board and Kronke out, Usmanov in........

[SteveO 35]

If it were possible would anyone prefer to financially compete WITHOUT a single owner?

I have no objection to a single owner.

I do have objection to reliance on a single owner, who if he or she take their money away the club's competitive edge collapses like a house of cards.

But Quartz, for major brands and businesses this simply doesn't happen in real life, and certainly doesn't in football.

Look at United and Chelsea - the Glazers and Abramovich have been at those clubs for several years now. The debt that the Glazers brought with them has been refinanced and they have sought a partial listing of the shares in the Far East. At Chelsea, Abramovich has converted practically all of the debt to equity, so the club is virtually debt free.

A year ago, Liverpool were supposedly going bust - the banks were calling in the debt, the auditors were qualifying the accounts on the basis that the business wasn't a going concern.

If Usmanov took over what do you think he would do; bearing in mind we are talking about a business magnate that has accumulated billions of pounds in personal wealth over decades.

He would invest in the club in a way that has never been seen before and Dein would be the commercial deal maker. Do you really think that he would lend the club all of that money as a high interest loan, knowing that it couldn't be repaid and then suddenly declare the club bankrupt, trashing his own reputation and ability to serve as a UK director at the same time. I think not.

No, we would be in a Chelsea position but with a bigger following and brand. The debt would be converted to equity each year and after a certain time frame - 5,10,20 years whatever - when he wants an 'out' the business would either be listed or another high wealth private investor would come in.

Now, what would be so bad about that ?

[Red Member]

SAD FACT

without Usmanov Arsenal will not compete for the league title again


that is what football in 2011 has come to

[flash gunner]

SAD FACT

without Usmanov Arsenal will not compete for the league title again


that is what football in 2011 has come to

Might be true but you move with the times or get left behind. Wenger is guiding us to the latter with his demented project.

The last 3 titles though have been there for the taking and one man obsession has fucked us over time and time again

[QuartzGooner]

If it were possible would anyone prefer to financially compete WITHOUT a single owner?

I have no objection to a single owner.

I do have objection to reliance on a single owner, who if he or she take their money away the club's competitive edge collapses like a house of cards.

But Quartz, for major brands and businesses this simply doesn't happen in real life, and certainly doesn't in football.

Look at United and Chelsea - the Glazers and Abramovich have been at those clubs for several years now. The debt that the Glazers brought with them has been refinanced and they have sought a partial listing of the shares in the Far East. At Chelsea, Abramovich has converted practically all of the debt to equity, so the club is virtually debt free.

A year ago, Liverpool were supposedly going bust - the banks were calling in the debt, the auditors were qualifying the accounts on the basis that the business wasn't a going concern.

If Usmanov took over what do you think he would do; bearing in mind we are talking about a business magnate that has accumulated billions of pounds in personal wealth over decades.

He would invest in the club in a way that has never been seen before and Dein would be the commercial deal maker. Do you really think that he would lend the club all of that money as a high interest loan, knowing that it couldn't be repaid and then suddenly declare the club bankrupt, trashing his own reputation and ability to serve as a UK director at the same time. I think not.

No, we would be in a Chelsea position but with a bigger following and brand. The debt would be converted to equity each year and after a certain time frame - 5,10,20 years whatever - when he wants an 'out' the business would either be listed or another high wealth private investor would come in.

Now, what would be so bad about that ?

There are lots of questions, and less answers.

If Usmanov invested, then wanted to divest, would he find a new owner who would offer the price Usmanov felt appropriate?

It could leave us in limbo if he did not, and it is not a certainty there will be a new investor, considering the world economy.

It could be that Usmanov investing leads to years of success and we all live happily ever after.

There is always the danger of a football bubble bursting, when we get back to less reliance on TV money and more on gate receipts and prize money.

In such a climate would a rich owner like Usmanov be prepared to continue investing?

I cannot answer that.

And even if Usmanov immediately offered £250M for players, we would still have Wenger as boss. With all his tactical foibles.

Personally I think we are in a false position in the league that we will climb the table.
I think fourth is now a very tough task but not impossible, that a Europa Cup spot is more likely, and that a 10th or 11th place finish cannot be ruled out either.

I am not against Usmanov taking over, but I am am not campaigning for "Kroenke Out" right now either.
Because there is more money to spend, and I want to see if and how it is spent in January.
Because Kroenke has only been running the show since the summer, so let us see how he deals with the biggest loss of form in Wenger's reign.

Kroenke deserves a chance to show what he can offer.

[QuartzGooner]

If it were possible would anyone prefer to financially compete WITHOUT a single owner?

I have no objection to a single owner.

I do have objection to reliance on a single owner, who if he or she take their money away the club's competitive edge collapses like a house of cards.

But Quartz, for major brands and businesses this simply doesn't happen in real life, and certainly doesn't in football.

Look at United and Chelsea - the Glazers and Abramovich have been at those clubs for several years now. The debt that the Glazers brought with them has been refinanced and they have sought a partial listing of the shares in the Far East. At Chelsea, Abramovich has converted practically all of the debt to equity, so the club is virtually debt free.

A year ago, Liverpool were supposedly going bust - the banks were calling in the debt, the auditors were qualifying the accounts on the basis that the business wasn't a going concern.

If Usmanov took over what do you think he would do; bearing in mind we are talking about a business magnate that has accumulated billions of pounds in personal wealth over decades.

He would invest in the club in a way that has never been seen before and Dein would be the commercial deal maker. Do you really think that he would lend the club all of that money as a high interest loan, knowing that it couldn't be repaid and then suddenly declare the club bankrupt, trashing his own reputation and ability to serve as a UK director at the same time. I think not.

No, we would be in a Chelsea position but with a bigger following and brand. The debt would be converted to equity each year and after a certain time frame - 5,10,20 years whatever - when he wants an 'out' the business would either be listed or another high wealth private investor would come in.

Now, what would be so bad about that ?

There are lots of questions, and less answers.

If Usmanov invested, then wanted to divest, would he find a new owner who would offer the price Usmanov felt appropriate?

It could leave us in limbo if he did not, and it is not a certainty there will be a new investor, considering the world economy.

There is always the danger of a football bubble bursting, when we get back to less reliance on TV money and more on gate receipts and prize money.

In such a climate would a rich owner like Usmanov be prepared to continue investing?

I cannot answer that.

And even if Usmanov immediately offered £250M for players, we would still have Wenger as boss. With all his tactical foibles.

It could be that Usmanov investing leads to years of success and we all live happily ever after.

Personally I think we are in a false position in the league that we will climb the table.
I think fourth is now a very tough task but not impossible, that a Europa Cup spot is more likely, and that a 10th or 11th place finish cannot be ruled out either.

I am not against Usmanov taking over, but I am am not campaigning for "Kroenke Out" right now either.
Because there is more money to spend, and I want to see if and how it is spent in January.
Because Kroenke has only been running the show since the summer, so let us see how he deals with the biggest loss of form in Wenger's reign.

Kroenke deserves a chance to show what he can offer.

[Bergkamp-Genius]

Sadly i think this is the only solution now....

Kroenke mistakenly has made it very clear recently that he is just a new recruit to the Arsene love in and that nothing is going to change and there is most definitely not going to be any pressure put on Arsene...

So there is no point calling for Wengers head as the only two people at the club who have any real power (kroenke and Wenger) think he is gods gift to football management regardless of what reality and results show...

Kroenke has to be the target for any fan anger because the only way to get rid of Wenger or get him to adapt will be through an owner that treats the manager as an employee that is expected to deliver great teams, results and success as he used to many moons ago, not as a hero because he delivers profits at the expense of all those...