The Kroenke Problem

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

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Luzh 22 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:57 am

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.
"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 Zedie » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:34 am

EliteKiller wrote:Zedie you just may be making a run for the stupidest poster in history - big list but you're pushing for numero uno

EKs smoke screen about when Kroenke bought the club 100% as an excuse not to spend is absolute bollocks. He could even if he had 1% of shares.


So let's get this straight you are saying that a person with 1% of the shares should put up 100% of the capital even though as a 1% shareholder he will never get it back? So let me offer you 1% of my "magic beans" company, you will need to make a 100,000 investment but hey you're rich so you can afford it, so why not? I'll drop you my offshore account info, welcome aboard .....

Surely even someone with your obvious lack of financial acumen can see that just maybe this is not a smart investment?

These attempts to re-write our history just get more and more absurd ....... no savvy investor puts money into anything without first securing his investment, in case you've already forgotten that's exactly what Kroenke did. Why do you have such a problem with that?

Stop trying to change history and accept what happened - old management Gazidis and Wenger, and old shareholders including Kroenke f***ked us - ten years of pissing millions away in bad contracts, bad tactics, low resales and overpriced signings ... in 2018 we were acquired by a new owner he's had the job for under a year, so let's see what he does and stop trying to change what can't be changed ....


Can you show in my post exactly where I said the 1% should give 100%?

I merely pointed out that your fart chat about him not being 100% owner didnt matter as he could own 1% of the club and still invest what he wanted up to 30m theoretically.

Thankfully he owned 60% at the start.

Also, every single f***ing person remembers usmanov (30% equity partner) pleading very publicly to inject cash along with kronke so it's not like he was being asked to do it alone ffs. These were also before the times when these rules didnt factor iirc which makes it even worse.

You're drowning in your own bullshit and hothead cant cheerlead for you because hes been exposed for the f***ing idiot he is. Hes out here posting the wiki definition of ROI when he doesnt understand how much more of a return kronke could have made if he had invested more.
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 theHotHead » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:36 am

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.
User avatar
theHotHead
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Zedie » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:45 am

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.

He has a stacked squad, loan squad and trophy winning youth squad.

Hes got planning permission locked in for a new stadium.

He also has a massive increase in the value of the asset he purchased all those years ago.

Because you're such a simple f**k, you cant see all of this and are somehow championing kronke for buying arsenal and not investing in it at all with additional funds to make us actually win things.

What happens if we win things?

Stock of players rises

Share price rises

Commercial deal thresholds rise

Higher profile commercial partners become interested

More foreign fans pay for more foreign tv packages

When he is ready to sell, his asset has grown more than it did if he sat on his hands and left it to stagnate like he currently does. Of course his asset still grows, but at a slower rate than if he actually tried to make us win things.

You out here celebrating a prudent financial model instead of a winning football club you dutty bungle.
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 EliteKiller » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:51 am

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


Holy f**k? .... did he just say that .... only 130% increase in just a decade ... it's a feckin' tragedy

Image
Last edited by EliteKiller on Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby theHotHead » Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:07 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.

What the f**k does that have to do with anything?? Whether or not you are passive or aggressive if the ROI does not appeal to you - you won't f***ing invest!

You have no idea what Kroenke's motives or plans are, but record investment since his ownership suggests he is not the problem. What appeals to Usmanov might not appeal to Kroenke, which might not appeal to another investor. Some investors are risk takers, some prefer short term big gains with higher risk. Some prefer to play the long game. Its common sense.

To sit here and suggest you know how a billionaire thinks is a f***ing joke in itself. Look at the data, look at the facts. Arsenal have spent more money on transfers since Kroenke took majority ownership than we ever have in the PL era. Thats not hearsay or conjecture, them is facts.
User avatar
theHotHead
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby EliteKiller » Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:10 am

Zedie wrote:Can you show in my post exactly where I said the 1% should give 100%?

I merely pointed out that your fart chat about him not being 100% owner didnt matter as he could own 1% of the club and still invest what he wanted up to 30m theoretically.

Thankfully he owned 60% at the start.

Also, every single f***ing person remembers usmanov (30% equity partner) pleading very publicly to inject cash along with kronke so it's not like he was being asked to do it alone ffs. These were also before the times when these rules didnt factor iirc which makes it even worse.

You're drowning in your own bullshit and hothead cant cheerlead for you because hes been exposed for the f***ing idiot he is. Hes out here posting the wiki definition of ROI when he doesnt understand how much more of a return kronke could have made if he had invested more.


Hahahahahha - you are so full of shit .... didn't matter as he could own 1% of the club and still invest what he wanted ... sure but only you or a complete and utter fuckwit would ever do that.

usmanov (30% equity partner) pleading very publicly to inject cash along with kronke - how much did Usmanov put in? If he was looking to buy the club then only you or a complete and utter fuckwit would ever do that, so of course he didn't do it.

Unlike you I don't need to fabricate an argument - I simply refer you to the actual events that have transpired over the last twelve years - you keep making up whatever fictitious scenario you want ... the rest of us can consider what actually happened ....

Here it is again just in-case you've become confused by your own bullshit ....

1st Investor takes a small stake 9.9% in 2007
1st Investor increased their stake to 29.9% in 2009
2nd Investor takes a 29.5% stake in 2009
1st Investor further increased their stake to 66.6% in 2011
2nd investor bids 1 billion for 66.6% of the shares 2017 - bid rejected
1st investor bids 550m for 33.4% of the shares 2018 - bid accepted
1st Investor takes control of the Company 28th September 2018

That's what actually happened .... fact, history, deals done ... you can make up any scenario you want nothing will change.

Neither the 1st nor the 2nd investor at anytime put any of their own money into the club ... from a business perspective it made zero sense to do so until one or other had full control, again that's not fiction it's what actually happened ...

Come back with a load more could'ave, would'ave, should'ave bollocks if you want ... it will never change the reality ....
Last edited by EliteKiller on Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby theHotHead » Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:18 am

Zedie wrote:
EliteKiller wrote:Zedie you just may be making a run for the stupidest poster in history - big list but you're pushing for numero uno

EKs smoke screen about when Kroenke bought the club 100% as an excuse not to spend is absolute bollocks. He could even if he had 1% of shares.


So let's get this straight you are saying that a person with 1% of the shares should put up 100% of the capital even though as a 1% shareholder he will never get it back? So let me offer you 1% of my "magic beans" company, you will need to make a 100,000 investment but hey you're rich so you can afford it, so why not? I'll drop you my offshore account info, welcome aboard .....

Surely even someone with your obvious lack of financial acumen can see that just maybe this is not a smart investment?

These attempts to re-write our history just get more and more absurd ....... no savvy investor puts money into anything without first securing his investment, in case you've already forgotten that's exactly what Kroenke did. Why do you have such a problem with that?

Stop trying to change history and accept what happened - old management Gazidis and Wenger, and old shareholders including Kroenke f***ked us - ten years of pissing millions away in bad contracts, bad tactics, low resales and overpriced signings ... in 2018 we were acquired by a new owner he's had the job for under a year, so let's see what he does and stop trying to change what can't be changed ....


Can you show in my post exactly where I said the 1% should give 100%?

I merely pointed out that your fart chat about him not being 100% owner didnt matter as he could own 1% of the club and still invest what he wanted up to 30m theoretically.

Thankfully he owned 60% at the start.

Also, every single f***ing person remembers usmanov (30% equity partner) pleading very publicly to inject cash along with kronke so it's not like he was being asked to do it alone ffs. These were also before the times when these rules didnt factor iirc which makes it even worse.

You're drowning in your own bullshit and hothead cant cheerlead for you because hes been exposed for the f***ing idiot he is. Hes out here posting the wiki definition of ROI when he doesnt understand how much more of a return kronke could have made if he had invested more.

Lol. And in a single sentence Zedie died again.

In every financial advertisement or proposal it is a legal requirement for the advisor or service to notify potential investors that the value of investments can go UP as well as DOWN. Your comment that Kroenke could have made more had he invested more ignores the fact he could also have lost more had he invested more.

Your fantasy world where investments only go up and not down is just that, fantasy. According to you investing in football clubs brings a guaranteed return, its a money tree, the investment that just keeps on giving.

Lets all move to Zedieland, where investors are guaranteed to make money we can spend money in wild abandon and not worry about the consequences.
User avatar
theHotHead
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby theHotHead » Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:22 am

Perhaps that is where Kroenke has been going wrong all of these years. He should have hired Zedie as his advisor then perhaps he could've made more money than he has. Because at this stage Kroenke has not learned or does not know that if you invest more money you make more money. :rofll: :hail:

All hail Zedie, Financial Advisor of the year 2019 :hail:
User avatar
theHotHead
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6229
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Power n Glory » Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:30 am

BrunelGooner wrote:
Power n Glory wrote:Dein was untrustworthy and nobody wanted to work with him. It's naive to think that situation could have easily been worked out. It was reckless behaviour and it would be interesting to hear Arsene's take on the situation who was against foreign ownership, was fir building a new stadium and the sel sustaining model but also close to David Dein who opposed all of that.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footb ... -four.html

But this is what I don't get. He sold to Kroenke and reportedly didn't get along with Usmanov, but then a few months before resigning, he was saying we needed Usmanov's money to remain competitive [see link above].

There must have been a lot of internal politics because several things seemed to happen which don't totally add up. Perhaps he was just towing the line in that interview? Who knows.


I really don't know what Dein was doing. I caught that interview. It's worth finding the Peter Hill Wood interview. It was like a messy break up. I remember Stan saying it didn't expect the hostility from the Arsenal board and was misled by Dein so that soured their business relationship. Hill Wood was saying the board members didn't need to sell and had no intention of selling out so what happened a long the way to change their minds, I don't know.
User avatar
Power n Glory
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 1939
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Dejan » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:14 am

I think its time you guys agree to disagree. This thread is pure toxic with the insults and silly remarks flying around



Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G920F met Tapatalk
Rest in Peace SE13 :(
User avatar
Dejan
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 24610
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 1:37 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby EliteKiller » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:24 am

Power n Glory wrote:I really don't know what Dein was doing. I caught that interview. It's worth finding the Peter Hill Wood interview. It was like a messy break up. I remember Stan saying it didn't expect the hostility from the Arsenal board and was misled by Dein so that soured their business relationship. Hill Wood was saying the board members didn't need to sell and had no intention of selling out so what happened a long the way to change their minds, I don't know.


I believe Dein was caught between the power plays of two billionaires, both Usmanov and Kroenke tried to play the "we're best for Arsenal" card when in fact both were always just there for the money. Dein on the other hand was always an Arsenal first man, he just got sucked into the billionaires bullshit games. When he believed Usmanov was genuine he sided with him, when that proved a false dawn he sided with Kroenke ... He knew that a deal had to be done quickly or the club would stagnate and suffer, In the end despite "guarantees" that they wouldn't sell, money won and all the board members took their pieces of silver, some from Usmanov some from Kroenke but they all folded. Dien I think saw that coming knew a protracted ownership fight was thus inevitable, he foresaw the damage this would do to his beloved Arsenal, he tried to warn us but he alone on the board fought against it, in the end he was broken by the club he loved ... PHW pushed him out and we've suffered because of that ever since.

Kroenke and Dien would have been great for this club ... or perhaps Usmanov and Dien ... instead we got the Gazidis / Wonger management place holders while Kroenke and Usmanov did their billionaire's dance ... that did real damage to our club but at least that's all finally behind us.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Zedie » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:26 am

EliteKiller wrote:
Zedie wrote:Can you show in my post exactly where I said the 1% should give 100%?

I merely pointed out that your fart chat about him not being 100% owner didnt matter as he could own 1% of the club and still invest what he wanted up to 30m theoretically.

Thankfully he owned 60% at the start.

Also, every single f***ing person remembers usmanov (30% equity partner) pleading very publicly to inject cash along with kronke so it's not like he was being asked to do it alone ffs. These were also before the times when these rules didnt factor iirc which makes it even worse.

You're drowning in your own bullshit and hothead cant cheerlead for you because hes been exposed for the f***ing idiot he is. Hes out here posting the wiki definition of ROI when he doesnt understand how much more of a return kronke could have made if he had invested more.


Hahahahahha - you are so full of shit .... didn't matter as he could own 1% of the club and still invest what he wanted ... sure but only you or a complete and utter fuckwit would ever do that.

usmanov (30% equity partner) pleading very publicly to inject cash along with kronke - how much did Usmanov put in? If he was looking to buy the club then only you or a complete and utter fuckwit would ever do that, so of course he didn't do it.

Unlike you I don't need to fabricate an argument - I simply refer you to the actual events that have transpired over the last twelve years - you keep making up whatever fictitious scenario you want ... the rest of us can consider what actually happened ....

Here it is again just in-case you've become confused by your own bullshit ....

1st Investor takes a small stake 9.9% in 2007
1st Investor increased their stake to 29.9% in 2009
2nd Investor takes a 29.5% stake in 2009
1st Investor further increased their stake to 66.6% in 2011
2nd investor bids 1 billion for 66.6% of the shares 2017 - bid rejected
1st investor bids 550m for 33.4% of the shares 2018 - bid accepted
1st Investor takes control of the Company 28th September 2018

That's what actually happened .... fact, history, deals done ... you can make up any scenario you want nothing will change.

Neither the 1st nor the 2nd investor at anytime put any of their own money into the club ... from a business perspective it made zero sense to do so until one or other had full control, again that's not fiction it's what actually happened ...

Come back with a load more could'ave, would'ave, should'ave bollocks if you want ... it will never change the reality ....


Why does every single f***ing thing have to be spelled out for you?

I'm obviously referring to when kronke took majority control and defacto had the final say on whether additional private funds could be used to boost transfer budgets.

Like minded owners would have come to an agreement on equity percentage on those sums.

As ffp came in and caps were placed, like minded equity partners would have agreed a split on the max cap amount allowable.

You drooling over your keyboard and going to extremes just shows me yet again you know it's all true but you simply cant admit that you're a f***ing idiot.

The fact that you are essentiallu calling every other owner in the league f***ing foolish for investing in their clubs, winning or getting closer to major trophies and significantly growing their asset worth is phenomenal.

You're really arguing this point while you look at the utter f***ing mess our club is right now after years of misdirection from your poster boy.

You're really thick as shit.

As for hothead lol

I'm really not sure where you're going with the notification of investors, but either way its f***ing dunce.

You've been destroyed with your own source material.

Destroyed with the actual performance of the club financially or otherwise.

EK is embarrassing himself with increasingly abstract takes on simple questions and statements to make himself feel better.

You guys are literally down to arguing that kronkes investment model is fantastic for kronke so he cant be blamed for creating this situation
At the club he owns and is supposed to lead.

You lot deserve mid table performances from the very players you moan about every day.
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 Power n Glory » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:57 am

EliteKiller wrote:
Power n Glory wrote:I really don't know what Dein was doing. I caught that interview. It's worth finding the Peter Hill Wood interview. It was like a messy break up. I remember Stan saying it didn't expect the hostility from the Arsenal board and was misled by Dein so that soured their business relationship. Hill Wood was saying the board members didn't need to sell and had no intention of selling out so what happened a long the way to change their minds, I don't know.


I believe Dein was caught between the power plays of two billionaires, both Usmanov and Kroenke tried to play the "we're best for Arsenal" card when in fact both were always just there for the money. Dein on the other hand was always an Arsenal first man, he just got sucked into the billionaires bullshit games. When he believed Usmanov was genuine he sided with him, when that proved a false dawn he sided with Kroenke ... He knew that a deal had to be done quickly or the club would stagnate and suffer, In the end despite "guarantees" that they wouldn't sell, money won and all the board members took their pieces of silver, some from Usmanov some from Kroenke but they all folded. Dien I think saw that coming knew a protracted ownership fight was thus inevitable, he foresaw the damage this would do to his beloved Arsenal, he tried to warn us but he alone on the board fought against it, in the end he was broken by the club he loved ... PHW pushed him out and we've suffered because of that ever since.

Kroenke and Dien would have been great for this club ... or perhaps Usmanov and Dien ... instead we got the Gazidis / Wonger management place holders while Kroenke and Usmanov did their billionaire's dance ... that did real damage to our club but at least that's all finally behind us.


I don’t know if that’s correct. It sounds like Dein went out courting potential billionaire investors without the Boards knowledge and decided to sell shares to Kroenke first and then to Usmanov once things went sour with Stan. I don’t think either Kroenke or Usmanov had a real interest in Arsenal before Dein bought them to the table. He may have had good intentions but the due diligence just wasn’t there and whilst there was a trend for foreign investors, there aren’t that many that have been successful considering the amount of clubs that sold out. Besides that, this was a botch job. It was done all wrong and he has to hold a lot of the blame for how he set this up.

But what's done is done. It's a shame we couldn't get Dein back but too many bridges burnt. I still wonder what those conversations with Wenger were like considering their opposing views.
User avatar
Power n Glory
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 1939
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby EliteKiller » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:13 am

Zedie wrote:Why does every single f***ing thing have to be spelled out for you?

I'm obviously referring to when kronke took majority control and defacto had the final say on whether additional private funds could be used to boost transfer budgets.

Like minded owners would have come to an agreement on equity percentage on those sums.

As ffp came in and caps were placed, like minded equity partners would have agreed a split on the max cap amount allowable.

You drooling over your keyboard and going to extremes just shows me yet again you know it's all true but you simply cant admit that you're a f***ing idiot.

The fact that you are essentiallu calling every other owner in the league f***ing foolish for investing in their clubs, winning or getting closer to major trophies and significantly growing their asset worth is phenomenal.

You're really arguing this point while you look at the utter f***ing mess our club is right now after years of misdirection from your poster boy.

You're really thick as shit.

As for hothead lol

I'm really not sure where you're going with the notification of investors, but either way its f***ing dunce.

You've been destroyed with your own source material.

Destroyed with the actual performance of the club financially or otherwise.

EK is embarrassing himself with increasingly abstract takes on simple questions and statements to make himself feel better.

You guys are literally down to arguing that kronkes investment model is fantastic for kronke so he cant be blamed for creating this situation
At the club he owns and is supposed to lead.

You lot deserve mid table performances from the very players you moan about every day.


:rofll: :rofll: :rofll: :rofll: :rofll: :rofll:

Oh dear - calm yourself down, you're going to have an aneurysm ... I finally now see why you're so utterly confused ...

Like minded owners would have come to an agreement on equity percentage on those sums


However in our case two competing billionaires, both with the sole intention of gaining outright ownership, were never ever going to do that - and guess what history shows us that they never did. It took a failed billion pound bid from Usmanov and a successful 550 million pound bid from Kroenke for one to finally take out the other. That little dance went on for almost 11 years ....

If your entire fantastic scenario was based around our previous shareholders working together, then that explains why nobody else had a clue what you were on about ... that never happened

For the 1,000th time ... Kroenke so far has not been good for Arsenal ... nobody has even once claimed that ... you've just been schooled on how major takeovers work, and why neither Kroenke nor Usmanov put in a large investment before September 2018, not on how good or bad Kroenke has been for Arsenal.

What happens now Kroenke's won the takeover battle? ... you simply don't know, and guess what neither do I ... here's an idea, instead of wishing us doom and gloom why not be positive and assume our new owner, a man who's just spent 550m on buying us outright, might in fact now get behind his new business ... would be far easier to read some positivity than your incessant negativity.

Getting rid of the worst management pair we've ever had? good start in my book ................ here's to better times ahead
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arsenal Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests