The Kroenke Problem

[CrimsonGunner11]

WHEN DID KROENKE TAKE FULL CONTROL OF ARSENAL?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32556&start=165#p1725978

[DiamondGooner]

WHEN DID KROENKE TAKE FULL CONTROL OF ARSENAL?

We all know why you're refusing to answer, because admitting it's not ten years, not five years, but in fact just 12 months ago ... confirms all your arguments as the delusional rantings of a fixated bunny-boiler ....

Tbf to Zedie though Kroenke has been a majority shareholder for longer than a year and so influencing policy at this club for years.

As of when he was sole owner he still hasn't put any money in, which is usually the first thing new Billionaire owners do to pump up their teams chances of success and future signings.

In fact I think you'll find if you look at City and Chelsea that most of the cash injection was done in the first 2 seasons, after that high level player sales would bring in enough to buy big again.

The issue is Stan is intent on not putting anything in, even though he's allowed our board to let a host of players walk for free under his watch.

He could of at least helped patch up the Ramsey hole that was left, Welbeck etc.

[swipe right]

EliteKroenkeLover doing his best to deflect blame away for the owner.

[EliteKiller]

WHEN DID KROENKE TAKE FULL CONTROL OF ARSENAL?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32556&start=165#p1725978

Do you need an idiots guide as well? i can't fathom the sheer lack of basic business acumen on this site ... did anyone even go to school?

OK - Let's dumb it down to 10 year old level ... we'll use a simple analogy - a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification

Imagine you have bought a small share in a classic car - Kroenke 9.9% in 2007

The car is in decent condition and the owners enter into some annual races, you have a driver and a mechanic. You make enough money at the races to pay for the upkeep, it's fun so nobody minds that there's no profit for the owners.

Things go OK and you get the chance to increase your share when a couple of owners drop out - Kroenke 20.5% then 29.9% in 2009

The car remains in decent condition and you continue to enter into some annual races, you have the same driver and mechanic. You make enough money at the races to pay for the upkeep, it's fun so nobody minds that there's no profit for the owners.

One of your fellow owners also buys a few more shares - Usmanov 29.25% 2011

You decide that you want the whole car so you buy up a few more partners - Kroenke 66.64% 2011

But things start to go wrong, your driver keeps running down dead ends, your mechanic keeps buying the wrong parts and what's worse he keeps giving away cheap all the expensive rare parts you needed to keep winning .... the racing fans are not happy

So what do you do? You decide that you want to have complete control ....

The car is currently valued at 1.4 billion pounds so do you -

A) Offer to buy the rest of the shares - you try but they refuse to sell
B) Sell your shares - you try but nobody will meet your price

Then of course there is the Zeddie option .... just think about this one carefully

C) You spend your own money, say 200m, on improving the car getting a better driver, a better mechanic and increasing the cars value to 2.0 billion, of course the problem with this option is that a third of this increased value goes straight into the pockets of the other shareholders ... they would still have 33% of the shares the value of which has now gone up from 460m - 660m .... so you've spent your own money 200m to make the car you want to buy a more valuable commodity, and now you have to pay 200m more for the remaining shares, or remain stuck with your 66.6% .... not even the worst businessmen in the history of business would be that stupid. (well maybe Zeddie and Swipper)

and then of course there's what actually happens in the real business world -

D) You leave things running exactly as they are, you make an increased offer to the other shareholders ensuring you gain a large enough stake to force a 100% takeover ... only once that is completed do you spend your own money on improving the car, getting a better driver, a better mechanic and increasing the value to 2.0 billion. Now all of that increase in value goes into your back pocket as you now own 100%of the shares ... Kroenke gained 100% of the shares on September 25th 2018

Of course once A and B were rejected you can only go with option D - Kroenke did just that when it was announced to the stock market that KSE had received “an irrevocable undertaking” from fellow shareholder Usmanov to sell his stake in the club, that was just 12 months ago .....

This is very basic takeover economics ... the fact so many need it explaining is a sad indictment of today's education system ....

[CrimsonGunner11]

WHEN DID KROENKE TAKE FULL CONTROL OF ARSENAL?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32556&start=165#p1725978

Do you need an idiots guide as well? i can't fathom the sheer lack of basic business acumen on this site ... did anyone even go to school?

OK - Let's dumb it down to 10 year old level ... we'll use a simple analogy - a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification

Imagine you have bought a small share in a classic car - Kroenke 9.9% in 2007

The car is in decent condition and the owners enter into some annual races, you have a driver and a mechanic. You make enough money at the races to pay for the upkeep, it's fun so nobody minds that there's no profit for the owners.

Things go OK and you get the chance to increase your share when a couple of owners drop out - Kroenke 20.5% then 29.9% in 2009

The car remains in decent condition and you continue to enter into some annual races, you have the same driver and mechanic. You make enough money at the races to pay for the upkeep, it's fun so nobody minds that there's no profit for the owners.

One of your fellow owners also buys a few more shares - Usmanov 29.25% 2011

You decide that you want the whole car so you buy up a few more partners - Kroenke 66.64% 2011

But things start to go wrong, your driver keeps running down dead ends, your mechanic keeps buying the wrong parts and what's worse he keeps giving away cheap all the expensive rare parts you needed to keep winning .... the racing fans are not happy

So what do you do? You decide that you want to have complete control ....

The car is currently valued at 1.4 billion pounds so do you -

A) Offer to buy the rest of the shares - you try but they refuse to sell
B) Sell your shares - you try but nobody will meet your price

Then of course there is the Zeddie option .... just think about this one carefully

C) You spend your own money, say 200m, on improving the car getting a better driver, a better mechanic and increasing the cars value to 2.0 billion, of course the problem with this option is that a third of this increased value goes straight into the pockets of the other shareholders ... they would still have 33% of the shares the value of which has now gone up from 460m - 660m .... so you've spent your own money 200m to make the car you want to buy a more valuable commodity, and now you have to pay 200m more for the remaining shares, or remain stuck with your 66.6% .... not even the worst businessmen in the history of business would be that stupid. (well maybe Zeddie and Swipper)

and then of course there's what actually happens in the real business world -

D) You leave things running exactly as they are, you make an increased offer to the other shareholders ensuring you gain a large enough stake to force a 100% takeover ... only once that is completed do you spend your own money on improving the car, getting a better driver, a better mechanic and increasing the value to 2.0 billion. Now all of that increase in value goes into your back pocket as you now own 100%of the shares ... Kroenke gained 100% of the shares on September 25th 2018

Of course once A and B were rejected you can only go with option D - Kroenke did just that when it was announced to the stock market that KSE had received “an irrevocable undertaking” from fellow shareholder Usmanov to sell his stake in the club, that was just 12 months ago .....

This is very basic takeover economics ... the fact so many need it explaining is a sad indictment of today's education system ....

So not only is Kroenke selfish, he’s a sadist too. Sounds like someone I’d want owning the club I love.

None of what you’ve said EK changes the fact that he’s encouraged everything you’ve disliked about the management over the last couple of years.

[StLGooner]

The title of this thread is called "The Kroenke Problem", so before this argument started, we had already established as a more intelligent part of the fan base that he is apart of the problem. Next discussion please!

[EliteKiller]

So not only is Kroenke selfish, he’s a sadist too. Sounds like someone I’d want owning the club I love.

None of what you’ve said EK changes the fact that he’s encouraged everything you’ve disliked about the management over the last couple of years.

Crimson I don't like the guy (I don't know him) but from what I've seen and read about his actions he's only in the sports business for the money, but that's not a crime, so are most owners, to make money in the end you do need success ... all I'm pointing out is that he's behaved just like any other sane, normal businessman would ... you simply don't invest 100's of millions in something until you control it ...

If however you think that's a good idea, then I've got loads of opportunities you can buy 66% off and then invest loads of your money in ... I'll keep a third of the profits and 33% of the shares ... would you be interested?

I'm prepared to give Kroenke a pass on the pre-takeover years, for me that's on Arsene and Gazidis. It's only now that Kroenke's manager and his CEO are in place that it's all on him, the first year wasn't a roaring success, the second year had better see improvement ... I don't expect 10 years of failure to be fixed in 2 years ... but I would expect to see the first steps on the road back up.

[CrimsonGunner11]

So not only is Kroenke selfish, he’s a sadist too. Sounds like someone I’d want owning the club I love.

None of what you’ve said EK changes the fact that he’s encouraged everything you’ve disliked about the management over the last couple of years.

Crimson I don't like the guy (I don't know him) but from what I've seen and read about his actions he's only in the sports business for the money, but that's not a crime, so are most owners, to make money in the end you do need success ... all I'm pointing out is that he's behaved just like any other sane, normal businessman would ... you simply don't invest 100's of millions in something until you control it ...

If however you think that's a good idea, then I've got loads of opportunities you can buy 66% off and then invest loads of your money in ... I'll keep a third of the profits and 33% of the shares ... would you be interested?

I'm prepared to give Kroenke a pass on the pre-takeover years, for me that's on Arsene and Gazidis. It's only now that Kroenke's manager and his CEO are in place that it's all on him, the first year wasn't a roaring success, the second year had better see improvement ... I don't expect 10 years of failure to be fixed in 2 years ... but I would expect to see the first steps on the road back up.

I’m a billionaire so what’s a couple of millions going into something I love to me? At least I can go to sleep knowing that I’ve done all I’ve could to ensure that what I’ve invested in has the most optimal chance to succeed and, in the process, bring joy to my fellow stockholders. 50% of a watermelon is better than 100% of a grape and all that.

[DiamondGooner]

The title of this thread is called "The Kroenke Problem", so before this argument started, we had already established as a more intelligent part of the fan base that he is apart of the problem. Next discussion please!

[theHotHead]

The title of this thread is called "The Kroenke Problem", so before this argument started, we had already established as a more intelligent part of the fan base that he is apart of the problem. Next discussion please!

Actually the thread starter did, it doesn't mean everyone else agreed with him/her

[theHotHead]

So not only is Kroenke selfish, he’s a sadist too. Sounds like someone I’d want owning the club I love.

None of what you’ve said EK changes the fact that he’s encouraged everything you’ve disliked about the management over the last couple of years.

Crimson I don't like the guy (I don't know him) but from what I've seen and read about his actions he's only in the sports business for the money, but that's not a crime, so are most owners, to make money in the end you do need success ... all I'm pointing out is that he's behaved just like any other sane, normal businessman would ... you simply don't invest 100's of millions in something until you control it ...

If however you think that's a good idea, then I've got loads of opportunities you can buy 66% off and then invest loads of your money in ... I'll keep a third of the profits and 33% of the shares ... would you be interested?

I'm prepared to give Kroenke a pass on the pre-takeover years, for me that's on Arsene and Gazidis. It's only now that Kroenke's manager and his CEO are in place that it's all on him, the first year wasn't a roaring success, the second year had better see improvement ... I don't expect 10 years of failure to be fixed in 2 years ... but I would expect to see the first steps on the road back up.

I’m a billionaire so what’s a couple of millions going into something I love to me? At least I can go to sleep knowing that I’ve done all I’ve could to ensure that what I’ve invested in has the most optimal chance to succeed and, in the process, bring joy to my fellow stockholders. 50% of a watermelon is better than 100% of a grape and all that.

But that is where you are going wrong, in 2 ways.

First you apply your logic and how you feel to Kroenke. People are all different. What you would do if you were a billionaire isn't necessarily what the next person would do. Doesn't make your way right and their way wrong or vice versa.

Second, Kroenke doesn't love Arsenal, so he won't go to the levels that a real Arsenal fan would. He is not holding us back though, we are spending more money under his ownership than we have since I have been a supporter of the club.

[StLGooner]

The title of this thread is called "The Kroenke Problem", so before this argument started, we had already established as a more intelligent part of the fan base that he is apart of the problem. Next discussion please!

Actually the thread starter did, it doesn't mean everyone else agreed with him/her

Ah! Thanks captain obvious!

[CrimsonGunner11]

So not only is Kroenke selfish, he’s a sadist too. Sounds like someone I’d want owning the club I love.

None of what you’ve said EK changes the fact that he’s encouraged everything you’ve disliked about the management over the last couple of years.

Crimson I don't like the guy (I don't know him) but from what I've seen and read about his actions he's only in the sports business for the money, but that's not a crime, so are most owners, to make money in the end you do need success ... all I'm pointing out is that he's behaved just like any other sane, normal businessman would ... you simply don't invest 100's of millions in something until you control it ...

If however you think that's a good idea, then I've got loads of opportunities you can buy 66% off and then invest loads of your money in ... I'll keep a third of the profits and 33% of the shares ... would you be interested?

I'm prepared to give Kroenke a pass on the pre-takeover years, for me that's on Arsene and Gazidis. It's only now that Kroenke's manager and his CEO are in place that it's all on him, the first year wasn't a roaring success, the second year had better see improvement ... I don't expect 10 years of failure to be fixed in 2 years ... but I would expect to see the first steps on the road back up.

I’m a billionaire so what’s a couple of millions going into something I love to me? At least I can go to sleep knowing that I’ve done all I’ve could to ensure that what I’ve invested in has the most optimal chance to succeed and, in the process, bring joy to my fellow stockholders. 50% of a watermelon is better than 100% of a grape and all that.

But that is where you are going wrong, in 2 ways.

First you apply your logic and how you feel to Kroenke. People are all different. What you would do if you were a billionaire isn't necessarily what the next person would do. Doesn't make your way right and their way wrong or vice versa.

Second, Kroenke doesn't love Arsenal, so he won't go to the levels that a real Arsenal fan would.

Is that not a problem to you?

He is not holding us back though, we are spending more money under his ownership than we have since I have been a supporter of the club.

Thanks mostly to the efforts of the previous administration. From what I know, Kroenke has done very little, if anything, to help our cause

[LMAO]

C) You spend your own money, say 200m, on improving the car getting a better driver, a better mechanic and increasing the cars value to 2.0 billion, of course the problem with this option is that a third of this increased value goes straight into the pockets of the other shareholders ... they would still have 33% of the shares the value of which has now gone up from 460m - 660m .... so you've spent your own money 200m to make the car you want to buy a more valuable commodity, and now you have to pay 200m more for the remaining shares, or remain stuck with your 66.6% .... not even the worst businessmen in the history of business would be that stupid. (well maybe Zeddie and Swipper)

For the same 200 million investment to buy out the other shareholders (33.3repeating%), the company would decrease in value to 600 million (a loss of 800 million). That's beyond stupid. If you want the same valuation of 2 billion, then you'd need to buy out the other shareholders with 667 million.

Looking at this in a vacuum, you'd be one of the most idiotic owners in the world to not partake in option C, assuming a 200 million investment increases value from 1.4 billion to 2 billion and assuming the other owner(s) refusal to sell their share(s).

2.0 billion - 1.4 billion = 600 million
600 million * 2/3 = 400 million

So even if value increases for other shareholders who didn't contribute anything, you're still up 200 million.

And going beyond a money thing, a 2/3 control of, say, class A (common stock) shares may not matter to an owner as much as majority control of class B (voting) shares. Because whoever controls the voting shares in essence controls the company, so they get to determine its path forward with no roadblocks from other shareholders.

[jayramfootball]

If the club's money is Kroenke's money, then every owner in the world spends a fortune lmao

You mean every owner with 100% shareholding. You know, he owns 100% of the club. That means everything.

Most 100% owners are putting 100% of their funds in and then an extra 1% of their own private funds as is allowed within the rules.

Kronke is the only one in the prem that isnt putting in that 1% and you support that because apparently a small budget will make us more successful over a decade.

Of course this is contrary to evidence as seen by

chelsea
Spurs
Liverpool
City
Everton west ham

At the other end you have teams like arsenal and Newcastle


Man u (historically and they are a case apart, they're still trying to rectify their mistakes with everything in their power).

What difference is an extra 1% going to make?
You're trying to make your argument a reasonable one by suggesting that Kroenke should just put a little extra in.
To equal the spend of the likes of City he'd need to spend about an extra £60m a season.
Why would he do that when he can see clubs spending less than us or the same and doing much better than us - and actually challenging City for the title?
We're already the 12th highest in European football over the last 10 years for player investment.
No one is saying we should have a small budget, we should keep our already sizeable budget and use it more wisely. A far better approach.

Why do you keep referring to city? Who said anything about matching city?

Only you.

The 1% was in reference to your 100% comment. I'm simply trying different ways to get through to you that we are the only club in the prem who doesnt spend the full amount allowed under FFP but you keep avoiding it.

Didnt realise 45m was sizeable lol. West ham just bid that for a player.

Spurs just went 15m over that for a player.

Everton are bidding 10m under that for a player we are after.

Do you really think 45m is enough to even half address the issues we have?

Be honest with yourself for a moment.

Do any of you think 45m is enough to buy LB and WF positions of which we dont actually have a proper starter for in the club.

It's also got to replace ramsey.

It's also got to get a CB because of our struggle options there.

How are you criticising the current players that occupy these spots so deeply week in week out and still claim our budget is sizeable enough to cover it?

Can any of you answer these simple questions that you yourselves keep asking in a round about way when you watch us with no:

Ramsey (end of season collapse)

Monreal kola or xhaka at LB (rennes away, various other games)

Iwobi or mkhi on the wing (chelsea at away, various games)

Auba our top scoring striker on the wing

A back 3 to be made up of mustafi kos monreal holding and sokratis (holding out half a season, mustafi low light reel v zaha/rennes etc.).

What were you watching last season?

I'm genuinely baffled by this group that's defending kronke tooth and nail.

I am referring to City because we're already spending at the level of the teams below the financial cheats like City , PSG, Barca.

As for a £45m budget, it's plenty. It's about 60% higher than our average annual investment for the last 10 years.
If we sell players on then we can spend more than the £45m

In terms of what I was watching last season - it was as I expected (almost exactly) upon assessing our direction in 2009.
It took 10 years to get into this mess, I can guarantee you it's not going to take a year or two to get out of it.

It's really not Kroenke that caused this and it's not that I am defending him tooth and nail - history shows he is a terrible owner. I dislike the guy.
However, using him as the bogeyman hides the actual issues that need addressing. Those issues do not include a lack of money.