I don't disagree with you. But there are legions on this board who've argued that he doesn't want to win trophies, that he's content with getting top 4, and the millions that come along with UCL qualification.
Why wouldn't he want to win trophies? That makes no sense. He just doesn't want to spend money to win trophies. That's different. Financially speaking, getting top 4 while investing no money is better than investing 150m to win the league. It's understandable from a business standpoint. His failure is he's now got a manager who's making his assets worth less every year. It is particularly important for an owner who isn't going to inject new investments to get a manager who can maximize his assets, which Wenger isn't doing.
If Stan had a manager who was not Arsene Wenger, then I'd see his point. Disagree with it mind you, but I'd see it.
Of course he wouldn't mind winning trophies, who would! As you so aptly say. Apparently I needed to be a bit more precise in my language when characterizing that common view of him... I should've said "he's not driven primarily to win trophies." So there. Nothing to nit-pick any more. And we're back in agreement. And I agree with the rest of your post above, in how you characterize Kroenke, and how his business model is suddenly in more jeopardy than ever, because we finished 5th. But a bigger issue for a very large portion of the Arsenal fanbase, perhaps the majority, is that they're quite desperate to compete for major titles again. (And as much as I still like the FA Cup, that alone doesn't cut it) So that means that the fans and the owner are quite out of synch in their goals & expectations. I think we're also out of synch with the manager, but less so. Wenger does in fact show a lot of drive to win major trophies... he's just fvcked that up for the last 13 years... 2016 being perhaps the best example. But I digress.
This is how Stan has set up the Rams. And likely how Arsenal is headed. http://deadspin.com/yes-here-is-a-market-that-needs-two-nfl-teams-1803098565
Imagine when the stadium gets built. This is a city that has and will always be silver and black. NFL done f'ed up.
You mean in terms of fan apathy and empty stadium? There are many reasons why I think that would take a long time, and one or two relegations, to get that bad... it would royally suck if it happened!! My 2nd club team is NYRB and to see them struggle to put 8-10K people in their beautiful 25K stadium just pains me every time I go/see them.
Stan Kroenke has made a bid to purchase Usmanov’s 30% stake in Arsenal, a move which would give him more than 97% of the club's shares. pic.twitter.com/EAmJpkm7nD— Arsène's Son 🎈 (@hughwizzy) September 29, 2017
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/19/...olin-kaepernick-los-angeles-rams-owners-money "If you see an NFL franchise as just another asset to be maximized and squeezed for every dime, being good at football — i.e. producing a good product — doesn’t matter. It’s not even rational to put effort towards anything but “value creation,” i.e. shuffling around pieces of the franchise until they sit in the most profitable positions. The Rams doubled their value overnight by leaving St. Louis and moving to L.A. They are a miserable football team run by a despised owner playing in an empty stadium, but the Rams could care less. The fourth most valuable team in the NFL sucks by design, and shines bright enough on the balance sheet to eliminate any real concerns about how bad the product is on the field."
This p.s. Amy's article mentions how if this were to happen and Stan were to increase his stake from 67% to 97% then he could then take the club private. Which raises the question, is there some magic threshold between 67 and 97 which allows for this? I'm far from expert in these matters, but I woulda thought that he would have to get to 100 in order to make it private. Awaiting clarification...
when offer to buy over 25% of shares (I believe thats the figure), you are obligated to make the same offer for all the shares. AST does not have to sell, but those shares cost like 75 million. They probably will.
Depends on UK law and Arsenal's corporate structure. In the US, there are a number of ways to force a tiny minority of shareholders to sell. Given the complaints by AST folks on twitter, it seems like that's also the case at Arsenal.
Common sense dictates that, if I own a share of an entity, not only would I get a seat on the board but I would have some power behind the decisions made in the interest of the club. Unless there's something written in English/EU law that says "Just because you own a stake doesn't mean you have decision-making power" I'd think Usmanov would make a move to sue Kroenke. Am I wrong?