• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

$tan Kroenke Becomes Soul Owner

Flying Okapis

Most Well-Known Member
Forgot about him:lol: , the one I wondered about is Malcolm . Then again Nelson and Nketiah are talented wild cards themselves .

Malcolm I'm not overly sure on, I think him going to Barca makes him appear a bigger deal/loss but he was literally joining Roma unopposed until they stepped in.

Only time will tell to be honest, our signings may prove ****e, Fulhams may prove great or vice versa, anything can happen when making signings from abroad.
 

celestis

Arsenal-Mania Veteran
Moderator

Country: Australia
Malcolm I'm not overly sure on, I think him going to Barca makes him appear a bigger deal/loss but he was literally joining Roma unopposed until they stepped in.

Only time will tell to be honest, our signings may prove ****e, Fulhams may prove great or vice versa, anything can happen when making signings from abroad.

Nah I think the two mids we brought in are real steps forward , it's just defensively feel a bit vulnerable.
 

Dokaka

AM's resident Hammer
Last year they signed one of the top free agents in Paul Millsap. This year they extended Jokic on a max contract and re-signed Will Barton. And they took a gamble on Isaiah Thomas. Last year, despite Millsap playing less than half the games because of injury, they finished 10 games over .500 and narrowly missed the playoffs (they would have made the playoffs easily in the East).

But, as I've tried to drive home several times already, there is no correlation between NBA/NFL/NHL teams and Premier League teams. The NBA has a complicated salary cap. Every team has to fit their roster into certain parameters. The Nuggets are dead in the middle of the pack in total team salary. The NFL and NHL also have salary caps. Sometimes teams have to make tough choices to stay under the caps, but that's the nature of the beast.

But despite the salary cap (they're getting close), the Rams have been on what ESPN described as a "spending spree" just a couple of weeks ago:

It took just seven days in July for the Los Angeles Rams to lock in their offensive identity for the remainder of the decade. What happens next is less certain. A week after signing Brandin Cooks to a five-year, $81 million extension before the former New Orleans Saints and New England Patriots wideout had even played a game for the franchise, the Rams followed up by giving star back Todd Gurley a four-year, $60 million extension with $45 million in guarantees.

And now they're close to agreeing to an extension with Aaron Donald, one of the best DTs in the league. I would hardly call that "not spending." So even if there were a correlation between the American leagues and the PL, it's simply not true that he's some sort of "notorious" skinflint with his teams. That's just something that people started claiming on the internet until it became gospel.

I'm not arguing that Kroenke's teams don't spend money; I'm arguing they only spend enough to still be profitable, which is undeniably true.

There's a mandatory minimum spend in the NBA. The only real way for an owner to spend his or her own money is to go above the tax, which the Nuggets have refused to do time and time again, even if it means losing good players to avoid it just for a year. Just this summer, they traded away a protected 1st round pick to dump salary.

The comparison was made to show that Kroenke is unwilling to spend his own money in order for the team to get better. That option is on the table for both his NBA franchise and Arsenal, albeit the way it's done is obviously different.

The best thing you can say about Kroenke is that he doesn't interfere. He employs (for the most part) capable people of running his teams and takes a hands-off approach 99% of the time. Whether that's good or bad is obviously subjective.
 

Tosker

Does Not Hate Foreigners
I'm not arguing that Kroenke's teams don't spend money; I'm arguing they only spend enough to still be profitable, which is undeniably true.

There's a mandatory minimum spend in the NBA. The only real way for an owner to spend his or her own money is to go above the tax, which the Nuggets have refused to do time and time again, even if it means losing good players to avoid it just for a year. Just this summer, they traded away a protected 1st round pick to dump salary.

The comparison was made to show that Kroenke is unwilling to spend his own money in order for the team to get better. That option is on the table for both his NBA franchise and Arsenal, albeit the way it's done is obviously different.

The best thing you can say about Kroenke is that he doesn't interfere. He employs (for the most part) capable people of running his teams and takes a hands-off approach 99% of the time. Whether that's good or bad is obviously subjective.
an owner who lets the experts get on with their job is a definite positive - there are an increasing number of examples of interfering owners dragging their clubs down, quite literally, and even an owner like Roman Abramovitch is beginning to create a lot of uncertainty around Chelsea
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
I'm not arguing that Kroenke's teams don't spend money; I'm arguing they only spend enough to still be profitable, which is undeniably true.

There's a mandatory minimum spend in the NBA. The only real way for an owner to spend his or her own money is to go above the tax, which the Nuggets have refused to do time and time again, even if it means losing good players to avoid it just for a year. Just this summer, they traded away a protected 1st round pick to dump salary.

The comparison was made to show that Kroenke is unwilling to spend his own money in order for the team to get better. That option is on the table for both his NBA franchise and Arsenal, albeit the way it's done is obviously different.

The best thing you can say about Kroenke is that he doesn't interfere. He employs (for the most part) capable people of running his teams and takes a hands-off approach 99% of the time. Whether that's good or bad is obviously subjective.

Actually, the Nuggets are way above the salary cap ($101,869,000). Their payroll currently stands at $116,375,470 (and could rise). The minimum payroll is $91,682,000, so Kroenke could be spending about $25 million less. What the Nuggets are not over is the luxury tax threshold, but only a handful of teams are and most of them will be trying to get back underneath as soon as possible.

Of course he's not "spend(ing) his own money" for his NBA, NFL and NHL teams because the system doesn't actually allow it -- no owners spend their own money, nor do they need to (except in the sense that, as owners of the club, all the money spent is their own money). Television revenue drives these sports and the league structures are set up to make them profitable within that context. In the NBA and NHL, some clubs have an advantage because of local and regional television deals (the Lakers and Knicks, for instance, would have an advantage over the Nuggets in that respect).

But in the NFL everybody shares the pie equally. Because every game is broadcast regionally or nationally by the networks, there is no regional TV. Everything goes into a big pot and is divided equally. Same goes for merchandising revenue (even though the Cowboys might far outsell the Titans). So teams are pretty much on equal footing, no matter where they are located. That's why the entertainment development is really the driving force behind the stadium project.

But your comment about the problem being Kroenke not spending his own money on those teams (even if it were possible) tells me that your real problem with Kroenke is that he runs the club like a business and not as a plaything. You want somebody who runs the club for his own amusement and ego. That's fine. There's something to be said for that. It would be great to have an owner like Tony Khan who is so forcefully engaged. Or owners like Abramovich and the City sheiks, who poured so much into the club so quickly to turn them from also-rans to champions. But what if they lose that fascination and aren't getting the same kicks anymore? Recently, Chelsea's managers have been unhappy with the owner's reluctance to spend money at the same rate they once did. If Roman decides to bail and sell the club, what then? Can Chelsea become self-sufficient and continue at a high level?

So maybe in the long run there's a benefit to the stability of running a self-sufficient club. And it's not as though Arsenal hasn't spent money. They have one of the highest payrolls in the world (not just in the football, but in all of sports). And they've spent some big money on players such as Lacazette, Aubameyang, Torreira and some others since last summer despite not being in the Champions League. Arsenal actually has the 3rd highest net spending among Premier League clubs since the start of the 2016-17 summer window (only City and United are higher). Their net spending over that period is £157.5 million. Liverpool's net, even after their Coutinho-funded spending spree, is £141 million. Chelsea is at £127.6 million.
 

Gooner Zig

AM's Resident Accountant
Trusted ⭐

Country: Canada
Well, he's paying Özil £350,000 a week. I find it fascinating that in the same breath people can claim Kroenke won't spend any money and then complain that they can't get rid of "deadwood" because the club is paying players too much.

Also, Kroenke did not borrow the money against the club. The debt is on KSE.

You're smarter than that. Özil's wages are being paid by cash flows generated by Arsenal. Kroenke has not put a cent of his own money into the club.

We are notorious for over paying mediocre talents, that is on the management of this club. Kroenke, by extension is responsible for this because if he actually had a clue, he would have sacked those responsible for the numerous contract debacles we have witnessed over the years.
 

Gooner Zig

AM's Resident Accountant
Trusted ⭐

Country: Canada
I'm not arguing that Kroenke's teams don't spend money; I'm arguing they only spend enough to still be profitable, which is undeniably true.

There's a mandatory minimum spend in the NBA. The only real way for an owner to spend his or her own money is to go above the tax, which the Nuggets have refused to do time and time again, even if it means losing good players to avoid it just for a year. Just this summer, they traded away a protected 1st round pick to dump salary.

The comparison was made to show that Kroenke is unwilling to spend his own money in order for the team to get better. That option is on the table for both his NBA franchise and Arsenal, albeit the way it's done is obviously different.

The best thing you can say about Kroenke is that he doesn't interfere. He employs (for the most part) capable people of running his teams and takes a hands-off approach 99% of the time. Whether that's good or bad is obviously subjective.

an owner who lets the experts get on with their job is a definite positive - there are an increasing number of examples of interfering owners dragging their clubs down, quite literally, and even an owner like Roman Abramovitch is beginning to create a lot of uncertainty around Chelsea

The problem is when the "experts" aren't good enough or delivering which has been the case at Arsenal for quite some time.

We've needed a clear out of the Board for a while. The Bald One has us behind the likes of Borussia Dortmund in commercial revenues despite the supreme popularity of Arsenal and the Premier League globally.

We've made significant changes in middle to upper management which is good to see but it's up at the very top where we've needed the most change.
 

Fallout

Active Member
personally i dont mind the idea of a laissez faire owner. but then, by moral extension, he should not be extracting dividends of any size, nor using the club in any way that could prove to be detrimental to us and beneficial to him. it's the second part i'm worried about, not the first. i don't think fans can expect the owner to throw away personal money without a tangible ROI.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
You're smarter than that. Özil's wages are being paid by cash flows generated by Arsenal. Kroenke has not put a cent of his own money into the club.

We are notorious for over paying mediocre talents, that is on the management of this club. Kroenke, by extension is responsible for this because if he actually had a clue, he would have sacked those responsible for the numerous contract debacles we have witnessed over the years.

If you read through all my posts from the past few days on this subject you'll realize that that's exactly the point I was making. Arsenal is spending a lot of money while running the club as a business, not a plaything. When the club spends money, Kroenke spends money because he owns the club. He could easily sell off players and take the profit out of the club for himself if he wanted to do that. As a businessman, he wants the club to be self-sufficient. They're doing alright without him "spending his own money" (in the way you mean it). Not sure why it's so important to some of you that he write big checks from his personal bank account on top of the massive club revenues. It's how football always worked until recently (except in circumstances where a club was in financial difficulty).
 

Gooner Zig

AM's Resident Accountant
Trusted ⭐

Country: Canada
If you read through all my posts from the past few days on this subject you'll realize that that's exactly the point I was making. Arsenal is spending a lot of money while running the club as a business, not a plaything. When the club spends money, Kroenke spends money because he owns the club. He could easily sell off players and take the profit out of the club for himself if he wanted to do that. As a businessman, he wants the club to be self-sufficient. They're doing alright without him "spending his own money" (in the way you mean it). Not sure why it's so important to some of you that he write big checks from his personal bank account on top of the massive club revenues. It's how football always worked until recently (except in circumstances where a club was in financial difficulty).

These bits are where we disagree.

You see the Arsenal bank account as an extension of Stan's money by the mere fact he has a majority stake and soon to be 100% control. Last week Alishir Usmanov had a 30 something % stake in the club, was this transfer budget Usmanov spending some of his money too? Of course not.

I'm resigned to the fact that Kroenke isn't going to be putting in a cent of his own money. Fine. It would be nice if he was pushing the the club to spend every available resource it has to improve results on the pitch. We are a club who has not pushed the boat out and really gone for it when opportunities have presented themselves.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
These bits are where we disagree.

You see the Arsenal bank account as an extension of Stan's money by the mere fact he has a majority stake and soon to be 100% control. Last week Alishir Usmanov had a 30 something % stake in the club, was this transfer budget Usmanov spending some of his money too? Of course not.

I'm resigned to the fact that Kroenke isn't going to be putting in a cent of his own money. Fine. It would be nice if he was pushing the the club to spend every available resource it has to improve results on the pitch. We are a club who has not pushed the boat out and really gone for it when opportunities have presented themselves.

Kroenke's shares are held by KSE (which Kroenke owns). Whether KSE owns 70 percent or 100 percent, they have a controlling interest. They can basically do whatever they want. Four years ago the club paid KSE £3 million for "strategic and advisory services." They can take money out. They can put money in. Since the club is owned by KSE, it's KSE's money. Since Kroenke owns KSE, it's Kroenke's money. So all we're really talking about is whether or not Kroenke is going to spend more than that club itself has to spend (he's not). He signs the checks either way.
 

Gooner Zig

AM's Resident Accountant
Trusted ⭐

Country: Canada
Kroenke's shares are held by KSE (which Kroenke owns). Whether KSE owns 70 percent or 100 percent, they have a controlling interest. They can basically do whatever they want. Four years ago the club paid KSE £3 million for "strategic and advisory services." They can take money out. They can put money in. Since the club is owned by KSE, it's KSE's money. Since Kroenke owns KSE, it's Kroenke's money. So all we're really talking about is whether or not Kroenke is going to spend more than that club itself has to spend (he's not). He signs the checks either way.

Yeah, nah. This isn't how it works.

Corporations are separate legal entities. The idea that Arsenal are spending Kroenke's money is laughable. Under the concept of Limited liability the owners of the company under normal circumstances, are not answerable or responsible for the obligations of the company therefore making the owners/shareholders liable only for the amount of their unpaid shares and not the obligations of the company. Ergo, the assets of Arsenal plc are the assets of Arsenal plc, not Stan.

Your analogy would be apt if we were talking about a sole-trader arrangement.
 

Mo Britain

Doom Monger
an owner who lets the experts get on with their job is a definite positive - there are an increasing number of examples of interfering owners dragging their clubs down, quite literally, and even an owner like Roman Abramovitch is beginning to create a lot of uncertainty around Chelsea
Since Abramovich arrived at Chelsea they have won 17 trophies in 15 seasons as opposed to 11 in their previous 98 years. In the same 15 year period since his arrival Arsenal have won 9 (4 of which were Community Shields).

I would have us to have that kind of uncertainty.
 

Tony's nose

Active Member
Noises of Usmanov buying into everton once his share are sold.
Can't help but think we will drop down the pecking order if this happens.

Cheers Stan
 

blaise

Well-Known Member
Comparison to his american franchises are ok. But there are always buts. In american sports lots of franchises dont go over taxes. Especially in NFL you cant go over.

But I see you took Nuggets as example. They are mediocre but not because lack of money, it is beacause other franchises have more competent people leading them. Denver is small market so it is hard to attract free agents there at first place. So you have to draft smart and give smart contracts. Denver is not bad at drafting but they are terrible at giving big contracts, overpaying mediocre players. They are simply not competent enough there to make a success.

Looks like Arsenal is being run like any American franchise so it will be about people and if we find some extra value ( Mislintat and Emery). If we continue to overpay mediocre players we ll be new Everton. It is swim or sunk for us, but if we are smart we should be able to regain top4 with occasional trophy. Catching City is out of our reach for next couple of years. If we continue with patient building maybe at some point, but simply put our margin of error in every decision about our personnel is much, much smaller compared to United, Chelsea, let alone City.
 

Penn_

Established Member
Trusted ⭐
Wasnt Moshiri also a former Arsenal shareholder? With Usmanov already sponsoring Everton’s training ground I hope we’re not looking at what might have been in a few years time.
 

Trilly

Hates A-M, Saka, Arteta and You
Trusted ⭐

Country: England
Yeah, nah. This isn't how it works.

Corporations are separate legal entities. The idea that Arsenal are spending Kroenke's money is laughable. Under the concept of Limited liability the owners of the company under normal circumstances, are not answerable or responsible for the obligations of the company therefore making the owners/shareholders liable only for the amount of their unpaid shares and not the obligations of the company. Ergo, the assets of Arsenal plc are the assets of Arsenal plc, not Stan.

Your analogy would be apt if we were talking about a sole-trader arrangement.
A few weeks ago this would have all flown over my head. I'm doing some accounting and finance stuff for work and now your posts on the subject actually make sense.

I feel like a blind man who can now see.:lol:
 

Trilly

Hates A-M, Saka, Arteta and You
Trusted ⭐

Country: England
Also on Stan I'm going to hold out on the 0.001% chance that he for some reason picks Arsenal as the franchise he wants to use to show off to other billionaires.

He'll decide to start acting on his feud with John Henry which started during the Suarez saga. He will also want to prove to the Arabs that Murica is still the greatest country in the world.

That's my hope anyway.
 
Top Bottom