DEFINATELY NOT going down the utd/liverpool route.
They got totally taken ouver "out of the blue" by people who had nothing to do with the club. This Kroenke fella has been on our board for quite a bit now, knows how the club work and the board seem to like and trust him. His latest shares were sold to him by Peter Hill-Wood whio is Arsenal thru and thru, if he thought Stan was just some big rich man looking for a quick buck like hicks/gillet he would never have sold him shares. Even if/when Kroenke gets upto the 29.99% required to make a takerover bid there is no gaurentee it would be accepted and I'm not sure he'd be overly bothered if it wasn't. I think hes got the best interests of the club at heart and that arsenal will continue with their "plurity of ownership" that has wokred so well and ment that compared to other big clubs their debts are tiny.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Kroenke is a shrewd and clever businessman. Not a cowboy like the Glazers or Hicks and Gilette. Hill-Wood and Lady Bracewell Smith would be very unlikely to hand over the club to him as well.
And he has the best 'tache in football since Souness.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Dont want a foreign owner or any change period, for the reason that the club is well run, and oddly enough the only British owned elite club in the league.
In a way I wish David Dein was still at the club but he now sides with Jabba The Slut aka Usmanov.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
the main reason for me to like a kroenke takeover would be to make sure ursanov doesnt take over - he doesnt seem like the good king of gent.
I dont think there will be a takeover tho. and there defiantely won't be any sort of takeover movement till next may so its nothing to worry about now - just lets all concentrate on Arsenal winning the league and champs league
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I believe your argument just a couple of months ago about why United/Liverpool/City etc were bad was because they had 'sold themselves up the river' to a foreign owner. And now Arsenal are doing exactly the same.
And the Glazers/Hicks+Gillette might well be cunts of the highest order, but I don't think you can say they're not shrewd businessmen. They have made millions, if not billions of dollars through their businesses over many years. I don't think that can be down to luck.
The one stupid thing they've done is investing in a football club, because no matter how big they are they don't make a substantial amount of money. In which case Kroenke is less shrewd than them, because after so many examples of football clubs not being particularly profitable, he's gone and invested in one.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
He hasn't bought Arsenal. It's unlikely he will. However, should he, I can guarantee the club and himself would not be facing financial ruin after a few years a la GLOLazers and Gilette/Hicks.
There is a difference bewteen investing in a club and running it's finances into the ground and investing in a club and maintaining solvency and continuing to reduce debt, which I am sure he would do and has stated if it comes to fruition. He's more like Randy Lerner than the Glazers, Gilette/Hicks.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
yeah but that's irrelevant, you were saying that we'd sold ourselves down the river by selling out to a foreign investor, and now Arsenal have done the same.
It's worse in a way, nothing could be done about the United takeover because we were a PLC so he could pretty much do what he wanted if coughed up the asking price, Kroenke bought loads of shares off someone who is Arsenal through and through.
But to be honest, there's no point trying to decide which is better. Foreign ownership of English football clubs is wrong IMO, no matter how shrewd or well intentioned the investor.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
He hasn't taken over, though. To do so he would have to buy out Usmanov(Not going to happen, they are in competition and fairly bitter rivals) Lady Bracewell-Smith who has been a majority shareholder for over 70 years and Peter Hill-Wood whose life is Arsenal.
We will see. However I wouldn't be too happy if he did, no.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
if he gets over 29.99% does he not have to bid for the rest of the 70% under british law??? if so that would cost him around $760 million. does he have that money??? will it be bank rolled?? oh and jumpship your grounds real name is called the arsenal stadium.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
if/when he gets to 29.99% (which as said befor wont be until next may at the very earliest) then he has to make an offer yes - this does not mean the offer would be accepted tho, and im not sure he'd be bothered if it wasnt.
He won't get a loan using the club as an assest as he's said before he thinks thats the wrong way to do things.
I have every faith in him, and the current board
also I think Randy Lerner has been excellant for Villa so not all foreign ownership is bad
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
