Arsenal banter 67062

 

Use our rumours form to send us arsenal transfer rumours.



Agree Disagree

04 Oct 2017 16:21:06
I've been trying to get my head round it myself RG. It has become obvious that Wenger over the past year has become very reactive to situation. Most of the names above have been to some extent questioned wether it's been performance related or actual ability that has been lacking and apparent to all but Wenger that don't meet the grade for what we want/ except at our club. It all seems very knee jerk and I think backfired somewhat. It's not as bad as the end of last season and the ship has been steadied to some degree. We all know with Arsenal that this could all change in a heartbeat. The Sanchez and ozil situation need to become clear or sorted by the beginning of January window.

04 Oct 2017 17:48:28
It's deifinitely not looking good but I honestly don't know how much of a say Wenger has in the business side of things. One day he has too much control, the next he's Kroenke's puppet - another reason this current Kroenke news is most unpleasant.

04 Oct 2017 18:07:31
Hi perfect goal, I fail to understand the criticism of Kroenke, as Wenger clearly runs the club according to his own ideology. Indeed Gazidis has on more than one occasion almost urged Wenger to spend, which indicates that he has discussed this with Kroenke. I have never heard that Kroenke won't back Wenger in terms of spending and us fans know that Wenger has a problem with current transfer fees. The sole criticisms that one could aim at Kroenke is that he isn't hands on and is a remote figure. Conversely these can also be positives as he doesn't interfere with the playing side of things and to the best my knowledge has always backed the manager. I am not at all sure that Usmanov would be any better and could prove worse, as his suggestion for raising funds to spend, was by the issue of an option offered to the fans, who would in effect, lend the club the money at no profit.

04 Oct 2017 19:26:01
Selling walcott and wilshere will be big mistake. Even as squad players or first teamers they will do a job and they want to play and stay at arsenal unlike sanchez and ozil.

04 Oct 2017 19:52:54
Hi RG61 mate, If you really believe that the 'sole criticism' of Kroenke is that he isn't hands on enough, you're either pulling my leg or you don't listen to what a lot of fellow gooners say (most of what we say is poppycock, granted) .

It's all conjecture but it does seem that the reason Wenger is the only PL manager without pressure is because, as you say, he is very frugal which fits nicely with the owner's ideology to treat the club as a business model.

I know it sounds stupid, but a lot of our problems coincided with the loss of David Dein and the empowerment of Kroenke. Even Wenger offered to leave in support of Dein and Henry has been quoted as saying Dein leaving was a major part of him moving to Barcelona.

Believe what you want but there are thousands of criticisms out there i'm not sure how you're familiar with only one.

04 Oct 2017 20:31:59
As long as wenger is our manager and his hands firmly on the purse strings, we are boosting our finances kronke will be happy. The minute we get a manager that has ambition and wants to take this club forward kronk will not be happy, he doesn't want trophies just wealth. The day they both go the better for this club. Wenger is doing a grand job in kronks eyes.

04 Oct 2017 20:36:49
Rg i'm astounded you can see no wrong in kronk, when his sporting empire are so successfull at being unsuccesfull in sporting success.

04 Oct 2017 21:19:53
If you fail to understand what's wrong with Kroenke you really have to be a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic to believe that guy at the helm is good for this club.

If you have zero interest in football and zero interest in winning then what do you offer the club.

If you see Leicester win the title above your own team but see no failings in the man at the helm of your club, what are you thinking.

If you further see Leicester win the title and believe that's now the model to follow in attempts to win a title having previously stated you really are not in it to win it because clubs like United, City and Chelsea will do that, then what good are you for this club.

If you are quoted as saying, "For me, being an individual owner, I have to have some sort of reality involved. If you want to win championships then you would never get involved. I think the best owners in sports are the guys that sort of watch both sides a bit. If you don't have a good business then you can't really afford to go out and get the best players unless you just want to rely on other sources of income. "

Then go on to basically say you'll wait until the oil rich get bored of spending their money and leave, then we may win, what good are you to Arsenal.

Ultimately under whatever terms, Kroenke continues to employ someone who is no closer to winning the league or champions league than he was eons ago then what are you thinking.

Ask yourself, would Mansour or Abramovich put up with years and years of what is in essence a massive failure to deliver in their driven attempts to win.

They give the man they employ a very clear picture of what they expect and they don't keep employing them if the fail to deliver.

We are a club happy with massive under achieving, to just bimble along doing enough to satisfy an owners monetary requirements which clearly do not include competing, let alone winning.

If you see that as sound ownership then don't expect any change when Wenger finally goes because it will mean naff all. The excuse he gives Wenger what he wants doesn't come close to cutting it I'm afraid. The blinkers must be huge.

04 Oct 2017 22:10:29
Could not agree more stoner.

04 Oct 2017 22:55:37
The thing is stoner if you don't have a batchelor degree at city university how on earth can you have a better opinion on kronke. On the plus side it was a well written reply and we could discuss further over a glass of milk 😘.

05 Oct 2017 05:26:51
As I stated the criticism that could be aimed at Kroenke is that he is a remote figure that appears to leave the running of the club to the experts that he employs. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. The club was superbly run in the past by Dein and Fiszman, how they would have faired in the modern era with the emergence of Man C and Chelsea in addition to Man U. TV revenue has increased to enable other clubs to compete, though clubs with virtually unlimited finances are almost impossible to match. 'Leicester' was a freak event, whilst the big boys were in transition and clearly not at their best, we managed to finish second, ahead of financially doped Man C, as well as Chelsea and Man U who had huge financial resources. Since Dein, Wenger has run the club in his own vision and therein possibly lies the problem or does it, as Wenger adopts a model that expects a club to be profitable, etc. Other than giving Wenger a free hand and being a hands off main shareholder, what has Kroenke actually done wrong? I have never heard of him interfering with team matters, nor refusing funds for player acquisition and he has taken minimal funds out of the club, unlike other owners such as the Glazers at United who mortgaged the club and took large sums out. In general we are a well run, financially sound club, who have won 3 trophies over the last 4 seasons and in Kroenke's time we have qualified for the CL in all but one season. Man C have owners with unlimited finances. Man U are one of the world's biggest clubs and have one of the football world's highest incomes. Chelsea were built by an owner who spent an absolute fortune on getting them where they and they still don't have a new, large capacity stadium in place. LIverpool and the Toot have won nothing in recent seasons, despite both having billionaire owners. The interesting thing will be to see how things change when Wenger eventually moves on. If we were to employ a manger such as Mourinho, would Kroenke back him financially. That is yet to be seen. By the way Sanago it was so much better to see a sensible comment to my post, then you reverted back to useless, inane and quite frankly embarrassing comments. The problem with ignorant fans is that they have absolutely no concept of how hard it is to run a top football club such as Arsenal. They wouldn't last 5 minutes in Wenger or Kroenke's shoes. These men are hugely successful individuals and they didn't achieve this by accident. You may criticise me, but I am a well educated, successful individual, who has an opinion which you may not agree with, but try to make sensible, thought out comments, opposed to personal attacks, which serve little purpose. This reminds me of minicab drivers that tell you how to run the world and then you realise that they are a minicab driver, not the PM.

{Ed001's Note - did Kroenke not instruct the club to run with a large cash reserve? As he used those cash reserves to take out an enormous loan to buy a ranch with a low rate of interest, he must have been able to prove that those cash reserves would not be tapped into in order to obtain the best rate.}

05 Oct 2017 05:53:44
Hi Ed, thank you for your comment. I will have to do some research on the matter, but I seem to recall that Kroenke's ranch purchase was in no way linked to his shareholding at the club. He does not own the club outright and hence would need the board and possibly other shareholder's consent to the arrangement you infer, which wouldn't have been agreed to. The only link that could be made would be using his shares as collateral for a loan. However, both Kroenke and his wife have enormous wealth and assets to back such a loan or to have paid outright for the ranch.

{Ed001's Note - it used his share in Arsenal as a collateral. Hardly relevant whether he owns the club outright as majority shareholder he can control the club's spending if he chooses and would have no need of shareholder's consent at all. All he needs to do is demonstrate the wealth of the club and his ability to control the spending or that there is some agreement in place within the club to keep a large cash reserve in place.

As for Kroenke and his wife's enormous wealth, it is irrelevant as it is paper wealth, they could not pay outright for it at all. I thought you said you worked in finance? If so you would know that it is utter bollox and that their wealth is shareholdings etc, which are, in large parts, leveraged to buy other shareholdings. Which is the same for most of the richest people in the world that have earnt through legitimate businesses.}

05 Oct 2017 06:45:50
Ed, I did a brief check and Kroenke purchased the ranch, a going business concern including oil wells and cattle, etc, for a reported £500m. Of course wealthy individuals often take out loans to make such purchases, but there are no details of how the deal was actually financed, which is normal in the circumstances and certainly nothing to link the method of payment to his holding in Arsenal. Much of the fuss about the purchase was caused by Piers Morgan who suggested the money would have been better spent on players for Arsenal. I believe Kroenke, a self made man is worth around £7 billion (I stand to be corrected) and his wife, a Walmart heiress, a further £6 billion. They are amongst the wealthiest individuals in the world, so self financing this purchase may well have been within their capabilities, especially as they own going concerns that bring in huge income. Indeed, the reason Kroenke purchases sports clubs and the ranch may be to utilise his huge wealth as leaving it in the bank could be risky in times of finanacial uncertainty and may have tax, future inheritance issues, etc. Indeed, it is emerging that Kroenke may be attempting to buy Usmanov's shareholding, so there is clearly no funding problems. To clarify, I have a degree in Economics and started my own very successful private property investment business at the age of 25, now at the age of 56, I have no debt and fund my own property investments. Hence, I have the credentials to understand individuals such as Kroenke and indeed I have had multi-millionaires and one billionaire as clients in the past, when I invested for clients as well as myself.

{Ed001's Note - if you say so, but the fuss was nothing to do with the moronic gob***** Morgan, who has no insight into what happened. It was actually a number of financiers and people involved in the deal that made it quite clear what had happened. If you were involved in finance, I would expect you to have knowledge of things such as Bloomberg and similar companies who all reported it at the time. You must be the only property investor I have ever met, including people like my father who retired early on the back of his time developing properties, that has funded their investments without debts such as mortgages.

For instance, my former landlord was a merchant banker (in both senses of the word, married to a member of the British royal family, who was a multi-billionaire, though never shows up in rich lists. He funds all his acquisitions through mortgages and loans, despite having untold amounts of money. He owns huge swathes of the Cotswolds, including almost every inch of farmland between Fairford and Cirencester. All of it is leveraged to buy more and more. No rich person wants cash in the bank, as it is not earning money while sat in the bank but it is potentially liable to taxation.}

05 Oct 2017 06:58:55
Thank you Sanogo, that would be fantastic, maybe we could pop and see a movie afterwards.

I've heard "Walter Mitty" is very good and of course under the circumstances I would suggest fairly current.

Please also note Sanogo that I used a smallish phone to write both my initial reply and this one, on both occasions it allowed me, with the simplest use of its key pad, to make use of paragraphs.

I lernded that at Univercity. 😁.

05 Oct 2017 07:03:08
If Kroenke buys all the shares then he can do as he wishes, but not when he purchased the ranch and was simply the largest shareholder. I checked and he is the 182nd wealthiest person in the world and with his wife's fortune he would be elevated into the top 100. These people tend to have more of a problem investing their fortunes and are not dependent upon loans. It is mere speculation that Kroenke took a loan and even more so that it in any way was secured by his shareholding at Arsenal. The ranch itself would be used as security for a loan, if one even exists.

{Ed001's Note - if you say so. Clearly you are out of your depth in this and believe paper wealth is cash.}

05 Oct 2017 08:13:25
Ed, thank you for allowing me my say. I do not believe for one moment that I am out of my depth in this matter, as I have experience of multi-million pound property investments made by wealthy individuals. Of course I don't consider the amount Kroenke is worth as cash, but of course his investments derive income, such as his wife's Walmart holding and his property investments in shopping malls etc. Billionaires as a general rule have more of a problem finding suitable, safe investments, as at a certain point the wealth is sefl perpetuating. The suggestion that Kroenke needed his shareholding in Arsenal to underwrite a loan to purchase the ranch is simply speculation and makes little sense, as the first charge lenders would place, would be on the property itself and the income derived from running this profitable ranch would also be taken into consideration. There is absolutely no way at the time that the cash reserves at Arsenal could have been used as collateral for the loan. The interesting thing is that Arsenal fans seem to prefer Usmanov, a 'dodgy' Russian businessman who served 6 years of an 8 year sentence for fraud and theft, opposed to self-made Kronke. Then again some Arsenal fans would prefer Dyche to Mourinho!

{Ed001's Note - makes little sense? If you say so. I can't be arsed with this argument at all. Your posts make no sense, you seem to forget Usmanov actually is cash rich and can spend money to a major degree, while Kroenke's money is tied up in investments. You keep going back to the Dyche thing, which you clearly failed to understand any of the arguments made, so it is pointless discussing it with you.}

05 Oct 2017 08:33:11
Ed, I believe my arguments are clear and concise. To suggest that Usmanov is cash rich and Kroenke isn't is mere speculation and Kroenke's investments derive income and the more he has the greater his income. I have a challenge, please advise me of a link that proves Kroenke took a loan against the funds held in Arsenal's reserves or even against his shareholding. On Bloomberg all I could find was one crackpot who linked the nonsense of Arsenal's cash reserves to the suggestion that Kroenke obtained a preferential low rate as a result, which is utter tosh. I fully agree I failed to understand the weak arguments favouring Dyche over Mourinho. It shows how fickle the fans are that they allow their own emotions to overrule having a winner as manager. Clearly, Mourinho got to them, the same as he got to Wenger, who even got so wound up, as to shove Mourinho. I would have Mourinho to tomorrow and see no advantage in having Usmanov over Kroenke. Again, other than allowing Wenger a free reign to run the club as he seems fit, what criticism can be aimed at him. The club is in great shape. Of course we all want more, but there is no easy answer.

{Ed001's Note - ok whatever, if you think Bloomberg employs crackpots then I am wasting my time. No more.}

05 Oct 2017 09:34:19
I still can't believe you don't get the dyche and mourinho debate from the other day. No one said dyche was more successful or better than mourinho in any way. It was a simple we don't want mourinho because 99.9% of Arsenal fans think his a nob. As for dyche people only suggested he wasn't as bad as you suggest nothing more nothing less. Your either tunnel vision or on a wind up.

05 Oct 2017 10:01:33
I admite your patience ed, I gave up after the second reply.

{Ed002's Note - I agree with you. I find it very strange that a number of clearly understood and significant matters were not simply explained to end this thread early on. I am also constantly stunned by the use of £ (GBP) in such threads which is laughable. Much of it is misinformation - and again a very good example as to why we should ignore money on these pages.}

05 Oct 2017 13:44:04
if people think we wouldn't be better with usmanov then I give up. would give us a new lease of life.

05 Oct 2017 13:47:12
So Rg you don't see anything wrong with kronks statements that went something like " i didn't buy a stake in arsenal to win trophies" and "we can't compete with other teams finacially"







 

 

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass