Usmanov or "Silent" Stan?

RoadrunnerReloaded · May 23, 2017

GDeep™ said:
First all you can't force nothing on Wenger, he decides everything, says so himself, he would quit rather than have a player thrust upon him.

Second, makes no sense to give him a new deal and then ''force'' players on him, just don't give him a new deal.

Now
Kroenke: "Arsène would you like us to add Griezemann?"
Arsène: "Yes, BUT he costs too much money over my value calculation, his wages would be more than Sanogo which is not okay plus he would inhibit Asano's development so no I don't need him but thank you anyway".

An Alternate Reality Somewhere
Usmanov: "Arsène would you like to manage Griezemann?"
Wenger: " Yes Bu-----"
Usmanov: "THANK you for your opinion Arsène, we'll let you know when Greizemann is signed".

GDeep™ · May 23, 2017

Ok yeah. Dein used to say he'll push through a deal if Wenger liked a player. Maybe someone at Arsenal can do that now - "listen Arsène, doesn't matter you rate him at 35M and his club wants 50M, I'll sign him for you".

RoadrunnerReloaded · May 23, 2017

GDeep™ said:
Ok yeah. Dein used to say he'll push through a deal if Wenger liked a player. Maybe someone at Arsenal can do that now - "listen Arséne, doesn't matter you rate him at 35M and his club wants 50M, I'll sign him for you".

Exactly. Imo we need this type of structure sooner than later no matter happens with Wenger or even more importantly

Tosker · May 23, 2017

Alisher Usmanov not giving up on bid to become Arsenal's main shareholder
By Sky Sports News HQ
Last Updated: 23/05/17 4:59pm

Gooner Zig · May 23, 2017

Mrs Bergkamp said:
With Fiszman dead,it's hard to speak negatively about him but I think his stance was possibly wrong. Dein knew what building Emirates would do to our transfer capabilities and wanted a rich owner to make up the deficit. He backed Usmanov initially but met resistance all round. Dein was right. We sold our best players for seven years to balance the books and filled the squad with inferior players we over paid as we were too afraid to take a risk,couldn't afford a top player and weren't competitive on the field to entice with trophies instead of money. Project youth was abandoned as the money came in,but the abandonment of FFP meant our prudence was for nothing. And here we are today with a poor bloated squad,not enough money and a board full of people who don't love Arsenal.

Didn't Dein back Kroenke initially? This Guardian article thinks so

David Dein, the former vice-chairman whose football nous is still commonly said to be missed in today’s corporate operation, began by selling his stake to Usmanov for £75m after he was marched out of the door, oddly, for encouraging Kroenke to buy into the club

Just on Danny Fiszman - He was a diamond trader...very clean business that :lol:

RoadrunnerReloaded · May 24, 2017

Gooner Zig said:
Didn't Dein back Kroenke initially? This Guardian article thinks so

Just on Danny Fiszman - He was a diamond trader...very clean business that

Dein backed Kroenke initially, realized he didn't fit the sugar daddy model then backed out support but the bitterness between him and Fiszman had peaked so the Fiszman faction backed the silent one. Wenger, for better or worse, did shield both factions of the board in a big way. Manager like Bielsa would have been speaking to the public about the whole thing. And promptly gotten fired but at least we would have known

RacingPhoton · May 24, 2017

KROENKE SUCKS said:
Wenger can't blame the owner for the same reason SAF didn't blame the Glazers during the early years of the takeover when it had financially affected ManUtd; you don't diss your boss in public and keep your job.

Why not? I thought Wenger had so many offers from big clubs which he "sacrificed" for Arsenal. If he really cared about the club, he should have made fans aware of what is the situation within the club. He didn't. Because he believes in Kroenke.

Mrs Bergkamp · May 24, 2017

Gooner Zig said:
Didn't Dein back Kroenke initially? This Guardian article thinks so

Just on Danny Fiszman - He was a diamond trader...very clean business that

I can't remember who Dein backed first. You might be right. I think PHW said we "don't want his sort" at the club so maybe he switched to Usmanov then. I still can't get my head round how he alienated both our main shareholders.

KROENKE SUCKS · May 24, 2017

RacingPhoton said:
Why not? I thought Wenger had so many offers from big clubs which he "sacrificed" for Arsenal. If he really cared about the club, he should have made fans aware of what is the situation within the club. He didn't. Because he believes in Kroenke.

He wants to be Arsenal manager. His blood sweat and tears have gone into this club and he is emotionally attached. It would kill him I think to see someone else in the hot seat of this club while he is still actively managing. Cant be going around spilling boardroom secrets if you intend on keeping your job.

Penn_ · May 24, 2017

RacingPhoton said:
Why not? I thought Wenger had so many offers from big clubs which he "sacrificed" for Arsenal. If he really cared about the club, he should have made fans aware of what is the situation within the club. He didn't. Because he believes in Kroenke.

And if the next manager couldn't have maintained top four on a shoe string budget with our best players being sold?

Rimaal · May 24, 2017

Call him what you want at Arsenal – investor, owner, leech – Stan Kroenke is staying put

The majority owner of Arsenal defined himself as an ‘investor’ after rejecting Alisher Usmanov’s offer. It exposes his motivation for an inert, absentee regime

His response was not the reaction of a man with Arsenal or even football in his veins, but a brief, two-sentence statement to the stock exchange.

Click to expand...

Arsenal supporters who look over the Atlantic at their owners’ franchises will not see much inspiration on the field, with middling or struggling performances in the most recent seasons for the LA Rams in the NFL, Colorado Rapids in the MLS, Colorado Avalanche in the NHL and Denver Nuggets in the NBA.

English football for a century featured mostly the rough compromise by which rich men did own shares and put some money in if needed, did not take money out and presented themselves as “custodians” of institutions we still call clubs even now. Arsenal were the acme of this culture, unusually upper class, with generations of shareholders never making a penny for themselves through long and successful tenures. It can be forgotten that the toxic stand-off now between Kroenke’s inert, absentee regime and Usmanov – presenting himself as a fan in the corporate box who would spend big money on players and win things – came about because the inheritors of the old Arsenal tradition cashed in.

Click to expand...

David Dein, the former vice-chairman whose football nous is still commonly said to be missed in today’s corporate operation, began by selling his stake to Usmanov for £75m after he was marched out of the door, oddly, for encouraging Kroenke to buy into the club. The sitting Arsenal shareholders, led by the late Danny Fiszman, took against Usmanov amid unease about his backstory and decided a sale to Kroenke, an American corporate sports franchise owner who married into the Walmart family, was preferable

Click to expand...

Kroenke paid the unholy fortune to them in April 2011, £11,750 per Arsenal share. Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith, who inherited her stake from her great grandfather-in-law, Sir Bracewell Smith, made £116m. Fiszman, who was terminally ill by then, made £159.5m from two sales to Kroenke. Peter Hill-Wood, the then chairman, took home £4.7m.

Click to expand...

Arsenal shares were trading at £18,000 on Monday, despite the beleaguered Arsène Wenger falling short of Champions League qualification and the tortured air about the club. That is a £6,250 increase for Kroenke on each share in six years, a very good return for an investor, if not for supporters burning with desire to reclaim the Premier League title last won by Wenger 13 years ago.

People wondering why Kroenke should turn down the fine profit represented by Usmanov’s offer, a £565m gain on the £435m his 67% is calculated to have cost him in total, are missing what Kroenke sees. Even without the Champions League riches, football’s TV billions, which attracted the US investors to buy Premier League clubs, are on an upward trajectory. This is only the first year of the Premier League’s own £8.4bn TV deals from 2016-19. Uefa starts its next Champions and Europa League cycle from 2018-21 projecting similar uplifts.

Interest in and appetite for the Premier League is still growing around the world and the always elusive moment of breaking America is edging closer. Kroenke, across an ocean in a different time zone and happy to describe himself as an investor, is a long way away from selling yet.

Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-kroenke-owner-investor-leech-alisher-usmanov

KROENKE SUCKS · May 24, 2017

Theres nothing inert or absentee about his regime. His son is one the board to make sure everything is going according to plan. He just likes being in the shadows so that he doesn't get stick from the fans for our lack of ambition. He doesn't want the negative publicity.

samshere · May 24, 2017

We have to hire the inception team to plant the seed of doubt in Kroenke's mind. Only way we get rid of him imo.

BobP · May 24, 2017

samshere said:
We have to hire the inception team to plant the seed of doubt in Kroenke's mind. Only way we get rid of him imo.

That was literally on TV out where I live.

So many similarities.

All we need is for Kroenke to get old and be on the verge of death and then we can get started on his son by encouraging him to not follow in the footsteps of his father.

BobP · May 24, 2017

Rimaal said:
Call him what you want at Arsenal – investor, owner, leech – Stan Kroenke is staying put

The majority owner of Arsenal defined himself as an ‘investor’ after rejecting Alisher Usmanov’s offer. It exposes his motivation for an inert, absentee regime

View attachment 1894

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-kroenke-owner-investor-leech-alisher-usmanov

Why did the former board members sell their shares in the first place?

Makes no sense.

I suppose if an investor was actually willing to invest, it makes sense, but Kroenke has done nothing of the sort.

KROENKE SUCKS · May 24, 2017

They sold their shares for profit mate. Fiszman and Nina made 100+M each.

EDIT: its a passive investment for him. Buy and hold, over a period of 20 years because of ballooning tv rights, inflation, etc the value of his investment will rise without ever putting a penny in or effort in beyond the initial purchase.

say yes · May 24, 2017

samshere said:
We have to hire the inception team to plant the seed of doubt in Kroenke's mind. Only way we get rid of him imo.

Inception team didn't do anything, it was all a dream.

burnsjed · May 24, 2017

Mrs Bergkamp said:
I can't remember who Dein backed first. You might be right. I think PHW said we "don't want his sort" at the club so maybe he switched to Usmanov then. I still can't get my head round how he alienated both our main shareholders.

The way I remember it is that Dein supported Kronke's takeover bid and helped broker the transfer of shares.
After Kronke took over Dein found himself frozen out and without a position on the board.
He then partnered with Usmanov (was the company called Red and White or something) making enemies within Arsenal along the way.

KROENKE SUCKS · May 24, 2017

burnsjed said:
The way I remember it is that Dein supported Kronke's takeover bid and helped broker the transfer of shares.
After Kronke took over Dein found himself frozen out and without a position on the board.
He then partnered with Usmanov (was the company called Red and White or something) making enemies within Arsenal along the way.

Dein facilitated Kroenke's purchase of someone else stake in the club, giving him an in. The board wanted a slow eventual takeover with Kroenke taking over years down the line. They also wanted to sell their shares to him in one go meaning none of them would get screwed over. Dein was impatient and wanted a quick takeover which would have seen Kroenke overpaying some members in order to build his stake up and then forcing the rest to sell to him at a lower rate, once he has effective control over the club. Dein approached Nina to sell to Kroenke on the sly in effect t giving him and Kroenke control over the club.

Nina turned him down and informed Fiszman. Fiszman was majority shareholder at the time and got the rest of the board to sign an agreement that they wouldn't sell their shares for x number of years. With the idea that when they sold they would all do it together, making sure none of them would be left in the lurch as it were.

They then confronted Dein and without any warning produced the agreement before him and demanded he sign it. Dein refused and was sacked on the spot.

Once it became clear that Dein was frozen out, and of no more use to Kroenke, the board approached Kroenke and got him to agree to their plan of a sale at their time and on their terms. Dein with his job and ally gone, and perhaps sensing that football had gotten too rich for even Kroenke decided to sell out to Usmanov.

RoadrunnerReloaded · May 24, 2017

Rimaal said:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-kroenke-owner-investor-leech-alisher-usmanov

Even just how much Kroenke calls himself an "investor" winds me up. He should be a Custodian not an investor

Usmanov or "Silent" Stan?

Are you for or against a potential takeover?

For

Against

Active Member

League is very weak

Active Member

Does Not Hate Foreigners

AM's Resident Accountant

Active Member

Established Member

Double Dusted

Active Member

Established Member

Mesmerised By Raccoons

Active Member

Why so serieuse?

Memri Fan

Memri Fan

Active Member

forum master baiter

Established Member

Active Member

Active Member

Log in

Arsenal Quotes

Latest posts