The owner of the club will not change my stance on the club one bit - I will still be a lover of Arsenal Football Club.
But if the new owner runs the club in a fashion that is detrimental to the club, then it will cause me pain.
Relating it to Chel$ki, I'd rather support a club which finishes mid table consistently than a team that thrives for a few seasons before taking a heavy fall from its previous 'grace'.
Chairman Usmanov!!!!
-
highburyJD
- Posts: 4982
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:36 pm
- Location: Highbury
I love arsenal
Islington boy, I've been a season ticket holder since the early 90's go 2loads of away games
only bought one because buying tickets for every game became more difficult
if usmanov took us over if would break my heart and make me reconsider everything
but 4get that - thats just personal opinion about my club validating the status of a scumbag
as far as direct effect on the terraces- well that would be huge
the board have never paid any dividend - never taken money out of the club except through wages or selling shares
any 'investor' owner wants to make money out of the club
how can we make more money...? well by charging the fans more
the idea red and white are floating is ramping up middle tier charges.
club level generates more income than the WHOLE of highbury used to,
there may be a bit more blood that can be squeezed from that stone
but not a lot.
the next hit would obviously be all other ticket prices, programmes food etc. taking money out obv also means less to spend on players.
wenger is a genius but 2some extent is unique. for our next manager we may look for a ferguson type - a great topdog manager. always getting the best players who everyone wants like ince, keane, ruud, rooney or ronaldo. once the edge is taken off the stadium debt by the highbury square sales we may well be able to financially compete at that top table again (not actually wengers speciality) btw by no means am I briefing against wenger here - theres no manager I'd rather have.
if usmanov is taking profit out rather than spending it on players then what was the point in moving??!?
essentially dein, kroenke and usmanov where hoping to make a little 'disaster capitalism' money
u wait till a time of trauma (a war, disaster etc) and push through rampant privitisation at a time the scared masses need daddy to take a strong lead. the current american administration are past masters at it.
this is same same but different
Dein left Henry left - everyone wrote arsenal off - it was the perfect time to pounce. and the arsenal fans, scared we haven't invested in 'star' players + not understanding how financially fucked manure and liverpool have been by those takeovers, would roll over. (both those clubs BORROWED loads for what - so that som1 new could own them?!? scandalous)
as it happens we've started brilliantly and all the take-over speculation + how strongly people have wanted to hold their shares has ramped the price right up.
but can usmanov and kroenke just take that profit...?
probably not - there aren't a lot of buyers in the market as this level.
I imagine kroenke thought a takeover would be cheaper but maybe he's now interested in some interaction with the board (they recently met - edelman wouldn't confrm any more than that)
usmanov may think there's profit but more importantly a future russian administration would find it impossible to take back the money if its invested in the arsenal.
his mate putin cannot stand 4Pres again - the anti-oligarch/gangster capitalism feeling in russia is increasing. money taken out of russia and put in england is far safer. we would be providing an ego-trip, gangster laundering and an income stream for a crook
every proper arsenal fan should be 100% against usmanov
Islington boy, I've been a season ticket holder since the early 90's go 2loads of away games
only bought one because buying tickets for every game became more difficult
if usmanov took us over if would break my heart and make me reconsider everything
but 4get that - thats just personal opinion about my club validating the status of a scumbag
as far as direct effect on the terraces- well that would be huge
the board have never paid any dividend - never taken money out of the club except through wages or selling shares
any 'investor' owner wants to make money out of the club
how can we make more money...? well by charging the fans more
the idea red and white are floating is ramping up middle tier charges.
club level generates more income than the WHOLE of highbury used to,
there may be a bit more blood that can be squeezed from that stone
but not a lot.
the next hit would obviously be all other ticket prices, programmes food etc. taking money out obv also means less to spend on players.
wenger is a genius but 2some extent is unique. for our next manager we may look for a ferguson type - a great topdog manager. always getting the best players who everyone wants like ince, keane, ruud, rooney or ronaldo. once the edge is taken off the stadium debt by the highbury square sales we may well be able to financially compete at that top table again (not actually wengers speciality) btw by no means am I briefing against wenger here - theres no manager I'd rather have.
if usmanov is taking profit out rather than spending it on players then what was the point in moving??!?
essentially dein, kroenke and usmanov where hoping to make a little 'disaster capitalism' money
u wait till a time of trauma (a war, disaster etc) and push through rampant privitisation at a time the scared masses need daddy to take a strong lead. the current american administration are past masters at it.
this is same same but different
Dein left Henry left - everyone wrote arsenal off - it was the perfect time to pounce. and the arsenal fans, scared we haven't invested in 'star' players + not understanding how financially fucked manure and liverpool have been by those takeovers, would roll over. (both those clubs BORROWED loads for what - so that som1 new could own them?!? scandalous)
as it happens we've started brilliantly and all the take-over speculation + how strongly people have wanted to hold their shares has ramped the price right up.
but can usmanov and kroenke just take that profit...?
probably not - there aren't a lot of buyers in the market as this level.
I imagine kroenke thought a takeover would be cheaper but maybe he's now interested in some interaction with the board (they recently met - edelman wouldn't confrm any more than that)
usmanov may think there's profit but more importantly a future russian administration would find it impossible to take back the money if its invested in the arsenal.
his mate putin cannot stand 4Pres again - the anti-oligarch/gangster capitalism feeling in russia is increasing. money taken out of russia and put in england is far safer. we would be providing an ego-trip, gangster laundering and an income stream for a crook
every proper arsenal fan should be 100% against usmanov
Gus, good question. And now my ridiculously long answer:
Ignoring all the arguments on the takeover (we don't need it with revenues of £200m a year etc etc), the problems I see in Usmanov taking control include:
1. Possible/probable interference with the team, coaching, signings and club operations. AFC would be more likely to become billionaire's play-thing, used and abused for sake of vanity. Abramovich may be the only example in English top flight football but Romanov at Hearts should be a good warning of the threats to our club, as well as numerous examples in Italy and Spain of the club being abused by an ego-maniac of an owner.
2. In the longer term, Wenger would be unlikely to find it an acceptable place to be. Gus, you're more trusting than me if you think the ego of a character like Usmanov would cause him to behave rationally - just look at Abramovich. Wenger is a very particular type of person, he could have left us years ago to go and work for a club run by a meglomaniac, but didn't - why would he stick around to experience it now? Sooner or later he would leave, and not necessarily before his succession had been organised. And given the comments of Fabregas etc about the influence of Wenger, I think we know where AW's departure would lead.
3. The connection between fans and club would be eroded. Would an Usmanov-controlled club really be interested in talking to fans through the Arsenal Supporters' Trust, AISA etc or take our interest into account generally? Doubt it.
4. The morality of being owned by someone who acquired money in dubious circumstances and whose wealth could be characterised (as Abramovich) as having been stolen through the "privatisation" process following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This might not be a very fashionable concern, but I for one could not stomach my club being soiled by connection with that sort of wealth.
5. The longer term risk of being in hands of one person versus the relative solidity of ownership being shared.
6. The could be loaded up with debt without anyone to prevent it, which could (if football loses its place in the sun) become a serious issue if Usmanov were to dump the club.
7. Loss of pride that our success means something whereas Chavski's is all hollow bullshit.
8. The coffers would be bled dry - the £70m warchest accumulated but not spent and the very considerable property portfolio the club now has are a honeypot for the likes of Usmanov, who would look for ways of getting at those assets.
9. Revenue could be stripped out in a number of ways, dividends being one. Don't assume that ownership of the club automatically means senisible custodianship - one man's objectives and interests could be served by tapping into the club's revenues (TV income being very attractive to the various foreign "investors"). We may not know it is happening but if one man owns the club he could, for example, make "loans" to the club as a vehicle for getting money out (see Cardiff City for an (alleged) example of that).
I agree with you, the players, the coaches, the gossip, the matches and (hopefully) the trophies generally matter much more than who owns the club. BUT ownership issues do matter right now - if we don't take care, we could wake up in a couple of years and see our club in ruins, doing a Leeds. There's a reason so many fans of other clubs have been so admiring of the position Arsenal are in in terms of ownership and finances - why would we throw that away now? Of course, if it's just a weekend's entertainment, then don't worry about it, you can always find another club to follow. But if this is the only club you'll ever care about and if you're so obsessed by it you spend stupid amounts of time on online forums discussing it, then it is worth taking some interest in.
Ignoring all the arguments on the takeover (we don't need it with revenues of £200m a year etc etc), the problems I see in Usmanov taking control include:
1. Possible/probable interference with the team, coaching, signings and club operations. AFC would be more likely to become billionaire's play-thing, used and abused for sake of vanity. Abramovich may be the only example in English top flight football but Romanov at Hearts should be a good warning of the threats to our club, as well as numerous examples in Italy and Spain of the club being abused by an ego-maniac of an owner.
2. In the longer term, Wenger would be unlikely to find it an acceptable place to be. Gus, you're more trusting than me if you think the ego of a character like Usmanov would cause him to behave rationally - just look at Abramovich. Wenger is a very particular type of person, he could have left us years ago to go and work for a club run by a meglomaniac, but didn't - why would he stick around to experience it now? Sooner or later he would leave, and not necessarily before his succession had been organised. And given the comments of Fabregas etc about the influence of Wenger, I think we know where AW's departure would lead.
3. The connection between fans and club would be eroded. Would an Usmanov-controlled club really be interested in talking to fans through the Arsenal Supporters' Trust, AISA etc or take our interest into account generally? Doubt it.
4. The morality of being owned by someone who acquired money in dubious circumstances and whose wealth could be characterised (as Abramovich) as having been stolen through the "privatisation" process following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This might not be a very fashionable concern, but I for one could not stomach my club being soiled by connection with that sort of wealth.
5. The longer term risk of being in hands of one person versus the relative solidity of ownership being shared.
6. The could be loaded up with debt without anyone to prevent it, which could (if football loses its place in the sun) become a serious issue if Usmanov were to dump the club.
7. Loss of pride that our success means something whereas Chavski's is all hollow bullshit.
8. The coffers would be bled dry - the £70m warchest accumulated but not spent and the very considerable property portfolio the club now has are a honeypot for the likes of Usmanov, who would look for ways of getting at those assets.
9. Revenue could be stripped out in a number of ways, dividends being one. Don't assume that ownership of the club automatically means senisible custodianship - one man's objectives and interests could be served by tapping into the club's revenues (TV income being very attractive to the various foreign "investors"). We may not know it is happening but if one man owns the club he could, for example, make "loans" to the club as a vehicle for getting money out (see Cardiff City for an (alleged) example of that).
I agree with you, the players, the coaches, the gossip, the matches and (hopefully) the trophies generally matter much more than who owns the club. BUT ownership issues do matter right now - if we don't take care, we could wake up in a couple of years and see our club in ruins, doing a Leeds. There's a reason so many fans of other clubs have been so admiring of the position Arsenal are in in terms of ownership and finances - why would we throw that away now? Of course, if it's just a weekend's entertainment, then don't worry about it, you can always find another club to follow. But if this is the only club you'll ever care about and if you're so obsessed by it you spend stupid amounts of time on online forums discussing it, then it is worth taking some interest in.
-
highburyJD
- Posts: 4982
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:36 pm
- Location: Highbury
http://www.arsenal-world.co.uk/news/loa ... &id=356826
this just made me think of a chant
"BACK THE BOARD
BACK THE BOARD
BACK THE BOARD"
this just made me think of a chant
"BACK THE BOARD
BACK THE BOARD
BACK THE BOARD"
-
gus ceasar is a legend
- Posts: 9078
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:42 pm
Nope! We are still talking politics and the supposed rights and wrongs of the scenario's which is not what I asked!
Also please don't compare us to Chelsea.......we own our ground, we have a history, established independent financial success, a proven winning formula etc etc
Thank you however for saying good question!
Augie, don't ever think you are a leper here! As you know we have similar views and they are just as valid as anyone's! I am quite proud of the fact that I don't follow the crowd and the propoganda!
Also please don't compare us to Chelsea.......we own our ground, we have a history, established independent financial success, a proven winning formula etc etc
Thank you however for saying good question!
Augie, don't ever think you are a leper here! As you know we have similar views and they are just as valid as anyone's! I am quite proud of the fact that I don't follow the crowd and the propoganda!
Oi, I answered your question about the difference I feel it would make to have Usmanov take control of the club, and then responded to the political points you made:
Bastard.gus ceasar is a legend wrote:I will be quite honest in saying I don't really give that much of a toss who runs our club as long as it is in a sound way! I am realistic enough to accept that the amont of money involved in the game today means that clubs are run as a business and hence have to show profit and loss etc and also be open to change so as to move with the times.
What I am getting at is it will be a fucking sad day when Hill-Wood or Usmanov become more talked about than Wenger, Toure, Van Persie or even Song! Not once before this takeover nonsense have I worried about the board have had to say apart from the times when a new manager has been appointed......and thats because that DOES affect me becuase it will have a huge bearing on my weekend and possible mid-week happiness!
Not once as a kid did I have a poster of Dein or Lady Nina on my bedroom wall as frankly I couldn't give a fuck because all that mattered was the team and as long as the team continues to do the business, I will now continue to not give a fuck!
And you and Augie are 100% right to stick to your guns, just don't expect others to stop trying to show you the errors of your way...gus ceasar is a legend wrote:Augie, don't ever think you are a leper here! As you know we have similar views and they are just as valid as anyone's! I am quite proud of the fact that I don't follow the crowd and the propoganda!
highburyJD wrote:http://www.arsenal-world.co.uk/news/loa ... &id=356826
this just made me think of a chant
"BACK THE BOARD
BACK THE BOARD
BACK THE BOARD"
Nicely done my friend, nicely done
.
It's funny cos I keep seeing headlines like "Arsenal fans unite to fight takeovers" & "Arsenal fans to back the board" etc and it makes me ask the same question I have asked all summer long - Are we indeed opposing a takeover cos we all love the existing board(not me) & think they are doing a wonderful job or are we opposing takeovers cos we think what will come in will be worse again(frying pan fire scenario) ? Trust me fellas there really isa big difference. I do not want usmanov but also would welcome changes at the top so while I am anti usmanov I would consider a takeover from another party(kroenke or whoever) depending on what they had to say. It is also funny that only a few months ago phw said re kroenke that "we dont want his sort" and now he is practically begging the yank to join forces with the board - ironic really.
-
gus ceasar is a legend
- Posts: 9078
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:42 pm
Wasn't being funny 1989 at all.......I just wanted to see what this meant to the average punter like you and me!
Right or wrong (I think there is an inbetween) I just want the focus on the team and frankly fuck the boardroom now!
Basically I trust the manager, the players and the supporters because we are the only group who have the same agenda.....good football that brings success!
Right or wrong (I think there is an inbetween) I just want the focus on the team and frankly fuck the boardroom now!
Basically I trust the manager, the players and the supporters because we are the only group who have the same agenda.....good football that brings success!
Lesser of two evils.augie wrote:It's funny cos I keep seeing headlines like "Arsenal fans unite to fight takeovers" & "Arsenal fans to back the board" etc and it makes me ask the same question I have asked all summer long - Are we indeed opposing a takeover cos we all love the existing board(not me) & think they are doing a wonderful job or are we opposing takeovers cos we think what will come in will be worse again(frying pan fire scenario) ? Trust me fellas there really isa big difference. I do not want usmanov but also would welcome changes at the top so while I am anti usmanov I would consider a takeover from another party(kroenke or whoever) depending on what they had to say. It is also funny that only a few months ago phw said re kroenke that "we dont want his sort" and now he is practically begging the yank to join forces with the board - ironic really.
It's not a black and white issue as this proves.
I am in favour of a board structure over a single owner - Stability and critical voices over decisions. Abramovich - one man board. If he asks Steve Clarke to give him a blow-job, then Steve Clarke....
I am particularly against this guy coming into our club. There is a line.
I don't know what is going on at boardroom level, what the board want to do with their shares, what plans they have for the club, how competent they really are. But do you, really? What is there in black and white are the figures, the results - and to me they make a compelling argument.
Maybe they will all sell up in April and fuck off into the sunset, maybe AW is telling white lies over his transfer budget. But I know, at the moment, who I trust more and that is the current incumbents - for all their pomposity.
-
Hagbard 23
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:19 am
- Location: Agog in the æther.
- Contact:
My sentiments entirely.gus ceasar is a legend wrote:
... focus on the team and frankly fuck the boardroom now!
Basically I trust the manager, the players and the supporters because we are the only group who have the same agenda.....
I've been thinking about this complicated matter, and my conclusion is that I'm not opposed to a takeover.
I just don't trust this toadlike Uzbek one little bit.
Any one who knows me, knows I'm not a fan of PHW etc, but I trust them over Jabba any day of the week.
Over the years I have been in the 'Sack the Board' camp, but now , over this issue at least, I am eating a large slice of humble pie and saying 'Back the board !!'
I still stand by previous statements saying I don't really care who is running the club, so long as we are competing for the title and cups.
But having an 'alleged' RAPIST, MURDERING, HEROIN DEALING MAFIOSO at the helm is just too much. No matter how many millions he wants to invest in the club.
Agree 100%, sums it up for me.Hagbard 23 wrote:I've been thinking about this complicated matter, and my conclusion is that I'm not opposed to a takeover.
I just don't trust this toadlike Uzbek one little bit.
Any one who knows me, knows I'm not a fan of PHW etc, but I trust them over Jabba any day of the week.
Over the years I have been in the 'Sack the Board' camp, but now , over this issue at least, I am eating a large slice of humble pie and saying 'Back the board !!'
I still stand by previous statements saying I don't really care who is running the club, so long as we are competing for the title and cups.
But having an 'alleged' RAPIST, MURDERING, HEROIN DEALING MAFIOSO at the helm is just too much. No matter how many millions he wants to invest in the club.
