Arsenal Holdings PLC
Arsenal Holdings PLC
Well folks we've got some good news and some bad news:
The bad news:
Usminov is now the majority shareholder with 24.2% of the shares
The Good news:
The Board have announced a new ‘lock-down’ agreement in relation to the Board’s interests in the shares of Arsenal Holdings plc. "Members of the Board have been shareholders for many years and continue to be committed to the Club’s future development and to their role as custodians of its heritage. Under the terms of the new ‘lock-down’ agreement"
The Board members agree not to dispose of any of their interests in the Club before 18 April 2009, other than to certain permitted persons such as close family.
After that date, for the remainder of the term of the agreement, they can only sell their shares to another person if the other parties to the agreement do not wish to buy them. In other words they must offer the shares to one of the other board members first.
The agreement is for five years (until 18 October 2012), although it can be
terminated early by the parties on its third anniversary (18 October 2010). So they have one chance to terminated it in 2010 otherwise its like that until 2012.
Now the Lock down to April 2009 gives us another year for sure, not sure if anyone on the board could afford or would want to buy out another member but at elast they get first refusal until 2010/12 so there is some more security!
Custodians of the Heritiage? lets hope so
The bad news:
Usminov is now the majority shareholder with 24.2% of the shares
The Good news:
The Board have announced a new ‘lock-down’ agreement in relation to the Board’s interests in the shares of Arsenal Holdings plc. "Members of the Board have been shareholders for many years and continue to be committed to the Club’s future development and to their role as custodians of its heritage. Under the terms of the new ‘lock-down’ agreement"
The Board members agree not to dispose of any of their interests in the Club before 18 April 2009, other than to certain permitted persons such as close family.
After that date, for the remainder of the term of the agreement, they can only sell their shares to another person if the other parties to the agreement do not wish to buy them. In other words they must offer the shares to one of the other board members first.
The agreement is for five years (until 18 October 2012), although it can be
terminated early by the parties on its third anniversary (18 October 2010). So they have one chance to terminated it in 2010 otherwise its like that until 2012.
Now the Lock down to April 2009 gives us another year for sure, not sure if anyone on the board could afford or would want to buy out another member but at elast they get first refusal until 2010/12 so there is some more security!
Custodians of the Heritiage? lets hope so
- SPUDMASHER
- Posts: 10739
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:07 am
- Location: London Euston
- Contact:
The 'lockdown' means very little.
They can sell to permitted members such as close family. So, Supposing Fizman wants to sell, what is stopping him selling to his wife/kids/mum/dad/auntie Ethel who then sells to Usmanov because they never agreed to a lockdown.
I can see the logic behind Rebels comment of making money but I think Usmanovs intention is to own the club as I could not see Dein getting into bed with him just for the money. Dein wants Arsenal and he cannot acheive that if Usmanov sells for a profit.
They can sell to permitted members such as close family. So, Supposing Fizman wants to sell, what is stopping him selling to his wife/kids/mum/dad/auntie Ethel who then sells to Usmanov because they never agreed to a lockdown.
I can see the logic behind Rebels comment of making money but I think Usmanovs intention is to own the club as I could not see Dein getting into bed with him just for the money. Dein wants Arsenal and he cannot acheive that if Usmanov sells for a profit.
I'm sure there is a provision in the agreement that any sale to a family member (a clause usually put in in case a board member dies) will include a provision that the purchasing or inheriting family member will have to sign an agreement on similar terms.
A very small amount of shares are being sold at the moment (think Usmanov has bought 0.2% in last couple of weeks), no doubt those which aren't owned by the board and therefore are not subject to the agrrement.
I believe he does want to own the club, there are plrenty of companies urning more than 20mill profit every six months that he could invest in with a lot less hassle
A very small amount of shares are being sold at the moment (think Usmanov has bought 0.2% in last couple of weeks), no doubt those which aren't owned by the board and therefore are not subject to the agrrement.
I believe he does want to own the club, there are plrenty of companies urning more than 20mill profit every six months that he could invest in with a lot less hassle
And the plc debt has increased which in my book is a bigger issue for the here and now. The board said something along the lines that the accounts are acceptable or they are satisfied with them or something like that
Thats hardly a ringing endorsement is it
The whole financial side of the club causes me concern and because I dont trust a word that comes out of the board I am never sure if we have money and wont spend it or if we have not got it to spend in the 1st place.
The whole make up of owning a club has changed at least at the top level. I remember reading an article in 4-4-2 a few months ago regarding buying a football club which basically stated that anyone buying a club would 1st have the cash available to buy and would then invest cash to improve the performance of that club but I dont see that happening at too many clubs. In that regard the ownership of our club would make no difference in that no current shareholder or board member appears to invest money into the club and when someone buys shares the money goes to the seller and the only gain for the club is the value of the company would increase. People righfully express major concerns over foreign investors taking control of clubs and transferring any borrowing debts onto the club therefore saddling the club with major debts but our club already has huge debts that has seen the club move to a fab new stadium and seen the share price rocket but all without any investment from our board members. The poor sucker that bought the barcodes(mike ashley) did so independently and is now investing his own money to try and improve the clubs fortunes(some chance
) but yet our owners roll out this moral crap to the fans without, in my opinion, showing any financial commitment to our club and I find that hypocritical and it sticks in my throat to be honest.
The whole club ownership issue has pissed me off to the point that I am just fed up with the whole thing
Like everyone else I dont want usmanov but likewise I dont want or trust the current board either and at the risk of pissing off our resident dickhead roly I would still like to see a return of Dein.


The whole make up of owning a club has changed at least at the top level. I remember reading an article in 4-4-2 a few months ago regarding buying a football club which basically stated that anyone buying a club would 1st have the cash available to buy and would then invest cash to improve the performance of that club but I dont see that happening at too many clubs. In that regard the ownership of our club would make no difference in that no current shareholder or board member appears to invest money into the club and when someone buys shares the money goes to the seller and the only gain for the club is the value of the company would increase. People righfully express major concerns over foreign investors taking control of clubs and transferring any borrowing debts onto the club therefore saddling the club with major debts but our club already has huge debts that has seen the club move to a fab new stadium and seen the share price rocket but all without any investment from our board members. The poor sucker that bought the barcodes(mike ashley) did so independently and is now investing his own money to try and improve the clubs fortunes(some chance

The whole club ownership issue has pissed me off to the point that I am just fed up with the whole thing

- All_Arsenal_1886
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:32 pm
- Location: South London/Benalmadena
- Contact:
Steady now - we still have money to come through from the housing developmentsaugie wrote:And the plc debt has increased which in my book is a bigger issue for the here and now. The board said something along the lines that the accounts are acceptable or they are satisfied with them or something like thatThats hardly a ringing endorsement is it
The whole financial side of the club causes me concern and because I dont trust a word that comes out of the board I am never sure if we have money and wont spend it or if we have not got it to spend in the 1st place.
The whole make up of owning a club has changed at least at the top level. I remember reading an article in 4-4-2 a few months ago regarding buying a football club which basically stated that anyone buying a club would 1st have the cash available to buy and would then invest cash to improve the performance of that club but I dont see that happening at too many clubs. In that regard the ownership of our club would make no difference in that no current shareholder or board member appears to invest money into the club and when someone buys shares the money goes to the seller and the only gain for the club is the value of the company would increase. People righfully express major concerns over foreign investors taking control of clubs and transferring any borrowing debts onto the club therefore saddling the club with major debts but our club already has huge debts that has seen the club move to a fab new stadium and seen the share price rocket but all without any investment from our board members. The poor sucker that bought the barcodes(mike ashley) did so independently and is now investing his own money to try and improve the clubs fortunes(some chance) but yet our owners roll out this moral crap to the fans without, in my opinion, showing any financial commitment to our club and I find that hypocritical and it sticks in my throat to be honest.
The whole club ownership issue has pissed me off to the point that I am just fed up with the whole thingLike everyone else I dont want usmanov but likewise I dont want or trust the current board either and at the risk of pissing off our resident dickhead roly I would still like to see a return of Dein.
"I was never in a club with any deficit. I spend what is available and not more. If it's not enough, it's not enough. But that's the basics for every manager for me at the start. You cannot put the life of a club in trouble or in danger because you want to buy players that you cannot afford."
The above is a statement from wenger - does that sound that he is saying that he has no money available to spend on players or is it just me
The above is a statement from wenger - does that sound that he is saying that he has no money available to spend on players or is it just me

- Red Gunner
- Posts: 5778
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:25 pm
- Location: London
It's not only you. I'd probably interpret it the same way. Weird though when you consider, we supposedly have loads of money to spendaugie wrote:"I was never in a club with any deficit. I spend what is available and not more. If it's not enough, it's not enough. But that's the basics for every manager for me at the start. You cannot put the life of a club in trouble or in danger because you want to buy players that you cannot afford."
The above is a statement from wenger - does that sound that he is saying that he has no money available to spend on players or is it just me

- I Hate Hleb
- Posts: 18632
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 3:36 pm
- Location: London
YES, IT'S YOU AUGIE!!augie wrote:"I was never in a club with any deficit. I spend what is available and not more. If it's not enough, it's not enough. But that's the basics for every manager for me at the start. You cannot put the life of a club in trouble or in danger because you want to buy players that you cannot afford."
The above is a statement from wenger - does that sound that he is saying that he has no money available to spend on players or is it just me



MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT STATEMENT IS THAT WENGER SAYS HE WON'T PUT A CLUB HE IS IN CHARGE OF IN DEBT. WENGER CLAIMING HE WILL SPEND WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO HIM DOESN'T MEAN HE WILL SPEND EVERYTHING AT HIS DISPOSAL, ONLY THAT HE WON'T SPEND MORE THAN WHAT IS AVAILABLE.


Thank you, augie, I was worried that I was agreeing with you too often recently, but that was mostly about stuff on the pitch. Now that you've gone back to your bizarre obsession with the board, I feel much better....
Let me get this straight: the club announces half-year profits that are 54% higher than in the previous year and you say the finances aren't good enough. Unbelieveable. Edelman described the finances as being "very satisfactory", which I think is a pretty modest assessment. The directors have delivered spectacularly good club finances, with a well structured, cheap and manageable debt (ask Liverpool and Man U about that if you want to know how off the mark your comments are), great income and a property portfolio that would be the envy of many businesses.
No fan should heap adulation on a board, that should always be reserved for players and managers, and I don't sit here thinking the board is fucking marvellous. For example, there is certainly a criticism to be made of the board for continuing to increase ticket prices when the finances are as good as they are, since the financial health of the club is really an expression of how much money the fans put into the club one way or another. But the reality is there is nothing the board can do that would please you.
And your comments about Mike Ashley are just as weird. You want us to be like Newcastle?? Your desire for a sugar daddy suggests two things to me: an immature desire for someone to come in and do an Abramovich (which would make us dependent on the whims of an individual) and a misunderstanding of the economics of today's football. Leaving owners like Abramovich and Shinawatra to one side (since they are sugar daddies who don't appear to care about losing vast amounts of money, at least in the short term), all these yanks etc are buying English clubs because they see an opportunity to make a profit. And that profit is driven by the amount of revenue that can be generated from English fans (who turn out in huge numbers and spend enormous amounts of money, and then also buy Sky and Setanta subscriptions etc). So it is revenues from fans that matter, and that is precisely what Arsenal have done so well at accessing.
And David Dein?????? Give me a fucking break! That motherfucker sold to Usmanov who, at best, wants to get plus 25% of the shares to use as a blocking vote on the club's future developments. That means he either wants to control the club's future or he wants to be able to extract a premium price for his blocking share as the price to get rid of him. Thanks Dein. Now fuck off and stick your nauseating orange head in a blender.
But at least we agree on keeping Jaba the *word censored* out.
(And why can't I write *word censored* without bleeding asterisks appearing?? Fucking censors!)
Let me get this straight: the club announces half-year profits that are 54% higher than in the previous year and you say the finances aren't good enough. Unbelieveable. Edelman described the finances as being "very satisfactory", which I think is a pretty modest assessment. The directors have delivered spectacularly good club finances, with a well structured, cheap and manageable debt (ask Liverpool and Man U about that if you want to know how off the mark your comments are), great income and a property portfolio that would be the envy of many businesses.
No fan should heap adulation on a board, that should always be reserved for players and managers, and I don't sit here thinking the board is fucking marvellous. For example, there is certainly a criticism to be made of the board for continuing to increase ticket prices when the finances are as good as they are, since the financial health of the club is really an expression of how much money the fans put into the club one way or another. But the reality is there is nothing the board can do that would please you.
And your comments about Mike Ashley are just as weird. You want us to be like Newcastle?? Your desire for a sugar daddy suggests two things to me: an immature desire for someone to come in and do an Abramovich (which would make us dependent on the whims of an individual) and a misunderstanding of the economics of today's football. Leaving owners like Abramovich and Shinawatra to one side (since they are sugar daddies who don't appear to care about losing vast amounts of money, at least in the short term), all these yanks etc are buying English clubs because they see an opportunity to make a profit. And that profit is driven by the amount of revenue that can be generated from English fans (who turn out in huge numbers and spend enormous amounts of money, and then also buy Sky and Setanta subscriptions etc). So it is revenues from fans that matter, and that is precisely what Arsenal have done so well at accessing.
And David Dein?????? Give me a fucking break! That motherfucker sold to Usmanov who, at best, wants to get plus 25% of the shares to use as a blocking vote on the club's future developments. That means he either wants to control the club's future or he wants to be able to extract a premium price for his blocking share as the price to get rid of him. Thanks Dein. Now fuck off and stick your nauseating orange head in a blender.
But at least we agree on keeping Jaba the *word censored* out.
(And why can't I write *word censored* without bleeding asterisks appearing?? Fucking censors!)
Dont be one bit afraid of agreeing with me 26/5/89....sooner or later everybody comes around to my way of thinking26may1989 wrote:Thank you, augie, I was worried that I was agreeing with you too often recently, but that was mostly about stuff on the pitch. Now that you've gone back to your bizarre obsession with the board, I feel much better....




Seriously though most of what I wrote/typed was meant as questions more than statements especially the bit relating to owner investment - is it reasonable to expect our owner(s) to invest personal money into a club

You are 100% right though when you refer to my opposition to the board and I have never hid that fact. However the only knock I was putting on the board with my above comments was in relation to their "keepers of tradition" bullshit




