Contracts are made to be broken. I cannot remember who said it but they were not far wrong, especially if that Contract is about anything relating to footballers or managers. Since the Bosman Ruling, there appears to have been a marked willingness of players to do anything within their powers to break a contract, fair means or foul are perfectly acceptable. Not that the clubs are entirely blameless in this. They must on the one hand be cursing the Belgians for their stupidity in forcing the issue in the Bosman case but also be grateful, certainly in the upper echelons, for they have been perhaps the biggest recipients, able to afford players who may otherwise have broken their transfer budgets.

Ashley Cole seems to be falling into the category of contract rebel at the moment. The Sun has run with the story today that he has in what is being portrayed as a massive sulk, not invited Arsene Wenger to his nuptials this weekend. Now the power of the press is such that a negative story such as this will quickly gather pace but in this instance, it conveniently ignores the fact that there is a first team friendly at Barnet the same day. Where Cole is rapidly losing friends is his perpetuation of the myth that he is the injured party in the “Chelseagate” affair. This shows the same relationship with the truth that the Dailies have. Absolutely none. I have said it before and I will say it again. Ashley Cole is the only one to blame for the tapping up and the fines dished out. If he had any loyalty to his employers or contract, he would have instructed Jonathan Barnett not to speak with Chelsea unless Arsenal gave their approval, much less have turned up for a meeting in person. His new book, which will no doubt be a riveting read – born, went to school, signed for Arsenal, won the League, won the FA Cup, played for England, got fined for being a prat – is building publicity to generate sales. It is fairly obvious that the lad has a grudge against Arsenal (“They fed to me to the sharks to get back at Chelsea”) and contempt for the supporters otherwise he may have chosen to knuckle down and get on with his job, i.e. being fit, playing for the first team and helping them to win trophies. His agenda though is to be determined to have his move to Chelsea. To be honest, the club should say “Enough is Enough – They pay £20m or you are not going anywhere. Let your Agent do his job.” Will his signing for Chelsea make them invincible? No. He is not that important a player. He has the potential to be one of the great left-backs in the Game but he is not that much of an influence. Do not forget that the team made it to Paris with a minimal imput from him. Would he be missed? I am not completely convinced of this.

The problem that Cole has it that whilst he is the best left-back at the club at the moment, this may not necessarily be the case in a years time. Flamini is an able deputy whilst Clichy has impressed when called upon. Should Cole remain, he has a large number of bridges to build. He is not a fans favourite any longer, most are indifferent about him – if he were to lose form, I do not think it would be long before the majority got on his back. In much the same way that O’Leary has created a rod for his own back with habitual sniping, Cole is getting into the same boat. If he were to leave, would the grass be greener elsewhere. I doubt it for the damage done to his reputation will follow him for a damn sight longer than anything else.

The Daily Telegraph today runs with a report, claiming to have seen the Bond Prospectus for re-financing the construction of Ashburton Grove. In a similar deal to the one that put Leeds United up a certain manure-filled creek without a paddle, the revenues from Matchday ticket sales are securitised against the Loan Repayments. In addition to this, other Revenues have been pledged to fill any shortfall if necessary.

In a nutshell, Securitisation is a widely used commercial activity that allows funds to be borrowed against future revenues. Football clubs that have used it the past have not been great advertisments for the product; Manchester City, Leicester City, Derby County and Leeds United are hardly in the rudest of health, some have been and are still close to the wall. Currently, there is one fundamental difference between Arsenal and those clubs; recent history. Over the past ten years, Arsenal have been the second most successful club in the land, successive qualifications for the Champions League bringing raised expectations rather than treating Europe as an occasional jolly. Should this deal go ahead, Champions League football is a must rather than an expectation, Quarter Finals probably a minimum to give the club the “comfort zone” that they are used to dealing in financially.

As part of this deal, Arsenal will have to pass a solvency test twice a year. This is from the lenders point of view a necessary check but for supporters and shareholders, it will also be an assurance that the Directors are not risking all on the back of the new Stadium. Indeed, should things be going well, in a few years time we will probably treat this with the customary shrug of the shoulders as it would be part of “Business As Usual”.

Ignoring the fact that well-known Spurs fan Mihir Bose has written the article, it does contain a concise breakout of what route the Board are following. Once you have got past the sensationalist narrative about the “Prawn Sandwich Brigade”, Bose’s style makes easy reading.

Salient pointers are that the club has forecast a net spend of transfers each season for the next three years of £12m, a mid-table finish means that 2009-10 to 2011-12 will see that spend drop to £5m per year. Given that over the past five years, the club has been habitually a low spending habitat, this is not much change. It is a dose of reality from the Board in many respects, proving that they realise that the survival of the club is more important than chasing a dream as Leeds found out. Do not get me wrong, I would not class a mid-table finish as acceptable but if that is the case, I would rather the Board saw the club survive and re-group than follow a Ridsdale-esque rollercoaster pursuing a dream.

Standard and Poor have rated the Bond as “AAA” making it a high quality bond. According to The Political Economy Of Football, this is only because it is insured otherwise it would be near worthless.

Interestingly, Bose asserts that the document shows 43% of total Ticket Receipts will come from the 9,253 supporters who have the luxury seating packages. This means that the average punter is putting in £33m next year, or £650 each, whilst the wealthy put in £43m or £4,600 each. This knocks on the head Sky Sports recent inference that Arsenal will be beyond the means of ordinary fans. I accept the amounts are not to sniffed at but by the same token they are nowhere near as high as being inferred in their report.

Arsenal Supporters Trust are generally supportive of the options but are quoted in the article as saying, “If future ticket income is not sufficient the Creditors can take over the club”. The quote is brief from them, and I am sure that they have more in-depth views – perhaps an example of a “space” issue in the paper? - but the new situation if accepted will not be much different in that respect as if the club default on the more expensive, existing loans the banks will own the club. It is the responsibility of the Directors to ensure that this situation does not arise, and the non-executive Directors to make sure that the checks and balances are in place to keep the club at the top.