Let's try an analogy more at the level of this debate ....
Imagine Arsenal are a second hand car - an absolute classic but in need of renovation ....
The car has two owners who can't agree to work together ... for simplicity let's say they both own 50% (you can do the same math on 66/33)
Both want to buy each other out ... they have 3,000 in the joint bank account ...
The car is worth 18,000 ... repairs will cost 3,000 ... once the car is fixed it will be worth 27,000 ...
Both want either 10,000 for their shares now, or 15,000 for their shares after repairs are completed:
1) Do the owners pay for all the repairs emptying the bank before one makes his 15,000 purchase - total cost to him 15,000
2) Does one of the owners buy the other out for 10,000 and then complete the repairs using the 3,000 in the bank - total cost to him 10,000
Can you grasp that? it's a pretty bloody basic takeover scenario ... you want the cash in the bank not the fully finished product ... making what you buy better is how you make your investment pay off ... not fixing it first then making your investment
This clear as a bell is exactly what Kroenke has done, that's why he's made 900m profit on Arsenal and his critics have worn out their keyboards trying to make him look bad ... guess that's just the way it goes