|
Quanta posted:I hope not. There isn't much desire from Arsenal fans in London for either Kroenke or Usmanov to launch a takeover bid. I don't think it's going to happen anyway. Every couple of months for almost two years there are reports of how Kroenke or Usmanov are about to launch a takeover bid when they buy shares, but it never materialises. I get the impression that Stan's a more traditional form of "in it for the money". He brings expertise in getting Americans to cough up money for sporting teams. Arsenal are WAY under utilised as a global brand. The guy could make us richer, and himself richer, at the same time. Buying up shares will be partly to block Usamov and partly because a richer Arsenal, fully exploiting their commercial markets are worth more than the shares currently trade at.
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Don't forget that we haven't been on any money spinning pre season tours yet. Rumour is we're going to finally do one this year.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
Cuban Chowder Factory posted:The Sun could afford a cheeky £200m bid for the rights. Or they could just make sure that it's filled to the rafters with home fans every 2 weeks... By calling it the Job Center Plus Stadium.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
Homura posted:Maybe it'd be good if we sold a bunch of plastic flags and poo poo too, eh? We need to fill up the entire stadium with plastic fans, after all. Nothing plastic about us Arsenal fans... We just take our vow of silence very seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
I can't say I'm at all pleased that we're to pass from multiple ownership into the hands of one man, but at least it's an insider. It's someone we've grown to trust. Someone who isn't leverage us against ourselves, but rather has the cash to buy us and the knowledge that he can increase our value without having to gut the team. I imagine the day to day running of the club won't change drastically, but we will see American pre-season tours, more international image use and stuff like that. Of course, I may be wrong. If he turns out to be Abramovic Mark 3 (City have the Mark 2 already) I'll be upset. If he turns out to be the Glazers or Hicks&Gillet's successor then I'll die cursing the names Fitszman and Bracewell Smith.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
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?  
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
adumb posted:It's silly to imply that board ownership is the universally superlative corporate ownership structure. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 11:03
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 11:04
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:Still not close to Arsenal. Yeah, but then a Kebab is always going to be cheaper than a four course french meal, even in London!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
Dudley posted:That seems bollocks since they charged league prices FOR Copenhagen. Most matchday income is from corporate boxes. Arsenal make around 2.5 mil a game I think it is. That isn't from £50 seats and pies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Season tickets, though. How are they counted in match day income? I'm pretty sure they aren't counted in those figures. And the figure is 3.5 mil, so even if it is counted, it shows how much money the executive seats bring in compared to normal ones. edit: Okay, it is included. Here was a projection before the stadium was built, which given full attendances and constantly rising match day incomes wasn't far wrong. http://www.arsenal-world.co.uk/feat/edz6/future_matchday_revenues__some_astonishing_figures_231849/index.shtml Looking through the figures normal seats make up just over half our match day income, club level and boxes a third, with programs and pies the rest. Either way cutting normal seats (the ones that are less likely to fill) for the less popular games won't have a huge affect on that game's matchday income. Cutting 20% off the ticket prices cuts around 10% off the matchday income. If you then assume fans that get in cheaper spend a little more in the stadium during the match (as they are generally the guys who don't get to go often, and thus make the most out of the occasion) it's possible that it'll only result in a 5% loss in income compared to a full price sellout, if that. Masonity fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Apr 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2011 14:21
|
|
|
Homura posted:I have a feeling United would come out on top, simply because they have a ton of worldwide exposure. That being said, I can't help but root for the England team since supporting the USA team generally ends in tears (goddamn it I do it anyways) Everyone seems to know the score They've seen it all before They just know They're so sure That England's gonna Throw it away Gonna blow it away But I know they can play Cos' I remember Three lions on the shirt Jules Rimet still gleaming 30 Years of hurt Never stoppped me dreaming So many jokes, so many jeers But all those oh so nears Wear you down Through the years But I still see that Tackle by Moore And when Lineker scored Bobby belting the ball And nobby dancing Protip: that was 15 years ago. Since then we've added lots more jeers, tears and oh so nears. No-one eligible for the England team were alive last time it didn't end in tears! Masonity fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Apr 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 14:22
|
|
|
Grez posted:I think a lot of people "eligible" were alive in 1966 tbh How many professional footballers (remember this is England, even limiting it to pros only is a stretch, in reality were talking top 2 divisions or a top flight international league) are 45 years old? Anyone alive in 66 would have retired by now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 15:07
|
|
|
Pedantics 1 - 0 Someone trying to make the point that no-one with a realistic hope of representing England was born when we last won a major trophy. Still, no-one eligible for the England team today are likely to be alive NEXT time we win anything... (my money is on the 200th anniversary of the 1966 world cup win. Also the first English world cup since.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I think you'll find the word is "pedants". What goes on between you and underage insects in the privacy of your bedroom is between you and your gods. Please don't get me involved!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't understand. It's less funny once it's been explained... Kind of like the offside rule. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
As an Englishman who's seen both play a few times (live. Dozens of times on TV) I'd rate Brad Freidel above Tim Howard any day of the week. Brad in his prime was a world class goalkeeper, and it's a crime that he never went to a top 4 club. Tim is a premiership standard keeper, but nothing special.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 10:24
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's not really a crime though is it? Nobody is going to go to jail for it. By your reasoning it is perfectly justifiable to be a London Man U fan. Although I am considering running for parliament on a "Gaol plastics" ticket.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 10:47
|
|
|
I actually didn't realise he spent some time as backup at Liverpool before he went to Blackburn. It was at Blackburn that he caught my eye as a top keeper. It's actually pretty embarrassing, as 1996-2004 was my football prime, when I'd go to every Arsenal game (home and abroad), watch the other teams on TV constantly and talk about nothing else with my school friends. For a couple of years at blackburn I thought he was quite possibly the best keeper in the Premier League. I'll never forget the game at highbury when his shoulder popped out of it's socket before a game, but he still single handedly kept a clean sheet even though we ripped his defence to pieces time and time again.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 11:21
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:Who is Kezman/Blackburn never won the Premiership. 1) Blackburn did, in fact, win the Premiership. One of only four teams to have done so. It was just before Brad's time. 2) Howard being backup keeper at United when they won the league doesn't make him world class. Or better than Brad. By that reckoning Dwight Yorke was a better striker than Alan Shearer back in 1999, seeing as United won the treble with Yorke while Shearer won nothing. 3) Kezman is Batman.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 11:26
|
|
|
Robert Patrick posted:I wonder if in a few years "Arsenal never won the Premiership" will be a meme You mean when we win it every year by default, as the other 19 teams are deducted 9 points of going into administration and have to sell any players that happen to perform? Arsenal, winning the Balance Sheet Title every year since 2005!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 11:40
|
|
|
euroboy posted:The first new sponsor is in, and it's this obscure company called Carlsberg... As part of the new sponsorship deal, Carlsberg are going to buy Cahill, Jagielka, Parker, Lahm and Messi, as well as paying their wages in full for the duration of their five year contracts... Carlsberg don't do transfer window press conferences, but if they did, they'd probably be the best transfer window press conferences in the world!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
ydaetskcoR posted:I had a horrible feeling that would be the case On the other hand youve been on a sharp north-west trajectory ever since which is pretty awesome. Edit: a gif showing 4-5 years movement for teams on that graph would be awesome. Show exactly who is doing what. It'd be great to show teams moving north west against the trend.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2011 12:52
|
|
|
CareyB posted:It really does seem like a bullshit rule change. Why didn't the football league clubs stick together and say no we're not being held to ransom by the PL? Because the vast majority don't produce superstars, and get more money under the new deal. The clubs with great youth systems did try to fight it, but ultimately "lots more money" won the day for clubs not interested in producing future superstars.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
Goosed it. posted:This is so true. I don't remember anyone from any aquarium. Seriously. And I have a good memory for people. What I do remember are the awesome fish, water tunnels and sharks!! Wouldn't the solution be to agree to special dispensation with a buy and loan back (with the new club taking the wages) or a buy but can only play reserve football until the window clause?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
Pissflops posted:How odd. Because it'd guarantee they were the only people able to talk to the player at that time, and would tie him to them. Plus remove the risk of them staying after a buyout. And the quote was the iPhone app I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:"...most of the cost was focused around a design for a stadium which many fans will remember as being the bigger, 70,000 seat proposition which never got built,” explained Ayre. To be fair, memories are quite a special thing to fans of Liverpool Football Club. It's all they have.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 13:16
|
|
|
They should start a Kickstarter.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
To be perfectly honest, while they own a valuable asset in the form of the stadium, they shouldn't be allowed to just drop the tax debt and start over. HMRC should take over the deeds to the stadium, even if they then agree to rent it back to the club for £1 a year for the next 3 years in order to allow them back into a competitive position. After that, it should be a percentage of ticket sales or something, with the option to buy the stadium back at any point for tax debts + interest.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
MattWPBS posted:I can't see it happening. It comes across as essentially saying "We've sold everything to this new company for £11m, so there's nothing left with the old company... Yeah, we know that the ground was valued at over a hundred million, and the playing assets, and erm... We felt £11m was a fair price though, so you can't say it's just a fix... We might be planning to move everything back to the old company later on though." If they are in administration, are they ALLOWED to sell their assets at an undervalued price without their creditors agreement? I'd expect an 11 mil sale of all assets including a huge chunk of real estate would lead to courtroom drama with HMRC trying to block said sale?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:It's technically not a sale, and SPV's have been used in the past in such manners (although not in the sporting world). A rather large company called Enron used to use them constantly, you might have heard of them... In America under a different set of laws. If it was as simple as setting up a "temporary" company to take on all the debts, then transfer assets back to the original and close the new one then wouldn't every company dissolve that way? Plus would an adminsitrator, who's job is to get the best deal for the creditors, not to preserve a scottish institution, be acting in bad faith to do so?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
I'm a little worried about Arsenal based on them. No, I know we're in a great position. But what if the board say "Well, we've paid off 200 million in debt in 6 seasons. If we can hang on just 3 more years under the current transfer neutral model we can be debt free!" I know the analysis says we have plenty of money to spend, and no longer have any real need to pay down the loan on the stadium, but can anyone see the board actually doing that? The best case scenario will be moving to a 10 year repayment plan for the final 90 million or so, diverting around 5 mil* in what would otherwise be transfer fees and wages into repayments. *Back of the hand calculations based on an original plan to pay off the debt in around 30 years and taking into account early repayments. Obviously if the original plan was 30 years without early repayments we'd be naturally in line to pay them off in ten more years without holding back transfer fees.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 12:24
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Absolutely no chance the board deviates from the current model at the moment as it's working perfectly from their point of view (so long as the weekend goes to plan!). There's always been money to spend but as i understand it a players entire cost is taken out of it when they are signed so wages over the course of the contract etc. The problem is we need investment now in order to survive the next 2-3 years as a top 4 club. We now have City, United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham and perhaps even Newcastle competing for that spot. 6-7 clubs competing for 4 spots is great for the league, but not so great for a team hoping that momentum can push them past that line for a few more years before they get another jolt. I'm not saying we should go out and spend 150 million this summer. But perhaps the plan could be put on hold for a year or so. Just one year of spending to our potential and not holding back for debt repayments could secure Van Persie and Walcott, bring in some top players (Podolski and M'villa for starters) and set us up for another 2-34 years of austerity before being totally financially free and fair. Instead I'm dreading Podolski being Van Perise's replacement, Walcott going off to Spain, Italy or Manchester, and an unknown Ukrainian winger being brought in and labelled "The next Pires" and held up as the answer to all our problems.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 12:45
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:According to Arsenal's interim accounts, they have £115m in cash and ~£250m in stadium debt. They could easily splash the money to guarantee a top 4 finish next year. The commercial deals weren't poorly negotiated. They were negotiated well for the goals at the time, which was to secure a new stadium. And in the overall scheme of things they were good deals. They were just incredibly front loaded to secure the stadium funding though. edit: willkill4food posted:But my main thought is why did the building of a new stadium require almost every spare dime from player sales, flat sales, and gate revenue from one of the riches clubs in the world? Maybe that was because of the financial crisis, but it still doesn't sit right with me. They had two choices with the stadium. Pay back the debt over decades, hopefully keeping a champions league spot throughout. This would have made the new stadium profitable from day 1, and allowed them to spend more pretty much instantly because of it, but would have meant more long term risk... Or to put every penny they had spare into paying off that debt, get it down as low as possible, and then reap the rewards. Not just more money than they would have had in scenario a (albeit after a period of austerity) but also far more long term stability. Thankfully we've weathered plan b and kept our place so far, and are in the driving seat to do it again this year. However I'd rather a plan between A and B was found now, allowing us to spend a little straight away and delay the "super riches" part of B a year or two, but not at the cost of much stability as we're already almost paid up. Masonity fucked around with this message at 15:01 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
MrBling posted:I'm sure if you had given Spurs or West Ham the same ~12 years of Champions League revenue and other commercial exposure from being in the top4 that Arsenal had prior to building the stadium they could have done something similar. And if you had given Old Trafford, Sir Alex and the squad he had in 1995 to any other club they would have done exceptionally well too! Yes. Part of what made Arsenal able to do it was their recent success. Although it was only 8 years of Champions League before it was opened, not 12. The biggest thing that made us able to do it was the board we had and the manager we had though. Without Hill Wood, Wenger, Dein, Fitzman and others behind the scenes it wouldn't have worked.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yeah Arsenal spend literally nothing on their squad they play for the love of the game. Incredible stuff. Nope. We spend nothing on our squad for the love of our club and it's long term financial stability. Basically, make do now, be richer than Man City in a few years, with all of it being fair play football generated resources. edit: Once we achieve that we'll be spending nothing out of love of the game.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
So, Green is buying rangers and using a more traditional CVA. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18049325 Seeing as a CVA is a more traditional way to get out of debt, I think more traditional penalties are more in line. So point deductions, not expulsion fromt he league.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
guppy posted:Am I missing something? How is this different from Bill Miller's plan? This special vehicle thing better not be allowed. HRMC shoudl tell them to go gently caress themselves and that there's no way they'll accept the stadium changing from the old to the new company at a fraction of it's worth. I'd rather the tax man held an empty stadium than encourage this kind of poo poo from other clubs.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 14:31
|
|