybe it'd be good if we sold a bunch of plastic flags and poo poo too, eh? We need to fill up the entire stadium with plastic fans, after all. Nothing plastic about us Arsenal fans... We just take our vow of silence very seriously.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2011 23:59 |
|
Gonna post this here because it's a very very good summary of the big issues in football governance and finance at the moment in England:quote:On Tuesday, in the most significant session of the inquiry into football's governance by the House of Commons culture media and sport select committee, the Premier League chairman, Sir Dave Richards, and the chief executive, Richard Scudamore, will give evidence. David Conn owns. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2011/apr/04/premier-league-parliament-20-questions
|
# ? Apr 4, 2011 20:24 |
|
Also holy poo poo 54 insolvencies from teams occupying 72 places since 1992
|
# ? Apr 4, 2011 20:27 |
|
Yeah, it's kinda expected that mostly oldtimers pay for tickets when they are so expensive, but 44 years average.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2011 20:33 |
|
Healbot posted:Yeah, it's kinda expected that mostly oldtimers pay for tickets when they are so expensive, but 44 years average. If every club made a kids matchday ticket a fiver they'd sell out every week. Every club in any league I've seen do it or have a Buy One Child Ticket Get One Free deal has had a massive surge in attendance because parents can go + afford to have kids with them
|
# ? Apr 4, 2011 20:39 |
|
Yeah, the tickets at United (for an example). aren't utterly ridiculous for an adult imho, but the cost of taking a couple of kids makes it totally unaffordable for families.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2011 20:42 |
Holy loving poo poo. Burn the Prem down. Burn it.
|
|
# ? Apr 4, 2011 20:47 |
|
Also the Football League just signed a rights contract for 1/4 less than the last one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/04/football-league-clubs-less-tv-money
|
# ? Apr 4, 2011 22:59 |
|
Jose posted:Thats pretty loving major savings on something so basic. I wonder if other clubs have tried similar things. Pretty big savings, but the way Newcastle have been run recently (and not so recently), I'm not entirely sure that isn't just the tip of the iceberg. delicious beef posted:Also the Football League just signed a rights contract for 1/4 less than the last one:
|
# ? Apr 5, 2011 12:40 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 09:48 |
|
These are all basic changes made since Ashley came into ownership. Apparently it was really basic stuff like escalators in the stadium being left on all the time even when they weren't in use for a week or whatever. All hangover stuff from Shepherds loving terrible reign.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2011 14:50 |