• ! ! ! 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.

Usmanov or "Silent" Stan?

Are you for or against a potential takeover?

  • For

    Votes: 138 90.8%
  • Against

    Votes: 14 9.2%

  • Total voters
    152
Status
Not open for further replies.

ebouenolike

Established Member
Beksl said:
And make no mistake about that, he will sell.

If we are slating him for potentially lining his pockets (in the future) from selling, perhaps we should also slate 'The Messiah' Dein. He made a killing by selling.
 

redwhiteAustrian

Tu Felix Austria
Administrator
If it wasn't for Dein, Kroenke wouldn't even know that 'Arsenal' is a football club.
He brought both of them in, and in the end, one was good enough for our board.

Dein just chose the wrong side, although even if he had represented Kroenke, who knows, maybe the board would've opted for Usmanov then. :lol:
 

Beksl

Sell All The Youngsters
ebouenolike said:
Beksl said:
And make no mistake about that, he will sell.

If we are slating him for potentially lining his pockets (in the future) from selling, perhaps we should also slate 'The Messiah' Dein. He made a killing by selling.

I never mentioned Dein in any of may posts in this thread. I don't consider him to be the Messiah or whoever.

But I do think Dein is different case, he invested in Arsenal when no one else wanted, we were a mid-table club back then, PHW said at the time he was crazy and stated ''to all intents and purposes it's dead money''. He had a vision and passion to take us straight to the top. I couldn't say the same for the likes of Kroenke or Usmanov...
 

yuvken

Established Member
evoh_1 said:
anyone who can afford to finance the purchase of a football club will have shady dealing in their past
:?: There is no honest rich man in the world? this debate is getting really strange now.
But I'll give you that: if one day, in some - however strange - circumstances, it will be shown he actually was clean (He doesn't need to be holy, by clean I mean not a mega mafia person - that money did not come in dishonest ways), then I will withdraw (most of) my argument. He'll then be a legit investor' like Stan (but I admit I'll still prefer people like Stan, and believe choosing guys with a genuine interest&love to sports, and stability, more then I take to their being2nd or fifth richest man in Russia or wherever).

It's true we don't really "choose" our team - it falls on most of us when we're very young, environment etc. putting us "in it". Might as well have been our DNA (unlike cesc's...) but we are in it for fun/pleasure/whatever else is not productive. Why on earth would one want to involve something that is all wrong, smells a mile away, in our fantasy side? why dirty even this part of life?
 

Anzac

Established Member
Beksl said:
I never mentioned Dein in any of may posts in this thread. I don't consider him to be the Messiah or whoever.

But I do think Dein is different case, he invested in Arsenal when no one else wanted, we were a mid-table club back then, PHW said at the time he was crazy and stated ''to all intents and purposes it's dead money''. He had a vision and passion to take us straight to the top. I couldn't say the same for the likes of Kroenke or Usmanov...

Hadn't known about that = we're still seeing the same attitude since Dein has departed.

Oh and DD also brought Fizman to the table = they were friends at the time & DD sold him some shares to get him involved with the club & the rest is history.
 

Mastadon

Established Member
yuvken said:
Mastadon said:
(1) Usmanov the fact is that he remains the only person to have made a real offer which would involve money going into the club. (2) Kroenke has done absolutely nothing since taking over and has not put a single cent of his own money into the club.
(1) You keep saying that, but "fact" is only when money does go into the club. The rest is speculation (and starry eyed state contemplating his money). (2) Kroenke put more money than anyone in our history ever dreamed of related to our club. It's not "his" money?
if I had to choose I would obviously go for the one who looks most likely to put some money into the club
Just like that? no qualifications? You'd use drug/slavery/dictatorship/choose-your-horror money if it was on offer just to keep up with the Sheikhs? I doubt that. It's just easy to ignore in this hazy doubt concerning the frog, coupled with the above mentioned starry eyes.
The self sustaining model... on field success generated by higher initial spending would certainly increase the ability of the club to generate more funds allowing the self sustaining model to operate at a higher base like MU would if they were debt free.
That is a more serious claim. I must say I don't really disagree with it - I wish we'd up the stakes, preserving the sustainability model, as you say. And I think you are right to point at the big, ambitious club as examples (though clearly they were operating way, way, way beyond anything that could be "sustainable" - look at the debts). What I don't get, regarding this one serious point, is why you think this is more like the Uzzi way than Stan? if anything, looking at the "sustainable" condition from the outset, it would probably suggest one more focused on the balanced, long-run management is more likely to consider a choice between 2 sustainable routes (our current "low-key" or "up the stakes", as in your offer). I don't think you'd suggest Stan doesn't actually have the initial money for the "up the stakes" option? that would be ridiculous.
In a way, this season may actually push Stan to that 2nd avenue. He'd otherwise risk a rapid depreciation of his biggest asset. He can't afford it, he knows that just as the other person would.

1)The rights issue was a real proposal which was rejected by the board (FACT). If it was fake the board could have called Usmanov's bluff and outed him to the rest of the world (FACT). The board refused the offer becuase nobody on the board was willing to spend their own cash to acquire new shares which would result in a cash inflow into the club(FACT). This is not speculation this was a real proposal which was rejected by the board.

2) Stan Kroenke spent money acquiring shares from other shareholders. Money was exchanged between shareholders. NOT A SINGLE CENT went to the club despite the millions of pounds changing hands. "His" money went to other shareholders but please elaborate on how this benefits us?

3) Why I think this is more obtainable under "Uzzi" is because "Uzzi" has spoken about the need for external cash injections into the club in order to clear debt and provide management with the funds necessary to compete at the highest level. Do you fully understand how much richer we would be if our owner would clear our debt and/or bear the cost of breaking/renegotiating our commercial deals?
 

yuvken

Established Member
:D credit to Dules - I picked it from him. I like it.

@ Mastadon: yeah, I understand. Money is very important. I've been saying some of you want to be city/chelsea. I've always been, and liked being, Arsenal.
 

DJ_Markstar

Based and Artetapilled

Player:Martinelli
Uzzi :lol: :lol:

Doesn't really work for the Yank. You just end up saying his name and pronouncing the 'e' a bit more :(
 

Rain Dance

Established Member
Trusted ⭐
yuvken said:
Rain Dance said:
In my country there is a phrase which literally mean “you can’t love someone if you don’t know him”
I’d prefer an open debate between Usmanov and Stan side…
What don't you know? that he's of a questionable background, to be delicate in phrase? you need to know the man personally? :lol:
Don't know why people try to block this truth even from themselves: there's nothing with "preferring" the frog but being blinded by the possibility of showering in money - dirty, clean, whatever form. As long as we keep on indulging ourselves in "being among the greatest".
Well, to me there's nothing great about that. And I don't believe in turning against everything I went with just because I'm in a corner. F**** Usmanov. I hope that's clear. And I don't know him personally :) .

Well, Yuvken, you are mistaking my point in wanting open debate, first of all note that I don’t support each candidate (I don’t know any of them so I find either is as bad as the other)

At the current climate, the current move by each candidate is :

Usmanov tries to rally up the masses behind him by playing the victim card. To put it simply his current card is “ I have money but they (Stan & the board) won’t let me invest, Help me force them to sell their shares, lowly citizens of Goonerland” and “maybe I’ll splash some money”

The board play the clean and goody by stating again and again “we don’t need any money from Usmanov, we are already in a good position” as PHW has rehearse again and again.

By putting them into 1 open debate, we can pit them against each other and with the right questions from the crowd we may:
1. Re-question Usmanov true motive (money) and investment strategy.
2. Forces the board and Stan to have a look at what the supporters’ want cause any wrong statement from them (any smoke & mirror), Usmanov across the table can push his agenda
3. We have a meeting where the participants actually care about it. Stan saying “I am asked to say a few words, I am not quite sure why” angers me. It’s like saying “I don’t know what’s wrong anyway, why am I here?”
 

yuvken

Established Member
RD - I can see some benefits of real fans getting their word to the board (even - strong words). Don't see why we'd want Uzzy to be there as "our man".
Another thing is that such description of public affairs is naive, at least to an extent. It's not even clear we'd have an interest "all is open". In some cases we clearly don't.
Anyway - I see better what your angle was.
 

alboots101

Established Member
I see your boy is getting bigger Yuv.

I dont give a monkeys f*ck who owns us but whoever it is I`d like to see us compete in the transfer market for the bigger names...show some intent Arsenal.
 

Mastadon

Established Member
There is a huge difference between us and pre sugar daddy Chelsea/City. Chelsea was almost broke before Roman came along and were unable to sign a single player except on loan in their final pre Abramovich season. City were going nowhere before the Arabs took over, pure mid table team which struggled to break even.

We on the other hand are one of the most profitable clubs in the world with the best stadium in the country. We have a cash reserve of 160+m and a superb young squad. What is holding us back is our commercial revenues and stadium debt repayment. Its no exaggeration to say we could afford an extra 50m in wages to match Chelsea if we didnt have our stadium debt repayments and could generate higher commercial revenue.

Eventually our commercial deals will be renegotiated and our stadium debt fully repaid, after which we will be highly competitive. What I want is for our new owner to accelerate this process by forking out his own money to settle the debt and break/renegotiate our commercial deals which would allow us to compete now rather than later. Kroenke will not be doing this while Usmanov has said before that it is his intention to do so.

Comparisons with City/Chelsea are ignorant of the situation they were in prior to their respective takeovers and our own current situation. We will never be City/Chelsea because there is no need for us to be entirely dependent on the goodwill of some rich owner for our very survivial. Settling the stadium debt and renegotiating our commercial deals would mean a minimum 40-50m extra every year, which combined with our cash reserves would allow us to compete much better than we can today.

Please understand this before you accuse anyone of wanting to turn this club into a Chelsea/City.
 

yuvken

Established Member
@Mastadon: I take it this was aimed at me. I understand.
The argument "Uzzi would pay, get rid of debt and bring the good days right away; While with Stan we'll have to wait a few years" is still speculative (hard to believe we've been doing this so much): based on the promise of an interested party, which is not famed for integrity. You want to base it on that - cool, your choice.
A lesson in history regarding us and the two ex desperados seems to suggest that any will to be like them is suspect to begin with. And given the different possible outcomes the way you described it ("If Uzzy's for real, success will come sooner"), it still looks to me like people who want to go this way are like motivated: guh - big money! success now! and the hell with all the rest. That is: I take on board what you say, and it leads to the same conclusions, perhaps clearer. But hey - it could be just me. I care.

To me not all is reduced to the money available for producing success, even when/if I accept the close causal relation with success, and that success is the the superior value.

I feel I've been saying that in different versions for a while now, so I will not pursue this any longer (unless there is really something new on the agenda). Hope you excuse me for that.
 

qs

Established Member
Beksl said:
Kroenke is a smart man, because of our self sustainable model he knows he isn't obliged to invest heavily. He also knows there are vast amounts of space for improvement in the aspects of commercial revenue and sponsorship deals.
Not the footballing side but commercial is where he'll try to improve us and thus making this club more valuable. Higher the price per share the higher is his profit when he'll eventually sell the club. And make no mistake about that, he will sell.

If that is Kroenkes plan why doesn't he just sell all his shares to Usmanov for nearly 40% profit on his investment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom