Well, now that the board has agreed to pucker up and position themselves to sell to Kroenke, when the value of Arsenal PLC is absolutely maximised, any of you want to rethink your unwavering support for the board? Let's take a look back to the beginning of "Take the Money" and remind a few of you about your response to the idea of selling out to a big money investor;
no i don't edit: let's stay Stan or the Blob get control and "wipe" out Arsenal's debts. do you not think that Arsenal will have to pay them back instead of creditors? What makes you think the use of Stan's or the Blob's money will be debt free?
This is not about the rights and wrongs of a sell out. It's about whether or not our existing board have a single unblemished focus on the team; and that decisions taken over the last few years have not simply been about football! Arsenal happened to get lucky, or smart because of DD's shrewdness, and hired the best manager in modern football. Without spending very much moolar he was able to transform the club philosphy, style of football and on field success. The owners (mainly Danny Fiszman and DD I suspect) looked at each other and said "we've got at opportuity here, we can leverage this success to build a state of the art stadium, that will guarantee Arsenal's future, insure our legacy and make sh1t loads of money into the bargain." Neither Martin nor I would suggest that the board has no interest in the club, simply that we are concerned about the possibility of a potential conflict of interest. The interests of the team vs the interests of the board. After all the rhetoric, I think selling out is more evidence of that potential conflict? The worst possible scenario is that what we are seeing is the endgame in a private battle between two egos? Edit: The likelyhood is that in 4 years time the club will have little or no debt! All redevelopment will have been completed, we'll be free from the 10 year Nike Shirt deal and the naming rights will begin to have value again because half of the 15 year contract with Emirates will have expired! If there is any residual left over, we'll probably be in a position to service it out of shirt revenue alone and pay it off in full with the next lot of naming rights cash! In 4 years Arsenal might well be worth £1 billion, recession or not. If your working on that kind of end game, a few years of finishing 3rd or 4th is a small price to pay. On a purely strategic financial basis my aim would be to insure that by 2010 or 2011 the team would be ready to be World beaters. That way you will have packaged up the complete investment. So, I guess by 2011 everyone will be happy? Edit 2 - Doesn't AW's contract expire in 2011?
I wouldn't presume they would wipe out the debt unless the Board asked that of them...the Highbury Square money is earmarked to to speed the payment of the debt - if we get what we are supposed we'll be left with about 100 million in debt( I believe possibly less than that (especially if we get favorable new deals with Nike and Either Air Emirates or a new sponsor) either allowing us to pay the debt in-full within four or five years or to re-finance it and pay it off in smaller annual installments. I think the most postiive thing is the sense that at least short-term any buyout would not be debt leveraged as Mr. Kroenke appears to be interested in majority and not full ownership. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the only shareholder to sell completely out is one Dan Fiszman, and that this wasn't the prime motivation for him behind this project from day one. And even if he does retain a small interest in the club, it is almost certain that the majority of the new holdings Mr. Kroenke purchases will be Dan Fiszman's.
What am I talking about? Of course there'll be debt, sh1t loads of it! Because in 4 years time the board, who love Arsenal so much, will sell out, taking half the clubs capital with them in cash; say £1/2 billions worth! Well, it could be worse lads couldn't it, ManUre's debt is already higher than that. The idea of them taking dividends is positively to be desired in comparison! Does anyone finally see why the transition has needed to be so painful?
Your original question was this: So it was about the rights and wrongs of selling out. That's what the early discussion was, and what all those nice little quotes you used to start this thread pertained to. Then the discussion changed into 'questioning' the board and their motives, and went on for about 14321234 years. Suit yourself if you want to use quotes from me and others on one issue to prove a point about a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ONE (one I personally have not yet commented on), but I just wanted to point that out.
If you feel unfairly dragged into this, I apologise. I picked out quotes that were generally not ambiguous, because I anticipate an awful lot of position shifting, following the Kroenke news. Sorry if that misrepresents your views!
if Stan doesn't do a debt leverage buyout then there's nothing wrong. If the debt increases then I have a problem. If Stan takes over and starts throwing his money at the club for players, improvements, etc. and then when he decides to get the ******** out he wants to get paid for the money he spent, then I have a problem (like if Roman pulls the plug on Chelsea and wants to get the personal money he spent on Chelsea back from them)
I'm pretty sure the quotes you pulled from #1 to start this thread were all in relation to your original question
yes but what I want to know is what are the views now and how does this change the perception of the board, and illuminate all the subsequent arguments!
I'd agree pretty fully there. I don't see either negative scenario here, given Mr. Kroeke's record of never selling any stock he has held in any team to now (though he'll bear the same careful watching given the money involved)and the reports now that he is basically looking for simple majority ownership rather then buying the whole club lock, stock(and two smoking?) barrel... What will happen to Mr. Usmanov's quarter of the club which isn't needed for majority ownership could be quite interesting. He could make some troule but not all that much really unless he were able to buy up the rest of the stock. I think it will Mr. Kroenke holding 51-55% of the club, current Board members holding 20-24% and Mr. Usmanov holding his 24%-plus, and time will tell how they proceed from there...
I'm brewing up a nice conspiracy theory now Critical to any proposed sale of the club is keeping AW at the helm during the transition. What did they have to pay him to stay, £10, £15, £20mill terminal bonus? Look at our squad, how many will be entering or in the middle of their peak by 2011? Mannone, Fabianski Clichy, Traore(?) Sagna Song (?) Cesc, Merida, Nasri, Ramsey, Denilson (?), Randall (?) Gibbs(?) Walcott, Bendtner, Vela, RVP, Eduardo, Barazite(?) Someone with better knowledge of the youth/reserve teams could indicate if there is anyone else close to pushing for the 1st team? Looking at the above if my conspiracy is right (and pleading ignorance to what we've already got coming through) you'd expect us to pick up a couple of CB's in their early 20's and better coverage for right back. If we are building toward a specific date then we will sell Adebayor or RVP this summer! The profit will be too tasty and still time to bring through or buy another option! Summer isn't it?
Nothing will change their perceptions really - they will rationalize how selling the club is a necessary act a noble sacrifice of some sort by our eternally selfless Board, As I have seen on other Boards - falling to mid-table gets rid of the glory hunters; being relegated means new away days in new towns. They'll just re-interpret this so it somehow supports and reinforces their their views, or they can take comfort in it at least. If I'm worng and hopeefully I am they still won't acknowledge at least the attacks they aimed at you or at me were at least in part inaccurate unfiar or wrong or that their views were at least partially wrong....
I don't think it has to shift your position. It doesn't shift mine. I still don't want to take the money. Anyone's money. But, like the board, if the option was to let Kroenke buy some more shares and become a board member or get stuck with Usmanov – a truly shady character if there ever was one – I would certainly choose to bring Kroenke on. Of course, I think the board would rather do neither, but I think some sense of the times prevails. Kroenke isn't terrible, and doesn't seem to be the type of investor that Usmanov is. Kroenke has never sold a share of one of his other sports teams.
don't know how we got there, but we are on the same page if it all happens (Stan taking over, not leveraging his purchase with debt) it'll be interesting to see how it goes. and to be honest, I may get a bit more paranoid
Look maybe I'm just a bit more skeptical of matters involving this much money because while I am hopeful for a future on Mr. Kroenke I do believe we need to be just as watchful of a Kroenke Board as the current Board, so that's another one where we agree. Not saying I suspect the worst, just that as even some who disagree with me say - alittle skepticism is a healthy thing.
Agreed there and his teams have done pretty well considering they all are in salary-capped leagues which has undermined pro teams ability to win championships consistently - save for an exception or two. Look where the Celtics were a couple of seasons back and what happened when they made the cap room... I think Mr. Kroenke without the restriction of a salary cap won't go mad but he will be pro-active - as the more successful the team the more money they make.
Exactly. And IMO the idea of the other board members selling out and putting Kroenke in charge are pure speculation. Just because something increases in value doesn't mean the holders will sell. Shares of the club have been rising for quite some time, but the only board member to sell out recently IIRC is Dein and he had other motives. Nice windup BTW marty. Good way to get the debate going.
I'm just gonna qoute the original post of this thread and sa no more... "Don't worry you'll all be able to save face. All you need do is cover you butts by making the argument that... (put on high pitched distressed female voice here) "What else could they do, they had to stop David Dein and the Big Bad Russian, it has nothing to do with making sh1t loads of moolar, and even though in 4 years time none of them will have any future interest in Arsenal Football we all know that everything they do, even in their sleep and on the toilet, has and will always be in the interests of the club..." Type of thing!"
So, if there is a different opinion than yours, then it is silly and should be made a mockery of? This is a good debate technique. You say you want to have an intelligent debate on the subject but your post rings more of "I'm right, you're wrong, nanny nanny boo boo."