If Kroenke cares about winning trophies or not doesn't matter. Wanting to win a trophy doesn't mean you will and not wanting to win a trophy doesn't mean you won't. He doesn't take cash out of the club and doesn't get involved in the day to day. Wenger chooses how to spend his money. Basically you're whining that we don't have a mega rich owner willing to make a massive loss to chase a title, that incidentally would be difficult to achieve under FFP now anyway... boo hoo. The vast majority of the money PSG, City, Chelsea have spent..... was wasted, assuming that because club spent eleventy billion to win a title means you also do... is nothing short of stupid. Look at the player turnover, the massive losses and players who barely played yet sometimes cost 30+mil for a handful of performances. Handing out big wages to substandard players, SWP was ****, yet two clubs wasted a fortune on him in transfer fees and wages, had zero impact on winning titles.
As for UK clubs doing well in europe... again, you have to ask the relevance. The clubs that fail but have a budget to compete fire their managers when they can't compete, this is a point that works against you not for you. But if you want to get into it, Chelsea won the europa league in 12/13, they won the Champs league in 11/12, the got to the semi finals in 13/14, they got to the first knock out stage in 14/15, but won the league, narrowly losing to PSG, not being thrashed embarrassingly, they went out in 15/16 in the same way, a narrow loss at the same stage to the same team and that was in another year a manager was fired for insane under performance, even in a year Mourinho absolutely ruined Chelsea in the league they still put in a better performance in the champs league.
The BBC article, you may have noted where it says.... Wenger CLAIMS that, which you now hold to be truth. Wenger has lied a lot making up excuses. I genuinely don't believe this happened, if it was said to him it's most likely someone doing some hand holding trying to make Wenger feel important at a time he was getting interest elsewhere, don't forget that in 2003 he was doing great and if the club could manipulate him into signing a 5 year contract when Real and other teams were sniffing around why wouldn't they.
The reality is in 2003 banks were handing out money like candy, a construction project that is short term and has serious financial payback is not a risk at all. If Wenger got fired, if we went down to the championship... Arsenal would still have fans and Arsenal would still easily fill out even half the stadium. Look at match day, 57mil at highbury, that was beaten solely by Utd in the EPL and one of the highest across europe(it may well be the second highest in europe as well as ticket prices are generally way cheaper in the other leagues). It doubled, literally doubled by moving stadium... and our debt repayments are sub £20mil a year... but we went from about £50mil to £100mil overnight. We could afford the debt repayments even if attendance dropped by half... which it wouldn't. There is absolutely no way in hell, like none, that the bank would turn down an easy 50-100mil profit in a couple of years because Wenger might leave. This was freaking easy money for the banks and most importantly the plan was always to turn the short term bank debt into long term bonds, meaning the banks were always going to paid back a couple years max after the move anyway, meaning any actual longer term risk of relegation and the attendance dropping into lets say the 15k or below range that might threaten the club financially, had zero chance of happening before they got paid back.
Again you seem to be purposefully ignoring the point on the league being won. It's simple, you have a club with a 200mil wage budget, your job as manager is to compete in all competitions. If you require not competing in any other competition to just win the league.... you are failing in your job targets and need replacing anyway. I honestly can't even see how you can not understand this, it's incredibly simple.
If you take over Hull, with a small budget and specifically with like 4 players or whatever they had in preseason, your target is not to compete in the champs league and the league and the cup, in fact it's not to win any competition, your job is to if you can stay up and if not push for promotion from the championship next year. You don't fail by even getting relegated. In that scenario you fail if you get relegated, then do terribly in the championship. Wenger's job description at a club with the finances we have is to genuinely compete in all competitions. If he can only compete in a single competition by ignoring all other competitions he is not doing his job and should leave for a manager who can take a club with Arsenal's resources and compete in the CL and the league.
What comment on that forbes article, it doesn't say much interesting, it says what I say, that we've had couple hundred million in the bank, the debt from the stadium started at $387mil and as of last season the debt stood at $302million...... are you reading something different? Net debt means little, in another 10 years we could have $700million in the cash account, $150mil of debt and a positive cash flow of $550mil?
Net debt hitting zero isn't anything, it's meaningless, we're paying off around 18mil a year, every year for a long time to come and since the stadium move. Cash is a completely separate matter and the problem, we have the cash, it's not taken out of the club, Wenger won't use it. We need 18mil a year for stadium debt repayments to 2031, it's always been that amount, it will continue to always be that amount, there is really no benefit to paying it all off early, you hurt yourself refusing to spend till you pay it off early, you probably pay a huge penalty for paying off early and then you get... 18mil a year extra to spend, woo. WE moved stadium, increased profits by £50mil, pay a small amount each year to debt repayment, we've been £31-32mil better off every year since the move and will be till 2031 when we'll be £50mil better off per year.