Implications of Newcastle takeover on Arsenal

[Salibatelli]

This is the reason I'd be skeptical of a Daniel Ek takeover effort.

No owner that's serious about winning trophies would risk £3bn on Arsenal in its current state. I can see him financing it via private equity, so he puts in a fraction of his own cash and pays him and his consortium partners tens of millions in dividends.

FSG bought Liverpool for a piddling £300m 10 years ago. That's a bargain considering the club's status in English football. It also allowed them to invest heavily straight away and recruit the right managers and coaches.

Arsenal meanwhile haven't been in CL for 5 years, and are going backwards despite buying half of a new team each summer. That valuation doesn't make sense to anybody except PE vultures.

Yeah I just don’t get Arsenals’ value, our commercial deals are nothing special, we’ve not have any real success for years, we’re a midtable team, we’re also not gaining fans like we use to, generally kids prefer the winning teams like City and Chelsea etc (likewise fans abroad).

Where does that value come from, it doesn’t make sense and doesn’t make us attractive to a potential buyer.

[NovaGB]

The Newcastle purchase makes perfect sense, the club won't take much to buy, they have a great stadium already and numerous and fanatical support. Everything is in place for them to become a top level club.

This.

If you have the inbuilt fan numbers, they already have a stadium which just needs a touch up and it costs less than to buy an Arsenal or Liverpool, once they get the players which you have to do at any club, then they'll have everything in place for less than half the cost.

It cost them £300m to buy Newcastle, Daniel Ek is offering £2 billion for Arsenal.

Do the maths, the growth potential for the Newcastle buy is tremendous, in the next 8 years they could become a £2 billion valued club.

Its a wonderful bit of business, very smart, in fact they practically chose the perfect club, maybe not as good as the Chelsea purchase by Abramovich because the Chelsea location is far better but other than that, Newcastle practically have the North East all to themselves.

Abramovich bought Chelsea for £140m back in 2003 - They're now the 6th most valuable club worth £2.13 Billion.

Now compare that to sht investments we get offered as regular folk, stocks and shares in companies where the higher ups pull the plug on the stock market whenever they want.

I get the points but they are worth like 300 odd bn, they ain't in it to make money cos to make them a decent team it will cost them way more than they will earn, its a play thing.

How much has Abramovich and the City owners spent? must be a few billion

[theHotHead]

Yeah agreed, Newcastle is a great buy, Arsenal just isn’t good value for money, 2 billion+ for a club who haven’t won a title for 17 years and have never won the CL and laughing in midtable isn’t a good price.

Probably why we don’t have a lot of options right now, Kroenke or Eck, but the latter isn’t that rich in terms of football billionaires.

From a business and football point of view Newcastle are a great buy, Arsenal would have to halve in value to be a decent buy, because it’s just not worth the 2 billion it’s valued at.

Is that 2 billion for the club or for Arsenal Football Club Holdings, or whatever they are called ? If so its not just the club its the other interests outside of football that contribute to the value.

What other interests do you mean, I’m not familiar?

I assume it’s for the club,

Our commercial deals aren’t all that compared to other clubs due to our lack of success in the last 17 years.

Property investments/portfolio, as an example, its not just the football club the Kroenke's own. Does the 2 billion valuation include the property portfolio too?

[DiamondGooner]

Yeah agreed, Newcastle is a great buy, Arsenal just isn’t good value for money, 2 billion+ for a club who haven’t won a title for 17 years and have never won the CL and laughing in midtable isn’t a good price.

Probably why we don’t have a lot of options right now, Kroenke or Eck, but the latter isn’t that rich in terms of football billionaires.

From a business and football point of view Newcastle are a great buy, Arsenal would have to halve in value to be a decent buy, because it’s just not worth the 2 billion it’s valued at.

Is that 2 billion for the club or for Arsenal Football Club Holdings, or whatever they are called ? If so its not just the club its the other interests outside of football that contribute to the value.

What other interests do you mean, I’m not familiar?

I assume it’s for the club,

Our commercial deals aren’t all that compared to other clubs due to our lack of success in the last 17 years.

Property investments/portfolio, as an example, its not just the football club the Kroenke's own. Does the 2 billion valuation include the property portfolio too?

I would assume that the £2B would include all Arsenal FC interests including the holdings if its bought under the AFC banner and portfolio.

We can't be certain but surely it includes all club sponsorships, all the surrounding land, stadium, training grounds.

I mean its up ot Kroenke what bits of AFC holdings he chooses to cut out of any deal, for example if he said "I want to keep the property near the Emirates" then truly that is up to him, he can cut it up anyway he wants however all immediate club related things would have to be included in the deal otherwise your not buying the club out right so I would assume its all included?

[Highbury Hillbilly]

The buyer assumes all of the clubs debts as well. KSE last year bought out £220m in debt that was previously payable to another creditor. We spebt massively tbis summer so I imagine that number is bigger now.

[LMAO]

This is the reason I'd be skeptical of a Daniel Ek takeover effort.

No owner that's serious about winning trophies would risk £3bn on Arsenal in its current state. I can see him financing it via private equity, so he puts in a fraction of his own cash and pays him and his consortium partners tens of millions in dividends.

FSG bought Liverpool for a piddling £300m 10 years ago. That's a bargain considering the club's status in English football. It also allowed them to invest heavily straight away and recruit the right managers and coaches.

Arsenal meanwhile haven't been in CL for 5 years, and are going backwards despite buying half of a new team each summer. That valuation doesn't make sense to anybody except PE vultures.

Yeah I just don’t get Arsenals’ value, our commercial deals are nothing special, we’ve not have any real success for years, we’re a midtable team, we’re also not gaining fans like we use to, generally kids prefer the winning teams like City and Chelsea etc (likewise fans abroad).

Where does that value come from, it doesn’t make sense and doesn’t make us attractive to a potential buyer.

Location, location, location.

London is expensive real estate.

Look at Kroenke's Rams. Relocated them from St. Louis to LA. Same name, same players, same coaches. Valuation doubled from $1.45 billion to $2.9 billion overnight just by changing ZIP codes.

[DiamondGooner]

For Arsenal its location and strength of our brand.

We're one of the original top 4 and have a greater history and fan base globally along with it, Newcastles global fanbase is non-existent, AFC has fans in every part of the world.

That's going to start dropping though the longer we're out of the top 4.

We're in a lot of trouble right now, when Newcastle get up and running there will be no space for us in the top 5 let alone top 4.

Like I said, Jay better get used to liking that Europa league he hates so much because that's our new Champions league.

Honestly it was bad enough competing against the new top 4 (Utd, Chelsea, City, Liverpool) now adding NC to the mix in the next 2-3 years ............ we're fking done for.

We'll never win the Premier league ever again until some mega billionaire buys us as well, Kroenke and Arteta are not the men to take us to a trophy in the CL or Prem.

Chelsea have Tuchel, Liverpool have Klopp, City have Pep .......... we have fkin Artea.

What were we thinking? second rate and no balls to compete that's what, the mediocrity continues.

Imagine a time when every top flight manager declines Arsenal, its already begun, Conte won't come here, Allegri wouldn't come here ....... none of them will.

[EliteKiller]

Arsenal for decades were undisputed kings of London - now we are just one of several top London clubs - currently the 5th best in the EPL - last season we were 4th best - the season before that 3rd best .... that's a scary trend for owners and fans.

After 20 years in the top four we've gone 5th - 6th - 5th - 8th - 8th .... changes are now coming, but is it to little to late?

[Salibatelli]

Truth is our appeal is eroding away because we’re allowing it to, 2nd rate players, 2nd rate managers and a fall from being big players in the PL to making up the numbers in midtable.

Who is going to be interested in a club who are so embedded in mediocrity, a club that is full of excuses and non of the answers, a club with owners who really don’t care what happens on the pitch.

Truth is less and less people and the longer it carries on the harder it will be. We probably could still attract a decent manager right now if we make certain assurances, but in a few years it may be too late.

From what I can see sticking with Arteta is proving costly as we’re really cementing our place as midtable nobodies and now we don’t even play decent football anymore.

[theHotHead]

Nah I don't agree that our appeal is eroding away, I see Arsenal as a footballing behemoth and a slack period outside of the CL doesn't change it. We have managed to appeal to top footballers in the past when we were not doing so well, the draw of being Arsenal and being in London makes a difference - irrespective of how poorly we are doing on field.

Our standing in football doesn't change because we are going through a bad spell.

[Salibatelli]

To be honest we struggled to appeal to top footballers, Keane signed for Man U, Sinton went to Sheff Wednesday, Sutton to Blackburn etc

Bergkamp was a big statement but he wasn’t at the top of his game.

In the end what changed the tide was success, but as we go longer and longer without it and also fall into midtable attracting top managers (which you need) and players becomes harder.

[theHotHead]

Ozim, your argument i basically any player that chooses another club meant we didn't appeal, players snub Real and Barca, does that mean they don't appeal either ? Nonsense.

Bergkamp WAS at the top of his game when we bought him, he was one of the best players in the world, he still scored some cracking goals for Inter Milan, he just struggled to adjust to Italian football, there was nothing wrong with his game. The same with Henry, he went to Italy and his game wasn't suited to it, he came to Arsenal and the rest is history.

Overmars was one of the best players in the world when we bought him, we hadn't won the league under Wenger when we bought him and Wenger was a relative unknown still - so Overmars didn't come to Arsenal because we had a top name manager there. It was the lure of playing for Arsenal football club.

[jayramfootball]

Ozim, your argument i basically any player that chooses another club meant we didn't appeal, players snub Real and Barca, does that mean they don't appeal either ? Nonsense.

Bergkamp WAS at the top of his game when we bought him, he was one of the best players in the world, he still scored some cracking goals for Inter Milan, he just struggled to adjust to Italian football, there was nothing wrong with his game. The same with Henry, he went to Italy and his game wasn't suited to it, he came to Arsenal and the rest is history.

Overmars was one of the best players in the world when we bought him, we hadn't won the league under Wenger when we bought him and Wenger was a relative unknown still - so Overmars didn't come to Arsenal because we had a top name manager there. It was the lure of playing for Arsenal football club.

Our two best managers in the last 40 years were not big names and would not have been considered 'top managers on these shores.

Arsene Who? Even our players said it.
George Graham. He was the Milwall manager.

Big-name managers are simply not required.
As for players, we have for decades attracted excellent players and will continue to do so.
We also don't need 'big name' players - we need good players, whether they are 'top names' or not, that can fit into the team and have the right character.

[Salibatelli]

Ozim, your argument i basically any player that chooses another club meant we didn't appeal, players snub Real and Barca, does that mean they don't appeal either ? Nonsense.

Bergkamp WAS at the top of his game when we bought him, he was one of the best players in the world, he still scored some cracking goals for Inter Milan, he just struggled to adjust to Italian football, there was nothing wrong with his game. The same with Henry, he went to Italy and his game wasn't suited to it, he came to Arsenal and the rest is history.

Overmars was one of the best players in the world when we bought him, we hadn't won the league under Wenger when we bought him and Wenger was a relative unknown still - so Overmars didn't come to Arsenal because we had a top name manager there. It was the lure of playing for Arsenal football club.

Bergkamp had struggled in Italy and it was between us and Villa as to where he’d go, obviously he was a top player talent wise but his stock had fallen due to his tough time in Italy.

Henry was at Monaco but we were already on the up by then anyway.

Overmars was at Ajax but had just had a long injury lay-off and no one knew if he would reproduce the form he had shown.

What I’m saying is that although they were exciting signings for a club where we were a the time they weren’t players with a host of top clubs after them.

When we came head to head with other big clubs we usually missed out in those days, I remember us missing out on Juninho to Middlesborough, I was gutted.

The guy was brilliant for Boro as well.

I just think the longer this mediocrity continues the worse it will get, because players will see us as a club who win and achieve nothing and a club not worth going to from a career point of view.

[Salibatelli]

Ozim, your argument i basically any player that chooses another club meant we didn't appeal, players snub Real and Barca, does that mean they don't appeal either ? Nonsense.

Bergkamp WAS at the top of his game when we bought him, he was one of the best players in the world, he still scored some cracking goals for Inter Milan, he just struggled to adjust to Italian football, there was nothing wrong with his game. The same with Henry, he went to Italy and his game wasn't suited to it, he came to Arsenal and the rest is history.

Overmars was one of the best players in the world when we bought him, we hadn't won the league under Wenger when we bought him and Wenger was a relative unknown still - so Overmars didn't come to Arsenal because we had a top name manager there. It was the lure of playing for Arsenal football club.

Our two best managers in the last 40 years were not big names and would not have been considered 'top managers on these shores.

Arsene Who? Even our players said it.
George Graham. He was the Milwall manager.

Big-name managers are simply not required.
As for players, we have for decades attracted excellent players and will continue to do so.
We also don't need 'big name' players - we need good players, whether they are 'top names' or not, that can fit into the team and have the right character.

That was 25+ years ago, things have changed, uncovering a decent unknown it almost impossible nowadays.

We tried it with Arteta and look how that’s gone!