The Kroenke Problem

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

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Power n Glory » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:04 pm

LMAO 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.


Careful now before he lumps you in with me and Zedie as people who don't understand basic investing.

Even when I showed some simple math a couple pages back that Kroenke would be up more than he currently is had he let Usmanov give the club a substantial interest-free loan, EK is still arguing like Kroenke's actual course of action was the only logical decision. If Kroenke had simply swallowed his pride and worked with Usmanov instead of against him, then both Arsenal and he would be in a stronger position financially. But Kroenke is the type of person who'd rather have an entire 5" pie than share an 8" one.


I think it's a bit more complex than that. How would he have been able to work with Usmanov when the rest of the Board wanted nothing to do with Usmanov? They sold their shares to Kroenke to block Usmanov from taking over.

David Dein has some explaining to do. He was the one that sold his shares to Kroenke and he was meant to be the 'sugar daddy' billionaire to go against the self sustaining model the rest of the Board wanted. When that didn't go to plan and Kroenke held the shares but was on the outside, he gained their trust somehow and adopted their way of thinking with the self sustaining model, which suited him even better. Dein then decides to take another shot at things and brings in Usmanov, the rest is history.
Power n Glory
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Luzh 22 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:26 pm

Power n Glory wrote:=
I think it's a bit more complex than that. How would he have been able to work with Usmanov when the rest of the Board wanted nothing to do with Usmanov?



You are asking how the majority shareholder would have been able to work with somebody his employee's didn't like? Is that what you're doing?
"O Striker, Striker, why are you Striker?" - Arsene Nose 12/07/16
User avatar
Luzh 22
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Power n Glory » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:00 pm

Luzh 22 wrote:
Power n Glory wrote:=
I think it's a bit more complex than that. How would he have been able to work with Usmanov when the rest of the Board wanted nothing to do with Usmanov?



You are asking how the majority shareholder would have been able to work with somebody his employee's didn't like? Is that what you're doing?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp

Just read and you can get the background for yourself. Spare me the sarcasm.
Power n Glory
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Luzh 22 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:08 pm

Power n Glory wrote:
Luzh 22 wrote:
Power n Glory wrote:=
I think it's a bit more complex than that. How would he have been able to work with Usmanov when the rest of the Board wanted nothing to do with Usmanov?



You are asking how the majority shareholder would have been able to work with somebody his employee's didn't like? Is that what you're doing?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp

Just read and you can get the background for yourself. Spare me the sarcasm.


I know full well the history. I also know who appoints the board of directors.
"O Striker, Striker, why are you Striker?" - Arsene Nose 12/07/16
User avatar
Luzh 22
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Power n Glory » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:37 pm

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.
Power n Glory
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby BrunelGooner » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:42 pm

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.
BrunelGooner
Nigel Winterburn
Nigel Winterburn
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:54 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby EliteKiller » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:38 pm

Same old idiots doing the same old dance .... why didn't a billionaire give away his money to us? ..... it's probably why he's a billionaire and you're not.

Takeover economics are not that hard to follow ... well maybe they are for a few on here ... so for them better go with the "nasty old meanie 'merican who wouldn't give us his money" simply ignoring the fact that 500m was spent by a useless management team who Kroenke has since sacked.

People keep pointing out the blindingly obvious - the share accumulation and takeover happened the way it did because that was the most financially rewarding method for Kroenke to use - you might believe you know better but no amount of fictitious math will change history, Kroneke owns our club outright from 28th September 2018 ... that's the fact ... why are you still arguing?

Of course you think you could have done it better, hey who knows if one day you're a billionaire then maybe you will ...

Kroenke spent 1.1 billion to buy assets valued at 2.3 billion ... keep telling yourselves what a clueless c*** he must be .... :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby swipe right » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:09 am

^^^ Kroenkes PR team doing a sterling job of defending the undefendable. Give this lad Sarah Huckabees old job.
Five seasons before Wenger joined Arsenal league finishes were 4,10,4,12,5.
Five seasons before Emery joined 4,3,2,5,6.
End the myth that Emery inherited a shit squad and Wenger a great one.
swipe right
Charlie George
Charlie George
 
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:05 am

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Zedie » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:28 am

LMAO 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.


Careful now before he lumps you in with me and Zedie as people who don't understand basic investing.

Even when I showed some simple math a couple pages back that Kroenke would be up more than he currently is had he let Usmanov give the club a substantial interest-free loan, EK is still arguing like Kroenke's actual course of action was the only logical decision. If Kroenke had simply swallowed his pride and worked with Usmanov instead of against him, then both Arsenal and he would be in a stronger position financially. But Kroenke is the type of person who'd rather have an entire 5" pie than share an 8" one.


Its sad that its come to this to be honest.

This is from EK's FFP link on the UEFA website (link below)

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Do ... WNLOAD.pdf

Article 61 - Notion of Acceptable Deviation

2 - The acceptable deviation is EUR 5 million. However, it can exceed this level up to EUR 30 million if such excess is entirely covered by contributions from equity participants and/or related parties. A lower amount may be decided in due course by the UEFA Executive Committee.

These are the actual FFP rules. An equity participant/related party includes shareholders of the club. It doesn't say 100% owner/sole owner etc. It says f***ing equity participant/related party.

EKs smoke screen about when Kronke bought the club 100% as an excuse not to spend is absolute bollocks. He could even if he had 1% of shares. I genuinely think EK thinks we are as stupid as him.

As for Hothead, man has been patting himself on the back for f***ing days thinking he had any sort of point on the amount Kronke/Arsenal could put in per year. So for a few points for him and his superior intellect to explain:

Article 61 - Notion of Acceptable Deviation

3 - For licensees assessed on the current monitoring period, contributions from equity participants and/or related parties (as specified in Annex X E) are taken into consideration when determining the acceptable deviation if they have occurred and been recognised: a) in the audited financial statements for one of the reporting periods T, T-1 or T2; and/or b) in the accounting records up until the deadline for submission of the breakeven information for the reporting period T.


Article 61 - Notion of Acceptable Deviation

4 - If contributions occurring until the deadline for submission of the break-even information for the reporting period T are recognised in a club’s reporting period T+1 and have been taken into consideration to determine the acceptable deviation in respect of the current monitoring period, then for later monitoring periods the contributions will be considered as having been recognised in reporting period T.


As an example, the projected monitoring period assessed in the licence season 2018/19 covers the reporting periods ending in 2019 (reporting period T+1), 2018 (reporting period T) and 2017 (reporting period T-1).


If you use the time periods as described below, an equity partner etc. is able to invest 30m private funds in year 1 (T-1), cover those funds via income like player sales, wage cuts, sponsorship, prize funds etc. as long as you can cover the outlay ie make 30m by the end of that period. You can repeat for year 2 and year 3 if following that pattern.


In order for Hotheads philosophy of 30m in 3 years to work, it would mean Arsenal don't make any player sales, don't lower wages through sales/loans/releases, don't add sponsors like Addidas or Visit Rwanda in that 3 year period. Zedie destroyed apparently smh.

Finally

Article 57 - Scope of Application and exemption

5 - Under certain circumstances, as further illustrated in Appendix XII, a licensee can apply to enter into a voluntary agreement with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body for the fulfilment of the break-even requirement.


A voluntary agreement allows a club to reach an additional expenditure plan agreement with UEFA. This is something Kronke has never requested.

Ive made this point previously, but it remains as one of the great unanswered questions from the Finance Four of GW.

Jayrams point regarding Arsenals Savings:

Surely a savvy businessman like Kronke would have those funds out in the market maturing from season to season via player purchases and onward sale, in much the same way as every other f***ing club in the world? Apparently not for this Head of Industry.


Power n Glory wrote:Yep, comprehension is definitely a problem here. If you don't understand the points being made, it would be a waste of time rehashing what has already be said.

For me, the way we ended our season and our away form....we shouldn't have lost to Palace, Wolves and Leicester City, we should have beat Brighton. We shouldn't have to spend an extra £100m to beat those teams. It comes back to coaching and preparation.

But as said, we have made changes to the coaching set up again and we'll see if it has an effect.


You talk about reading comprehension, but still cant explain any specifics as to why we lost those games we lost. What happened between the 22 game unbeaten run and these listed games? Emery changed tactics? Emery didnt shout loud enough? Emery is a tier below everyone else?

Or was it more to do with having to rotate in players i mentioned ie:

Mustafi with his individual mistakes
Monreal who cant keep up with the likes of Giroud
Koscielny who is practically wheelchair bound and has to play with injections
Lichtenstiener who again leaves us constantly exposed.
Mkhi who can attack or defend but not both after 45 minutes.

Nahh, nothing to do with them.

Nothing to do with losing Holding and Bellerin which completely changed our game when we didnt have rotation options to fill in effectively I guess, but then again, you guys seem adept at ignoring plain facts.

Hothead is genuinely convinced these players can be coached out of their weaknesses rather than admit we need money to replace these types. What do you see when you watch those players get skinned, turned, out jumped, out muscled, out run by the likes of Brighton?

Koscielny, our f***ing club captain is trying to force a move because he knows hes probably got a year left in him and he cant cut it with us. But he can be coached to not physically break every 4 games. ok mate.

Youre in this thread claiming we dont need to spend and the financial crisis thread wringing your hands and you want to talk about reading comprehension lol. Id love to hear some training regimes from you and Hothead that can explain to everyone how these players can be coached to match the rest of the top 6's options.
Image
User avatar
Zedie
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 32563
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:09 pm
Location: in the man cave

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby EliteKiller » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:01 am

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 ....
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Emeryates » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:51 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 ....

You're also making a run for stupidest poster here tbh.

Since when has Kroenke been a MAJORITY SHARE HOLDER? That's what really counts.
Emeryates
Nigel Winterburn
Nigel Winterburn
 
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 5:29 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby LMAO » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:00 am

EliteKiller wrote:Same old idiots doing the same old dance .... why didn't a billionaire give away his money to us? ..... it's probably why he's a billionaire and you're not.

Takeover economics are not that hard to follow ... well maybe they are for a few on here ... so for them better go with the "nasty old meanie 'merican who wouldn't give us his money" simply ignoring the fact that 500m was spent by a useless management team who Kroenke has since sacked.

People keep pointing out the blindingly obvious - the share accumulation and takeover happened the way it did because that was the most financially rewarding method for Kroenke to use - you might believe you know better but no amount of fictitious math will change history, Kroneke owns our club outright from 28th September 2018 ... that's the fact ... why are you still arguing?

Of course you think you could have done it better, hey who knows if one day you're a billionaire then maybe you will ...

Kroenke spent 1.1 billion to buy assets valued at 2.3 billion ... keep telling yourselves what a clueless c*** he must be .... :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:


"why didn't a billionaire give away his money to us?"

jesus fvcking christ

Learn. How. To. Fvcking. Read.

interest-free loan

interest-free loan

interest-free loan

"People keep pointing out the blindingly obvious - the share accumulation and takeover happened the way it did because that was the most financially rewarding method for Kroenke to use"

Who is saying this other than you? I've argued the exact opposite. Once more for you in back:
Without Usmanov: 100% * $2.300B = $2.300B - $712MM - (x: whatever Kroenke spent in 2007 & 2009) = $1.588B - x profit for Kroenke
With Usmanov: 67% * $3.000B = $2.010B - (x: whatever Kroenke spent in 2007 & 2009) = $2.010B - x profit for Kroenke

In what world is the first option the most financially rewarding method? You'd think with all your prancing around proclaiming superior knowledge in investing, you'd get simple math right.

"Kroneke owns our club outright from 28th September 2018 ... that's the fact ... why are you still arguing?"

Literally no one here has said that wasn't the case. We're (or at least I am) saying that with hindsight, Kroenke made the less optimal decision. The only reason this started was because you gave that wacky proxy race car example saying that was a stupid option only the worst businessmen would take, and I've repeatedly shown that that option isn't idiotic like you seem to think.
User avatar
LMAO
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6606
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby EliteKiller » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:27 am

LMAO wrote:"why didn't a billionaire give away his money to us?"

jesus fvcking christ

Learn. How. To. Fvcking. Read.

interest-free loan

interest-free loan

interest-free loan.


Please, please, please, Let me give you an interest-free loan so that you can spend that money making the company I want to takeover 100's of millions more valuable ... really that's your argument?

Gotta do it because LMAO the resident financial genius, who knows far more than any billionaire investor, he says it makes good sense .... but does it?

Dumb ... Dumb ... Dumb or just Dumb

Hey fuckadoodle - you know this is utter shit don't you? you are just being silly .... you can't possibly be being serious can you .....

Who is saying this other than you? I've argued the exact opposite. Once more for you in back:
Without Usmanov: 100% * $2.300B = $2.300B - $712MM - (x: whatever Kroenke spent in 2007 & 2009) = $1.588B - x profit for Kroenke
With Usmanov: 67% * $3.000B = $2.010B - (x: whatever Kroenke spent in 2007 & 2009) = $2.010B - x profit for Kroenke


What you are attempting to portray is all pure fantasy. With the new TV deal every EPL club has seen a 20%-65% increase in their value over the last 7 years, yet you seem to claiming that any increase at Arsenal would only have come about thanks to Usmanov's investment - now even if that wasn't about as dumb a financial prediction as I can imagine ... the fact is we don't have to guess, we already know exactly what happened over the last 7 years ... it's all cold hard facts

Usmanov invested nothing - yet Arsenal's value still went up by 700m - did you miss the real world bit? .... all off that increased value is now going 100% to Kroenke, why? Because he paid 550m for the remaining shares ... in total 1.1 billion for a 2.3 billion company ... and guess what he's got no imaginary multi-million interest free loan to repay either.

You're trying to claim that if he left 33% with other shareholders he'd somehow be better off - are you fuckin' insane?

Can I buy 33% of your house at 2011 price, I'll lend you a few quid and then when the market goes up by 40% you can pay back my loan but I'll still keep 33% of your house .... honest guv you know you're onto a winner with that deal .... :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3407
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby theHotHead » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:45 am

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.
User avatar
theHotHead
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 5833
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: The Kroenke Problem

Postby Emeryates » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:49 am

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
Emeryates
Nigel Winterburn
Nigel Winterburn
 
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 5:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arsenal Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Gooner_LK6 and 6 guests