Usmanov creeping up to the 30% threshold

[Babu]

Im a bit worried about silent stan to be honest. Could this possibly be a quick profit deal for him. Lets say usmanov gets his 30% and offers stan what hes offered everyone else which is almost £4000 more per share that stan paid.

Stan could make a nice profit very quick by selling at the price usmanov is offering.

Very good point, and also something that crossed my mind. Usmanov would have to offer to buy the shares at £14,000 a share, I believe. Looking through the trades for Arsenal holdings here...

http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/trades ... ldings+plc

...it appears that the highest price paid for shares in the last 12 months has been £14,000. This must be from Usmanov.

Kroenke paid maximum £11,750 a share for most of them.

So if Usmanov gets to 30% and then has to offer to buy all other shares ( something which I'm not sure that he has to do, but would make sense ), then the minimum profit for Kroenke would be roughly 14,000 - 11,750 X 41,463...

which comes to the grand total of £93,291,750.

So if this happens, then Kroenke has earned himself £93million, plus a few pounds and pence here and there on the shares he only paid between £9k and £10k for.

The other scenario is that ( insert ironic smirky smilie here ) the UEFA laws come into play and work. This would also drive the price of shares up, and the price of The Arsenal, and then Kroenke could sell The Arsenal to anyone, and make a fairly substantial profit there as well. He would have to wait a couple of years, but still make a lot of money.

[QuartzGooner]

I actually hope Usmanov gets to 30% and sees the books.

[Babu]

I actually hope Usmanov gets to 30% and sees the books.

I actually hope that Usmanov gets to 30%, sees the books, and then tells everyone what he's seen.

I could imagine that Hartford, CT, USA is dreading that day though!

[mcdowell42]

Any minute now hes going to be all over this thread

[_James_]

What if he sees the books, finds the club has hidden financial problems maybe he will run and sell the shares to Stan.

[The DBs]

Its all academic anyway. After I win tonights euro millions I will buy the club and install myself as the manager.

[USMartin]

I for one welcome Silent Stan not having it all his own way once Usmanov reaches 30% he will get to see the books it will be interesting to see if he then questions Wenger's forced/self inflicted prudence after examining the finances.

I would suggest the question would be whther hwe questions the Board's policieson that basis - it's certain every bit as possible...indeed looking at the facts we know it's even more likely. After do you seriously think that Msessers Usmanov and Dein aren't aware of much of this already. Arsene Wenger and David Dein travel together ffs!

The real question is is there anything in these new books that might shed further light on why the money was or was not being spent. I suspect there may not be if they are simple accounts and by that I mean records of financial figures with no details as to how those numbers were accumulated.

I am 100% confident based on the nature of the personal friendship between Arsene Wenger and David Dein and the business relationship between David Dein and Alisher Usmanov that if indeed this was just the manager refusing to spend money that Mr. Usmanov is already 100% aware of this without seeing any additional numbers the club may not have reported publicly

[USMartin]

I actually hope Usmanov gets to 30% and sees the books.

I actually hope that Usmanov gets to 30%, sees the books, and then tells everyone what he's seen.

I could imagine that Hartford, CT, USA is dreading that day though!

Why would I dread that day. Whatever he says we will know the truth and bepositioned then address the truth and correct the problems.

If that means I was 100% I will simply stand up acknowledge this apologize to the Board for casting unfair aspersions on them and get in line behind sacking the manager and look forward to a new era of success with a manager willing to match his Club and Board's ambitions on the pitch. There is no reason to do anything else. I had genuine concerns I honestly acted on and advised we all should act on and if those concerns are wrong so be it.


It wouldn't be the first time I have retracted things in Gleiberland I first raised similar concerns in the year 2000 when many on that forum were for selling Vieira and pires to help pay for the new stadium and I declared that if the Board did one would have to question whether they were acting out profit-driven self-interest, and when the re-signed Pires and Vieira Immediately congratulated the Board and withdrew my comments prior ot that. It's not hard to admit you're wrong honestly.
If you act for what you genuinely believe are the right reasons there is no shame in being wrong. If however you ignore legitimate reasons to act and are proven wrong in doing so that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

[USMartin]

Its all academic anyway. After I win tonights euro millions I will buy the club and install myself as the manager.

Good luck tonight then

[USMartin]

I actually hope Usmanov gets to 30% and sees the books.

The only thing I can think he'll see at this point - provided these accounts and books, and not notes and records of meetings and discussions and what exactly those unspecified expenses actually are and that may or may not shed any light on anything - not this opecifically anyway.

By the same token I have heard things I cannot verify that suggest maybe we sold far less of Highbury Square than we are led to believe - at least to tenants. This I will note is purely speculative because I have no facts that confirm other than anecdotes about empty flats that don't reflect the information at the Highbury Square webpages. Could it be that the club bought out remaining flats to make sure we could pay off the loan on-time and correct the share price direction?

I HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW THIS AT THIS TIME. In this case I am inclined to think it could simply be cost overruns the club was covering but did not want to publicly acknowledge. Also given our past history with the Inland Revenue this could be some fund to pay our better players above and beyond their actual wages. Secret dividends to Board members?

It could just Mr Hill-Wood's cigar and liquor bill. We don't know for sure. But I would suspect it could potentially even if it sheds no direct light on this issue still be something uncomfortable. I just hope it doesn't throw more dirt over all this.

[northbankbren]

US martin.....are you an automated peice of software?

[Deise Gooner]

I actually hope Usmanov gets to 30% and sees the books.

The only thing I can think he'll see at this point - provided these accounts and books, and not notes and records of meetings and discussions and what exactly those unspecified expenses actually are and that may or may not shed any light on anything - not this opecifically anyway.

By the same token I have heard things I cannot verify that suggest maybe we sold far less of Highbury Square than we are led to believe - at least to tenants. This I will note is purely speculative because I have no facts that confirm other than anecdotes about empty flats that don't reflect the information at the Highbury Square webpages. Could it be that the club bought out remaining flats to make sure we could pay off the loan on-time and correct the share price direction?

I HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW THIS AT THIS TIME. In this case I am inclined to think it could simply be cost overruns the club was covering but did not want to publicly acknowledge. Also given our past history with the Inland Revenue this could be some fund to pay our better players above and beyond their actual wages. Secret dividends to Board members?

It could just Mr Hill-Wood's cigar and liquor bill. We don't know for sure. But I would suspect it could potentially even if it sheds no direct light on this issue still be something uncomfortable. I just hope it doesn't throw more dirt over all this.

So you have no evidence for your wild conspiracy

[USMartin]

I actually hope Usmanov gets to 30% and sees the books.

The only thing I can think he'll see at this point - provided these accounts and books, and not notes and records of meetings and discussions and what exactly those unspecified expenses actually are and that may or may not shed any light on anything - not this opecifically anyway.

By the same token I have heard things I cannot verify that suggest maybe we sold far less of Highbury Square than we are led to believe - at least to tenants. This I will note is purely speculative because I have no facts that confirm other than anecdotes about empty flats that don't reflect the information at the Highbury Square webpages. Could it be that the club bought out remaining flats to make sure we could pay off the loan on-time and correct the share price direction?

I HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW THIS AT THIS TIME. In this case I am inclined to think it could simply be cost overruns the club was covering but did not want to publicly acknowledge. Also given our past history with the Inland Revenue this could be some fund to pay our better players above and beyond their actual wages. Secret dividends to Board members?

It could just Mr Hill-Wood's cigar and liquor bill. We don't know for sure. But I would suspect it could potentially even if it sheds no direct light on this issue still be something uncomfortable. I just hope it doesn't throw more dirt over all this.

So you have no evidence for your wild conspiracy

I think it says it all that when yopu feel, this need to delivberately idstort what i said and take it out of context because you are unavble to offer any credible facts beyiond your blind fairth in whatever you want to believe.

What I said is that if these reports are simply more accounting records and notdetailed notes on the club's plans and policies we will learn very little from them except maybe what those exxpenses the Board refused to identify in the public reports are. I suggested a whole series of possibilities, including a possibility about the payment for flats at Highbury square. I acknowledged that I had no proof to suggest that was actually true and you will note since you are so aware of my wild conspiracy that in fact I have never even touched on that before that i recall - perhaps you can go back and find an instance.

Anyway in acknowledging that I have shown more willingness to acknowldge where I have no proof of what I may beklieve than I have eveer seen you do and would suggest in this instance alone I have done this more than many of you put together ever have on here.
It's sad that instead of having the courage to make a real case in defence of what you believe or having the courage to admit you can't make such case or evebn an honest coherent counter to my own case you have to deliberately twist what I say because you are so wedded to what you want to believe that the truth simply means virtually nothing.

[mcdowell42]

Does anybody have and English-US MARTIN DICTIONARY.

[mcdowell42]

I think i have it translated in laymans terms you have no evidence. Why the pretence that you did have evidence you could have avoided all this aggro a long time ago