Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Nis
Feb 21, 2011

:allears:

Mickolution posted:

In terms of running the clubs, maybe, but I fail to see what right the NFL has to tell you how to run your other businesses.

Prob best to stop this discussion now though, the natives will get angsty again.

NFL teams actually make money, while most NBA teams lose money. Frankly, I'd bend over backwards to own an NFL team and follow their preposterous rules just for a piece of the pie.

NFL profits are absolutely staggering, which makes the lockout for this coming season even more sickening. The upcoming NBA lockout is incidentally for the opposite reason--NBA players make so much money that most franchises (and their owners) lose money, much like their NHL counterparts (the 2005 NHL lockout was an attempt to correct this through a salary cap--it has not worked for the most part).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

euroboy
Mar 24, 2004

Raightning posted:

I came across something that might be interesting to a few people here (with the whole Kroenke business) a while back, the SA thread from when Glazer took over at Man U (requirse archives). Interesting to see parallels between what was said then and what's being said about Kroenke tbh.

I dont have archives, but

heh

:cry:

Pissflaps
Oct 20, 2002

by VideoGames
I am sickened by the upcoming NFL lockout.

Nis
Feb 21, 2011

:allears:

Raightning posted:

I came across something that might be interesting to a few people here (with the whole Kroenke business) a while back, the SA thread from when Glazer took over at Man U (requirse archives). Interesting to see parallels between what was said then and what's being said about Kroenke tbh.

What did people think about H&G? I seem to remember a lot of general fan optimism, but what did SA think?

Pissflaps
Oct 20, 2002

by VideoGames

Homura posted:

What did people think about H&G? I seem to remember a lot of general fan optimism, but what did SA think?

quote:

You are all wrong.

I love United, and there are so many ways Glazer could improve us.

If he sells the name, then I for one won't mind a bit going into Nike Stadium to watch the games. The name of the stadium matters not at all.

And if he puts a pirate ship that fires a cannon every time we score a goal (like he did at Tampa) then my daughter will think that is great. And so will your kids, if you are a parent.

If we get proper cheerleaders (Americans, over here we have cheerleaders for some teams, but they are badly paid, and the good looking girls want to make better money, so only average girls become cheerleaders) then I will be delighted. I always feel a little jealous when I watch US football and see the beautiful girls. I want that at my club!

And, to be 100% honest, I kinda hope the club moves city, perhaps to London. I live in Islington, London, and let me tell you, travelling to Old Trafford can be difficult. Surely, a London based team would make more money, and as most Man Utd fans are Londoners, this would be a better venue for the club anyway. I am serious about this, this would be a great move financially for the team. Maybe they could even rent Wembley! That would be pretty awesome, from anyone's viewpoint.

I mentioned this to someone else, and they thought it was a joke, it isn't. We could be so much better off if Glazer does these things.

Loving Africa Chaps
Dec 3, 2007


We had not left it yet, but when I would wake in the night, I would lie, listening, homesick for it already.

Pissflaps posted:



sounds like a great idea imo. there would be none of this green and gold nonsense if they'd done that


i mean what do people think that has caused the reduction in season ticket uptake? the modest rises in the season ticket price or skyrocketing prices in return train tickets to Manchester from London terminals?

Loving Africa Chaps fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Apr 11, 2011

Outrespective
Oct 9, 2007
Probation
Can't post for 10 years!

MrBling posted:

Seems that Kroenke is bringing in Dein with him if/when he completes the takeover.

Is that a good or a bad thing?

That's a good thing for Arsenal in terms of finding success again, especially in the transfer market.

A reminder that while Dein might have helped usmanov acquire his shareholding, prior to going to Usmanov, Dein was trying to get the club to sell to Kroenke before he even left and sold up to usmanov in a huff, so it makes sense he's working with kroenke again.

Fergie might just want to contemplate retiring in the next year or two if Dein does step back in.

Zip!
Aug 14, 2008

Keep on pushing
little buddy

I wouldn't go that far. Wenger still isn't going to splash the cash.

Akileese
Feb 6, 2005

I will be more than willing to eat my words if I'm wrong but I really don't think a lot is going to change with the club. He's been on the board for a bit now and if the board didn't think it was in the best interest of the club to sell to him they I don't believe they would.

Outrespective
Oct 9, 2007
Probation
Can't post for 10 years!

Pong Lenis posted:

I wouldn't go that far. Wenger still isn't going to splash the cash.

But Dein will pull the trigger when Wenger won't, Wenger isn't likely to have a problem with this either, they've worked before under this sort of arrangement.

Akileese
Feb 6, 2005

There's rumors Usmanov is coming in now and offering £13k per share for Lady Nina's shares. It seems like bullshit though since the board would never sell their shares to him.

e: Second rumor that rejected Usmanov's offer to accept Kroenke's for £11.5k. All for nothing. Let him go buy West Ham or some poo poo.

Bobby Digital
Sep 4, 2009

Akileese posted:

There's rumors Usmanov is coming in now and offering £13k per share for Lady Nina's shares. It seems like bullshit though since the board would never sell their shares to him.

e: Second rumor that rejected Usmanov's offer to accept Kroenke's for £11.5k. All for nothing. Let him go buy West Ham or some poo poo.

Usmanov made two offers (12.5k and 13k) after her agreement with Kroenke.

s0meb0dy0
Feb 27, 2004

The death of a child is always a tragedy, but let's put this in perspective, shall we? I mean they WERE palestinian.

Homura posted:

NFL teams actually make money, while most NBA teams lose money. Frankly, I'd bend over backwards to own an NFL team and follow their preposterous rules just for a piece of the pie.

NFL profits are absolutely staggering, which makes the lockout for this coming season even more sickening. The upcoming NBA lockout is incidentally for the opposite reason--NBA players make so much money that most franchises (and their owners) lose money, much like their NHL counterparts (the 2005 NHL lockout was an attempt to correct this through a salary cap--it has not worked for the most part).
Incorrect on the NBA. The teams are losing money because they are leveraged to hell and back (like ManU) and because of creative accounting. They do their best to show loses so they pay no taxes, and so they can justify paying players less.

http://sbrother.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/david-stern-its-hard-to-believe-nba-owners-really-need-the-players-help/

Nis
Feb 21, 2011

:allears:

s0meb0dy0 posted:

Incorrect on the NBA. The teams are losing money because they are leveraged to hell and back (like ManU) and because of creative accounting. They do their best to show loses so they pay no taxes, and so they can justify paying players less.

http://sbrother.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/david-stern-its-hard-to-believe-nba-owners-really-need-the-players-help/

If superstars from small teams continue to join together in big markets, where will this leave the teams in the small markets?

(Seriously though, we're gonna make the football fans mad)

Masonity
Dec 31, 2007

What, I wonder, does this hidden face of madness reveal of the makers? These K'Chain Che'Malle?

adumb posted:

again, if arsenal fans aren't ecstatic about this, they are loving retarded. so i guess i understand why you lot are still wringing your hands and looking for dirt.

It's be silly to be ecstatic at the loss of the traditional board ownership.

As I said before, he's probably going to be a neutral-to-good thing for the club.

However, there's always a tiny risk, until it's all played out, that we'll get Glazered. I can't see it happening with Silent Stan, but it is still a worry.

There's also a small risk of us going the way of Chavski, with Stan throwing money at us. In the short term it'd be a fun ride, but to be perfectly honest I'd prefer to do things the Arsenal way.

Anyway, a couple of years ago I found a few photos that make Stan look like Wenger with a Moustache. We all know Wenger uses fake facial hair when scouting. Is there any chance he's a secret billionaire?


adumb
Mar 27, 2004

innocuous metrosexual.
Lipstick Apathy

adumb fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Oct 26, 2012

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer
Its also important to note that Kroenke isn't part of a failing business the way that the Glazers are/were

delicious beef
Feb 5, 2006

:allears::allears::allears::allears::allears::allears:
To be honest any ownership change should be treated sceptically unless it's the shadows being lifted from something as bad as Hicks and Gillet. I'm not saying Kroenke should be jumped on or the deal should be criticised to hell but until a year or so has passed and its obvious that the change is to the benefit of the club it's still useful to be wary.

Smeef
Aug 15, 2003

I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!



Pillbug
Kroenke looks like Michael Cera with a bad fake mustache.

adumb
Mar 27, 2004

innocuous metrosexual.
Lipstick Apathy

adumb fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Oct 26, 2012

Flayer
Sep 13, 2003

by Fluffdaddy
Buglord

adumb posted:

If you do your homework, you don't have to be so scared about an ownership change. Particularly when you have someone coming in with such an extensive history of team ownership. But then again, if I was an Arsenal fan, I would be conditioned to expect disappointment like the rest of you, I suppose.
It's got everything to do with the experiences that Liverpool and Man U have gone through with American owners and nothing to with anything Arsenal related.

Ungratek
Aug 2, 2005


Where are you getting that from? NESV have been very good for Liverpool so far.

Dallan Invictus
Oct 11, 2007

The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

Ungratek posted:

Where are you getting that from? NESV have been very good for Liverpool so far.

I'm sure any fan whose team's been owned by Tom Hicks would want to forget he existed too.

euroboy
Mar 24, 2004

Ungratek posted:

Where are you getting that from? NESV have been very good for Liverpool so far.

Then there was, you know, Hicks and Gillett.

It's nothing to do with the nationality really, it's more general healthy scepticism towards a new owner. Some owners are good, some are not so good but they all mostly say the same stuff when they first arrive.

adumb
Mar 27, 2004

innocuous metrosexual.
Lipstick Apathy

adumb fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Oct 26, 2012

peanut-
Feb 17, 2004
Fun Shoe

adumb posted:

You people are such morons.

Unsure about a shift away from decades of responsible and stable board management to a single owner with no real history with or attachment to the team? Morons.

MoPZiG
Jun 6, 2006

Its perfectly rational to be skeptical of an American acquisition here there or anywhere really.

Forget Man U or Liverpool, look what happened to Cadbury :(

Masonity
Dec 31, 2007

What, I wonder, does this hidden face of madness reveal of the makers? These K'Chain Che'Malle?

adumb posted:

It's silly to imply that board ownership is the universally superlative corporate ownership structure.

Irrespective of that, someone was bound to take a majority stake in Arsenal, and considering that your alternative option was Alisher Usmanov, you've made out quite well here.

It is. Board ownership makes it very difficult, if not outright impossible, for any debts relating to a takeover being passed on to the club itself.

Furthermore Arsenal's board ownership was a historical thing. Most of the owners had those shares in their family for a long time. Sure they did some horse-trading between each other, some increasing their holdings while others decreased, but ultimately it was an inside thing. Families linked to Arsenal with bonds of blood.

I genuinely believed we could hold out longer. But then with Fitszman's ill health and Nina's fallout with the board, I'm just happy that they chose what is the best of two options by a country mile. Someone who has at least served some time on the board and who's sporting philosophy seems in line with ours.

I have done the research. I know he is either seen as a good thing or just hot air, rather than an outright bad thing, by his teams fans. I know he has a decent lump of cash behind him, a business that's still doing well and a wife who is personally richer than god, and who's family could probably buy the planet.

But, as Euroboy said, he hasn't been our majority shareholder / outright owner yet. Therefore a little scepticism is healthy. I'm not saying we should hound him out of the club. Far from it. However it does mean we need to keep a close eye on him these next 14-15 months. When we kick off a second season with him in charge and are still happy with the job he's doing we can call this a successful, good takeover. For now all we can say is that it looks promising, but it's right to be a little nervous all the same.

These next few weeks are a foggy time. When we clear the fog and can see the true lie of the land we could be in barbados, or we could be in Siberia. We won't know in these early days though.

MoPZiG
Jun 6, 2006

What would a fan-supported Arsenal protest club be called. The Islington Cannons?

Masonity
Dec 31, 2007

What, I wonder, does this hidden face of madness reveal of the makers? These K'Chain Che'Malle?

adumb posted:

You people are such morons.

Breaking news: Manchester United fan calls Arsenal fans crazy not to brace American takeover!

Related stories:
Manchester United's debt now too large to express using the decimal system.
Rooney sold to City for £100 million, Manchester United now break even this month.
Extra seats to be added at Old Trafford. They will be located in Birmingham, but are really high up so you can see with a telescope.

Masonity
Dec 31, 2007

What, I wonder, does this hidden face of madness reveal of the makers? These K'Chain Che'Malle?

MoPZiG posted:

What would a fan-supported Arsenal protest club be called. The Islington Cannons?

Depends.

If we do a double act as a dance outfit we could be The Ashburton Groove.

Or they could just call themselves The Bare Arsenal.

Couch
May 16, 2004

COME ON TOT!

NattyBo posted:

Except he got them a brand new, great looking soccer specific stadium and they won MLS cup last year? :confused:

Someone (not me) wrote something about his ownership and the general theme was that they were doing well independently of his ownership.

Remember the MLS is a dumb league for Commies where everyone will win eventually.

delicious beef
Feb 5, 2006

:allears::allears::allears::allears::allears::allears:
Reminder that premier league football is an entirely different regulatory and financial environment to any American sport and that past results are not a good predictor of future performance.

wicka
Jun 28, 2007


Couch posted:

Someone (not me) wrote something about his ownership and the general theme was that they were doing well independently of his ownership.

Investing in and building the stadium was entirely his choice, though, and it means he's willing to spending a couple hundred million dollars on the team without getting any major short-term return.

8raz
Jun 22, 2007


He's Scouse, He's Sound.

adumb posted:

You people are such morons.
Good point.

Eric Cantonese
Dec 21, 2004

You should hear my accent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ol-of-club.html

The Arsenal Supporters Trust is not going to accept Kroenke's offer and is encouraging others not do so either. I'm not sure if this really means much, but they seem to be big believers that no one person should own the club.

wicka
Jun 28, 2007


TyChan posted:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ol-of-club.html

The Arsenal Supporters Trust is not going to accept Kroenke's offer and is encouraging others not do so either. I'm not sure if this really means much, but they seem to be big believers that no one person should own the club.

It doesn't mean anything other than they want to keep their tiny, irrelevant amount of shares. Kroenke will own 60+ percent of the club regardless of whether or not the AST and Usmanov sell, it's a non-issue.

Masonity
Dec 31, 2007

What, I wonder, does this hidden face of madness reveal of the makers? These K'Chain Che'Malle?

wicka posted:

It doesn't mean anything other than they want to keep their tiny, irrelevant amount of shares. Kroenke will own 60+ percent of the club regardless of whether or not the AST and Usmanov sell, it's a non-issue.

The difference between 99.9% ownership and 100% ownership is that in the former case the minority shareholders can sue the owner if he runs the club to their detriment, stopping him from taking huge dividends to pay back external debts.

75% and 90% are the real magic numbers though. At 75% he could do a Glazers and internalise debt, and at 90% he could compulsory purchase all outstanding shares.

That's assuming he'd do any of those things anyway of course.

ephex
Nov 4, 2007





PHWOAR CRIMINAL
I am still very grateful for the introduction of the 50+1 rule in Germany.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

wicka
Jun 28, 2007


Masonity posted:

The difference between 99.9% ownership and 100% ownership is that in the former case the minority shareholders can sue the owner if he runs the club to their detriment, stopping him from taking huge dividends to pay back external debts.

75% and 90% are the real magic numbers though. At 75% he could do a Glazers and internalise debt, and at 90% he could compulsory purchase all outstanding shares.

That's assuming he'd do any of those things anyway of course.

You can't blame anyone for being skeptical but it's nonetheless bizarre to look at a guy who owns several other sports teams and expect him to run Arsenal in entirely different way simply because other foreign owners have hosed up in the past.

  • Locked thread