• ! ! ! 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

Jasard

Forum Issue Troubleshooter
Moderator

Country: England
Hope they have a real strategy behind closed doors. More of the Gazidis style talking without saying anything.
 

progman07

Established Member
What's the point of this stuff, anyone from this forum could have improvised and made up a scarily similar bullshit on the topic.

Word count in the article:
Support* - 11
Owner* - 10
Compete* - 6
Passion* - 6
Ambition - 6
Strategy - 4
Involve* - 4

They could have solved this whole interview in one sentence, e.g.
'The owners are very passionate about supporting our strategy, and involve themselves to compete in this league with ambition.'

Maybe next time Kroenke should give an hour-long interview with open questions, which I believe he has never done. Until that happens, how could anyone believe 1 word from this.
 
Last edited:

avalonhse

Active Member

Managing director Vinai Venkatesham:
"Listen, Stan and Josh Kroenke are in sport because they’re passionate about sport and because they want to win. So when I talk about the strategy around making our fans all across the world proud of their football club and competing to win the Premier League and the Champions League, that doesn’t come from Raul and that doesn’t come from me. That comes from our owners."

Who are Stan and Josh Kroenke he is talking about? Sound like in a parallel universe.
 

Sniper Mik

Not a Closet Sp**s Fan
What's the point of this stuff, anyone from this forum could have improvised and made up a scarily similar bullshit on the topic.

Word count in the article:
Support* - 11
Owner* - 10
Compete* - 6
Passion* - 6
Ambition - 6
Strategy - 4
Involve* - 4

They could have solved this whole interview in one sentence, e.g.
'The owners are very passionate about supporting our strategy, and involve themselves to compete in this league with ambition.'

Maybe next time Kroenke should give an hour-long interview with open questions, which I believe he has never done. Until that happens, how could anyone believe 1 word from this.
What's the count for Efficient? Think I heard that one plenty of times as well
 

Country: Iceland
What's the point of this stuff, anyone from this forum could have improvised and made up a scarily similar bullshit on the topic.

Word count in the article:
Support* - 11
Owner* - 10
Compete* - 6
Passion* - 6
Ambition - 6
Strategy - 4
Involve* - 4

They could have solved this whole interview in one sentence, e.g.
'The owners are very passionate about supporting our strategy, and involve themselves to compete in this league with ambition.'

Maybe next time Kroenke should give an hour-long interview with open questions, which I believe he has never done. Until that happens, how could anyone believe 1 word from this.

Outsmarting is also a word that they probably runned by couple of test group and it looked good.

Well my first thought when I read this interview is that these guys are all bunch of ****** who have zero respect for the fans.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
I'm talking about right now where we have 200m+ in the bank, our debt is all but paid off. We have record sponsorship and are the most cash rich club in the premier league yet only have £40m to spend if we fail to beat Chelsea and only about 70m if we do beat Chelsea. Meanwhile, Kroenke is spending upwards of 6bn on investments outside of Arsenal.

Your argument is based on the dangerous assumption that Arsenal has only £40 million to spend. In fact, Arsenal has £40 million in new revenue coming to the club through the new sponsorship deals. The "£40 million to spend" figure comes from the February AST report, which is just an educated guess on their part and they say themselves that they are not including new revenue from sponsorship deals (which, by the way, could theoretically all be used for wage increases, meaning that combined with big wages coming off the books means that Arsenal need not worry about blowing past wage increase limits -- although of course they should not spend it foolishly).

Arsenal had £231 million in the bank at the end of the last financial year, but we need to keep in mind that they need to hold at least £36 million of that for debt servicing and most likely they'll have an operating loss this year for the first time since 2002, thanks to being out of the Champions League for another season, decreases in match day revenue and TV money and a summer of little coming in from player sales. The club still has £217 million in stadium debt, so they can't just blow their cash reserves on a summer spending spree. The club had historic profits in 2017-18 (net funds surpassed net debt for the first time), but much of that was due to record player sales. Very little came in from player sales last summer, which is why they're looking at an operating loss.

So it's not as simple as "hey, there's £231 million in the bank! Let's spend it!" That's why it's difficult to reasonably know how much the club's budget will be (with or without Champions League). But even without the new revenue increases, the club would have some sort of transfer budget (as I noted, the AST estimate of £40 million stated they were not taking the revenue increases into account). They also fully understand that fielding a team that is regularly in the Champions League is good for the bottom line (if they didn't know it before, they know it now). So if they plan to invest all the new commercial sponsorship revenue in players, a budget of £40 million (AST estimate) plus £40 million (new revenue) would certainly seem not to be out of the question. Champions League would take the funds available past the £100 million mark.

And it's not like Arsenal hasn't been spending money. As I keep saying, they just need to spend their money more wisely than they did during Gazidis' time at the club.
 

Gunner-Union

Well-Known Member
Your argument is based on the dangerous assumption that Arsenal has only £40 million to spend. In fact, Arsenal has £40 million in new revenue coming to the club through the new sponsorship deals. The "£40 million to spend" figure comes from the February AST report, which is just an educated guess on their part and they say themselves that they are not including new revenue from sponsorship deals (which, by the way, could theoretically all be used for wage increases, meaning that combined with big wages coming off the books means that Arsenal need not worry about blowing past wage increase limits -- although of course they should not spend it foolishly).

Arsenal had £231 million in the bank at the end of the last financial year, but we need to keep in mind that they need to hold at least £36 million of that for debt servicing and most likely they'll have an operating loss this year for the first time since 2002, thanks to being out of the Champions League for another season, decreases in match day revenue and TV money and a summer of little coming in from player sales. The club still has £217 million in stadium debt, so they can't just blow their cash reserves on a summer spending spree. The club had historic profits in 2017-18 (net funds surpassed net debt for the first time), but much of that was due to record player sales. Very little came in from player sales last summer, which is why they're looking at an operating loss.

So it's not as simple as "hey, there's £231 million in the bank! Let's spend it!" That's why it's difficult to reasonably know how much the club's budget will be (with or without Champions League). But even without the new revenue increases, the club would have some sort of transfer budget (as I noted, the AST estimate of £40 million stated they were not taking the revenue increases into account). They also fully understand that fielding a team that is regularly in the Champions League is good for the bottom line (if they didn't know it before, they know it now). So if they plan to invest all the new commercial sponsorship revenue in players, a budget of £40 million (AST estimate) plus £40 million (new revenue) would certainly seem not to be out of the question. Champions League would take the funds available past the £100 million mark.

And it's not like Arsenal hasn't been spending money. As I keep saying, they just need to spend their money more wisely than they did during Gazidis' time at the club.



agreed they def need to spent it wiser than we have been. I dont believe 40 m for one minute i think there will be plenty more and depending on what we have and need there may even be more after our initial buys
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
agreed they def need to spent it wiser than we have been. I dont believe 40 m for one minute i think there will be plenty more and depending on what we have and need there may even be more after our initial buys

Yep. Arsenal has actually spent quite a lot of money in recent years:

2018-19: £73 million
2017-18: £138 million
2016-17: £102 million
2015-16: £24 million
2014-15: £108 million
2013-14: £44 million
2012-13: £50 million
2011-12: £59 million

Yet every year people believe the Arsenal poverty stories designed to generate clicks. They can't spend with Manchester City, but they aren't Burnley either. The problem is that they've made some very bad transfer decisions, bring in wrong players (such as Mustafi), allowing players with value to walk or waiting too long to sell them (Alexis, Ramsey), making it hard to sell players by paying higher than market wages (Jenkinson, for instance) or in the end panicking and going too far on contracts because they were afraid to see another big player walk (Özil, although thankfully they came to their senses on Ramsey just in time). Smarter.
 

Gunner-Union

Well-Known Member
panic buying has been a big problem recently but i hope that's ended now. i think Emery knows what positions we need and we will go after targets and i think we will crack top 4 this season coming. Sp**s will surely start to lose players for bigger wages elsewhere especially when pool drub them
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
Venkatesham said something this morning that I think a lot of people don't realize:

"Going back to the earlier question around ownership, all of these initiatives and ideas about how we move the club forward are completely supported by Stan and Josh and their direction is quite simple: every single penny that we generate as a football club is available for us to invest against achieving that ambition, and that is the maximum that we can ask from our owners because that is the maximum allowed through the financial fair play rule."

Under FFP, you can't really spend money that you don't generate as a club (although there are temporary provisions for new owners if they can demonstrate a workable financial plan). Since Arsenal is on strong financial footing, Kroenke can't legally just give the club money to spend on players. That would breach FFP rules. Clubs such as City, Chelsea and PSG have skirted around the rules through nepotistic sponsorship deals (all are also facing some sort of double secret probation), but owners can't do what Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour did when they first bought their clubs. So all this talk about Kroenke not putting enough money into the club is pointless and displays a misunderstanding of FFP (whatever you may think of its effectiveness or the ability of some clubs to find ways around it or whatever you think of Kroenke).

I suppose Kroenke could skirt the rules by getting Walmart to sign a £1 billion sponsorship deal (although why would they?), but he can't just cut a £200 million check and say "here, go buys some players."
 

Mo Britain

Doom Monger
Yep. Arsenal has actually spent quite a lot of money in recent years:

2018-19: £73 million
2017-18: £138 million
2016-17: £102 million
2015-16: £24 million
2014-15: £108 million
2013-14: £44 million
2012-13: £50 million
2011-12: £59 million

Yet every year people believe the Arsenal poverty stories designed to generate clicks. They can't spend with Manchester City, but they aren't Burnley either. The problem is that they've made some very bad transfer decisions, bring in wrong players (such as Mustafi), allowing players with value to walk or waiting too long to sell them (Alexis, Ramsey), making it hard to sell players by paying higher than market wages (Jenkinson, for instance) or in the end panicking and going too far on contracts because they were afraid to see another big player walk (Özil, although thankfully they came to their senses on Ramsey just in time). Smarter.
That is not net spending. 2017-18 the club actually made money on transfers.

The argument that we have less to spend because the club didn't get to the CL is kind of circular. It didn't get in the CL because other owners wanted it more, this isn't a blip it is now a three-year trend.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
That is not net spending. 2017-18 the club actually made money on transfers.

The argument that we have less to spend because the club didn't get to the CL is kind of circular. It didn't get in the CL because other owners wanted it more, this isn't a blip it is now a three-year trend.

I didn't say it was net spending. It was not meant to be.

But Arsenal's net spending over the past three seasons (ending with the summer 2018 transfer window) was £157.5 million. That's higher than either Liverpool (£141 million) or Chelsea (£127.65 million). Sp**s' three-year net spend was £41.3 million. So if Liverpool, Chelsea and Sp**s' owners "wanted it more," they certainly didn't show it through net spending. You might also conclude that Manchester United's £315 million net spend didn't get them very far in 2018-19.

So on what basis do you conclude that the other owners "wanted it more?"

I still maintain that Arsenal just hasn't been as smart or opportunistic in their transfer dealings as other clubs recently. These other clubs aren't throwing any more money at it than Arsenal.
 

TakeChillPill

Established Member
I didn't say it was net spending. It was not meant to be.

But Arsenal's net spending over the past three seasons (ending with the summer 2018 transfer window) was £157.5 million. That's higher than either Liverpool (£141 million) or Chelsea (£127.65 million). Sp**s' three-year net spend was £41.3 million. So if Liverpool, Chelsea and Sp**s' owners "wanted it more," they certainly didn't show it through net spending. You might also conclude that Manchester United's £315 million net spend didn't get them very far in 2018-19.

So on what basis do you conclude that the other owners "wanted it more?"

I still maintain that Arsenal just hasn't been as smart or opportunistic in their transfer dealings as other clubs recently. These other clubs aren't throwing any more money at it than Arsenal.

Our Transfer deals have been panicky because we bottled the 2016 because we didn't make the right signings in the summer. The following years we went completely the opposite way buy signing expensive dross like Mustafi and Xhaka. Also signing Laca 2 years too late and auba 4 years too late. Should've got Auba for around £!0m predortmund and Laca £30m odd. Instead we spent over £100 for the pair of them.
 

Slartibartfast

CIES Loyalist
Our Transfer deals have been panicky because we bottled the 2016 because we didn't make the right signings in the summer. The following years we went completely the opposite way buy signing expensive dross like Mustafi and Xhaka. Also signing Laca 2 years too late and auba 4 years too late. Should've got Auba for around £!0m predortmund and Laca £30m odd. Instead we spent over £100 for the pair of them.

Hindsight, of course, but no doubt Arsenal would be in a much better position today had they handled things a lot differently.
 

Mo Britain

Doom Monger
I didn't say it was net spending. It was not meant to be.

But Arsenal's net spending over the past three seasons (ending with the summer 2018 transfer window) was £157.5 million. That's higher than either Liverpool (£141 million) or Chelsea (£127.65 million). Sp**s' three-year net spend was £41.3 million. So if Liverpool, Chelsea and Sp**s' owners "wanted it more," they certainly didn't show it through net spending. You might also conclude that Manchester United's £315 million net spend didn't get them very far in 2018-19.

So on what basis do you conclude that the other owners "wanted it more?"

I still maintain that Arsenal just hasn't been as smart or opportunistic in their transfer dealings as other clubs recently. These other clubs aren't throwing any more money at it than Arsenal.
I know you didn't say it but it needs to be pointed out because otherwise it gives the impression a lot of money has been invested in the club when it hasn't. It's also misleading if you take a snapshot and quote it as a trend. Arsenal are simply not a big buying club despite its increasing wealth and have failed to adapt to their position, squatting uneasily like a lottery winner in an ancient pile.

There are many bases, not the least of which is their scarce attendance at games and their lethargy in using any contacts they might have to improve Arsenal's commercial revenue. You could add their apathy in the Wenger situation, waiting for the discontented fans to assassinate him rather than form their own view, act and defend it.

Spending should also be a factor of what you have on the pitch. Sp uds didn't need to spend as much as the other clubs because they had plenty on the pitch. Different model. But they rarely lost their top players and when they did they got top dollar for them, by contrast we have a long and dishonourable of losing our top players, and other players we didn't want to lose, for less than their worth - Ramsey is only the latest example, losing a player in his prime to one of Europe's wealthiest clubs for absolutely nothing. Manu are victims of their own size, they are being fleeced by agents and other clubs and they are stumbling around like a blinded dinosaur. But comparisons are invidious, what we need is owners who understand the history and potential of the club for itself and not for their purposes,
 

Rain Dance

Established Member
Trusted ⭐
What's the point of this stuff, anyone from this forum could have improvised and made up a scarily similar bullshit on the topic.

Word count in the article:
Support* - 11
Owner* - 10
Compete* - 6
Passion* - 6
Ambition - 6
Strategy - 4
Involve* - 4

They could have solved this whole interview in one sentence, e.g.
'The owners are very passionate about supporting our strategy, and involve themselves to compete in this league with ambition.'
Word football was mentioned 4 times, and it's all came from the word football club. He mentioned Kroenke knows sports, and go on rambling about American sports, it doesn't take a genius to understand the American sport league and player transfer function differently from other countries with drafting and AFAIK no relegation.
Which beg the question how well Kroenke knows football...
 

Flying Okapis

Most Well-Known Member
Word football was mentioned 4 times, and it's all came from the word football club. He mentioned Kroenke knows sports, and go on rambling about American sports, it doesn't take a genius to understand the American sport league and player transfer function differently from other countries with drafting and AFAIK no relegation.
Which beg the question how well Kroenke knows football...

I know there is a huge difference in saying the right thing and then action BUT that interview says the right things 100%.

I think a lot of the issue here is that a lot of people want us to spend like Man City/PSG/Utd etc when it isn't realistically possible.

Unfortunately the Emirates era has been awful and it hasn't gained them much credit with any of us, I'm hoping with the new football brains in place the next decade will improve under their ownership.

I'm also hoping that now they have full ownership they will be a bit more committed without fear of the price for Usmanov's shares now they have them.
 

Ceballinhos

Cheating on Santi
I didn't say it was net spending. It was not meant to be.

But Arsenal's net spending over the past three seasons (ending with the summer 2018 transfer window) was £157.5 million. That's higher than either Liverpool (£141 million) or Chelsea (£127.65 million). Sp**s' three-year net spend was £41.3 million. So if Liverpool, Chelsea and Sp**s' owners "wanted it more," they certainly didn't show it through net spending. You might also conclude that Manchester United's £315 million net spend didn't get them very far in 2018-19.

So on what basis do you conclude that the other owners "wanted it more?"

I still maintain that Arsenal just hasn't been as smart or opportunistic in their transfer dealings as other clubs recently. These other clubs aren't throwing any more money at it than Arsenal.


Because our owner and board has allowed AFC to regress without making any significant changes, until they were forced to and it was too late.
Even though we all as fans see it coming for years.


I have followed AFC for years and over the last decade, I've never felt the club has wanted to really compete at the best level. I've always felt we were happy with our situation, getting into the top 4, winning a few cups, and getting CL money.

Let's not forget that we were looking as absolute clowns in the CL for years, we were ok to get destroyed by 4/5 goals season after season, without making any significant change. We were ok to play against the best teams in Europe with Sanogo as our CF because we didn't signed any decent backup to Giroud.


And to me that's on the owner. His responsability is to look after what's happening at the club, and Kroenke has allowed AFC to be run like a circus on the sporting side for years.

It's weird because in American Sports, at least in the NBA, General Managers are held accountable and are fired if they don't do their job.
Gazidis should have been fired years ago and whoever was in charge of handling contracts at the club.
 

Red London

Anti-Simp Culture
Trusted ⭐
Yep. Arsenal has actually spent quite a lot of money in recent years:

2018-19: £73 million
2017-18: £138 million
2016-17: £102 million
2015-16: £24 million
2014-15: £108 million
2013-14: £44 million
2012-13: £50 million
2011-12: £59 million

Yet every year people believe the Arsenal poverty stories designed to generate clicks. They can't spend with Manchester City, but they aren't Burnley either. The problem is that they've made some very bad transfer decisions, bring in wrong players (such as Mustafi), allowing players with value to walk or waiting too long to sell them (Alexis, Ramsey), making it hard to sell players by paying higher than market wages (Jenkinson, for instance) or in the end panicking and going too far on contracts because they were afraid to see another big player walk (Özil, although thankfully they came to their senses on Ramsey just in time). Smarter.
I agree with your points to an extent but it would be more accurate to discuss Net spend, otherwise you just confuse some people considering what usually is discussed is net spend
 

Latest posts+

Top Bottom