It's generally far fetched that all actions regarding a business association stretching back more than a decade are determined by the single defining factor of sole ownership. There are always more reasons for these decisions than what meets the eye, to assume otherwise here when we know virtually nothing is a bit ridiculous.It’s a bit weird tbh. I accept that the sole ownership has played a part in all this. But I do not accept that the subsequent risks taken by the Kroenkes that almost doomed our club for eternity can be embraced by Arsenal fans just because we’re flying high in the league rn. We had to sit there and watch Sp**s, fkn Sp**s, finish ahead of us for season upon season ffs.
There were plenty of ways the Kroenkes could have played this given they were only a majority, and not a sole owner of the club that would have been way better for both us and for them. They don’t get a pass for all their past failures just because they got lucky in the present.
More relevant if the logic of "waiting for sole ownership" were applicable in these cases there would never be any point in sharing ownership with someone else. Either you're making someone else richer or you're burning through your own investment waiting for the other guy to jump off.