THE BOARD - Kroenke, Usmanov and Finance

[Jock Gooner]

Jock, displacing Stan is not going to be an overnight thing .

We all know DD's cv and what he has done can do might do etc etc but he isn't gonna buy the club or displace Stan it can only realistically be Usmanov so until he is in that position no point in looking back its about looking forward.

Usmanov has a strategy that will clearly trigger something he wants to do when he gets to 30% that must give more of a chance than while he is on 29.6%.

The q and a farce with gazidis on Wednesday might get an answer as to whether the club will do something to accommodate him now or at this trigger and all we can do for now is hope he gets the remaining few shares needed sooner rather than later and see what happens.


The hope is that with access to the financial records that the board are reluctant to shAre then maybe only then can a combined fan pressure start to make Kroenke uncomfortable.

Certainly, if finally Usmanov was to get a set on the board or access to information there is still no hope of DD being involved in any capacity until full ownership occurred as HIll Wood will not tolerate it and there is an enormous amount of work to happen and I expect time between 30% and ownership will be a long slow burn unless a lot of shit is uncovered

Pain before gain is still on the cards but ironically as much as USmanov would love to own the club today, the longer the non action investment performance of the Kroenke era continues the more it will create an ante Kroenke feeling and perhaps an increased demand for USmanov involvement, investment or ownership from the fans.

What more and more are agreed on though is that the existing model does not work and wil not work.

I don't care if w get a Chinese Indian asian Jewish Nigerian or whatever billionaire, it doesn't necessarily have to be that it's Usmanov but stage 1 has to be to get arsenal plc to move into the latest era, sooner the better

Georgeknows, Not saying DD will buy - he doesn't have that kind of dough - but I do think we need him at the helm if it is possible to shift stan and I agree that aint going to happen overnight or on the cheap. The thing is who do you want running the club if the russian or anybody else for that matter managed to get hands on? In the short to mid term I wouldn't trust anybody but DD to get us back up and running again. As for shifting stan that is going to take an almighty bid from usmanov or a seriously concerted amount of abuse from the fans. I don't see a third party getting involved with the way things are at the moment. Unfortunately this saga of stagnation / going backwards is with us for the next couple of seasons!

[georgeknows89]

Dunno who would run the club but give THierry Henry the same job role that Patrick VIera has got at CIteh for starters

[mcdowell42]

http://angryofislington.com/2012/06/05/ ... r-arsenal/

[QuartzGooner]

Good explanation of a Rights Issue McDowell, from the Angry of Islington Blog.

I believe Usmanov offered one but it was rejected.

I doubt such an issue would be used to clear stadium debt because paying off the bonds early incurs a financial penalty.

Such an issue was proposed to provide a war chest for new players.

There is also an option for directors or others to simply loan or donate cash to the club, though how much would be subject to fair play regulations.

[I Hate Hleb]

This is something I asked a long time ago and got no satisfactory answer, so I'll ask again: Am I right to assume that when the stadium debt is all paid off, the 'extra money' that Arsenal will have at their disposal is only around £20m a season (cash saved from the ceasing of Interest Payments)?

If so, it's hardly the massive 'treasure chest' that many people thought/assumed over the past few years would be available for us to spend and which would allow us to finally 'challenge' the other rich clubs, is it? After all, we've constantly heard from the backers of this financial model that 'once the stadium is paid off.....'. Yet you'd struggle to get a half decent player on a four year contract for that much nowadays!!

Therefore the only conclusion must surely be that we're spending all the extra revenue gained from moving stadiums really badly, and getting that aspect right - along with much better commercial contracts - would allow us to compete more strongly, even without a 'sugar daddy'?

[georgeknows89]

The reality is that the Emirates model proposed when planning to build it does not work and ignores the sugar daddy scenario.

All the extra revenue bit is utter bollo.. and petty cash pissing in wind money compared to massive billionaire injection of the 2 blue clubs.

When planned, DB10 was getting 22k per week.

Simple numbers is that 150 boxes averaging 80k per year produces 12million income

That will not even pay nasri or RSVP proposed wages, so all boxes is 1 players post billionaire era wages

Spurs will have same problem which is why struggling on new stadium - simple numbers of 20,000 extra seats for them even at premium price of say 2000 will produce 4 million which pays for van der velt only.

[Ray]

This is something I asked a long time ago and got no satisfactory answer, so I'll ask again: Am I right to assume that when the stadium debt is all paid off, the 'extra money' that Arsenal will have at their disposal is only around £20m a season (cash saved from the ceasing of Interest Payments)?

If so, it's hardly the massive 'treasure chest' that many people thought/assumed over the past few years would be available for us to spend and which would allow us to finally 'challenge' the other rich clubs, is it? After all, we've constantly heard from the backers of this financial model that 'once the stadium is paid off.....'. Yet you'd struggle to get a half decent player on a four year contract for that much nowadays!!

Therefore the only conclusion must surely be that we're spending all the extra revenue gained from moving stadiums really badly, and getting that aspect right - along with much better commercial contracts - would allow us to compete more strongly, even without a 'sugar daddy'?

I think the theory went that we would have the income from the extra seats, interest payments, and extra commercial income (once the shitty deals end in 2014). Those three things added together would have got us competitive with the top clubs at the time. However since the oil/gas money has entered the game the goal posts have changed completely.

Without getting our own Bazillionaire we can forget competing on a financial level. We might be able to sneak the odd cup if we invest all of our income into the team but thats about it.

[LeftfootlegendGooner]

The reality is that the Emirates model proposed when planning to build it does not work and ignores the sugar daddy scenario.

All the extra revenue bit is utter bollo.. and petty cash pissing in wind money compared to massive billionaire injection of the 2 blue clubs.

When planned, DB10 was getting 22k per week.

Simple numbers is that 150 boxes averaging 80k per year produces 12million income

That will not even pay nasri or RSVP proposed wages, so all boxes is 1 players post billionaire era wages

Spurs will have same problem which is why struggling on new stadium - simple numbers of 20,000 extra seats for them even at premium price of say 2000 will produce 4 million which pays for van der velt only.

Your not an accountant are you

[augie]

Good explanation of a Rights Issue McDowell, from the Angry of Islington Blog.

I believe Usmanov offered one but it was rejected.

I doubt such an issue would be used to clear stadium debt because paying off the bonds early incurs a financial penalty.

Such an issue was proposed to provide a war chest for new players.

There is also an option for directors or others to simply loan or donate cash to the club, though how much would be subject to fair play regulations.

This is something that I have heard of or read before but of late nobody seems to mention it so was beginning to wonder if I had of imagined it

Tbh I like/love the idea of a rights issue to be used purely to finance a major splash in the transfer market. If we are led to believe that we have one of the highest wage bills in the country but are capable of sustaining it then an injection of cash like this would allow the club to finance the transfer fee's

[QuartzGooner]

IHH

You are correct.

We pay £20 - 21M per season to repay the stadium bonds.
The final payment year is 2031.

The theory is that the club are stashing the equivalent of the total amount of repayment cash in case things go wrong and we cannot meet the repayments.

Some say that in five years we will have that equivalent stashed, but of course it all depends on how well we do and how much prize and TV and transfers out money we make each season, as to how much we can stash.

Augie

I like the idea of a donation of cash to fund new transfers.
A rights issue would in my view be unfair to small shareholders who bought one or two shares as an investment or who inherited a share, and who would likely be hard pushed to stump up extra cash in a recession to exercise the right on their share.
They could of course sell on the right to buy, but there would be no guarantee of a buyer.

[Ray]

Good explanation of a Rights Issue McDowell, from the Angry of Islington Blog.

I believe Usmanov offered one but it was rejected.

I doubt such an issue would be used to clear stadium debt because paying off the bonds early incurs a financial penalty.

Such an issue was proposed to provide a war chest for new players.

There is also an option for directors or others to simply loan or donate cash to the club, though how much would be subject to fair play regulations.

This is something that I have heard of or read before but of late nobody seems to mention it so was beginning to wonder if I had of imagined it

Tbh I like/love the idea of a rights issue to be used purely to finance a major splash in the transfer market. If we are led to believe that we have one of the highest wage bills in the country but are capable of sustaining it then an injection of cash like this would allow the club to finance the transfer fee's

As I understand it a rights issue would devalue the current share price of any share holders. They could of course invest some money into the club to maintain the value of shares they hold.

However when this was suggested the 'old board' was still in place and this would have meant that they would have had to stump up some cash rather than selling up to Kroenke for a fortune.

The only person to put his money on the line was Usmanov.

[QuartzGooner]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... senal.html


By Matt Scott

4:11PM BST 20 Jun 2012

"The Telegraph can reveal that the Premier League proposed a rule change approved by clubs whose practical effect will only be to freeze hostile shareholders like Usmanov out of the clubs they part-own.

The Russian and his partner Farhad Moshiri together own 29.72 per cent of Arsenal through Red and White Securities, their investment vehicle.

This puts them within touching distance of a 30 per cent threshold that is significant to Premier League regulations.

Had Red and White reached that bar it would have given them the rights and responsibilities required of club directors, which under the wording of the 2011-12 season rules are defined as board members or shareholders who own 30 per cent or more of a club.

This would give Usmanov access to all “material transactions” at Arsenal, giving Red & White sight of all commercially sensitive information such as transfer fees, wage and agents’ payments.

The rules stated: “Directors of a club (including non-executive directors) shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to satisfy themselves that their club’s record of material transactions is complete and correct.”

Usmanov’s lawyers were preparing to argue, once Red & White had broken through the 30 per cent threshold, that he could not have satisfied himself of the correctness of those records without access to the club’s data room. It would have been an extraordinary privilege made possible only by Premier League rules such information is normally restricted to board members, club secretaries and finance directors and controlling shareholders.

But Arsenal will now legitimately deny Usmanov access to the data room after Premier League clubs voted to change the rules. One source with knowledge of the situation said: “The rule left clubs open to the possibility of a hostile shareholder who is not on the board getting access to the books.

“Now if you are not on the board but have between 30 and 50 per cent of a club you don’t need to sign off on material-transaction reports.” Red & White refused to comment, but it is perhaps a sign of the absence of meaningful dialogue between Usmanov and the club that it had not been made aware of the rule change.

That is hardly surprising. When Arsenal Supporters Trust members asked the club’s chief executive last week if Usmanov will be invited to join the board he said: “When I arrived 3½ years ago there had been a lot of changes on the board and some degree of conflict.

“Since then we have worked hard to ensure the board is unified and has a common purpose. In terms of further additions, it is important we don’t disturb that unity and create conflict.

“Ultimately, that is a board decision but that will be the critical issue are we all aligned and facing the same direction?”

How the rule change will now affect Usmanov’s share-acquisition strategy is so far unclear. He has been paying £14,000 for each share but has found access to those shares highly restricted, with only a single one sold this month.

The inflated price he has been prepared to pay has given Arsenal a market capitalisation of £1 billion, valuing the club at about £1.3 billion including its debt. If he chooses to withdraw from the market it will likely see the share price fall, making share acquisitions more affordable for ordinary fans and the Supporters Trust, whose Fanshare scheme aims to broaden the club’s ownership base."

[augie]

This is simply an "old boy's network" and is total bullshit I am not claiming to be a legal genius or anything (unlike some ) but I fail to see how the premier league can introduce a rule like this that contradicts the law of the land or even eu law so I would be hopeful that usmanov would challenge it through the courts and get it overturned. Right now I am desperate to get the yankee w****r out of our club and install a owner who does give a shit about on pitch success and cares enough to at least attend some fcuking games

[Gunnersaurus]

Stan ain't going anywhere.

He knows he's on to a good thing.

[georgeknows89]

All this does is confirm what everyone knows about the lengths they will go to to keep out Usmanov but this just stops him being able to attempt to get access to the records when he gets to 30% which is very very soon...George Knows.

The reality is that at 30% don't think that IG would have just sent a stretch limo for them to pop in and have a look at the books.

To effectively create a rule change around 1 clubs circumstances is ludicrous and worrying but rest assured it is just red rag to the proverbial bull and won't see Red & White just disappear over the horizon.

despite what Quartz said to me and others about not or doing something, the reality is that, from a personal point of view the problem with these forums is that many haven't understandably got a clue what people do or don,t do to make a difference and I am actively one of those trying to make the Red & White machine mobilise but everyone has to accept unfortunately that the reality is that the majority are quite correct....

Individual action will have little impact on ownership and it is all very frustrating watching the years and trophy,s go by.

Not buying t shirts, renewing seasons, etc etc will do square root of not to get SK out.The only way is being patient, backing Usmanov for access and hoping that corporate pressure in some format will eventually wear him down into having enough and accept an offer to go.

In the meantime, we have to keep the faith but also in some ways as horrible as it seems , hope for short term pain to get long term gain.

RVP going and finishing 7th might be better in the long term than him staying and winning the we came 4th trophy again( or 3rd wooly woo)