The Kroenke Problem

[DiamondGooner]

Sell players on?

Are you having a bubble? we just let some of our best assets walk away on a free, we have no assets to sell that won't hurt our team in the process.

£45m is not plenty when we just let Ramsey walk for free and Welbeck, we won't get enough money for Mustafi either.

............ and you still haven't answered the question of why other Billionaire owners managed to inject money into their teams when they purchased them so they could buy and sell higher level players but Kroenke won't.

[Zedie]

Mate, you've posted a bbc article from 2014/15 season as the basis to your argument.

Elite is posting links to the UEFA rules 2018 for days now and stopped because he was man enough to know he was wrong.

PnG is apparently confused by it all.

The mere fact you haven't come back to defend your article is because you know your article is hella old.

If you lot arent man enough to admit when you've been exposed, that's ok. You know and I know you're wrong and so does anyone reading your out of date sources.

Anything you guys say now is just adding to your own embarrassment until you can actually find an up to date source that backs your regressive views.

Zeddie I stopped because you're an obsessed delusional idiot .... here is the link to UEFA's site TODAY 9th July 2019 ...

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/protecting-the-game/financial-fair-play/

You will see it says on the FFP page - Last updated: Wednesday 5 June 2019

You keep going on about a BBC article from the 8th Match 2019 .... why? Is UEFA not trustworthy yet the BBC is?

Sorry mate even in your deluded world the UEFA site of July 9th 2019 talking about UEFA rules is more reliable than a media article from three months ago ... the fact you can't grasp that is why I left you digging a deeper and deeper hole ... nobody misunderstands FFP and quite frankly it's a red herring anyway ...

This is what matters so when are you going to answer this question?

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 ....

I could explain why the full takeover matters, but hopefully you're not dumb enough to need that broken down into baby steps as well ....

In response to the above. The whole point of UEFA FFP is to ensure that clubs dont spend beyond their means and it gives opportunities for clubs to spend ahead of their income, in the form of allowing up to 30m additional income, as long as the owner can demonstrate how they are going to make it back.

Things like our brand new Adidas deal which is new additional income and is currently active, our shirt sleave sponsor which made its debut last year etc.

This income can of course also be supplemented with player sales just like every other club on the planet.

Kronke has been and can put in 30m per year, if he can demonstrate how he can make it back next year, whether that be increased income, player sales etc. Its in your link if you want to actually read it.

yes, he can only put in 30m over 3 years if we did not sell a player or sign a deal or have additional prize money for that 3 year period. Do i really need to spell this out for you guys or was that not obvious given how f***ing business savvy you lot are?

RE the STCC point - The wage cap, which we have currently reduced by £24m per year due to all the released contracts this summer, has been removed from the FA FFP model, meaning Prem teams can spend more funds on wages to catch up to the top boys. Regardless, we have a massive capacity in our wage bill now in any case, so that wont be a problem. That 24m per year is contributes to our global net spend, something that factors into whether we can cover 30m extra a year. It remains to be seen how much of that is eaten back up with incomings, but I doubt itll be anywhere up to that.

If we sell Ozil now for 40m or 20m even, thats 350k and a reduced fee that can still be reinvested. Alternatively, we go the Ramsey/Welbeck route and let him run out his contract for another 2/3 years and flop about every time hes man marked for us. We get £0 and 2/3 more years of lacklustre effort.

This is all probably going to be ignored like all the other simple questions like:

How come Spurs and Liverpool have a larger private finance expenditure than us by a massive margin over the last 5 years but not a peep from UEFA?

How do you apparently worship Kronkes skin flint behaviour more than making Arsenal as competitive as possible?

Who else was holding Kronke back from spending as the majority owner before he became 100% owner? Usmanov who left to actually be on the board and spend? The fan owners who were pleading at the AST to spend? Who was this?

is 45m really enough to fix the gaping holes in a squad that we all f***ing complain about every summer?

Does it make sense to you to give a reduced budget to the new guys, while solely blaming the old guys who caused the fuckery?

I doubt ill get answers, probably more frothing and abuse, but whatever, you lot fly your Financial Model FSI flags high and be happy at your 10 year plan.

Honestly, how fuming will you be if we actually do buy all our targets this summer, considering what it will do to the net spend.

[Zedie]

Sell players on?

Are you having a bubble? we just let some of our best assets walk away on a free, we have no assets to sell that won't hurt our team in the process.

£45m is not plenty when we just let Ramsey walk for free and Welbeck, we won't get enough money for Mustafi either.

............ and you still haven't answered the question of why other Billionaire owners managed to inject money into their teams when they purchased them so they could buy and sell higher level players but Kroenke won't.

Its looking like we don't want to sell players on at a loss imo, hence why no one has been sold after 2 months of the window. At this stage, much like private expenditure from Kronke, weve also adopted the play them regardless and let them walk away for free model.

[DiamondGooner]

Sell players on?

Are you having a bubble? we just let some of our best assets walk away on a free, we have no assets to sell that won't hurt our team in the process.

£45m is not plenty when we just let Ramsey walk for free and Welbeck, we won't get enough money for Mustafi either.

............ and you still haven't answered the question of why other Billionaire owners managed to inject money into their teams when they purchased them so they could buy and sell higher level players but Kroenke won't.

Its looking like we don't want to sell players on at a loss imo, hence why no one has been sold after 2 months of the window. At this stage, much like private expenditure from Kronke, weve also adopted the play them regardless and let them walk away for free model.

Well that's the point.

What was the reason to sell to a sugar daddy owner if he's not going to invest at least at the beginning stage into developing this team?

We should of just kept a board if we were going to do the self service spend what you make model, as share holders they would have a vested interest in making sure we're run as best as we can so they can cream some profit which only comes if we're doing business correctly and having some success.

Kroenke is just an absentee owner who bought a business model based on us never falling out of the top 4, he should invest £100m of those billions he owns because with those 2-3 decent players plus doing better on contracts moving forward we could start doing what Liverpool have done by buying players for £20m and turning that into £40m - £50m on the resale which is exactly what Utd did with Ronaldo, Liverpool did with Couthino and could easily do with their whole front line including Mo Salah.

We've been the victim of sh*t buys from Wenger and co and to add insult to injury his ego made him think players would just stay even of a free just to play for him, in the last 5 years we've been run no better than an Ice Cream van.

We made profit of £20m for RVP, profit of £13m for Henry, profit of £10m on Nasri, profit of £22m on Adebayor, profit of £14m on Toure, profit of £34m on Fabregas .......... what the fk happened??

[EliteKiller]

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.

WHAT THE f**k ......... You don't need to make up theories all the share price information is already factual ... my Option C was just a supposedly simple analogy to show what stupidity that would take ... and yet somehow you decided to justify that stupidity? why when it was all fiction ...

"you're still up 200 million" - that's in a fake scenario to emphasis a point ... In the real world Kroenke is up 1.3 billion we already know this ...

Kroenke has paid in total 1,029m for a business currently valued at 2.3 billion the share purchases are all on record at Companies house, we don't know the exact prices paid in 2007 and 2009 but we do know all the major purchases in 2011 and 2018 ...

Kroenke paid 550m for Usmanov's shares in August 2018 at a time when the club was at a very low point .... if the club had invested an additional 200m in new players prior to that purchase, perhaps won the EPL or the CL, and most likely at least qualified for the CL, do you think Usmanov would have still sold for 550m? ... well do you?

Your argument makes a Swiss cheese look solid, and it's utterly spurious to guess at numbers when the real numbers are readily available ...

The only question for debate is this - if the club had invested heavily in players and thus been more successful prior to 2018 would it then have likely cost Kroenke more to buy out the remaining shares? - now even you must be able to answer that one ..... it 100% would

So why would Kroenke or indeed anyone spend money prior to a takeover, they would know that by making the club more successful they would be increasing the value of the shares that they wish to buyout ... it's plainly crazy, would you do that? would anyone?

Did Kroenke let the club run down to a very low point at the end of the 2017/18 season? ... probably ... but as has been repeatedly pointed out he's a billionaire c*** of an investor not an Arsenal fan ... now he owns Arsenal it's in his interest to make us more successful and thus more valuable for him ... the question is can he be bothered? We will now all get to see how that plays out .... only since September 2018 has the clock started ticking on the Kroenke regime, let's hope it's LA Rams and not Colorado Rapids

[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.

WHAT THE f**k ......... You don't need to make up theories all the share price information is already factual ... my Option C was just a supposedly simple analogy to show what stupidity that would take ... and yet somehow you decided to justify that stupidity? why when it was all fiction ...

"you're still up 200 million" - that's in a fake scenario to emphasis a point ... In the real world Kroenke is up 1.3 billion we already know this ...

Kroenke has paid in total 1,029m for a business currently valued at 2.3 billion the share purchases are all on record at Companies house, we don't know the exact prices paid in 2007 and 2009 but we do know all the major purchases in 2011 and 2018 ...

Kroenke paid 550m for Usmanov's shares in August 2018 at a time when the club was at a very low point .... if the club had invested an additional 200m in new players prior to that purchase, perhaps won the EPL or the CL, and most likely at least qualified for the CL, do you think Usmanov would have still sold for 550m? ... well do you?

Your argument makes a Swiss cheese look solid, and it's utterly spurious to guess at numbers when the real numbers are readily available ...

The only question for debate is this - if the club had invested heavily in players and thus been more successful prior to 2018 would it then have likely cost Kroenke more to buy out the remaining shares? - now even you must be able to answer that one ..... it 100% would

So why would Kroenke or indeed anyone spend money prior to a takeover, they would know that by making the club more successful they would be increasing the value of the shares that they wish to buyout ... it's plainly crazy, would you do that? would anyone?

Did Kroenke let the club run down to a very low point at the end of the 2017/18 season? ... probably ... but as has been repeatedly pointed out he's a billionaire c*** of an investor not an Arsenal fan ... now he owns Arsenal it's in his interest to make us more successful and thus more valuable for him ... the question is can he be bothered? We will now all get to see how that plays out .... only since September 2018 has the clock started ticking on the Kroenke regime, let's hope it's LA Rams and not Colorado Rapids

What are you so upset about? You said: "[Y]ou'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%."

So...how exactly did I create a fictitious scenario? I simply used the one you provided Y'know, the one where you intentionally devalued Arsenal via a race car proxy. And then because you wanted to become an expert finance lecturer yet got the lesson wrong, I gave justification as to why the idea of investing in new assets without 100% share ownership isn't that dumb when you delve into it.

And then you introduced new information like I don't already know investment in players pre-Usmanov selling would've likely increased Arsenal's valuation, thus making Kroenke's buyout of the Russian oligarch more expensive. If Kroenke had let Usmanov actually invest, then Arsenal is likely worth a hell of a lot more than the $2.3B it's currently valued at. Arsenal may have been worth $3.0B if Usmanov was allowed to bankroll us—even without Kroenke providing outside funds himself. 67% of $3.0B may not be worth more than 100% of $2.3B, but when you include Kroenke not needing to cough up $712 million to buy Usmanov out, the potential profit from the increase in valuation would more than offset the difference for Kroenke.

[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

Ah! Thanks captain obvious!

The pleasure was mine

[theHotHead]

[

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

Yes it is a problem for me, its the main reason I dislike the guy and the main reason I want him gone. But I do not attribute it to him holding us back, I don't think he has, like I have said. Kroenke is not our biggest problem right now.

[Zedie]

[

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

Yes it is a problem for me, its the main reason I dislike the guy and the main reason I want him gone. But I do not attribute it to him holding us back, I don't think he has, like I have said. Kroenke is not our biggest problem right now.

You're our biggest problem tbf.

[jayramfootball]

Sell players on?

Are you having a bubble? we just let some of our best assets walk away on a free, we have no assets to sell that won't hurt our team in the process.

£45m is not plenty when we just let Ramsey walk for free and Welbeck, we won't get enough money for Mustafi either.

............ and you still haven't answered the question of why other Billionaire owners managed to inject money into their teams when they purchased them so they could buy and sell higher level players but Kroenke won't.

Kroenke has injected hundreds of millions as investment into the team.
Is your beef about which bank account he did it from?

[Zedie]

Sell players on?

Are you having a bubble? we just let some of our best assets walk away on a free, we have no assets to sell that won't hurt our team in the process.

£45m is not plenty when we just let Ramsey walk for free and Welbeck, we won't get enough money for Mustafi either.

............ and you still haven't answered the question of why other Billionaire owners managed to inject money into their teams when they purchased them so they could buy and sell higher level players but Kroenke won't.

Kroenke has injected hundreds of millions as investment into the team.
Is your beef about which bank account he did it from?

Still not sure why you insist on defending a financial model over a football club but to each their own.

[jayramfootball]

Sell players on?

Are you having a bubble? we just let some of our best assets walk away on a free, we have no assets to sell that won't hurt our team in the process.

£45m is not plenty when we just let Ramsey walk for free and Welbeck, we won't get enough money for Mustafi either.

............ and you still haven't answered the question of why other Billionaire owners managed to inject money into their teams when they purchased them so they could buy and sell higher level players but Kroenke won't.

Kroenke has injected hundreds of millions as investment into the team.
Is your beef about which bank account he did it from?

Still not sure why you insist on defending a financial model over a football club but to each their own.

Well, I much prefer football clubs spending what they can generate.
Sugar daddies exploding the transfer market has ruined football, driven up transfer prices for everyone, and widened the gap between the elite clubs and others. I am happy that we're not financially cheating. It's the one area of common ground I have with Wenger. He may have been a bad football manager, but at least he understood what was good for the game overall.

[Zedie]

Sell players on?

Are you having a bubble? we just let some of our best assets walk away on a free, we have no assets to sell that won't hurt our team in the process.

£45m is not plenty when we just let Ramsey walk for free and Welbeck, we won't get enough money for Mustafi either.

............ and you still haven't answered the question of why other Billionaire owners managed to inject money into their teams when they purchased them so they could buy and sell higher level players but Kroenke won't.

Kroenke has injected hundreds of millions as investment into the team.
Is your beef about which bank account he did it from?

Still not sure why you insist on defending a financial model over a football club but to each their own.

Well, I much prefer football clubs spending what they can generate.
Sugar daddies exploding the transfer market has ruined football, driven up transfer prices for everyone, and widened the gap between the elite clubs and others. I am happy that we're not financially cheating. It's the one area of common ground I have with Wenger. He may have been a bad football manager, but at least he understood what was good for the game overall.

It's not cheating if its within the rules. Not sure why you think otherwise.

[jayramfootball]

Sell players on?

Are you having a bubble? we just let some of our best assets walk away on a free, we have no assets to sell that won't hurt our team in the process.

£45m is not plenty when we just let Ramsey walk for free and Welbeck, we won't get enough money for Mustafi either.

............ and you still haven't answered the question of why other Billionaire owners managed to inject money into their teams when they purchased them so they could buy and sell higher level players but Kroenke won't.

Kroenke has injected hundreds of millions as investment into the team.
Is your beef about which bank account he did it from?

Still not sure why you insist on defending a financial model over a football club but to each their own.

Well, I much prefer football clubs spending what they can generate.
Sugar daddies exploding the transfer market has ruined football, driven up transfer prices for everyone, and widened the gap between the elite clubs and others. I am happy that we're not financially cheating. It's the one area of common ground I have with Wenger. He may have been a bad football manager, but at least he understood what was good for the game overall.

It's not cheating if its within the rules. Not sure why you think otherwise.

The rules are being bent to accomodate cheats.
Corruption doesn't become cool just because a few corrupt people get together to create the rules.
Buying trophies with money not generated in football is financially cheating.
I'd prefer we did not do that, especially as we already generate enough money to spend at the levels we currently do (which is adequate).

[theHotHead]

[

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

Yes it is a problem for me, its the main reason I dislike the guy and the main reason I want him gone. But I do not attribute it to him holding us back, I don't think he has, like I have said. Kroenke is not our biggest problem right now.

You're our biggest problem tbf.

Thanks. Haven't you got some windows you should be licking???

Still butthurt from your beating I see lol