EliteKiller wrote:CrimsonGunner11 wrote:.
City and Chelsea were once irrelevant now look at where they are. How you can’t see the missed opportunity is beyond me. And even if that path is not your cup of tea, Liverpool’s path could have been achieved by us much earlier if the board and owner were more proactive. Again, how you can’t see the missed opportunity is beyond me.
Where's Kroenke's missed opportunity? 500m to 2,500m that was his opportunity ... City are backed by a country who are in it for the PR, Kroenke isn't. Abramovitch was laundering money, it's why he's now left the UK, as far as I know Kroenke isn't ... Kroenke is not a fan, he's an owner, same applies at 90% of all top clubs. As for Liverpool in the last five years they've spent net 80m
LESS on transfers than we have .... sure we could have matched them but we'd not have signed Auba or Lacca.
1. 2,500m that could be much more is his missed opportunity.
2. Just because the intentions of City’s owners are wrong and the owner of Chelsea went about things the wrong way does not mean that the owner of Arsenal Football Club should follow suit. You can still transform your club the way Chelsea and City have done with other, more legitimate methods.
3. Kroenke’s not a fan? All the more reason he shouldn’t own the club. Who cares how other clubs are being operated. Arsenal should focus on themselves and do what’s best for them.
4. You’ve completely missed my point regarding Liverpool. You’re talking about transfers, but I’m talking about their overall success recently and our ownership’s failure to seize that opportunity when it was presented to them. If the board and/or owner weren’t willing to assist Wenger and could have seen the writing on the wall earlier, it could have been us who would be lifting a CL trophy by now, it could have been us with Klopp at the helm, and it could have been us with a better net spend. Blame Wenger all you want for damaging the club on the pitch, but it’s the board and owner who have damaged the club off it which is a far more serious offense imo.
EliteKiller wrote:If we continue on our trajectory and with good management at Chelsea, they will eventually become worth more than us if they aren’t already. I won’t check but I bet Chelsea were nowhere near us in the past in terms of club value. In recent years they have closed that gap significantly all because their owner pumped massive amount of funds into their club.Heck, you even said yourself that Sp*rs will be worth the same as us soon so why not Chelsea. You’ve contradicted yourself here.
If I spend a billion quid and my asset value goes up by 800m have I gained .... you think that makes Abro smart, but it doesn't ... Joe Lewis is the smart one spent 50m borrowed 900m now has assets worth 1,500m ... his personal investment over the last 10 years feck all squared.
Maybe not in the short term but the 800m you’ve mentioned doesn’t stop growing. You’ve ignored the potential for that 800m to grow above and beyond the 1 billion invested which can be achieved with strict and smart oversight. Besides, I’ve clearly stated in my post that this path was one option for the board and Kroenke to take. I presented another. Neither option was taken until the damage was already done.
EliteKiller wrote:Spending billions to get bugger all returns? Ask City shareholders what returns they believe they’ll be making in the future. They’ve set their club up to dominate England if not Europe for the long term and only incompetent management will prevent them from achieving that objective.
City have had 1,400m pumped into their business, they make 50m a year profit ... so how long will the City shareholders need to wait?
1. Maybe they’re billionaires who value the success of their club more than whatever return they may make. Would be lovely to have that type of owner running our club.
2. Has I have said earlier, their club is already set up to become one of the most valuable clubs in the world. If return on investment is what they’re after then all it takes is some sweet talk and one sale, and they would have profited on their investment
EliteKiller wrote:You realize you’re defending a man who doesn’t care enough about you or your club, right?
I'm not defending or attacking Kroenke, just pointing out that he has feck all to do with the running of our club ... we are still run entirely on the money we make, just as we have done for the last 50 years, that's long before Kroenke ever came aboard ....
Blaming Kroenke is like blaming the Waltons when Wallmart run out of milk ... but if it that makes you happy go right ahead.
I was responding to Jayram here but to reply to your comment: if a shareholder has at least 51% of shares, then in general that person basically controls the organization. Other shareholders that have 1% or 49% really doesn’t matter. The simple fact is that the shareholder who controls at least 51% of the shares
is able to run the organization as he or she sees fit. So based on this, yes. Yes, Kroenke has all to do with the running of our club. Kroenke takes some if not most of the blame for where we find ourselves today.