The Kroenke Problem

Arsenal news and interviews
Discuss anything Arsenal related, players, tactics etc.

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby jayramfootball » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:44 am

Luzh 22 wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
Luzh 22 wrote:I don't understand why somebody has to 100% out right own something to invest money in something. That doesn't make sense to me.


Why don't those crazy people called (funnily enough) investors realise this? EK should school them.

Have you heard of Return on Investment ? According to Wiki, " is a ratio between the net profit and cost of investment resulting from an investment of some resources."

If you don't know what it means, its indicates how much money you make on how much you invested. Tell me, if you invest £100m over 5 years to make £10m, is that a good investment ? Bearing in mind you are NEVER guaranteed to make a profit on any investment. What about investing £100m to make £15m over 12 years ? There are numerous reasons some investments are not attractive to investors, risk is too high, the ROI is too low, the period of the return is too long.

Now, hopefully, you understand why some people don't make investments. If you are going to invest and you want maximum returns owning the majority of shares might make the ROI a more attractive proposition. I know you are clever enough to know all of this, so I don't understand why you are asking the question why someone might want to have a healthy majority before they invest.


Do you understand the difference between a passive and aggressive investor? Do you understand how having a passive investor as an owner is bad news for fans of a football club? Do you understand investment strategy during a boom in a specific sector? Do you understand anything at all?


No you f***ing don't. You're a simpleton. Now get out.


Do you even understand a single snippet of Stan Kroenke's investment strategy?
No, you f***ing don't.
So, quit with the utter BS.

The thread about 'The Kroenke Problem' so far has not discussed any problems, only whining about why Kroenke won't spend more money over and above the massive investment of his money he has already made or why he won't inject cash into a club that is already swimming in cash.

What is clear is that there are a group of fans who want instant success and are willing to completely throw away the traditions of the club to get it and will blame everything on money if they don't get what they want. Thus they target Kroenke. Same fans who were protecting Wenger with everything they had as late as 2014 and some even after that.
I thought we got our Arsenal back - but we got Emery
User avatar
jayramfootball
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm
Location: Midlands UK

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby theHotHead » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:06 am

Zedie wrote:
Its sad that its come to this to be honest.

As for Hothead, man has been patting himself on the back for f***ing days thinking he had any sort of point on the amount Kronke/Arsenal could put in per year. So for a few points for him and his superior intellect to explain:

Article 61 - Notion of Acceptable Deviation

3 - For licensees assessed on the current monitoring period, contributions from equity participants and/or related parties (as specified in Annex X E) are taken into consideration when determining the acceptable deviation if they have occurred and been recognised: a) in the audited financial statements for one of the reporting periods T, T-1 or T2; and/or b) in the accounting records up until the deadline for submission of the breakeven information for the reporting period T.


Article 61 - Notion of Acceptable Deviation

4 - If contributions occurring until the deadline for submission of the break-even information for the reporting period T are recognised in a club’s reporting period T+1 and have been taken into consideration to determine the acceptable deviation in respect of the current monitoring period, then for later monitoring periods the contributions will be considered as having been recognised in reporting period T.


As an example, the projected monitoring period assessed in the licence season 2018/19 covers the reporting periods ending in 2019 (reporting period T+1), 2018 (reporting period T) and 2017 (reporting period T-1).


If you use the time periods as described below, an equity partner etc. is able to invest 30m private funds in year 1 (T-1), cover those funds via income like player sales, wage cuts, sponsorship, prize funds etc. as long as you can cover the outlay ie make 30m by the end of that period. You can repeat for year 2 and year 3 if following that pattern.


In order for Hotheads philosophy of 30m in 3 years to work, it would mean Arsenal don't make any player sales, don't lower wages through sales/loans/releases, don't add sponsors like Addidas or Visit Rwanda in that 3 year period. Zedie destroyed apparently smh.

Finally

Article 57 - Scope of Application and exemption

5 - Under certain circumstances, as further illustrated in Appendix XII, a licensee can apply to enter into a voluntary agreement with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body for the fulfilment of the break-even requirement.


A voluntary agreement allows a club to reach an additional expenditure plan agreement with UEFA. This is something Kronke has never requested.

Ive made this point previously, but it remains as one of the great unanswered questions from the Finance Four of GW.

Hothead is genuinely convinced these players can be coached out of their weaknesses rather than admit we need money to replace these types. What do you see when you watch those players get skinned, turned, out jumped, out muscled, out run by the likes of Brighton?

Youre in this thread claiming we dont need to spend and the financial crisis thread wringing your hands and you want to talk about reading comprehension lol. Id love to hear some training regimes from you and Hothead that can explain to everyone how these players can be coached to match the rest of the top 6's options.

Zedie, a lot of bluster in your post, time for me to take you to school - AGAIN !

First things first - You claimed my BBC article link was from 2014, I suspected it wasn't because when BBC Sport write articles they tend to - but not always - omit the year if the article was written in the present year. They always display the year if the article is from a previous calendar year. Go and look at the article now, it is showing March 2019. So I did not get the date wrong at all. And in any case and like I stated, the date is irrelevant, the content of the article is what matters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29361839

Secondly, you have misinterpreted the UEFA FFP regulations AGAIN and based your 10,000 thesis on the WRONG FACTS :rofll:

https://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html

This explanation of UEFA's FFP rules comes DIRECTLY from UEFA:
3) Are clubs no longer allowed to have losses?

To be exact, clubs can spend up to €5million more than they earn per assessment period (three years). However it can exceed this level to a certain limit, if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party. This prevents the build-up of unsustainable debt.

The limits are:
• €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15
• €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18

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.


So, to recap, an assessment period is three years, not one. An owner can put in a direct contribution of up to €30m for that assessment period.

Without putting any money into the club and taking into account wage increases (because in reality wages go up - they DON'T go down), sponsorship deals and player sales/trading, Arsenal Football Club PLC's (not Arsenal Holdings Ltd) profits post tax as filed at Companies House for the past few years have been:

Arsenal ---- (Liverpool comparison - Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited, Companies House accounts)
2018 - £83.8m ( £106m)
2017 - £58.9m ( £38.9m)
2016 - £24.4m ( -£21.4m (yes, a loss))
2015 - £52.8m ( £58.7m)
2014 - £48.3m ( £413k (yes - £413,000))
2013 - £13.2m ( -£50m)
2012 - £59.5m ( -£45m)

Now, according to Zedie, Kroenke should be putting in €30m because the figure can be covered by player sales, a drop in wages and sponsorship deals THE NEXT YEAR. Look at Liverpool's accounts, in 7 years they had 3 loss making years. Bear in mind, the accounts for both clubs already include sponsorship and player sales. If Kroenke put in €30m per season where is this additional €30m going to come from, to cover his input ? As you can see by Liverpool's performance, their figures are wildly up and down. You can see why they have been investigated by UEFA.

According to Swiss Ramble in the last 10 years Liverpool have had £257m of owner cash input AND £48m of external loans. They have been extremely lucky to be able to have had Sterling, Coutinho and Suarez to sell to help balance the books - otherwise they would not have been able to spend anywhere near what they have.

Next lets talk about dropping wages. In the real world that doesn't happen, wages go up. Fine, we get £18m back per year by getting Ozil off the books, but he needs to be replaced. Any decent creative midfielder will cost us £100-150k per week. That £5.2m-£7.8m per season. a top level player will cost minimum £200k pw (£10.4m) If we want decent players we have to pay the wages, in reality our wage bill won't drop much after Ozil leaves the club because players are on the going rate. So cutting the wage bill is like meh to offsetting the €30m per season investment being asked for. You claim wage drop through sales/loans etc, are we not going to replace those players then ??? Will we trim our squad to 18 players ? Good plan Batman.
Last edited by theHotHead on Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
theHotHead
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6429
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby theHotHead » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:15 am

Zedie wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
Emeryates wrote:You don't invest in a football club to make a return, unless you have zero real intention of achieving success. They're probably the worst ROI companies possible

Loooool!! Really, don't you?

So all football club owners bought the clubs to be play things??

Kroenke bought Arsenal for the sole reason of making money. Why else would a man who has no interest in football and no interest in Arsenal spend as much as he has - on Arsenal!!!

All of the geniuses are out in force on this thread.


When Abramovich finally does sell chelsea, he will have made many times over his stake in the club because what he paid for back then plus transfers are insignificant compared to the price he will command now.


More drivel from Zedie.

Abramovich has put in approx £1.17bn into Chelsea.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abramovich-would-want-1-17bn-back-if-he-sells-chelsea-tf0qfgnpw

Forbes recently valued Chelsea at £1.2bn.
https://www.cityam.com/most-valuable-football-teams-arsenal-chelsea-and-three-other-premier-league-teams-worth-over-1bn-according-to-new-ranking/

The article puts Arsenal's value at £1.4bn.

So, if Abramovich is owed £1.17bn and the club is valued at £1.2bn, tell me please Zedie, with your financial acumen and know-it-all, how that equates to Abramovich making many times over his stake. :rofll:
User avatar
theHotHead
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6429
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Luzh 22 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:08 pm

jayramfootball wrote:
Luzh 22 wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
Luzh 22 wrote:I don't understand why somebody has to 100% out right own something to invest money in something. That doesn't make sense to me.


Why don't those crazy people called (funnily enough) investors realise this? EK should school them.

Have you heard of Return on Investment ? According to Wiki, " is a ratio between the net profit and cost of investment resulting from an investment of some resources."

If you don't know what it means, its indicates how much money you make on how much you invested. Tell me, if you invest £100m over 5 years to make £10m, is that a good investment ? Bearing in mind you are NEVER guaranteed to make a profit on any investment. What about investing £100m to make £15m over 12 years ? There are numerous reasons some investments are not attractive to investors, risk is too high, the ROI is too low, the period of the return is too long.

Now, hopefully, you understand why some people don't make investments. If you are going to invest and you want maximum returns owning the majority of shares might make the ROI a more attractive proposition. I know you are clever enough to know all of this, so I don't understand why you are asking the question why someone might want to have a healthy majority before they invest.


Do you understand the difference between a passive and aggressive investor? Do you understand how having a passive investor as an owner is bad news for fans of a football club? Do you understand investment strategy during a boom in a specific sector? Do you understand anything at all?


No you f***ing don't. You're a simpleton. Now get out.


Do you even understand a single snippet of Stan Kroenke's investment strategy?
No, you f***ing don't.
So, quit with the utter BS.

The thread about 'The Kroenke Problem' so far has not discussed any problems, only whining about why Kroenke won't spend more money over and above the massive investment of his money he has already made or why he won't inject cash into a club that is already swimming in cash.

What is clear is that there are a group of fans who want instant success and are willing to completely throw away the traditions of the club to get it and will blame everything on money if they don't get what they want. Thus they target Kroenke. Same fans who were protecting Wenger with everything they had as late as 2014 and some even after that.


passive investor
aggressive investor


Okay smart ass, you tell me which category of investor SK fits into. All the evidence is there to make an informed decision. If you, Hothead, EK or that other dude, as fans of a football club, can't see how having a passive investor as the sole decision maker on finances available to the team is a problem, nobody can help any of you.


I'm not asking for hundreds of millions of pounds of investments. I want all the funds available to the club, generated by the club, in the clubs bank accounts, made available to the club to strengthen the club.


Last time the accounts were made available, the club had £200-£300m in the bank. The club has just offloaded another 3 first players off its wage bill. The club has just received its payments from Sky, BT, The Premier league, UEFA and all its sponsorship cash new and old.


£45 million is not it.


There.
"O Striker, Striker, why are you Striker?" - Arsene Nose 12/07/16
User avatar
Luzh 22
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2907
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby swipe right » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:59 pm

Why the fck are we discussing investing on this forum? This is a football forum. You want to follow a business go join the Amazon fan club.
Taxi for Unai
swipe right
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:05 am

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Luzh 22 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:21 pm

swipe right wrote:Why the fck are we discussing investing on this forum? This is a football forum. You want to follow a business go join the Amazon fan club.


Arsenal is and has been more of a business than a football club for a long time. We're discussing it, because we're trying to understand the motivations of the man who owns the club, therefore understanding the core of the problems Arsenal are facing now, and more significantly the future.


If you don't want to be a part of the conversation, or you can't follow it, then fine, nobody is forcing you to read, just like I told you when you were Arsene Nose.
"O Striker, Striker, why are you Striker?" - Arsene Nose 12/07/16
User avatar
Luzh 22
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2907
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby swipe right » Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:07 pm

Luzh 22 wrote:
swipe right wrote:Why the fck are we discussing investing on this forum? This is a football forum. You want to follow a business go join the Amazon fan club.


Arsenal is and has been more of a business than a football club for a long time. We're discussing it, because we're trying to understand the motivations of the man who owns the club, therefore understanding the core of the problems Arsenal are facing now, and more significantly the future.


If you don't want to be a part of the conversation, or you can't follow it, then fine, nobody is forcing you to read, just like I told you when you were Arsene Nose.

Lol...we’ve known what his motivations are for close to a decade. What rock have you been hiding under?
Taxi for Unai
swipe right
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:05 am

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Luzh 22 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:25 pm

swipe right wrote:
Luzh 22 wrote:
swipe right wrote:Why the fck are we discussing investing on this forum? This is a football forum. You want to follow a business go join the Amazon fan club.


Arsenal is and has been more of a business than a football club for a long time. We're discussing it, because we're trying to understand the motivations of the man who owns the club, therefore understanding the core of the problems Arsenal are facing now, and more significantly the future.


If you don't want to be a part of the conversation, or you can't follow it, then fine, nobody is forcing you to read, just like I told you when you were Arsene Nose.

Lol...we’ve known what his motivations are for close to a decade. What rock have you been hiding under?



Just completely forget about the 2nd part of the sentence, then suddenly your little snippet sounds really funny and clever. :think:
"O Striker, Striker, why are you Striker?" - Arsene Nose 12/07/16
User avatar
Luzh 22
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2907
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Tubbs » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:53 pm

Kroenke is far too busy mowing his 520,000 acre plot than to bother himself with any our issues he simply doesn’t give a toss about the fans or the clubs success just the revenue it brings in.
Tubbs
Charlie George
Charlie George
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:26 am

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby LMAO » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:00 pm

EliteKiller wrote:
LMAO wrote:"why didn't a billionaire give away his money to us?"

jesus fvcking christ

Learn. How. To. Fvcking. Read.

interest-free loan

interest-free loan

interest-free loan.


Please, please, please, Let me give you an interest-free loan so that you can spend that money making the company I want to takeover 100's of millions more valuable ... really that's your argument?

Gotta do it because LMAO the resident financial genius, who knows far more than any billionaire investor, he says it makes good sense .... but does it?

Dumb ... Dumb ... Dumb or just Dumb

Hey fuckadoodle - you know this is utter shit don't you? you are just being silly .... you can't possibly be being serious can you .....

Who is saying this other than you? I've argued the exact opposite. Once more for you in back:
Without Usmanov: 100% * $2.300B = $2.300B - $712MM - (x: whatever Kroenke spent in 2007 & 2009) = $1.588B - x profit for Kroenke
With Usmanov: 67% * $3.000B = $2.010B - (x: whatever Kroenke spent in 2007 & 2009) = $2.010B - x profit for Kroenke


What you are attempting to portray is all pure fantasy. With the new TV deal every EPL club has seen a 20%-65% increase in their value over the last 7 years, yet you seem to claiming that any increase at Arsenal would only have come about thanks to Usmanov's investment - now even if that wasn't about as dumb a financial prediction as I can imagine ... the fact is we don't have to guess, we already know exactly what happened over the last 7 years ... it's all cold hard facts

Usmanov invested nothing - yet Arsenal's value still went up by 700m - did you miss the real world bit? .... all off that increased value is now going 100% to Kroenke, why? Because he paid 550m for the remaining shares ... in total 1.1 billion for a 2.3 billion company ... and guess what he's got no imaginary multi-million interest free loan to repay either.

You're trying to claim that if he left 33% with other shareholders he'd somehow be better off - are you fuckin' insane?

Can I buy 33% of your house at 2011 price, I'll lend you a few quid and then when the market goes up by 40% you can pay back my loan but I'll still keep 33% of your house .... honest guv you know you're onto a winner with that deal .... :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:


Kroenke couldn't do a complete takeover if Usmanov wasn't willing to sell, and vice versa. Like the prisoner's dilemma, it was in both of their best interests to work together, but Kroenke wanted to play a zero-sum game.

As for the second part, what are you talking about? When have I stated that Arsenal's value hasn't increased without Usmanov? I've repeatedly said Arsenal's value would be greater than it currently is if Usmanov was allowed to invest.

An example: A guy and his girlfriend go apple picking in preparation to bake multiple apple pies. The baskets are the same size. Since the guy is stronger, he can fill his 2/3 and the girl can only do 1/3. Between them, they bring back an entire basket. Now, if the guy had gone alone, he'd only have been able to bring back 2/3 of a basket, and the couple could only make 2/3 of the pies than if they had worked together. In both cases, apple pies are being made, but in one case, more will be made. The boyfriend gets more pies if he works together with his girlfriend than if he works alone.

I genuinely can't understand why you're being tripped up by such a simple concept, but whatever, not my problem.

"You're trying to claim that if he left 33% with other shareholders he'd somehow be better off"
Uhh...no shit. In your world, I guess $1.59B is worth more than $2.01B. Hard as I've tried, I can't fix that level of delusion.

I'd genuinely put a brick wall above you in ability to comprehend. But I guess it's dummy me for trying to play chess with a pigeon. Enjoy your 'victory' :rolleyes:
User avatar
LMAO
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 7089
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby jayramfootball » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:05 pm

Luzh 22 wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
Luzh 22 wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
Luzh 22 wrote:I don't understand why somebody has to 100% out right own something to invest money in something. That doesn't make sense to me.


Why don't those crazy people called (funnily enough) investors realise this? EK should school them.

Have you heard of Return on Investment ? According to Wiki, " is a ratio between the net profit and cost of investment resulting from an investment of some resources."

If you don't know what it means, its indicates how much money you make on how much you invested. Tell me, if you invest £100m over 5 years to make £10m, is that a good investment ? Bearing in mind you are NEVER guaranteed to make a profit on any investment. What about investing £100m to make £15m over 12 years ? There are numerous reasons some investments are not attractive to investors, risk is too high, the ROI is too low, the period of the return is too long.

Now, hopefully, you understand why some people don't make investments. If you are going to invest and you want maximum returns owning the majority of shares might make the ROI a more attractive proposition. I know you are clever enough to know all of this, so I don't understand why you are asking the question why someone might want to have a healthy majority before they invest.


Do you understand the difference between a passive and aggressive investor? Do you understand how having a passive investor as an owner is bad news for fans of a football club? Do you understand investment strategy during a boom in a specific sector? Do you understand anything at all?


No you f***ing don't. You're a simpleton. Now get out.


Do you even understand a single snippet of Stan Kroenke's investment strategy?
No, you f***ing don't.
So, quit with the utter BS.

The thread about 'The Kroenke Problem' so far has not discussed any problems, only whining about why Kroenke won't spend more money over and above the massive investment of his money he has already made or why he won't inject cash into a club that is already swimming in cash.

What is clear is that there are a group of fans who want instant success and are willing to completely throw away the traditions of the club to get it and will blame everything on money if they don't get what they want. Thus they target Kroenke. Same fans who were protecting Wenger with everything they had as late as 2014 and some even after that.


passive investor
aggressive investor


Okay smart ass, you tell me which category of investor SK fits into. All the evidence is there to make an informed decision. If you, Hothead, EK or that other dude, as fans of a football club, can't see how having a passive investor as the sole decision maker on finances available to the team is a problem, nobody can help any of you.


I'm not asking for hundreds of millions of pounds of investments. I want all the funds available to the club, generated by the club, in the clubs bank accounts, made available to the club to strengthen the club.


Last time the accounts were made available, the club had £200-£300m in the bank. The club has just offloaded another 3 first players off its wage bill. The club has just received its payments from Sky, BT, The Premier league, UEFA and all its sponsorship cash new and old.


£45 million is not it.


There.


I have no idea what his strategy is, you'd have to ask him.

However, based on your limited option of passive vs agressive, Kroenke is clearly a fairly aggressive investor. He's funded the purchase of about 20 players per year on average for the last 10 years : 211 players. Some youth, some first team. The womens team has been developed (smart on his part) to the extent it is now one of the best in the world. The training grounds, medical facilities and investment from a fairly young age is not lacking at all. It's a valid argument to say his investment strategy and the enormous amounts of his money he has made available to the club is not paying dividends, but that is a different argument.

Now, I do have sympathy with your argument that we could be spending more of our cash on hand - I've made that argument myself.
Again - different argument.
Bottom line is - and no one can change the reality of it - is that Kroenke has invested massive amounts of his money into the playing side of Arsenal and blaming him for that investment not working out is utter nonsense.

A clueless manager and coaching staff utterly wasted his investment.
I thought we got our Arsenal back - but we got Emery
User avatar
jayramfootball
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm
Location: Midlands UK

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Zedie » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:28 pm

I cant even be arsed to continue arguing with this level of ignorance.

Hothead posting broad strokes UEFA quotes vs my more detailed UEFA quotes and claiming victory, when if he read them and understood basic profit loss, would understand that private expenditure can be cancelled by incomings year on year within the 3year period.

EK inthe saliba thread pleading our poverty, while agreeing with jayram who is constantly pointing to our savings, which we dont use to get these 2 month negotiations over the line before spurs take saliba from us.

Hothead including the actual cost of buying chelsea/readying for the new stadium etc. in to Abramovich's total expenditure vs what we are actually talking about which is additional player funding.

You all defending kronke to the hilt while its painfully apparent that however you look at it, additional expenditure would allow us to actually close the deals we're struggling on now.

You guys are literally hand wringing about how bad things are that we cant get deals over the line and are promoting kids to the first team, while celebrating how much of an astute business man kronke is because he doesnt want trophies, he wants to strangle the club to create max profit for min outlay.

Jesus f***ing wept.
Image
User avatar
Zedie
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 33184
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:09 pm
Location: in the man cave

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby StLGooner » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:57 pm

Tubbs wrote:Kroenke is far too busy mowing his 520,000 acre plot than to bother himself with any our issues he simply doesn’t give a toss about the fans or the clubs success just the revenue it brings in.



I explained this like 27 pages ago, but they still don't listen. :dizzy:
Formerly ChVint22
User avatar
StLGooner
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 35110
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:07 pm
Location: St. Louis, Mo USA

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Power n Glory » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:59 pm

Zedie wrote:I cant even be arsed to continue arguing with this level of ignorance.


But here you are.

Can someone throw in the towel? Where's the forum feds when you need them to get some order around here?
User avatar
Power n Glory
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby weaponx57 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:32 pm

Everyone is talking about money and stuff but the fact is he’s a bad person nothing more nothing less. I mean person who likes putting up tv shows about hunting animals with all its blood and gore is a f***er.

He has questionable ethics and morals if he could move Arsenal to the USA you can bet your ass he would do it in a heartbeat
weaponx57
Charlie George
Charlie George
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:17 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arsenal Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], NovaGB and 8 guests