$tan Kroenke Becomes Soul Owner

[Red London]

We need to hope this duo are good at running clubs and will be able to use our assets more wisely. We have more potential than the likes of Sp**s but we just have to be patient and use our money better. We leaked around £100m alone on letting Sanchez and Ramsey run down their contracts.

We are paying Özil £18m out of panic when really we should have sold him if he didnt sign on a couple years ago (that could have earned us another 40-60m for a replacement). Now we have a player that doesnt even suit us who we have priced out of any move because he is overrated and we are paying him more than most club's top earners. What a coincidence that this mistake was made by United (with Alexis) and Arsenal, the two worst run clubs within the top6 in recent years.

We have also let Welbeck run down his contract, before his injury a side like Liverpool would have been able to sell him for antying between £15-25m... and we just let him run down his deal. Its because our previous board literally had no expertise or ability to sell ****ing players... Why?? I dont get it... its like they got fed up so let players run down their deals.

Its a basic aspect of football, these guys need to be executing players sales and contracts better than that regardless. The big challenge is recruitment and signing the best possible players we can. As we increase the assets in our club we will then have another source of money for our transfer budget; player sales. That's why last summer was quite a good summer for us. We brought in players who serve as assets. Players like Torreira and Guendouzi can be sold for a lot of money if we had to sell them. Sides like Liverpool are filled with these guys, its what funded all these top players they have now.

In the next two summers we HAVE to sell some players and then reinvest them in players who have proven they will grow at this club. Usually round the age of 22-25 who have shown they can take that step. Of course we need to sign some very young players for the future and some experienced players in certain positions; but I dont want us to be signing many 29 year olds on their last contract on big money... you leak money that way and if you're not fighting for the league anyway I'd much rather invest it into seeds which can develop into world class players. Its all about balance and targets.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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

I did discuss net spending four posts below that one. Arsenal's net spending over the past three years is higher than Liverpool, Chelsea or Sp**s. The same holds true if you go back a few years further.

Net spending actually enhances my point. In terms of gross spending, Liverpool has splashed a lot more cash over the past five years -- £711 million to £445 million. But Arsenal's net spending is higher than Liverpool's. It's not that Arsenal has been unwilling to spend. They just haven't done it as wisely as their competitors.

 

[Red London]

I did discuss net spending four posts below that one. Arsenal's net spending over the past three years is higher than Liverpool, Chelsea or Sp**s. The same holds true if you go back a few years further.

Net spending actually enhances my point. In terms of gross spending, Liverpool has splashed a lot more cash over the past five years -- £711 million to £445 million. But Arsenal's net spending is higher than Liverpool's. It's not that Arsenal has been unwilling to spend. They just haven't done it as wisely as their competitors.

Yeh I wasnt questioning your point, I was just saying that net spend would cause less confusion and in this case it would help your point when comparing to other rivals.

 

[avalonhse]

Its because our previous board literally had no expertise or ability to sell ****ing players... Why?? I dont get it... its like they got fed up so let players run down their deals.

I dont think it is hard to understand. Clubs have up and down, largely due to bad management. Liv only has been good last 3 seasons. On the other side, things only have gone out of control in last 3 years of Wenger, which is reason why he must leave.

Last season Arsenal had better management, but now we have some warning signs. For example, Mislintat left is a huge loss IMO, more than Ramsey leaving, considering he brought Torreira, Auba, Leno in. Now we face some management uncertainty again.

 

[Rain Dance]

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

Yeah... there is no way an Arsenal board interview openly say "our owner doesn't know football". They are saying the right things, I am just pointing out the odd part.

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.

well, if we are being blunt, reality is in Kroenke's hands. After all, he just invested 1.6 billions dollar on a new stadium for the Rams. Kinda debunked the whole he can't compete with other rich owners
So it's not like they can't, but they won't...

 

[Flying Okapis]

Yeah... there is no way an Arsenal board interview openly say "our owner doesn't know football". They are saying the right things, I am just pointing out the odd part.


well, if we are being blunt, reality is in Kroenke's hands. After all, he just invested 1.6 billions dollar on a new stadium for the Rams. Kinda debunked the whole he can't compete with other rich owners
So it's not like they can't, but they won't...

Not too sure on the point you are making with the Rams, the situation was completely different? @Slartibartfast I believe has explained a number of times now why he can't give or even gift the club 1.6billion or whatever, its even explained in the interview that FFP doesn't work like that.

This is the thing, they've just said all funds generated are available to the club, I'm sure they didn't choose to sign only Cech one summer, but us making high money signings the past few years means nothing?

I think the situation the club has is an era where fans want spending like oil clubs, they want big transfers etc, the club could be run extremely well but people will still complain we haven't dropped £100mil+ on so and so.. oil money ownership seems like the only happy solution for some.

 

[Tony's nose]

Seems to be alot of short memories here

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...y-arsenal-stake-to-win-trophies-a3202046.html

Hes not here to win its a stock an investment simples as that

 

[Rain Dance]

Not too sure on the point you are making with the Rams, the situation was completely different? @Slartibartfast I believe has explained a number of times now why he can't give or even gift the club 1.6billion or whatever, its even explained in the interview that FFP doesn't work like that.

I am not saying they should give 1.6 billions. I am saying we aren't such a poor club compared to other clubs. And my point is the Kroenke aren't as poor as you guys keep trying to image them as. They are just as rich as other owners (Top 10 richest sport owners excluding Sheik Mansour) and they can spend as crazy as other rich owners (just elsewhere)

This is the thing, they've just said all funds generated are available to the club, I'm sure they didn't choose to sign only Cech one summer, but us making high money signings the past few years means nothing?

All funds generated, how much came from KSE investments, and how much came from our general club income? Please educate me on this. Our ticket price is the most expensive in England AFAIK and to my understanding this and sponsorship are where our transfer funds came from.
I googled KSE investments arsenal and found this article https://arseblog.news/2019/05/kse-yet-to-guarantee-summer-transfer-budget/ So please educate me...

I don't question the purchases made, footballers are unpredictable commodity, mistakes happen.
I am questioning the investments commitment, as that's one of the responsibility of owners... heck Barcelona & Real president election main discussion is about what players the next president willing to fund, why is this some taboo when Arsenal fans asked.

I think the situation the club has is an era where fans want spending like oil clubs, they want big transfers etc, the club could be run extremely well but people will still complain we haven't dropped £100mil+ on so and so.. oil money ownership seems like the only happy solution for some.

You don't realize the world in changing, even small clubs like Cardiff has a billionaire financial backer. And yes, Vincent Tan actually splurge money on Cardiff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_owners_of_English_football_clubs
why can't Arsenal fans ask him to splurge some money down Arsenal?

 

[Flying Okapis]

I am not saying they should give 1.6 billions. I am saying we aren't such a poor club compared to other clubs. And my point is the Kroenke aren't as poor as you guys keep trying to image them as. They are just as rich as other owners (Top 10 richest sport owners excluding Sheik Mansour) and they can spend as crazy as other rich owners (just elsewhere)

All funds generated, how much came from KSE investments, and how much came from our general club income? Please educate me on this. Our ticket price is the most expensive in England AFAIK and to my understanding this and sponsorship are where our transfer funds came from.
I googled KSE investments arsenal and found this article https://arseblog.news/2019/05/kse-yet-to-guarantee-summer-transfer-budget/ So please educate me...

I don't question the purchases made, footballers are unpredictable commodity, mistakes happen.
I am questioning the investments commitment, as that's one of the responsibility of owners... heck Barcelona & Real president election main discussion is about what players the next president willing to fund, why is this some taboo when Arsenal fans asked.

You don't realize the world in changing, even small clubs like Cardiff has a billionaire financial backer. And yes, Vincent Tan actually splurge money on Cardiff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_owners_of_English_football_clubs
why can't Arsenal fans ask him to splurge some money down Arsenal?

Where exactly is anyone claiming or making out that the Kroenke's aren't rich? Everyone is aware of their billionaire status? No idea where you pulled that from.

Right, so basically you want a billionaire owner who will spend ie like oil clubs, I thought as much, its funny how fans literally love to spend other peoples money and expect them to drop hundreds of millions on risks like its nothing.

Barca & Real operate completely different, they have elections which need to be won by the candidates, what wins elections at those clubs is talking about players, Arsenal dont run elections for presidents. The president of them clubs also doesn't fund the transfers, the socio's buy annual membership and the clubs are self sustaining in there business and make the funds available, not owners.

Arseblog? I'm not really interested in articles from there.

 

[Hexagon9]

I agree with what you've said but none of it is relevant to my post, you said it's been explained many times before but then went on to speak about something irrelevant. You haven't addressed my last point at all. I'm not sure why you started talking about 10 years ago when I was talking about today? I understand as well as anyone how good a job Wenger did at the time. But that just isn't relevent in this discussion

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.

How do people not see the connection here that our assets are being held as collateral to fund his other investments? You won't find any articles about it, because he hasn't "withdrawn" money from our club. He's done it in a way which is much more sophisticated and just as harmful to us. This is why most fans and journalists haven't picked up on it, yet they use the same incorrect argument that he "hasn't taken money from the club " what he's doing is just as bad.

Just to further make my point on this: here's an extract from a guardian article.

" KSE has funded the large part of the offer to Usmanov with a loan from Deutsche Bank, and although they say in their statement to the stock exchange that this is “not being funded by way of any debt finance”, nobody would be any the wiser if, after he assumes full control, Kroenke leverages the value of Arsenal to service that loan."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/07/stan-kroenke-arsenal-football-fans


Also. Just think about it. Stan Kroenke as we all know doesn't give a **** about what we all want or think. Yet even he felt the need to make a statement to refute this claim on a technicality.

The problem here is that what Kroenke does to our club in terms of leveraging our assets is completely private and confidential. There's no way we can ever find out. Even if it was public information,most journalists and fans simply don't understand finance well enough to appreciate how damaging this is to Arsenal

If the assets of the club have been used as some kind of security for Kroenke’s/another of his companies’ borrowings this would be shown in the club’s accounts, in the notes about related/connected party transactions. I haven’t seen them but do you know what, if anything, they say?

Of course, the accounts could be (deliberately)wrong!

 

[Rain Dance]

Where exactly is anyone claiming or making out that the Kroenke's aren't rich? Everyone is aware of their billionaire status? No idea where you pulled that from.

I got it from you guys, everytime other Arsenal fans asked about Kroenke's investments, suddenly "we can't afford to spend like City, Chelsea, Man United...because they are backed with rich owners" so basically from your next line below

Right, so basically you want a billionaire owner who will spend ie like oil clubs, I thought as much, its funny how fans literally love to spend other peoples money and expect them to drop hundreds of millions on risks like its nothing.

Oh wow, I gave you a list on every club owners in EPL.
And most of them (although billionaires) are poorer than Kroenke, but I can assure you most of them splurge for the team they own proportionally. They took more risk than Kroenke.
But yeah let's focus on only the Sheiks, and how we can't compare with their money....

- its funny how fans literally love to spend other peoples money and expect them to drop hundreds of millions on risks like its nothing -

Risky investments are literally the job of a business owner.

Barca & Real operate completely different, they have elections which need to be won by the candidates, what wins elections at those clubs is talking about players, Arsenal dont run elections for presidents. The president of them clubs also doesn't fund the transfers, the socio's buy annual membership and the clubs are self sustaining in there business and make the funds available, not owners.

So you actually confirmed my comment above that the funds available for transfer doesn't come from KSE's investment but from a portion of the club own money that they allocate
0 risk business for our owners, nice.

Arseblog? I'm not really interested in articles from there.

So basically you guys got nothing on their investments too?

 

[Flying Okapis]

I got it from you guys, everytime other Arsenal fans asked about Kroenke's investments, suddenly "we can't afford to spend like City, Chelsea, Man United...because they are backed with rich owners" so basically from your next line below


Oh wow, I gave you a list on every club owners in EPL.
And most of them (although billionaires) are poorer than Kroenke, but I can assure you most of them splurge for the team they own proportionally. They took more risk than Kroenke.
But yeah let's focus on only the Sheiks, and how we can't compare with their money....
Risky investments are literally the job of a business owner.

So you actually confirmed my comment above that the funds available for transfer doesn't come from KSE's investment but from a portion of the club own money that they allocate
0 risk business for our owners, nice.

So basically you guys got nothing on their investments too?

The money loaned by other billionaires and spent by the clubs you listed is money at favourable rates, its not free money, each club will have to repay that, if they make bad transfers with that money the club will be saddled with that debt the owners won't swallow it. The oil money for PSG & Man City was through blatant fake sponsorship, how they got away with it under FFP I don't know.

I've never once said Kroenke is poorer than other billionaires, what I said is that he hasn't gifted or loaned the club money, the club generates its budget through what it makes, due to that we cannot compete with the Manchester clubs.

Risky business is not how they go about it, they are all successful businessmen, they take calculated risks, buying players is not something they are going to do, loaning money to a club to buy the players is a completely different thing as they will get their money back and some.

Look, lets just agree to disagree and move on, you got your views I got mine, we are going round in circles. I agree, ideally I wouldn't want Kroenke as our owner, but he is and at present not much will change that. I've accepted we will be under his ownership for a very long time and it will cost another party a lot of money over the value of the club to change that which realistically isn't going to happen, Dangote, Usmanov or whoever will not pay over the odds for the club so we are stuck with Kroenke's until they decide to sell.

I plan to see how this summer goes with the new guys and Edu in place, another summer under Emery transfers and then assess the situation.

We are all Arsenal fans here, take it easy and hopefully we are back in the CL next season and can go back to complaining about being dicked by Bayern 10-1

 

[Slartibartfast]

I got it from you guys, everytime other Arsenal fans asked about Kroenke's investments, suddenly "we can't afford to spend like City, Chelsea, Man United...because they are backed with rich owners" so basically from your next line below

Stop paying attention to anyone who says that and pay attention to me. Had you read my post a couple of pages back you'd know that Arsenal has actually outspent Chelsea by £30 million over the past three years and has even outspent Liverpool by £16 million.

Oh wow, I gave you a list on every club owners in EPL.
And most of them (although billionaires) are poorer than Kroenke, but I can assure you most of them splurge for the team they own proportionally. They took more risk than Kroenke.
But yeah let's focus on only the Sheiks, and how we can't compare with their money....
Risky investments are literally the job of a business owner.

Since Financial Fair Play regulations came into effect, it no longer matters how rich the owners, themselves, happen to be. The funds it takes to actually buy a club notwithstanding, I could own the club and it wouldn't make any difference. Abramovich and Mansour were able to spend their way to relevance before FFP, but they are no longer allowed to give or lend the club money for player acquisitions. Kroenke can't just cut a check and say "Here, buy some players." Neither can Mansour or Abramovic or the Glazers or Fenway.

Some of these clubs have skirted the rules in areas (and gotten in trouble for it). But clubs are only allowed to spend money they generate themselves on players (there are some temporary exceptions for new owners who can demonstrate a workable plan to put their club's finances in order, but Arsenal hasn't been that club in the Premier League era). Manchester United can outspend Arsenal not because the Glazers are so wealthy, but because they generate such enormous revenue. The same for City.

Arsenal's ability to spend has taken a hit due to being out of the Champions League for two straight seasons, thus reducing revenue, but in recent years they have actually spent more than Liverpool, Chelsea or Sp**s with worse results. So it's not a matter of just throwing money at it. No club is allowed to do that anymore. They need to be smarter.

 

[Tosker]

It might be a good idea to await the verdict on City's spending before urging Kroenke to invest his (or more accurately his wife's) billions

 

[Vinci]

It might be a good idea to await the verdict on City's spending before urging Kroenke to invest his (or more accurately his wife's) billions

He's going to build a new mega ranch first, don't think there'll be anything left to invest after that.

 

[Slartibartfast]

He's going to build a new mega ranch first, don't think there'll be anything left to invest after that.

Wouldn't matter because under FFP he can't give (or even loan) the club money to buy players. He can build or buy all the ranches and build all the stadiums and shopping districts he wants. Arsenal is still only allowed to spend the money that the club generates.

 

[Artisan]

Would FFP stop us from spending our own money we got holed up in the bank? At least I understood the wage limitations excuse since we can only increase it by a maximum of 7mil.

 

[Rain Dance]

Stop paying attention to anyone who says that and pay attention to me. Had you read my post a couple of pages back you'd know that Arsenal has actually outspent Chelsea by £30 million over the past three years and has even outspent Liverpool by £16 million.

Since Financial Fair Play regulations came into effect, it no longer matters how rich the owners, themselves, happen to be. The funds it takes to actually buy a club notwithstanding, I could own the club and it wouldn't make any difference. Abramovich and Mansour were able to spend their way to relevance before FFP, but they are no longer allowed to give or lend the club money for player acquisitions. Kroenke can't just cut a check and say "Here, buy some players." Neither can Mansour or Abramovic or the Glazers or Fenway.

Some of these clubs have skirted the rules in areas (and gotten in trouble for it). But clubs are only allowed to spend money they generate themselves on players (there are some temporary exceptions for new owners who can demonstrate a workable plan to put their club's finances in order, but Arsenal hasn't been that club in the Premier League era). Manchester United can outspend Arsenal not because the Glazers are so wealthy, but because they generate such enormous revenue. The same for City.

Arsenal's ability to spend has taken a hit due to being out of the Champions League for two straight seasons, thus reducing revenue, but in recent years they have actually spent more than Liverpool, Chelsea or Sp**s with worse results. So it's not a matter of just throwing money at it. No club is allowed to do that anymore. They need to be smarter.

I have read your post and you seems to know, so I am gonna re-type my question. Maybe it would make things clearer.
Have there is a record of KSE given us an investment?
cause unless I didn't get what BBC wrote about FFP, it still allows owners to inject fund but the number are now regulated so owners cannot balance the books on their own, or maybe I am wrong, owners have to do hands off approach now

 

[Gooner Zig]

Haven't read the last few posts but the general sentiment is that we've been a poorly managed club in recent times and we have been. One factor for this has been the lack of proper or robust oversight by the Board of Directors and the owners. This is where my point comes in about if the stewardship and ownership of the club don't have the ability to perform adequate oversight, then we will see these terrible errors such as top players letting their contracts run down continue.

If there was proper oversight, there is no chance that Ramsey, Alexis or Welbeck would have been allowed to leave for free (well not so much Alexis). It's incomprehensible that the people who are responsible for such oversight are still in positions of power. If the Kroenke's were serious, the Board of Directors would have been replaced with those who understand such matters.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I have read your post and you seems to know, so I am gonna re-type my question. Maybe it would make things clearer.
Have there is a record of KSE given us an investment?
cause unless I didn't get what BBC wrote about FFP, it still allows owners to inject fund but the number are now regulated so owners cannot balance the books on their own, or maybe I am wrong, owners have to do hands off approach now

KSE invested by buying the club. Beyond that, there's really nothing they could do because Arsenal has not been in financial difficulty and had already built a new stadium. Owners can't just give (or even loan) money to profitable clubs for players.

Here's something from Paste Magazine in 2014 that explains the idea behind FFP and the prohibition on owners borrowing or providing money to buy players:

FFP is primarily meant to prevent teams from posting excessive losses—whether by going into debt or using owner equity—in their bid to buy the best players and compete for football’s top prizes. But this isn’t only meant to prevent individual clubs from spending beyond their means. By stopping clubs from spending more money than they earn, FFP lowers artificially inflated wages and transfer fees for all clubs. If a club cannot afford a transfer or to pay their best players unsustainable wages, they have no choice but to pay less or seek other options. In theory, this lowers player prices for all clubs, and allows for a more sustainable transfer and wage market for everybody.

Of course one could argue whether or not this has actually held transfer fees (Flying Spaghetti Monster help us if it would have been worse than this). But except for certain circumstances, clubs can only spend what they make. Owners of clubs that are losing money can inject a limited amount if they can agree to a 3-year plan with UEFA to get back within the limits (Roma, for example, managed this just last summer and any time you read that a certain club must raise an amount of money by June 30, this is what's going on). Since Arsenal has been profitable for so long, Kroenke isn't allowed to invest money in players.

There are areas in which owners can spend directly. From the UEFA FFP website:

In order to promote investment in stadiums, training facilities, youth development and women’s football (from 2015), all such costs are excluded from the break-even calculation.

But these are all areas in which Arsenal is in great shape and not in need of a loan or cash injection. This is why Fenway was able to loan money to Liverpool for stadium improvements and temporary debt relief, but their recent financial muscle has been a product of good management,, including astute bargains and player sales that funded some of their best acquisitions. They were never able to just cut a check and say "go buy Virgil van Dijk." They were able to make deals like that because they made so much profit from selling Coutinho and others.