Financial Times reporting that Usmanov made an offer of 1.3 billion USD to buy out Kroenke. The offer was supposedly made last month with no movement so far.
Interesting. But hard to imagine things are likely to change now. How many years has it been since there were really active threads/discussions about Kroenke vs Usmanov? Edit: That said, from those last discussions I learned that I didn't care for Usmanov at all. So as lame as Kroenke has been, I don't think it's Usmanov who I want him to sell to. Not that he's in a mood to sell, which was my main thought above.
Can I vote maybe? Based on what I know I don't care much for Usmanov as a person, and I'm on the record saying I couldn't support Arsenal if they became a sugar daddy club, so if it trends that way then I can't rag along for the ride. If he's simply trying to make the board more proactive in keeping the team on track for trophies within their means then I'll be willing to try. For me the character of the club and the people therein has to count for something. Kroenke may not be leading the team to the promised land but he's not a major a**hole, either. That matters to me.
Kroenke isn't going to sell. I know nothing about Usmanov except that he is loaded and appears to genuinely want and believe that Arsenal should compete with and be one of the better clubs in the world. Given what I know and see with my own eyes regarding the history and ability to compete of ALL of Kroenke's teams....I'd take Usmanov any day. Kroenke ownership means nothing but mediocrity.
Pretty sure the people involved in St. Louis' stadium efforts to get the Rams to stay would disagree and have interesting things to say about that.
Well, you could be contrarian and argue that Arsenal is already one such under Kroenke, only without any of the things usually seen as positives
I mean, the real wish of everybody is that Kroenke, Usmanov, and Wenger are all punted out. Kroenke is maybe the worst owner in US sports, which is incredible. I'm not sure I want the replacement to be a worse person than Al Capone.
Give me the crook who would at least go to games and attempt to make the club better over the absent owner who doesn't care one bit. Below tells you all you need to know about what a Kroenke ownership will mean... Stan Kroenke's sporting franchises Team Sport Latest performance Arsenal Football - Premier League - Fifth in league, FA Cup finalists Colorado Rapids Football - MLS - Bottom of Western Conference Colorado Avalanche Hockey - NHL - Bottom of Western Conference Denver Nuggets Basketball - NBA - Ninth in Western Conference Los Angeles Rams American Football - NFL - Third in NFC West (out of 4 teams)
On the plus side, Usmanov would want to shake it up a bit. On the negative side, his shake ups could destabilize the club.
He's cold and pretty ruthless and he's certainly not the most egalitarian of owners, but that doesn't mean he's evil. I may not be proud of him, but I don't hold my nose to him. The likes of Abromovich, meanwhile, should be rotting in jail instead of enjoying a lavish life. If I could legally beat the s*** out of that man I would. Are you referencing his qualities as a manager or for his personal character? Again, I don't need a squad full of angels. I'm not trying to be absolute or apply double standards, and I'd love to see a new owner and manager at the club, but for me whatever Usmanov adds to the Board room is likely offset by his past.
Other than Jeff Loria I think he's the worst. If he's the owner then you know you can just give up rooting for your team.
For real. He's like the frigging death knell for a competitive sports team and its fan base. Dude is basically the grim reaper. Every sports team he touches dies in terms of competing. Sucks.
Bite your tongue. I have no love for Kroenke, but in a world with Dolan, Loria, Snyder, Robert Sarver, David Glass, etc, you can't say he's the worst owner out there. There are a lot of ways to screw up a professional sports team, including incompetence, arrogance, naivete, and greed. Kroenke doesn't appear to be taking a ton of money out of Arsenal: his goal is to have an appreciating asset, and is indifferent to results on the field for as long as the asset appreciates. In other words, he is not THE problem at Arsenal (unless Wenger's "I'll write a tell all one day" actually means something). As much as I hate to say it, the problem at Arsenal is Wenger.
Only Loria is worse, imo. Loria purposefully runs his teams into the ground. Kroenke is a passenger. His teams all suck and they don't try to compete. He does the bare minimum and rakes in the cash off the backs of other people's efforts. He's the ultimate rent-seeker and it destroys the teams he owns.
I read the article where they cherry picked this the other day. This is just a snapshot in time and has no relationship to how good or bad an owner Stan Kroenke is. For instance, the Rapids were one of the best teams in MLS last year (second in the West) and won the championship a few years back under the same ownership. Stan actually no longer controls the Avalanche or the Nuggets because he had to relinquish control of those franchises before the NFL would approve his purchase of the Rams. The Avs even won a Stanley Cup under his ownership. And the Rams are no great shakes, but they only won a single game the year before he bought the team. They've shown some improvement (and are back in L.A. where they belong). Since I'm not on the board and not involved in the inner workings of the club, I really don't know what sort of owner Stan is (except that he at least isn't a meddler like the NFL guys in Dallas and Washington). I'm not thrilled that he's part of the Walton clan, but that's better than a Russian oligarch. Of course if a legitimate third party that had the best interests of the club at heart would buy the team, I'd be happy with that. And maybe Stan would sell to someone like that for a tidy profit, but I don't think he'll ever sell to Usmanov (and I hope he doesn't).