Stan Kroneke makes offer to buy Arsenal

Discussion in 'Arsenal Talk' started by OnlyOne, Aug 7, 2018.

  1. Flying Okapis

    Flying Okapis Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  2. celestis

    celestis Arsenal-Mania Veteran Moderator

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

    Dokaka AM's resident Hammer

    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.
     
    Gooner Zig likes this.
  4. Tosker

    Tosker Well-Known Member

    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 likes this.
  5. Slartibartfast

    Slartibartfast Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  6. akhil

    akhil Member

    @Slartibartfast
    I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean the LA stadium development is under threat from the retail market. I meant his whole commercial real estate portfolio in general.
     
    Slartibartfast likes this.
  7. Slartibartfast

    Slartibartfast Well-Known Member

    Well, his commercial real estate portfolio has been built primarily on developing Walmarts.
     
  8. Gooner Zig

    Gooner Zig AM's Resident Accountant

    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.
     
  9. Gooner Zig

    Gooner Zig AM's Resident Accountant

    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.
     
    celestis and Artisan like this.
  10. Fallout

    Fallout Well-Known 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.
     
    Ricardinho likes this.
  11. Slartibartfast

    Slartibartfast Well-Known Member

    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).
     
    Flying Okapis likes this.
  12. Gooner Zig

    Gooner Zig AM's Resident Accountant

    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.
     
    Tony's nose likes this.
  13. Slartibartfast

    Slartibartfast Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  14. Gooner Zig

    Gooner Zig AM's Resident Accountant

    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.
     
  15. Mo Britain

    Mo Britain You should be ashamed of yourself Gazidis

    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.
     
    Godwin1 and qwerty99 like this.
  16. Tony's nose

    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
     
  17. blaise

    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.
     
    progman07 likes this.
  18. Penn_

    Penn_ Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  19. Trilly

    Trilly ^ If Michael Owen posted on AM

    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:
     
    celestis and Gooner Zig like this.
  20. Trilly

    Trilly ^ If Michael Owen posted on AM

    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.
     

Share This Page