Tim

Arsenals total wage bill is approx £12.1m more. £2.2m relate to pension costs the other £9.9m relate to wages/salaries/social security costs. Of this £9.9m arsenal spend £1.1m more on directors remuneration. Arsenal also employed, on average, 39 more staff in the period.

won't know for a year. There's alot of conflicting reports about the fee. It's why most of the time I use a range of figures for gross/net spending this current financial year. It covers both bases. But I suspect that the £17m doesn't include wages, unless we got him on the dirt cheap.

Probably, but the figures are likely to be ignored by the majority of people because it might not suit certain arguments.

All the significant ones are. hleb, reyes, viera, walcott transfer fees were all announced by arsenal.

Incorrect. They do release the details of certain transfers. Also it's very easy to see what total transfer expenditure is.

Will be able to have something more concrete in a day or so when my other pc is up and running. But yes it's all from the financial accounts. It's very simple to extract the figures.

yes once the stadium is built. The key is, and I've always maintained this, the construction period. The club need to ensure the cash flow of the club is sufficient enough to allow smooth running of the club and transfers to be conducted. That will be part of the reason why the c£45m revolving credit facility was arranged back in january, it gives breathing space.

it's been mainly on rawk where I have put that stuff. I gave examples on what the debt repayments would be and what the club could earn from ticket revenues from league matches only.

not saying as either way I don't think it's relevant. I'm getting grief on rawk for not saying, but all I want to do is get the facts out there about the finances and also show what is needed, or will likely happen, with regards to the stadium finance etc. I'm keeping emotion out of the arguement as most of the time emotion blinds you.

We've outspent gross both Arsenal and the mancs over the last 3 reported financial years on transfer fees. We've far outspent arsenal net, while I think we are just ahead compared to the mancs. Chelsea are, well chelsea.

But all in all we're not talking about a £5m error, we're talking more than double that. That alters the arguement hugely Spurs released the £19m + £1.3m to the stock exchange. Do you want to tell the stock exchange that the board of directors at spurs have misled the market? Don't be so daft to think clubs are lying about transfer fees when they actually release the details. That £19m figure will go into Spurs accounts, aswell as LFCs, and that is FACT. No ifs ands or buts. If it isn't declared as that in the accounts then that's misleading the stock market. If both are different to the truth then that is both misleading the market and knowingly publishing false financial accounts which is a criminal offence. I only corrected those which are known wrong. Anything else I'll come back to in 10 months when I read through the accounts and put 90% of people on the internet right over the transfer spending.

It alters the arguement alot. Take the Torres/Garcia transfer. The Garcia fee has been double counted by having it in sales and having it netting off the torres fee. They all add up. Ultimately the accounts tell the truth about net spend. I will believe the figures in the annual accounts than anyones estimations from media reports. The only fees you can be certain of are those fully disclosed (ie Keane £19m with £1.3m potentially in the future, or the Palletta sale for £0.5m which is stated in the accounts of the club, or the £10.9m combined spend on Skrtel, Leto, Itandje, Insua and Plesis after the financial year end, or the £8.1m for Sissoko which can be easily derived from the accounts of the club and holding company).

Total amount spent is a good £10m short, with a good chunk of that being from the torres transfer, and most of the rest being on the influx of youngsters aswell as the mascherano loan fee. The only ones I changed on the sales have been the ones where there are clear errors. There will also be add-ons paid in respect of previous transfers paid/received.

A correction to this, it was actually £35m upto 31 July 2007. Was a slight error on my part. But there is an approx addition £29m net spent since the january transfer window (assuming Mascherano was £18m, knock £8m off if he cost £10m, but it won't be known for another 10 months).

some corrections

Give me a couple of days and I can tell you (to the nearest £'000) what was spent that financial year on transfers. In fact give it a couple of days and I could give you the net spend per financial year for the last 20 years or so.

The net spend is higher. FACT. The net spend from the date of takeover to 31 July 2007 was £41.2m. Subsequent to the balance sheet date (but before the Mascherano transfer) the club spent another £2m net.

But you can't look at the summer in isolation. Take the january/february activity. The club spent upto £16m (net) on transfers. The key for me at the moment, although it won't necessarily change my mind one way or the other about the owners, is if this sort of spending can be maintained during the construction of the stadium. I have a feeling that the board haven't released all available free cash the club made last year because they maybe holding some back for the stadium project and contingencies (which is a wise move). For the interest on the bulk of the debt, I think there isn't too much to worry about this year on it as I have a feeling that has been ringfenced already from the cash hicks/gillett had to put forward for the refinancing. I believe it hasn't been ringfenced from club funds (bar the club debt part).

But on the flip side, when the 10th game is over we can then rest him for his next run of 10 later on in the season. It's natural rotation. Instead of waiting to find out after the event that a player is going to hit a run of poor form we now, thanks to Lawro, know in advance when it's going to happen

I could give an educated estimate, however I've been told on another site that transfers that occur in January/February don't count so the figures may not look good

We'll get a decent wedge of the money back when the irish mob start buying up shirts with Keane on the back

What they also seem to have ignored is Ramos saying they need to look at balancing the books.

What so the owners only opened their wallets after bascombes sensationalism? Since the takeover the club has spent in the region of £108m gross. Net it's been approx £57.3m to £65.3m (assuming the keane transfer goes ahead, and depending on how much mascherano really cost). in about 15 months, and the summer isn't over yet. That's a minimum of £28m per season net, realistically over £30m per season net with possibly more to come. £32m (net) was spent between may and 31 july 2007. Torres cost more than £20m.

bascombe was the one who said we were after forlan and not torres last summer.

He's still having difficulty selling all those houses on the wirral he bought 6 years ago He blames liverpool entirely for that and as a result he's trying to get his money back other ways