When I said Arsenal USA, I was merly using the "USA" stick that is used with Man Utd, these days in Britian a lot, because a lot of other team fans feel that Man Utd has sold out its identity and history to the Glazers. Didn't the glazers plunge Man Utd into debt when they bought the club? I don't want to be a hypocrite and say I am against takeovers and then only sight foreign ownerships, but what I will say is that why does Arsenal need to loose its identity for a few extra monies? It has the money to compete with the other teams its just that Arsene Wenger doesn't want to spend it. I am saying that the fans are fans of the club and the game, not for making money. They will stick with the club through thick and thin and have been running the club in its current state for over 100 years, why fix something that isn't broke? As I said, they are with Arsenal because they are fans and have the clubs best interests at heart, they will not run or cut if the club doesn't make good financial returns for them. They also let Arsene Wenger full reign over the footballing side of Arsenal, and have backed him up in whatever he has wanted to change at the club over the last 10 and more years. This includes new training complexes, a new stadium, changing the club diet and ethos, buying new players, selling big stars and just the image of the club. If the current board members were getting the club into debt and badly running the club, there would be more support for a takeover. But its the opposite, Arsenal were the only team of the top 5 of the EPL to make a profit last season, all the rest posted a debt. That shows they are running the club well. "Americans are buying up chunks of the Premiership football clubs and not because of their love of football but because they see an opportunity to make money. "They know absolutely sweet FA about our football and we don't want these type of people involved." FROM PHW, and that is how a lot of people feel. I am impressed with the board because they are sticking with their guns, but it is a tightrope and you feel if one falls, they all fall.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I want Arsenal to be taken over. In fact, I prefer status quo. That said, it's rather hard to judge whether a takeover will ultimately be good or bad for the club. It doesn't make much sense for a new owner to come in to simply bleed the club of its finances. As much as I hate Chelsea, I imagine their supporters would tell you that Abramovich has done a good job (they've actually won trophines). Also, the doom and gloom predicted by Man U supporters has not come to pass (note: I actually know one of the Glazer kids...I tried to convince him that the Old Trafford faithful would be well-served by corn dogs and curly fries. Sadly he didn't bite).
I don't see these recent developments as good news at all. This is clearly the precursor to a takeover bid, and the way Dein chose to announce it reeks of his ego and intentions. Attempting to usurp the CL draw by pretty much making a declaration of war was petty and totally selfish. Dein's actions have been pretty pathetic and he probably would have taken money from Satan himself if he could have. In some ways its better that it's R&W and not Kroenke; the same way it's better to have herpes than HIV. The 'unsettling' that was done when Dein was rightly dismissed from the board is going to look like childs play compared to what's about to happen. Instead of focusing on an improving squad with loads of talent, the media and everyone else will have their eye on the growing power struggle at the head of the club. Dein and R&W vs Edelman/Fiszman and the current board. Dein talks endlessly about how much he 'loves the club,' but a more truthful statement would be 'loves power at the club.' If he truly loved the club unconditionally, he'd have left well enough alone and allowed the club to progress naturally. However, he's driven by power and/or a personal vendetta against the existing board, so he's whoring himself in order to build an army to stage a coup that will do nothing good for this football club. He's already started to attempt to win support by speaking about Wenger yesterday, and I'm sure he'll imply that it was he who got him to resign when the board couldn't, even though he clearly was going to anyway. It'll be a sad sad sad day when Dein is appointed chairman of this football club and I pray it never happens. We'll become exactly what we dislike and make fun of; Chelsea part two, with Dein the equivalent of that weasel fcuk Kenyon. Maybe Henry will come scuttling back now that 'Mr. Dein' is back.
Yes. Chelsea was basically in the same lot as Leeds, arguably in a financially risky position that they were about to lose. RA GIFTED them the money they needed to survive, then GIFTED them some more so they could prosper. This is not a situation every club can be in, as they are instead forced to operate like a true business. ManU is wealthy but at least that revenue was earned by the the club. Ditto Liverpool, Arsenal, etc, as their spot in the pecking order comes from their own business dealings. This precedence Chelsea is establishing, whereby large amounts of outside funds are used to alter the fates of a football club, impacts those other clubs trying to succeed on their own merits but lacking a sugar daddy. What if other clubs (Man City? Newcastle?) eventually mimic this trend? I'd hate to see Arsenal unable to compete in the market for top players because they don't have someone willing to lose money on a hobby venture. My concern is the establishment of precedent in operating clubs as a business. While I realize a salary cap is untenable, I'd said even before RA's arrival that football clubs should be restricted to spending only the amount of revenues generated or leveraged by the club. Making them operate with more financial scrutiny would prevent crashes as bad as Leeds have suffered, which is unfair to their fans. Moral superiority? Some in the sense of sporting fairness. Like I've said before, I will consistently root for Chelsea's failure as a club until they've paid RA back every pound they've received from him, preferably with some interest. Until then their success is not, in my eyes due to the club, but instead is due to the financial resources of their owner. I don't appreciate owners or outside forces having THAT much direct influence on the course of the game and the standings in the table. It also doesn't help that I personally believe Mr. Abromovich came about his wealth through immoral and illegal means. If Arsenal were to become the plaything of a similar character, I'd be gutted and would seriously consider it no longer the same Arsenal because it wouldn't be the same Arsenal. Different ownership with different principles and different ways of managing the club would change what Arsenal is, IMO.
You said: So you want Arsenal to be big enough to win trophies but still be considered "underdogs"? You want them to be a big club but not quite the biggest? Would Arsenal being the 2nd biggest club in the world feel just right to you? I bet there's fans of Newcastle, Man City and even Norwich who find this a pretty smug, self-satisfied attitude. To consider your club an "underdog" because they have not won the league in 3 years, when well supported clubs like Newcastle have not won the league in many decades is a joke (I won't even mention Spurs). If Arsenals recent history mirrored that of Newcastle you can bet that attitudes to a takeover by a russian or american billionaire who would be pretty different. Arsenal are a big club and have won a hell of a lot of trophies in recent years, probably a lot more than Newcastle have won in their whole history. City are a "massive" club and have not won a single trophy in 31 years. You do have lots "glory-hunting" fans who would have no interest in the club if the trophy cabinet was as empty as Newcastles. To pretend otherwise is deluded. All of the "Big 4" clubs have plenty of such fans.
I think the main point remains, regardless of what we want our club to be, the EPL is changing, rapidly. A club like Arsenal, the last of the big 4 to not experience take-over, is the most desirable club left in EPL. Take-over is inevitable. There's simply too much money at stake, and sooner or later the unwillingness to compete on the transfer market will bite us in the ass. We can all laugh and digress about Spurs, but sooner or later all that money spent will generate results. Sooner or later Wegner will leave, and our youth development will falter. I love our club, now, I love our club next year, regardless of the owner. I simply don't want Arsenal to be in the hands of a modern day robber baron that raped and pillaged his own countrymen for the all mighty dollar. This man has blood and suffering all over his hands, ask the everyday Russian what they think of these Oligarchs. While they were suffering these men got rich because they had connections to Yeltzin, and were basically handed some of the richest oil contracts in the world for next to nothing, again, while the Russian people suffered. Whatever you think of American "tycons", Kreonke is a self-made man. He was not handed billions through inheritance, he went to an average state university (Missouri) and made himself. Granted, he's had help due to his marriage to a Walton, but he made his wealth before that. Also, he's great experience running sports franchises. His clubs have won championships, the right way. He'll not Americanize Arsenal, Arena wont be our manager, Lalas wont run the FO. People may talk shit about Man Utd USA or whatever, but ask their supporters what they think. Champions, and they added WC talent. We're not Fulham, or Villa, or Man City. We don't NEED foreign investment to stay in the EPL, to do well, but sooner or later I'd like to compete for a championship, and for that my friends, we need to be more aggressive in the transfer market. Do you all actually believe Wegner doesn't want an extra 20 million in his transfer kitty? Would you all have been disappointed to add Tevez rather than Eduardo? Nani? It's going to happen, sooner, rather than later. Who would you rather run the club?
I'd most certainly agree with you on this point. But it does not look like any such restrictions will ever happen. But let's face it, we could one day see an end to collective bargaining in TV deals. The big clubs will make their own TV deals and the smaller clubs will wither and die. Chelsea DO have a big fanbase so such a scenario would make them independent of Abramovichs money. All the clubs with big fanbases will make so much from TV revenue that it'll be almost impossible to screw up their finances. While Arsenal fans and United fans may be happy that their clubs are well managed and spend only what they earn unlike Chelsea, ultimately it will not matter.
The most puzzling thing about all this to me is the statement by R&W to the effect that they want the club to have the resources to compete, followed by the statement that the retention of Arsene Wenger is of utmost importance to the future of the club, when by all indications AW is not interested in having more money to spend! What are they going to do, allow him the complete control he has now while paradoxically requiring him to buy more expensive and more famous players? Arseblogger's intensely negative response to the whole thing is interesting. While I agree with much of it, he makes one observation that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me: To assert that having been imprisoned by the Soviet regime makes a subsequent claim of innocence lack credibility seems a bit daft to me. While I'm sure they did send away the occasional murderer or common mugger, the Soviet penal system was full of people who committed no actual crime. Mind you, I'm not arguing that Usmanov came by his subsequent wealth by the honest sweat of his brow.
Actually, I think he also made substantial $$$ in real estate prior to the marriage. Mind you if I could marry a Walton heiress I certainly would.
If this happens I will in all likelihood walk away from the EPL. The product lies in the competitions, be it for leagues or cups. If I had my way any team wanting it's own broadcast deal would have to found it's own league in order to have opponents. This is one reason I'm turned off by Italy's set up. (Ironically amidst many socialist State policies.) We might as well let the bigger clubs play with extra players or start with a goal in hand, as they're seemingly dictating so much of the circumstances already. No to a Euro Superleague. No to clubs controlling their broadcast rights. No to clubs receiving outside financial gifts.
Hmm... quite an analogy! Obviously both herpes & HIV are bad for the host organism. But I'm not so clear on that being the case for Kroenke or R&W. The main factor now seems to be Dein. He's now the chairman of R&W. I see a lot of doubt about whether Dein is presently a net-positive for the club. If the feared power/money struggle were to play out soon, then I suppose there's a possibility of Dein being a short-term plus. But I doubt that'll happen... I expect that this may go on through the season, in which case I see Dein and R&W as an unsettling distraction. Remember, Dein's first unsettling moves which led to his ouster, major angst amongst fans, players, staff, and which, on the surface anyway, led to Henry's departure. The thing I keep wondering about the timing of R&W's announcement, is whether Dein is trying to somehow control... no, influence Wenger's signing a new contract. And for sure Dein is not unhappy to have 75 million in the bank, but it seems that power/control is his primary motivation. Otherwise, why would he issue the press release the way he did.
I agree 100%. The best thing about the PL is that the true underdog, a Reading say, can beat any of the "big" clubs on their day. But new owners may not see things that way when they look at the likes of Real Madrid signing billion euro TV deals.
I agree w/ Imposter. I think Wenger is fundamentally a frugal guy who doesn't like to splash cash around, and would rather find young kids and patiently nurture them. He has an AMAZING amount of patience & pride in taking this approach.
Having an extra 20 million would give Wenger EVEN MORE options on which players to get. You telling me he wouldn't want that option?
Having the extra money might also go to keeping existing players who've earned better pay, so I don't think Wenger would be against having the extra funds. What matters is this: Is the funding from a stable source the club can truly budget on or some whimsical gift that may someday be called back or unavailable? More importantly, it's not the simplicity of the immediate $. It's about the management that's going to be over Wenger's shoulder and possibly talking about more than just $20M for the transfer season.
I don't believe, for a second, that Wegner would not love extra money to go after (young) players like Tevez, Nani, Alves, and Torres over Eduardo and Sagna (even tho I love both signings, and believe they'll be great for us). IMO they give Wegner a limit, and publicly they do what they can to make it seem it's club policy to not overspend and focus on youth development. Also, how long do you think loyalty of our top players will last, especially Cesc and Toure? Even our captain has publicly stated the desire to bring in more experienced (see expensive) talent. At some point in the near future we're going to need to compete in the transfer market. I'm not convinced our board is willing to do so, I'm sure both R&W and Kreonke will. I just think it's hard to ignore the inevitability of take-over, it's going to happen. I'd rather have my club in the hands of a man experienced in running sports franchises than one that made his money through the exploitation of his country.
There is a "quote" from Wenger from thisislondon, I assume its accurate otherwise they could be sued. I strongly agree with NorthBank74, Wenger doesn't want to go for the big stars, he wants to spot talent early and grab them when he is cheap. He doesn't want to spend a lot of money on players, I mean at the end of the last season he said that he would only buy "two or three world class players" and he bought a few cheap players with potential, because in Wengers eyes he doesn't want to spend silly amounts of money of a player who is established, he wants to buy a guy with the same potential in a few years not now. Shrewd is a very good word to describe Arsene in the market, I think he drives a hard bargain, and he keeps a tight ship. After all, how many of the Arsenal transfer rumours actually happen? Not many, you never hear about the players Arsene actually buys, until he has bought them.
When Wenger wants the money it's there. He doesn't need an extra £20m because any money he may want in the future is there already. Why is that so difficult to follow?
Based on what evidence? Again, a serious question. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of the club's finances, nor to understand what little I do know.
TBH, I'm just going on the fact we've had 3 years without much domestic success and player unrest from players like Henry and Gallas in regards to our unwillingness to compete with big clubs in transfers. Not to mention pretty signifigant transfers paid for Rosicky, Eduardo and Sagna that show we're willing to spend money, just not on par with the other big 4 and even other prem clubs with bigger aspirations. It just doesn't make sense that Wegner would LOVE Eduardo for 12 million, but balk at Tevez for another 8, unless he was told that's not an option. I just find it very hard to believe that Wegner wouldn't love to have added a player like Tevez or Torres, if the finances had been available. Of course Wegner is going to tow the line, a manager arguing with FO provides nothing positive for the club, we need a unified front. I'm still very worried about losing Cesc, RVP, Toure, etc, should we not compete for a title this season. I'm causiously optimistic we will do better this year, but I'm a little disapointed we went for Eduardo over players like Tevez and Torres. I really think Tevez would've been a PERFECT fit for Arsenal.