It's hard to know exactly what's going on, but it seems like we're dealing with Cerberus now (he was a 3-headed dog in Greek mythology, but I'm sure you knew that already). It looks like we have the current incumbents (Danny Fiszman, et al) in one corner, Kroenke in another and Red & White in another. This really seems to cloud the picture. I guess Dein abandoned Kroenke, so I can't imagine a partnership between Kroenke and Red & White. Wouldn't surprise me is Kroenke tried to partner with the current board and/or tried to offload his shares to the highest bidder. Still, the incumbents own about 45% of the club...I'd have to think they could pretty much veto any takeover if they wanted to.
ive got a feeling lehmann will be on a suicide watch the next time he fecks up...we might be closer than you think.
According to the board but surely if Dein intended to sell to kroenke he would have. One day maybe the truth of all this will come out but it will be all over by then.
Yeah, I love the way he likes to try to unsettle our players. "Without new investors, I feel very soon Arsenal might not be able to compete successfully at the very top level, despite the fantastic work of Arsene Wenger." (http://www.goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=399443) I'm sure all of our young players are comforted by his vote of confidence in their abilities.
we have to realize that Arsenal has, and will be until it happens, a prime candidate for (hostile) takeover. The club is one of the biggest in the world, and yet continually fail to compete in the intl. transfer market. They have a great new stadium and prestige. The fact that they haven't competed for a EPL title in a few years will only increase the liklihood of takeover. Now, would you rather the owner be a flat out crook, or a man who made his money the right way and has a lot of experience running sports franchises (OK, he made some of his money b/c he's married to a Walton, but he wasn't born into money, he made it)? These people are modern day robber barons, they made their money by stealing from the Russian people. While their country went down the shitter they made out like kings, getting huge oil contracts for pennies on the dollar b/c they had connections w/ Yeltzin. I don't want this man involved in my club, at all. I have a VERY difficult time understanding why anyone would prefer him to Kreonke.
Kroenke has so far resisted the idea of a hostile takeover, I think personally thats a major reason why Dein has decided that this Russian is a better bet. I don't want either of them running the club, and I don't want Arsenal to be Arsenal USA. I am not racist, but Arsenal doesn't need to loose its identity, and at least if there was some British investement, it could stay in British hands. The idea of having two super rich investors as big shareholders is scary, because they clearly have the current board, who are primarilly Arsenal fans, and have a big history with the club in their sights for removal. These are the people who will care mostly for the club, not about making money. A very good article sums up feelings along the same side of my own: Some of the points I wanted to make notice off, are highlighted in bold. I want Arsenal to be a BIG club, but I don't want Arsenal to be a glory hunting club like Man Utd or Real Madrid. I like the fact that Arsenal are a semi big club, and not for example the biggest in the world, because it makes things more exciting. Don't get me wrong, I want success but let football do the talking, and it would be boring if Arsenal won all the time . I like the fact that Arsenal are the underdogs and not the favourites all the time, it makes it more exciting when they win and all the more memorable. If they won every year, Arsenal would contain many more fans who just support the club like they do with Man Utd at the moment, because they "win all the time" and are "the best".
Yeah, but it's highly unlikely that Kroenke would bring in an all American staff, get cheerleaders, rename the team London Arsenal Gunners, employ a PA announcer to yell stuff during the game encouraging the fans to "get loud," etc... Frankly, I'm a little tired of the veiled bashing of Kroenke because he is an American. He's also a damn good and smart businessman, and I'm sure he knows enough not to f*ck up a huge investment. Plus, Dein and Kronke were apparently in cahoots originally, so you'd still end up with some English investment. I know I'm probably just blowing your statement out of context, but outside of the debate about money on hand and financing, what's the major difference? These guys are Arsenal "fans" so they must be better? Sports is littered with "fans" who have become owners, and who allow their fan feelings to get the better of them leading to horrible horrible decisions. I'm not saying I'm against this initiative, nor am I against a Kroenke bid. All in all, I'm less impressed with the board right now than ever before, despite the fact that they, and Wenger, appear to have made all the right decisions in the off-season (though it's waaay to early to say much more than that).
Well, there is lots of interesting stuff on this Usmanov character. This in the blog by a Mr. Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan (Usmanov is an Uzbek). He's not a big fan of Usmanov. http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/06/russian_journal.html Then there's this criticism from the deputy chair of the state duma commitee on information. http://www.cjes.ru/bulletin/?bulletin_id=2579&lang=eng On a completely different subject, he's trying to start up Russia's first all-sports TV channel. http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/162387/russia-to-launch-sports-channel He's involved in fencing and apparently helped Russia land the 2014 winter olympics through his influence in Uzbekhistan. There are also several stories of him discussing possible business deals with Abramovich, who apparently wants to get back into business in Russia, probably because of the strained relations between Moscow and London. Oh, and big shocker here...he owns a yacht.
I agree with your points. There's a lot of fear-mongering going on and some anti-American bashing too. When Man U was sold to an American family, you would have thought it was a sign of the apocalypse from the reaction of United fans. In fact, the Glazers seem to have done a pretty decent job with their club so far and haven't really changed much, aside from expanding their stadium. I think the current board has done an excellent job, but the reality is new owners might be better for the club and they might be worse. Given their track record I'd prefer status quo, but I won't burn all my Arsenal kits if a sale does go through.
I just want to say that in my heart of hearts Walmart (or anyone that has anything to do with them), Russian oil lords, land mine manufactures, the rock band Boston, John Arne Riise and catsup on hot dogs are all just as bad as the other. I want my team to be fueled by blood diamonds and Morgan Stanley.
Repped. I wouldn't think it possible to work Boston and the incongruity of ketchup and hot dogs into the same sentence... but you did it.
Stop with the martyr complex. Arsenal ARE a big club. They are not the plucky underdogs you want them to be. If you want plucky underdogs then go support Norwich or something. Do you think all the posters from Chicago, New York etc. on this board would be posting here if Arsenal had the same recent history as Norwich? They became fans of Arsenal because they have won lots of big trophies in recent years. If this Russian takes over Arsenal and throws arounds money wildly like Abramovich then Arsenal will be just like Chelsea. This higher moral plain that you seem to think Arsenal exist on will be long gone.
I beg to differ, our situation with Chelsea is completely different. Pre- Abromovich, Chelsea were borderline shite. They needed Abromovich's finances becaue they couldn't generate it themselves. Arsenal are a self sustaining club and they don't need outside investment. I am not saying it wouldn't help, but it is not necessary, which is what Wenger and the board have been saying all along. However, Chelsea have set a dangerous precedent... There is just too much at stake and teams cannot afford to miss out... Dein realizes this from a business standpoint and from a fans standpoint. That is probably the reason why he needs a big time investor to back him while he runs the club with Wenger. I am sure his agreement for selling his shares is that he gets complete control, unlike the situation with Abromovich and Mourinho. The russians may be coming, but Dein and Wenger will be the brains behind the club, guarantee. The russians will be rewarded financially because that is all they are after. What i really want to know is how much Wenger knows about what is going on now...Since Dein and Wenger are homeboys, Wenger must know about his intentions... Just my two cents...
Actually, I became an Arsenal fan because they won the trophy in 1989 and my dad brought back an Arsenal scarf from England, thereby becoming the first team outside of the US I had heard of. I guess in the grand scheme of things you could call that recent. But, I'll agree with you on everything else, even though I disagree with James on the whole existence of Arsenal.
Funny, only a couple years later I became an Arsenal supporter because my Mom brought me back an Arsenal t-shirt from a trip to London. Think the whole "big club" debate is kind of silly. So long as we have enough money to fund our purchases, I'm happy (though of course w/ Wenger at the helm, he doesn't need/want very much money). One thing that I think some people miss though, is that they equate buying a team (or shares in a team) with adding to the club's coiffers. These are 2 entirely different concepts. When you purchase shares in a club, the money goes to the seller of the shares, not to the club itself and there's no guarantee that the new owner is going to make additional investment in the club like Abramovich (e.g., Hearts has become a mess since they were bought by a Lithuanian owner...well more of a mess anyway).
What's it matter about the relative state of the clubs before the takeover? Abramovich bought Chelsea and spent money wildly. Does it really matter that they were deep in debt before that? If this Russian buys Arsenal outright then he can do whatever he wants with the club, just as Abramovich did with Chelsea. Will it matter what the financial state of Arsenal was before a takeover? Why would financial history matter? Maybe you will cling to moral superiority over Chelsea fans by pointing out that Arsenal were in a stronger position than Chelsea when the takeover happened. But that's a pretty weak argument. If this russian buys Arsenal outright then Arsenal will be just like Chelsea. From what I can gather it does not look like this guy is going for an outright takeover in the near future. But if he really wanted it to happen (and the major shareholders sell out) then you can't expect David Dein to keep complete control of affairs. Whoever pays the money wil have ultimate control.
Erm, why would I support Norwich when I wasn't born far from Highbury and I have been a fan of Arsenal for many years. Don't make the assumption that because I currently live in Norwich that I will change the team I have supported all my life. Were Arsenal as big a club as they were before Wenger arrived? Im not so sure, I remember under George Graham I don't think perhaps Arsenal were as big as they are now. So I became a fan when Arsenal when Wenger wasn't at the club, and I am sure a lot is the same of British fans. So you cannot accuse everyone of supporting the club purely because they have won big trophies in recent years. I am well aware that Arsenal are a BIG club, thanks for letting me know. But I would take issue with Arsenal being the biggest club in the world, because the history, glory and sucess would say different. Many people say that Arsenal cannot be a truly great club until they win the champians league, people such as Charlie George. I don't know about that, but I truly feel that Arsenal are right too resist any takeover. You may feel I am being anti american but lets just remember Peter Hill Woods famous quote re Kroenke "Why don't we want the American at our club? Call me old-fashioned, but we don't need his money and we don't want his sort" So clearly, the chairman of our club is anti american too.
I don't want Arsenal to be taken over, by Kroenke, Santa Claus, Osama Bin Laden or who ever and the Glazers may have done a good job because they have mostly stayed in the back ground and let Man Utd run itself as it was pretty much before, who knows if this new Russian investor would do the same if he was in charge? I don't care which nationality the person who wants to take over the club is, because it is like a British person trying to take over a NHL club, I am sure lots of Americans would be against this, because football is more than a buisness, it is essentially an identity, a community of like minded individiuals who all share the same passion.