Arsenal 'target of £1.5bn takeover'

K1LLSW1TCH said:
I'd rather us be self sufficient than have to rely on the billions of a sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

if done right we wont have to rely on a suger daddy.

get rid of a load of our average players earning 50-60k , up our annnual salary expense to the same as united's(we are only about 10-20m behind them in figures i saw posted in this forum before) and buy 2 world class players offering 50m a pop/200k per week and another 2-3 players at around 20m a pop and as a result we would have spent close to 200m of the suger daddy owners money and only raising our salary wall to be in line with united's

we have the income from match day tickets and sponsorship deals for us to survive if the suger daddy decide to leave.

Its teams like chelsea and city who would suffer once the owners left as there ginuine income is not enough to pay the players salary
 
To be honest I think our lack of competitiveness with the typical top three doesn't have anything to do with money. We've spent decent amounts on players over the past few years and while we've sold players in the process I don't think that was for financial reasons. The players themselves have pushed for moves, we haven't exactly come out and said we're needing to sell the like of Fabregas, Clichy and van Persie because we're poor.
 
Trusty said:
Your happy for Stan the man to be the owner though, Usmanov can't get a seat on the board because Stan is a nobber and wants to line his own pockets. Usmanov is like Abramovich...a genuine fan.
Click to expand...

Where have i said im happy that Stan is our owner??:confused: i dont recall saying that at all.

Stan isnt and wasnt my first choice as an owner, hes far too quiet...made too many promises in the past which he hasnt kept to ie engaging with fans and doesnt really get involved in what happens with Arsenal.

I have no real issue with Usmanov either, although i remember an Arsenal fan in here saying a few yrs ago that hes a criminal himself.

One thing i dont agree with is, Usmanov who is the 2nd largest shareholder in Arsenal and he cant get on the board...i think thats utterly ridiculous in all honesty.

Personally i dont know what goes on in the Arsenal board meetings myself, im just thinking out loud as to what i think may be happening...i certainly dont think that im 110% correct with my thoughts of the Arsenal board.
 
K1LLSW1TCH said:
To be honest I think our lack of competitiveness with the typical top three doesn't have anything to do with money. We've spent decent amounts on players over the past few years and while we've sold players in the process I don't think that was for financial reasons. The players themselves have pushed for moves, we haven't exactly come out and said we're needing to sell the like of Fabregas, Clichy and van Persie because we're poor.
Click to expand...

Its got a lot to do with money. most of those players moved for money. had nasri, rvp etc etc been on 200k at arsenal, they would still be a gunner.

Fabregas is the exception as i think he is earning less at barca
 
Last edited:
jonney_joop said:
Its got a lot to do with money. most of those players moved for money. had nasri, rvp etc etc been on 200k at arsenal, they would still be a gunner.

Fabregas is teh exception as i think he is earning less at barca
Click to expand...

This, you can't expect Wenger to compete with Man City/Chelsea/United when they cant spend vast amounts without having to sell first.

Just think of all the players that have left Arsenal that may have stayed over the years.

RVP/Clichy/Nasri/Fabregas/Viera/Pires/Henry/Toure/Flamini....World class/quality players left, right and centre.
 
I wonder if it would be possible for such a takeover to occur with such parent company doing the following (if this is not legally done then by all means tell me somebody):

1) Takeover occurs
2) Takeover consortium purchases second football club in a country outside Europe where the UEFA FFP rules do not affect them.
3) Consortium having taken over Arsenal then sells the full Arsenal squad to said secondary club for a substantial profit to erase all debts.
4) Secondary club then loans back the full squad to Arsenal and significantly subsidised wages or implements similar wage scheme to keep Arsenal operating costs down.
5) Secondary club with the consortium money then continues to purchase exceptional talent and loans them all to Arsenal like all other players.

Can this legally be done?
 
No. There's laws regarding owning more than 1 club, maximum amounts of players a club can have on loan and generally you'd hope and expect UEFA to use a bit of common sense.

edit: Re ffp - only time will tell just how serious UEFA are and whether they'll follow through with their threats. Clubs have and will try to find ways around it but as above, it's up to UEFA to use their common sense.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
I meant Arsenal fans in general, not you personally. :p
Click to expand...

Well i cant speak for them but id rather Stan wasnt our owner, he doesnt seem to be all that interested in Arsenal as a whole other than making money. His other teams arent very successful either iirc.

jonney_joop said:
Its got a lot to do with money. most of those players moved for money. had nasri, rvp etc etc been on 200k at arsenal, they would still be a gunner.

Fabregas is the exception as i think he is earning less at barca
Click to expand...

Nasri being the exception, he wanted more money and if we had given him what he wanted then im pretty sure he would have stuck around but Wenger must have thought, look you just arent good enough to command such wages. In the end he was proven right as when Nasri went to City, he didnt really do anything of note there and earlier this year, Mancini tore him a new one by saying he can be a better player but is lazy.

RVP?? i think it was a bit of both, we were willing to give him £100k a week or something but then he also wanted to win trophies which he saw at Arsenal that he wouldnt be winning any especially moreso with some of the signings Wenger made. But now hes at Utd, making well over £100k a week and is pretty much going to win the EPL this yr.

Fabregas?? im not so sure...definitely wanted to win trophies but also wanted to go back to Barca. He probably is making more money there than he was at Arsenal but for him??, it was definitely a case of wanting to win more trophies.
 
jonney_joop said:
Its got a lot to do with money. most of those players moved for money. had nasri, rvp etc etc been on 200k at arsenal, they would still be a gunner.

Fabregas is the exception as i think he is earning less at barca
Click to expand...

I disagree, Nasri won the title with his new team, RVP is in a team that looks almost certain to win the title and Fabregas won the Copa del Rey, Supercopa, UEFA Super Cup and Club World Cup in his first season with Barca. I don't think money would have made much difference. It's only the bitter fans who think our better players moved for money, they simply saw other teams with more ambition and a much better chance at winning stuff and so far the examples from the past few seasons have proven this.
 
J-FRO said:
I wonder if it would be possible for such a takeover to occur with such parent company doing the following (if this is not legally done then by all means tell me somebody):

1) Takeover occurs
2) Takeover consortium purchases second football club in a country outside Europe where the UEFA FFP rules do not affect them.
3) Consortium having taken over Arsenal then sells the full Arsenal squad to said secondary club for a substantial profit to erase all debts.
4) Secondary club then loans back the full squad to Arsenal and significantly subsidised wages or implements similar wage scheme to keep Arsenal operating costs down.
5) Secondary club with the consortium money then continues to purchase exceptional talent and loans them all to Arsenal like all other players.

Can this legally be done?
Click to expand...

Financial fair play (or what ever its called) will have the club thrown out of the champions league as punishment (untill they meet the rules- teams like City, Chealse and Man U are not currently meeting)

But this is the problem. The big clubs will say FU Blatter you cant throw us out of the Champions league just becuase we dont meet the Financial rules, we dont want to be in the champions league anyway.

They go off and form their own super league or new compettion as has been discussed before (involving all the major clubs around EU)

The only team really pushing the FFFP rules is (no suprises) Arsenal. Why? Becuase our business model is based on a Pre-Abamovitch era style of football, one where the club genertes all their own cash and nutures players, not one based on out side torrents of cash splashed around.

Before Abramovitch I remember Arsene Wenger saying that Arsenal where going to dominate the legue for the next 10 years, simply becuase our business model ad club struture was super efficient and we had a great academy. Then Abramovitch brings the Premierships 9/11 disaster and turns all that on it's head and tears up the rule book, ushering in a new era of Football, that of the billionaire owners play thing.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
:confused:

What figures have you been looking at to come up with this 'market value'? Only a handful of shares are ever available to buy at one time and these have sold for over £16k each at times. This offer is reportedly for £20k per share.
Click to expand...

The Arsenal website.
April 2012 they had an article where they state the club at that time was valued at £810 million.

You need to direct your ire at them if you disagree with it.
 
Last edited:
Arsenal have denied takeover claims and insist owner Stan Kroenke has no plans to sell the club

Arsenal have received no approach over a potential takeover and insist majority shareholder Stan Kroenke has no plans to sell up.

Reports claimed a Middle East consortium are preparing a £1.5b bid to buy out the Premier League club at around £20,000 a share.

However, the club insist they have received no contact from potential bidders and that Kroenke would have no intention of selling his controlling stake.

"Stan Kroenke is committed to Arsenal for the long term and has no intention of selling his stake," said Mark Gonnella, the club's communications director.

"There has been no contact from any potential investors."

Kroenke pushed through his £430m-plus takeover in April 2011, and now holds 66.83% of the club to give him overall control.

The Kroenke Sports Enterprise Group has a history of sustained involvement in all of his sporting interests in the United States, which include the Denver Nuggets of the NBA and the Colorado Avalanche in the NHL, as well as MLS side Colorado Rapids.

Arsenal's second largest shareholder Alisher Usmanov, who does not currently have a seat on the board, is also reported to have no interest in selling his 29.96% holding.
Click to expand...

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...er-Stan-Kroenke-has-no-plans-to-sell-the-club

I suppose it would need to be a bit of a 'money to burn' offer to tempt Kroenke.
 
atpbx said:
The Arsenal website.
April 2012 they had an article where they state the club at that time was valued at £810 million.

You need to direct your ire at them if you disagree with it.
Click to expand...

Assuming what you're saying is correct, that still doesn't make it their current market value. For a start it's a year old.

It's nigh on impossible to put a 'market value' on Arsenal because of what I said in the last post - only a handful of shares are being traded. A £20k per share offer (which the article claims) is not nearly twice as much as the price shares have been traded at over the last year or so though.
 
K1LLSW1TCH said:
To be honest I think our lack of competitiveness with the typical top three doesn't have anything to do with money. We've spent decent amounts on players over the past few years and while we've sold players in the process I don't think that was for financial reasons. The players themselves have pushed for moves, we haven't exactly come out and said we're needing to sell the like of Fabregas, Clichy and van Persie because we're poor.
Click to expand...

You are right it doesnt really have anything to do with money - its the type of player Arsene goes for that is wrong.

Instead of replacing the likes of Fabregas /Nasri / RvP with genuine class he chooses them with mediocre chaff.

If he had bought ONE world class player for £30m ish when CF wanted to go back to his home-town club, another when Nasri had the City flash their cash at him - I really dont think RvP would have left ( given AW had enough time before RvP 's transfer in mid-Aug to get another world class player last summer).

Each season he just replaces genuine talent with questionable buys either through his own pig-headedness or through the board not letting him get in the real players Arsenal have needed for years.

Not only does this look like costing Arsenal 4th place and vital CL money next season, but its got to a point where not only does genuine world class talent not even consider Arsenal but also the only real potential for the future are Jack Wilshire and possibly Cazorla , both of whom look promising but arent there yet. Walcott is a decent player, but maybe too much pressure on relatively inexperienced shoulders (for such a high-profile club)

There is too little high-profile winning mentality in the squad (admittedly not helped by bad injuries over the last season or two, but imo its still AW's /the board''s fault in the main)

The overpowering will / belief to win has also evaporated into thin air
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom