$tan Kroenke Becomes Soul Owner

[Slartibartfast]

Look at how well his other teams are doing... I hope we arent going down the same path.

This has always been a specious argument because there is such a stark difference between how American sports leagues operate and the Premier League. It's comparing apples and oranges. But it makes even less sense today since the Rams are actually one of the best teams in the NFL now (11 wins, NFC West champions), the Avalanche tallied 95 points and made the NHL playoffs and the Nuggets finished 10 games above .500 last season and narrowly missed the playoffs (despite one of the league's top power forwards playing less than half the team's games due to injury).

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't understand why Usmanow has such a good standing here? Because he isn't Kroenke?
He has shares in another PL club - that's how much he care about Arsenal.
At least Kroenke only owns one Europe Footballteam.

Sadly times has changed. Arabs, Russians, Americans.. of course it is not good for the values of the club.
but the end of Arsenal? Never.

Has Manchester United ended since the takeover from the Glazers-family? (Unfortunately not ).
United fans surely would like to turn back time, but it's not possible and it is all about the money nowadays.

I'm not a fan that Arsenal will be a private property, however the discussion between Kroenke and Usmanow will end at least.

Whatever Kroenke is, at least he's not a Russian mobster.

 

[dashsnow17]

I don't understand why Usmanow has such a good standing here? Because he isn't Kroenke?
He has shares in another PL club - that's how much he care about Arsenal.
At least Kroenke only owns one Europe Footballteam.

Sadly times has changed. Arabs, Russians, Americans.. of course it is not good for the values of the club.
but the end of Arsenal? Never.

Has Manchester United ended since the takeover from the Glazers-family? (Unfortunately not ).
United fans surely would like to turn back time, but it's not possible and it is all about the money nowadays.

I'm not a fan that Arsenal will be a private property, however the discussion between Kroenke and Usmanow will end at least.

You make a very good point on Usmanov. He's been lionised by fans simply because he isn't Kroenke and fans thought that Kroenke was preventing him from being our hero. But of course he is an exceptionally unsavoury man himself.

You're also right that life simply has to go on and Arsenal will still exist. We'll still play in red and white, sing the same songs and remember our history.

But it cannot be glossed over how regrettable it is that we have once and for all broken our link with our traditions. Arsenal has always been different from the rest. Sometimes that difference was mythologised and exaggerated, but it is a mythology borne out of reality.

We're no longer different in any meaningful way. We're only different in the way we think of ourselves, different in our minds. The fans are the club now, because the club has moved on.

 

[YeahBee]

The african dude says nothing ?

 

[Jae]

I think this can only be a good thing to be honest.

 

[say yes]

I don't understand why Usmanow has such a good standing here? Because he isn't Kroenke?

General thinking is that nobody wants to have a billionaire foreign owner but that, if you’re going to have one, a big spending one is preferable to a parasite.

 

[Ceballinhos]

The last time Utd were a real force was when they had Fergie and players like Ronaldo, Rooney and Ferdinand. They were players bought at the beginning of the millennium before the Glazer takeover. The Glazers have been living off the residual success of that era and for the amount of money they have, they have in fact been under-investing.

It's true that Kroenke may wish to invest something to grow the brand, but it takes an awful lot of money these days to compete with the very richest i.e City. Why would he bother investing that much? Winning things is profitable, but it can also be profitable to get top 4 with a reliable brand value and maybe the odd trophy. It's safer to invest enough to get consistent top 4 than it is to invest enough to win the title every year.

Anyway, I realise that this is essentially just the officialisation of something which was already de facto, it's not a major sea change in real terms. It's a major change in sentimental, symbolic and historic terms and it's the right of fans to be upset about that. In real terms, nothing will change very much. It's more of the same. It's just 'the same' wasn't very good to begin with.

I wasn't talking about the glazers or about them investing into the club.

I've said that if Man Utd is today one of the most profitable club in the world and one of the most powerful brand that's because they've been the most successful club in England and Europe. If they weren't that competitive and successful there isn't a single chance they'd be that rich today. Or they'd be able to sign ridiculous deals with sponsors.

We shouldn't compare ourselves to city because city's brand was much weaker than ours. Outside man city's fans before their takeover nobody was following this club. It's not the same market at all.
Arsenal was already a global brand with a huge fanbase. It's the 3rd most successful team in the country. It's the biggest club in London.
But our board and owner isn't making the most out of it.
We're not getting top 4 anymore and if we don't come back fast as a competitive club our brand value will decrease. Our sponsorship deals will decrease or other clubs in the top 10 tier will catch up.

If kroenke wants to make the most out of arsenal in the long term he has to grow the club as a brand. And for this he needs to have a competitive team.

Success will grow the club's value It will get him better sponsorship deals. Better commercial deals.
The most profitable clubs / franchise are the most successful ones in big markets.

It doesn't mean he has to match city's investments every year. But he has to find the right balance and make proper investments to help us being competitive again as fast as possible.

 

[Mo Britain]

Whatever Kroenke is, at least he's not a Russian mobster.

Said it before, the use of "black" mobster or "Jewish" mobster would immediately make this racist or anti-Semitic but its ok to use Russian as an insult. Guess Sting was wrong after all.

 

[Sniper Mik]

General thinking is that nobody wants to have a billionaire foreign owner but that, if you’re going to have one, a big spending one is preferable to a parasite.

Chelsea fans nearly shat themselves earlier in the summer when there were some rumors floating around about Roman packing up because of all the visa troubles. Don't really want Arsenal in that situation, ever.

 

[Mo Britain]

I wasn't talking about the glazers or about them investing into the club.

I've said that if Man Utd is today one of the most profitable club in the world and one of the most powerful brand that's because they've been the most successful club in England and Europe. If they weren't that competitive and successful there isn't a single chance they'd be that rich today. Or they'd be able to sign ridiculous deals with sponsors.

We shouldn't compare ourselves to city because city's brand was much weaker than ours. Outside man city's fans before their takeover nobody was following this club. It's not the same market at all.
Arsenal was already a global brand with a huge fanbase. It's the 3rd most successful team in the country. It's the biggest club in London.
But our board and owner isn't making the most out of it.
We're not getting top 4 anymore and if we don't come back fast as a competitive club our brand value will decrease. Our sponsorship deals will decrease or other clubs in the top 10 tier will catch up.

If kroenke wants to make the most out of arsenal in the long term he has to grow the club as a brand. And for this he needs to have a competitive team.

Success will grow the club's value It will get him better sponsorship deals. Better commercial deals.
The most profitable clubs / franchise are the most successful ones in big markets.

It doesn't mean he has to match city's investments every year. But he has to find the right balance and make proper investments to help us being competitive again as fast as possible.

The right balance for Kronke is a balance sheet. You do not need to be the most successful team on the pitch to be reasonably successful off it. For Kronke it is simple, if finishing 7th makes him more money than finishing 1st he will take that.

 

[Ceballinhos]

The right balance for Kronke is a balance sheet. You do not need to be the most successful team on the pitch to be reasonably successful off it. For Kronke it is simple, if finishing 7th makes him more money than finishing 1st he will take that.

But it doesn't.
The most profitable clubs are the most successful ones. It's plain and simple.

 

[Sniper Mik]

The right balance for Kronke is a balance sheet. You do not need to be the most successful team on the pitch to be reasonably successful off it. For Kronke it is simple, if finishing 7th makes him more money than finishing 1st he will take that.

But we are not gonna make more finishing 7th. 2017/18 figures haven't been published yet but I'm pretty sure revenues are down considerably for not having CL money. Attendances were down as well.

 

[grange]

I must have been under the erroneous impression that 2002, 2003 and 2004 came before 2005. Thank you for correcting that error.

Actually, I was correcting your stretching of the facts to suit your agenda. Two of the three players you mentioned came during the Glazers influence in the club yet here you are still refusing to admit this.

You're welcome.

 

[dashsnow17]

But it doesn't.
The most profitable clubs are the most successful ones. It's plain and simple.

I agree that he can't just do nothing and expect a sustainable brand, he has to pay attention to the brand value and maintaining that, which means success on the pitch. But success on the pitch in terms of brand value in 2018 can simply be top 4.

I expect Kroenke to invest enough to get top 4 with the occasional trophy, I don't expect him to invest enough to win the title consistently or challenge for the Champions League.

 

[Ceballinhos]

But we are not gonna make more finishing 7th. 2017/18 figures haven't been published yet but I'm pretty sure revenues are down considerably for not having CL money. Attendances were down as well.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Let's just say for the sake of the argument that we miss the CL for the next 10 years and we become a midtable team.
Our next kit deals and other sponsorship deals are going to be much lower. Our commercial revenues too.
You won't attract new fans all around the world who are new potential customers and make the brand more powerful.

 

[Mo Britain]

But we are not gonna make more finishing 7th. 2017/18 figures haven't been published yet but I'm pretty sure revenues are down considerably for not having CL money. Attendances were down as well.

There are plenty of scenarios where teams are profitable without being successful in the trophy-winning sense.

Why? Because your costs are lower. No bonuses, lower salaries because you don't buy the elite players, more expensive seats filled by tourists.

Why do you think sugar daddies have taken over? Because football isn't profitable in the normal business sense. It is a gamble where you risk £400 million on a squad in the hope it will win you something. And you are only as good as your last season. Madrid and Barcelona can afford their budgets due to the skewed nature of the apportionment of broadcasting money in Spain. There is no fairness in modern football, it's dog eat dog and with Kronke we will be a middle-sized dog that can see off small dogs but does not compete with the big dogs.

Few teams make profits and they tend to be teams who risk little and have a "sustainable" business model. Sounds familiar?

 

[dashsnow17]

Actually, I was correcting your stretching of the facts to suit your agenda. Two of the three players you mentioned came during the Glazers influence in the club yet here you are still refusing to admit this.

You're welcome.

Isn't there a clear distinction between the beginning of his involvement in the club and the beginning of his full ownership of the club?

I was watching something from a Utd fan recently where he talked about the decrease in investment since the full Glazer takeover. I'm not just plucking stuff out my arse.

Also what's this agenda i'm supposed to be peddling? I'm observing the simple fact that symbolically this is a sad day and objectively it's not the beginning of a glorious new era, it's just more of the same.

 

[Let's play Aubamawang]

Stan acted quickly to order the removal of big game programming once it came to his attention, so this continual over-the-top hysteria about his "blood sports" doesn't really advance your arguments against him.

There are a lot of reasons not to care for Stan Kroenke (Walmart being mine -- although I was please they stopped selling assault rifles use in America's real blood sport: mass shootings), but this stuff about a marginal TV network is a tempest in a teapot.

I am not naïve enough to think that Stan has complete say on everything that goes on, as he owns far too many companies for that to be remotely plausible. But if he cancelled the big game programme I am concerned about, it is purely because of the outrage it caused, not because he's taking some kind of moral high ground.

America certainly does have a huge problem with gun violence, but I will not derail this thread with my opinion on that.

On topic: people may not like Usmanov for various reasons including any illegal behaviour, but the real question is why sell to him or Kroenke in the first place? Building our new stadium was supposed to prevent the need for outside investment. Think of the money people are paying to see our beloved club. Surely by now we should be capable of being self-sufficient?

 

[Mo Britain]

But it doesn't.
The most profitable clubs are the most successful ones. It's plain and simple.

Um, no. It's simply not true. There is financial success and there is success on the pitch. Sometimes they match, sometimes they don't.

In top competitions no-one wins without accepting risk, no-one wins by thinking they can "plough" £50 million (which comes from revenue by the way) into a team when the competitors are spending four times as much. You may have the occasional Leicester but that was a one-off which will be more difficult to reproduce and even there when you examine the small print they have actually spent a fair amount.

 

[darkgunner]

At least this gives the bastard no excuses for us underperforming. If he doesn't want us to compete at the top, his intentions are highly dubious.