THE BOARD - Kroenke, Usmanov and Finance

[arseofacrow]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog ... nal-owners

A far better article than the crap written in the mail by that kelly wanker and it is no coincidence that it is written by a proper Gooner as opposed to some wanker who sticks his nose around the grove every so often as he tours the different football stadia each week

Amy's suggestion that the two major shareholders need to get their heads together is fairly obvious but she of course points out that kroenke is not and will not entertain that idea so you have to say that kroenke, like fizsman before him, is putting a personal vendetta ahead of what might be best for the club and that should be unacceptable to all Gooners

The one quote that I would disagree with Amy on is her referral to the spend last season and this summer as proof that we are prepared to spend - what that point ignores is that the money for those purchases is continually coming from player sales and that in the last 5 seasons we have made a transfer profit of £24.9 million so it is nowhere near accurate to say that the club is not afraid to spend

Amy was perfectly correct to say that it is now kroenke's time to "put up or shut up"........I know which course of action I would be betting on though

Yes good article, from someone who knows what they're doing and actually has access to people. Now, read my blog at: http://www.blogspot.my-bullshit-sources-on-arsenal-don't-exist.com

[1989]

Truth be told, we're fucking fortunate Usmanov holds shares at the club. Imagine if Silent Twat was our sole owner....we'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

[supergeorgegraham]

I think it is very clear that we need Kronk out but the question remains why did the board betray us by bringing him in ?

[arseofacrow]

I think it is very clear that we need Kronk out but the question remains why did the board betray us by bringing him in ?

Money?

[1989]

I think it is very clear that we need Kronk out but the question remains why did the board betray us by bringing him in ?

Remember when Dead-Wood said "We don't need his sort"? If only he followed up on his word the useless old fucker!!

[OneBardGooner]

I get so cross by these financial bullshit excuses I could stamp my little feet . Where's the Judy Garland emoticon when you need it.

WE HAVE £100 MILLION IN THE BANK.

I think the link below says a lot really. Our transfer spending over the last 5 years shows how little we actually spend
so to compete would not break the bank...

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tabl ... asons.html

# Net Spend last 5 Years Purchased Gross Sold Nett Per Season

1 Manchester City £483,450,000 £101,300,000 £382,150,000 £76,430,000
2 Chelsea £268,300,000 £77,600,000 £190,700,000 £38,140,000
3 Stoke City £68,225,000 £8,150,000 £60,075,000 £12,015,000
4 Aston Villa £140,900,000 £87,350,000 £53,550,000 £10,710,000
5 Manchester United £154,950,000 £118,300,000 £36,650,000 £7,330,000
6 QPR £34,000,000 £450,000 £33,550,000 £6,710,000
7 Liverpool £211,850,000 £185,050,000 £26,800,000 £5,360,000
8 Fulham £46,800,000 £23,200,000 £23,600,000 £4,720,000
9 West Bromwich Albion £38,725,000 £22,810,000 £15,915,000 £3,183,000
10 Sunderland £101,900,000 £90,050,000 £11,850,000 £2,370,000
11 West Ham £61,400,000 £53,300,000 £8,100,000 £1,620,000
12 Norwich City £8,050,000 £1,100,000 £6,950,000 £1,390,000
15 Tottenham £153,700,000 £147,750,000 £5,950,000 £1,190,000
14 Swansea £11,430,000 £6,860,000 £4,570,000 £914,000
15 Southampton £11,450,000 £14,600,000 -£3,150,000 -£630,000
16 Wigan £38,800,000 £49,050,000 -£10,250,000 -£2,050,000
17 Everton £46,500,500 £57,000,000 -£10,499,500 -£2,099,900
18 Reading £3,900,000 £25,150,000 -£21,250,000 -£4,250,000
19 Arsenal £117,400,000 £138,700,000 -£21,300,000 -£4,260,000
20 Newcastle £65,650,000 £107,550,000 -£41,900,000 -£8,380,000

fucking unbelievable.

[OneBardGooner]

Truth be told, we're fucking fortunate Usmanov holds shares at the club. Imagine if Silent Twat was our sole owner....we'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

THIS^^^^^^

[OneBardGooner]

I think it is very clear that we need Kronk out but the question remains why did the board betray us by bringing him in ?

Remember when Dead-Wood said "We don't need his sort"? If only he followed up on his word the useless old fucker!!

I remember the old *word censored* saying that...and now he has said it about Usmanov.

[OneBardGooner]

Hill-Woods full interview:

The Arsenal chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, has staunchly defended the running of the club against the vitriolic criticism levelled against the board by the 30% owner, the Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov. Hill-Wood maintained that Arsenal's policy of spending only what they earn is correct, as is the stance that the American majority owner Stan Kroenke, and former shareholders such as Hill-Wood who made millions selling their shares to Kroenke, should not be expected to put money into the club. Hill-Wood described Usmanov's attack on this approach, which Arsenal call a self-financing model, as "not at all helpful".

The chairman, who made £5.5m selling his shares to Kroenke, said the club provides Arsène Wenger with as much money as possible for players, but cannot compete with Manchester City's Abu Dhabi-backed wealth. At the end of a week in which Arsenal's captain, Robin van Persie, announced he will not sign a new contract, citing a lack of ambition for success, Hill-Wood said: "We don't have the same oil wealth that [City's owner] Sheikh Mansour has. He is prepared to pay astronomical figures for players; we cannot pay that sort of money, and we can't compete."

In his open letter to Arsenal's board on Thursday, Usmanov was scathing about the self-financing model, arguing it was, in effect, engineered by the former English shareholders, including Hill-Wood, to make personal fortunes. The owners' policy of not investing their own money in the club, Usmanov argued, meant Arsenal borrowed to build the Emirates Stadium (£260m), charge supporters very expensive ticket prices, yet still leave Wenger short of money to retain and sign star players.

"The self-financing model … allowed the major shareholders of the time … to benefit from [an] increase in the value of their holdings," the letter said. "All of these shareholders and board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits."

Alongside Hill-Wood pocketing £5.5m, the longstanding shareholder Richard Carr made more than £40m selling to Kroenke in 2009. Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith, who also inherited her Arsenal shares, made £116m selling them to Kroenke last year. Danny Fiszman, who bought into Arsenal in the 1990s, first with a portion of the former vice-chairman's David Dein's stake, made £160m, the final sale to Kroenke made just before Fiszman died last year.

Hill-Wood said making so much money from selling his shares was "nice", explaining: "You wouldn't say no to a few million pounds." But he rejected as "complete and utter rubbish" the accusation that the club was run deliberately to increase the value of his and the other owners' shares, at the expense of supporters and a robust budget for Wenger.

"It was nice to make that money, but I was never involved in Arsenal for that reason," Hill-Wood said. "I was involved because I have been brought up to love Arsenal and that is my only concern."

Of Usmanov's intervention, the Arsenal chairman said: "I do not know what is trying to do really, I don't think he is right."

Arsenal's summer has been disrupted by Van Persie's public announcement that he does not intend to renew his contract after, he said, being left unconvinced by the club's plans to compete for trophies. The departures of Gaël Clichy and Samir Nasri last summer to City, where they did win the Premier League, and of Cesc Fábregas, the previous captain-talisman, have left Arsenal looking like a selling club in the age of big-spending plutocrat owners. Usmanov argued that the owners should invest by paying off the stadium debt, which was still £98m and cost £15m in interest last year.

However Hill-Wood argued, as does the chief executive, Ivan Gazidis, that the financial penalties due for early repayment make that unviable.

"It's simple to say we should put some money in, but it doesn't make any sense," Hill-Wood said. "We can't pay off the debt without huge penalties, and putting money in for any other reason doesn't make any sense at all. We give the manager as much money as we possibly can, and all we can do is continue. We have run the club sensibly, and we haven't done badly; it's not as if we have been relegated."

Usmanov, with whom Kroenke does not communicate, is also critical of the executive team, who brought in £33m commercial income last year, £70m less than Manchester United. He points to the board too, saying it would benefit from younger people with more football and major sports club experience. Gazidis, 47, is Arsenal's youngest director; Kroenke is 65 this month, Hill-Wood 76, Sir "Chips" Keswick 72, Lord Harris of Peckham 69 and the long-serving administrative stalwart Ken Friar is 78.

Hill-Wood acknowledged: "It would be good to have some young people on the board, but it is not as easy for young people who have full-time jobs to do that now as it was when I was a young man. However I do not think there is anything different we can be doing in the running of Arsenal."

[Dan_85]

"We can't pay off the debt without huge penalties, and putting money in for any other reason doesn't make any sense at all."

What a fucking idiot. You can put money in without it going to servicing the debt, it can go towards the playing squad ffs! The simple act is that these old duffers are concerned only with lining their own pockets, nothing else. Usmanov proposed a rights issue that would generate £100m to be reinvested in the squad, yet that was quickly dismissed out of hand when PHW, Friar and co found out it would require them to cough up some of their own money. So their stance on "always wanting the best for Arsenal" is total bullshit. They only want what's best for themselves & the sooner they're gone the better.

[augie]

Net Spend last 5 Years Purchased Gross Sold Nett Per Season

1 Manchester City £483,450,000 £101,300,000 £382,150,000 £76,430,000
2 Chelsea £268,300,000 £77,600,000 £190,700,000 £38,140,000
3 Stoke City £68,225,000 £8,150,000 £60,075,000 £12,015,000
4 Aston Villa £140,900,000 £87,350,000 £53,550,000 £10,710,000
5 Manchester United £154,950,000 £118,300,000 £36,650,000 £7,330,000
6 QPR £34,000,000 £450,000 £33,550,000 £6,710,000
7 Liverpool £211,850,000 £185,050,000 £26,800,000 £5,360,000
8 Fulham £46,800,000 £23,200,000 £23,600,000 £4,720,000
9 West Bromwich Albion £38,725,000 £22,810,000 £15,915,000 £3,183,000
10 Sunderland £101,900,000 £90,050,000 £11,850,000 £2,370,000
11 West Ham £61,400,000 £53,300,000 £8,100,000 £1,620,000
12 Norwich City £8,050,000 £1,100,000 £6,950,000 £1,390,000
15 Tottenham £153,700,000 £147,750,000 £5,950,000 £1,190,000
14 Swansea £11,430,000 £6,860,000 £4,570,000 £914,000
15 Southampton £11,450,000 £14,600,000 -£3,150,000 -£630,000
16 Wigan £38,800,000 £49,050,000 -£10,250,000 -£2,050,000
17 Everton £46,500,500 £57,000,000 -£10,499,500 -£2,099,900
18 Reading £3,900,000 £25,150,000 -£21,250,000 -£4,250,000
19 Arsenal £117,400,000 £138,700,000 -£21,300,000 -£4,260,000
20 Newcastle £65,650,000 £107,550,000 -£41,900,000 -£8,380,000

fucking unbelievable.[/quote]


Didn't you hear though mate......we can't compete with the likes of citeeh and the chavs with their artificial wealth Please just ignore the fact that we are being outspent by the likes of reading, Southampton, Swansea, west brom, wigan etc cos that just doesn't back up our argument and isn't fair

[TeeCee]

The worst bit of Dead-Woods speech............

"We have run the club sensibly, and we haven't done badly; it's not as if we have been relegated."

That sums it all up, they are not bothered about winning jack 5hit.

[supergeorgegraham]

They have sold out the loyal fans but the fans are to blame as well. They have put up with much more than United fans would allow.

[Cockerill's chin]

PHW is a continuing embarrassment to the Arsenal. Some of his comments don't deserve detailed opinion. I am tired of the excuse of the oligarch clubs being used as a smokescreen to cover the fact that 17 other clubs in the PL invested more heavily in net transfers since 2005. If our high wage bill is an excuse for underinvesting in transfers then the mismanagement of the wage budget needs accountability but these guys are in a bubble. Edited highlights from the buffoon:

"we cannot pay that sort of money, and we can't compete"

"It's simple to say we should put some money in, but it doesn't make any sense"

"we haven't done badly; it's not as if we have been relegated"

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/pre ... eakingnews


I think this interview PHW gave a few years back sums the guy up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMn2YS5e ... re=related

[Jock Gooner]

They have sold out the loyal fans but the fans are to blame as well. They have put up with much more than United fans would allow.

Problem is its not that easy to get rid of a billionaire although we could always break out the funny coloured scarves like Utd. Fortunately for the Glazers Fergie got behind them, they splashed a bit of cash and Utd have a canny knack of winning titles