BBC BLOGS - David Bond
« Previous | Main | Next »

What does Kroenke's purchase mean for Arsenal?

Post categories:

David Bond | 09:31 UK time, Monday, 11 April 2011

Shortly after Stan Kroenke started buying shares in Arsenal, the club's Old Etonian chairman Peter Hill-Wood famously remarked that he didn't want the American's "sort" involved in the north London outfit.

At a time when the rest of the Premier League's big four was falling into the hands of wealthy foreign backers, Hill-Wood and Arsenal took pride in being different.

Not any more. On Monday, the last domino fell. Arsenal, the Bank of England club, are now another franchise in an American sports tycoon's portfolio.

So will this make any real difference?

Kroenke purchased his first Arsenal shares in 2007 and has now increased his shareholding in Arsenal to 62.89%. Photo: Getty

Kroenke purchased his first Arsenal shares in 2007. Photo: Getty

For some time now, there has been a sense that Stan Kroenke was Arsenal's future. He first bought shares in the club back in 2007, acquiring just under 10%, and spent around £200m to become the club's biggest shareholder before Monday's announcement.

In the process, he has seen off the challenge of a rival foreign investor, the Russian-based businessman Alisher Usmanov, who still holds a 27% stake in the Gunners.

With great uncertainty over the health of long-term director and shareholder Danny Fiszman and the commitment of Lady Nina Bracewell Smith, it was always a question of when not if Kroenke made his move for full control.

So, in splashing out a further £225m and launching a full mandatory takeover, Kroenke has ended one of the longest running takeover sagas in English football. The deal values the club's shares at around £730m, which, when added to the club's debt, gives you a total price of just under £900m.

To put that into perspective, that is only £100m more than what it cost the Glazer family to buy Manchester United back in 2005 and will put a slightly different perspective on their current valuation of the club, thought to be around £1.5bn.

Not known as "silent" Stan for nothing, Kroenke's public pronouncements are so rare that it is difficult to be sure of his long-term intentions for the club. It is also unknown whether he has used or will use debt financing to assume full control.

One can only judge him by his actions so far - and he has chosen to leave manager Arsene Wenger and the highly regarded British chief executive Ivan Gazidis to get on with running the club.

Supporters will, of course, want to know whether the takeover by a billionaire will mark a change in Wenger's prudent transfer policy and, ultimately, fortunes on the pitch.

Without a trophy since 2005, Wenger's team could still win the Premier League this season, although that is looking increasingly unlikely despite the victory against Blackpool on Sunday.

With the debt burden from the move to the Emirates Stadium now reduced to £147m from £350m and the club making healthy profits thanks to the ground's larger capacity, Wenger has had money to spend for some time now.

With Uefa's new financial fair play regulations coming down the track, the north London side are considered Michel Platini's model club.

The fact is that Wenger chooses not to spend the money he has at his disposal, preferring to develop young talent than to follow the spend or bust approach of Chelsea and Manchester City.

But will Kroenke's deeper pockets now lead to a rethink, especially if Arsenal end the season potless again?

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    David,
    Lets say in 5 years time Stan Kroenke is losing money and he feels it would be right to sell one of his teams. Do you think he would rather sell Arsenal for about 600-800 million knowing that he would have plenty of money on his more "preferred" teams, or sell one of his preferred teams because Arsenal brings in more income and publicity, giving him better opportunities to invest in the European markets?

  • Comment number 2.

    What happens if the Russian based Usmanov refuses to sell his 27% of the stake ? Can he be forced to sell ? If not, will there be conflict, including Court cases, that affects the running of Arsenal ?

  • Comment number 3.

    The offer article on the arsenal website says that as part of the offer, no debt will be placed in the club to fund Stan Kroenke's purchase of these shares or any shares he buys in the future. Also Kroenke has not put any debt on any of the clubs he has bought in the past and Deutsche Bank have stated that they believe he has the funds to takeover without needing to place debt on the club so this is good for arsenal and reassuring as an arsenal fan.

  • Comment number 4.

    As a season-ticket holder and shareholder (well, one share!), I think this is an excellent day for Arsenal. Kroenke is the right kind of owner, as his track record in the US shows. Yes, he sees sport as a business, but he also recognises that the best way to make money from a club is to have success, so if that means investment up front, then so be it. Each of his US teams have won their respective championships, which suggests he and his staff know how to run clubs. Gazidis was clearly a Kroenke appointment and his record so far has been highly encouraging. The danger of the "rich-mans plaything" as is the case at Chelsea and Man City is becoming apparent as the clubs struggle to meet UEFAs rules. Then of course there is the danger of what happens whrn the "rich-man" gets bored - no sign so far, but who knows what the future holds for Abramovich and Mansour?

    Importantly Kroenke is not loading the club with debt, a la the Glazers and the club will continue to turn a very healthy profit. With new sponsorship deals due in the next couple of years, more money will come in. Of course, Kroenke will take his share, but as long as he leaves enough for Wenger and whoever follows him in the future to buy astutely in the transfer market, then the club's future looks secure.

    A couple of other things to note - will he go for a de-listing or will he continue to encourage fan participation through the share scheme he was the driving force behind. I would love to think the latter, especially if it means fan representation on the board. Secondly, I wonder if he'll pay off the the remaining property debt of £174m? If he does, then even more money flows into the coffers. Arsenal have always been known as the Bank of England club - this morning (even with an American owner), as far as I can see this is even more true!

  • Comment number 5.

    There is no need for Arsenal to spend more money.

    Ever since the discreditable move away from a European football champions' competition open only to domestic league champions, finishing fourth in the Premier League has been adequate to ensure access to the money-trough that is the UEFA Champions' League.

    Whilst the board and management might relish winning the Premier League as much as fans - for the kudos if nothing else - there is no business rationale for spending to win when coming second (or third, or even fourth) is sufficient.

    Nowadays, football is business - and that is where the story ends!

  • Comment number 6.

    This will lead to a further Americanisation of the EPL, which now has Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Aston Villa, Sunderland in US hands.

    I'm pretty sure it will lead to a summer foreign tour to raise commercial income, which is quite justifiable given the long-term contract with Emirates which must be honoured but which perhaps does not fully value the Arsenal brand at current market rates. The deal was struck to finance the stadium and was structured accordingly.

    I suspect that commercial activity associated with the Stadium will increase, as it is a £400m asset which is only used 35 days a year for football.

    Beyond that, it is unclear.

    I hope that history does not conclude that Arsene Wenger was the French Emissary sent to dismember the UK football scene to usher in a new European set-up controlled by France, Germany and the USA.

    It would not be a legacy a man of integrity would want put on his epitaph.

    You'll note I've not said that he has done that......

  • Comment number 7.

    2. At 12:25pm 11th Apr 2011, Advocatus Diaboli wrote:
    What happens if the Russian based Usmanov refuses to sell his 27% of the stake ? Can he be forced to sell ? If not, will there be conflict, including Court cases, that affects the running of Arsenal ?

    -----

    I believe that it is only once you own 90% of the shares of a company can you force the takeover. Therefore Usmanov cannot be forced to sell his shares, although he may wish to sell say 15% of his stake for cash, but this is unikely.

  • Comment number 8.

    2. At 12:25pm 11th Apr 2011, Advocatus Diaboli asked:

    What happens if the Russian based Usmanov refuses to sell his 27% of the stake ? Can he be forced to sell ?

    ---

    Compulsory share purchases (by a majority shareholder) apply only where the buyer acquires a stake of 90%.

    Equally significant is the fact that the 27% stake means that Kroenke could not reach the 75% share vote needed for certain [extraordinary] shareholder resolutions - e.g. reaching 75% ownership was the means whereby the Glazer family were able to saddle Manchester United itself with the debt incurred in buying the club; hence, Kroenke's statement that he will not do likewise should not garner particular credit (he would be unable so to do without Usmanov's connivance).

  • Comment number 9.

    I am a member and i own part of a share and i really hope this offer gets rejected. Although he says the club will stay being run in the same way, i reckon that in about 5 years time he may start to change it. Also if Wenger doesn't renew his contract in 2014 the we may see a new manager come in who doesn't stick to the arsenal way and i fear that we may end up buying trophies rather than winning them. What i mean buy this is that i don't want to see the manager spend hundreds of millions on players, like at man city, rather than building a team.

  • Comment number 10.

    What one of you journos would no doubt call "a source close to the club" has told me this morning that the board have been working on this "succession" for a number of months and that this will result in extra funds being made available to Arsene Wenger this summer above and beyond the usual £15million in order to target, primarily, Pepe Reina.

    Don't know how much truth there is in that and I'm not claiming it to be gospel - I'm just passing the information on.

  • Comment number 11.

    Only time will tell if this is a good thing for Arsenal or not. Unfortunatley there has obviously been problems and unsettlement in the boardroom over the past few years hence the departure of the Great David Dein to whom Arsenal owe as much to if not more than Arsene Wenger. Apart from bring Wenger to the club it was Dein that sold his shares to Fiszman which ultimately led to the building of the new stadium. He was also very instrumental in signing some of the finest players ever to put on the the famous shirt (Wright, Bergkamp, Viers etc etc).
    It is unfortunate that Mr Fiszman is of ill health and this must surely be why he is selling his shares at the best price to KSE.
    As for Lady Nina, well I can only say that her husband's grandfather must be turning in his grave at what has happened in recent years. The board seem to have been sitting on their assets much too much to encourage Mr Wenger to buy the final pieces to the puzzle. I'm not sure whether the present day make up of the board have made the football as high enough a priority as compared to business proceedings. It's important to balance the cheque book without losing sight of why we exist! When Hill-Wood and Dein were in the boardroom it kept Wenger on his toes and gave him a conscience, these days he seems to answer to no one.
    I myself would have prefered Red & White Holdings to take over the club because this enterprise has the backing of David Dein and this would surely have led to the reuniting of Dein & Wenger. If by some chance someone from KSE does read this, BRING BACK DEIN. I think he is one of footballs brightest lights that Arsenal stupidly let go.

  • Comment number 12.

    The latent racism evident in so many articles in the media is astounding. Firstly, what does the nationality of the owner matter? Would Manchester prefer Peter Swales to the current owners? Would Villa prefer Doug Ellis to Randy Lerner? Indeed, for all the Glazer-bashing that occurs, I - as a United fan - still often wake up grateful for the fact Michael Knighton's purchase never happened... English ownership certainly doesn't guarantee anything better - arguably the opposite.

    Secondly, how English-owned were Arsenal? Kroenke and Usmanov have been in the driving seat for three years now anyway - the English contingent of owners were nothing more than influential minority shareholders.

    Hill-Wood's 'American sort' comment is no different from the unworldly fans who once booed black players or the sarcastic 'Arsene who' headlines that greeted Wenger's arrival. Its all down to an old fashioned form of insularity that football, and England generally, will be far better off without.



  • Comment number 13.

    As someoen has said Kroenke will not be saddling Arsenal with debt so hopefully everything will continue as normal.

    He has not burden any of his sports clubs with debt and can't see why he would want to do that with Arsenal either.

    I'm sure that preseason overseas ventures will take place instead of being in Austria and Switzerland like this summer was supposed to do with them being in Japan which seems not to be going ahead because of the recent earthquake and tsunami.

    Hopefully we will continue to build the commercial side of the buisness as I believe that this was lacking for many years although it has been growing well in the last few years.

    Hopefully this will also inspire Arsene to get out the cheque book and buy a couple of good players to give us the added cover to help the team win a few trophies in the next few years.

  • Comment number 14.

    Kroenke has already been part of Arsenal for 4 years. Nothing much will change regarding how the club is run. The debt will remain, but be paid off as per our agreement with the banks. We make enough to cover the cost of the repayments. Kroenke will, however, be looking to increase the commercial income of the club which is not what it should be for a club the size of Arsenal. If he can open up the US market to us, we should be quids in. He trusts Wenger, has a good established relationship with the fans through the AST and will not put the club in debt.
    The only interesting aspect is what Alisher Usmanov and Red&White Holdings do. Will they now throw in the towel and cash in as it's clear that they have little chance of gaining control of the club, or will they stick it out. They have no power in the boardroom, so the only reason for them to keep their share is if they expect the price of them to increase in the future.

  • Comment number 15.

    I hope that history does not conclude that Arsene Wenger was the French Emissary sent to dismember the UK football scene to usher in a new European set-up controlled by France, Germany and the USA.

    It would not be a legacy a man of integrity would want put on his epitaph.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    @ #6 = Now, I'm no Arsenal fan (as my name might suggest) - but even I am slightly seething at that comment! What on earth are you talking about, that is utter nonsense!!!!

  • Comment number 16.

    Dont they all say "I will not be saddling the club with debt"

    ?


    I hope (genuinely) that Arsenal are not saddled with debt, but they all seem to say that and then once they get ownership things change.

  • Comment number 17.

    tears4souvenirs@5 Maybe Arsenal dont need to spend anymore than they recently have been to win trophies, but i dont believe fans are happy with second third or fourth.

    Football again as you say is a business but fans who go the match are fans of football and if there like me then first is first second is nowhere to steal a phrase.

    No way imo is Wenger content to finish runner up and i will be suprised if its not business as usual in the next chapter of the Arsenals history, there close now so any big changes could backfire imo.

  • Comment number 18.

    As both a long time fan of Arsenal a keen follower of the NBA and NFL I think Kroenke's acquisition of Arsenal should not be greeted with as much enthusiasm as I read here. If this news came out last year before he brought control of the St. Louis Rams I would be far more in favour of it.

    I cannot see how somebody having just taken over a team in one of sports most expensive leagues (NFL) can now afford to buy Arsenal. I have reservations about how much he will invest in Arsenal and whether he will use the current transfer policy at Arsenal as a reason not to put the money into the team it clearly needs.

    Furthermore, the Denver Nuggets, another one of his teams, just let their main star Carmelo Anthony leave because they could not convince him that the team is heading in the right direction and lacked the ambition to bring in more star name players to help win a championship that Anthony craved.

    What if Barcelona want Fabregas this summer? He tried and failed with Anthony, will he lose his second "Franchise Player" in the same year?

    I hope I am wrong in this pessimistic post but I think Arsenal were fine the way they were and just needed to push back some repayment dates by bringing in a couple of good players every summer to give Fabregas, Nasri and Van Persie the incentive to stay by knowing the team is getting stronger... but it isn't! If Kroenke doesn't, then Arsenal could be facing a fate worse then that of Denver Nuggets who at least got some decent players from New York in the Carmelo Anthony trade.

  • Comment number 19.

    The difference between this takeover and previous ones (Man U, Liverpool, Villa) is that it took 4 years from start to now. What that means is that Kroenke is no stranger to the club, to the fans or to English football. He's been on the board for a while now, so has intimate knowledge of it's runnings and has probably even been influencing things for a while now.

    Fiszman and Lady Nina didn't just sell to Kroenke. They could've got more for their shares a year ago. They worked with him and determined that he's the right man to take the club forward.

    So this is no smash-dash takeover. There's a lot of continuity and no need of rash changes.

    So I'll sit back and see how things play out. . .

    In short he's been serving a kind of apprenticeship.

  • Comment number 20.

    Secondly, I wonder if he'll pay off the the remaining property debt of £174m? If he does, then even more money flows into the coffers.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But then what happens with that money? Does it get released for potential transfers or does it get discreetly put in Kroenke's pocket?

    Time will tell I guess.

  • Comment number 21.

    I think selling to Kroenke is a positive move. Like people say, he has had a say in decisions for the last 3 years or so, and its more a "promote from within" purchase.

    Stevem1991 has pointed out that the Nuggets just let go of their franchise player, Carmelo Anthony. While he is very good, the common consensus is that Denver did a very good trade and are now in a better position than with Anthony. His Rams franchise is on the way up now after a few seasons down. If Fabregas does go to barcelona, as i think that he eventually will, maybe next summer, i think Kroenke has the experience to get as good a deal as possible and then trust Wenger to reinvest.

    Think they will be prudent with their investment in players this summer but this season has again highlighted a lack of a keeper, strength in depth at the back and a 20 goal a season striker. These players arent in the reserves or the youth system so i hope he buys something close to the finished article. Hope that pepe reina story is true! Then get benzema for a cut price like tottenham got with R.VDV

  • Comment number 22.

    5. At 12:39pm 11th Apr 2011, tears4souvenirs wrote:
    There is no need for Arsenal to spend more money.

    Ever since the discreditable move away from a European football champions' competition open only to domestic league champions, finishing fourth in the Premier League has been adequate to ensure access to the money-trough that is the UEFA Champions' League.

    Whilst the board and management might relish winning the Premier League as much as fans - for the kudos if nothing else - there is no business rationale for spending to win when coming second (or third, or even fourth) is sufficient.

    Nowadays, football is business - and that is where the story ends!

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is that what you dreamed about as a child as you put on an Arsenal shirt and imitated your heroes in the park, having a great balance sheet?

  • Comment number 23.

    "The fact is that Wenger chooses not to spend the money he has at his disposal, preferring to develop young talent than to follow the spend or bust approach of Chelsea and Manchester City."

    When will people see through this fallacy? Arsenal have been spending that money buy paying their younger players twice the market rate to keep them with the club.
    It's just a different business model from the rest but one that is not cheap either!

  • Comment number 24.

    As both a long time fan of Arsenal a keen follower of the NBA and NFL I think Kroenke's acquisition of Arsenal should not be greeted with as much enthusiasm as I read here. If this news came out last year before he brought control of the St. Louis Rams I would be far more in favour of it.

    I cannot see how somebody having just taken over a team in one of sports most expensive leagues (NFL) can now afford to buy Arsenal. I have reservations about how much he will invest in Arsenal and whether he will use the current transfer policy at Arsenal as a reason not to put the money into the team it clearly needs.

    Furthermore, the Denver Nuggets, another one of his teams, just let their main star Carmelo Anthony leave because they could not convince him that the team is heading in the right direction and lacked the ambition to bring in more star name players to help win a championship that Anthony craved.

    What if Barcelona want Fabregas this summer? He tried and failed with Anthony, will he lose his second "Franchise Player" in the same year?

    I hope I am wrong in this pessimistic post but I think Arsenal were fine the way they were and just needed to push back some repayment dates by bringing in a couple of good players every summer to give Fabregas, Nasri and Van Persie the incentive to stay by knowing the team is getting stronger... but it isn't! If Kroenke doesn't, then Arsenal could be facing a fate worse then that of Denver Nuggets who at least got some decent players from New York in the Carmelo Anthony trade.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearly you don't follow basketball very well, or you would know that they offered Anthony a $65million dollar extension to keep him there. It showed that they wanted to keep him.

    His reason for leaving had nothing to do with winning a championship and staying competitive, otherwise he wouldn't have forced a trade to the knicks in exchange for players, who are collectively much better than Anthony, especially as Anthony slows down the Denver offence and cannot defend. Anthony went to New York because its his hometown, and because of this he can make more money from playing at the garden. Because he didnt wait till the summer and take a pay cut, he has ruined the Knicks only shot at a title, whilst Kroenkes nuggets, now have a better shot at winning the title, and are a good bet to make it to the NBA finals.

    With his handling of the Nuggets, he has shown that he is willing to invest when needed, and pravent to be a very capable owner.

  • Comment number 25.

    As an expat living in the US his other franchises as they are called here are all pretty lousy teams.

  • Comment number 26.

    if i were wenger i would be very worried about this he will need to prove to stan kronke that he is the best one for the job or hello mr p45

  • Comment number 27.

    "I myself would have prefered Red & White Holdings to take over the club because this enterprise has the backing of David Dein and this would surely have led to the reuniting of Dein & Wenger. If by some chance someone from KSE does read this, BRING BACK DEIN. I think he is one of footballs brightest lights that Arsenal stupidly let go."

    Google Usmanov and ask yourself if you really want someone like him actually running the club. If he had taken it over, I would have stopped going to Arsenal.

    ...and if David Dein is so wedded to Arsenal, why did he sell ALL his shares to R&W holdings? Also, don't forget if Dein had had his way, we'd be playing at Wembley now, not in our own stadium.

  • Comment number 28.

    As far as winning things go, we'd be better off with Usmanov. At least he doesn't have Emperor's new cloth syndrome, when it comes to Wenger.

    What we need is player investment and a manager who's willing to spend. Sorry, but that's just the reality of modern football. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

    I don't see any thing changing with this take over. We'll still scrape the bargain bucket ever summer, while our rivals strengthen, we'll still hear "we looked for a player in January, but no one was available", we'll still be a young team in developement, in 2015.

    If Kroenke comes in and pays off the Emirates debt, freeing up funds for players, then there might be some point in this, but I can't see that happening. More than likely we'll stand still, while the clubs around us look to move forwards.

  • Comment number 29.

    "With Uefa's new financial fair play regulations coming down the track, the north London side are considered Michel Platini's model club."

    This isn't true at all. Platini is completely against buying young players at 15- or 16-years of age as he claims this inhibits the smaller clubs.

  • Comment number 30.

    "...this will result in extra funds being made available to Arsene Wenger this summer above and beyond the usual £15million in order to target, primarily, Pepe Reina."

    Given that we made a bid of over £20m for Reina last summer, this wouldn't represent anything "above and beyond the usual £15million".

  • Comment number 31.

    "The latent racism evident in so many articles in the media is astounding."

    What has nationality got to do with racism?

    "Firstly, what does the nationality of the owner matter?"

    It is an important factor in preserving the culture and identity of the club. It's not the only important factor, and it's not necessary, but it plays a part. I realise you're trying to be the nice guy here, but there's nothing remotely xenophobic about this.

  • Comment number 32.

    Two predictions:

    1.Usmanov will not go quietly. That is not in the nature of Uzbek/Russian oligarchs. Prepare for an almighty slanging match and threats of legal action.

    2, Kroenke is corporate man incarnate. Forget about Arsenal being a stand-alone entity with a rich history etc. The club will be marketed by Mr K as an international 'brand' and its finances balanced against his US interests. The manager - whoever it may be - will be subordinate to Mr Gazidis, or his successor. Welcome to the dollar-shaped future of the Gunners.

    AbneyGraves

  • Comment number 33.

    I was amazed to read one of the earlier reactions to this buyout in which 'an Arsenal Supporter' stated that now perhaps more money would be spent 'to catch up with Man City and Chelsea.' Erm, has he ever looked at the league table recently?
    I have supported Arsenal for over fifty years and can recall the club buying all sorts of top players and winning nothing. If these so called supporters are correct in their demands I wonder how they would feel if they 'supported' some of the other teams whose aims are to just survive financially. But then again maybe being Arsenal supporters we are a special breed that have the right to win a trophy every year. It is so easy spending money that does not belong to us! But I suppose my entrance fee gives me the right to ask the board to spend tens of millions to buy players and pay them even more in wages.

  • Comment number 34.

    You haven't answered your own question David?!

  • Comment number 35.

    No no no. Don't allow kroenke in he will he like all the other Americans. He will destroy arsenal. He had to take a loan out to buy shares in the past. Usmanov may not be the greatest person but he will be like abromovich and will spend on transfers. Kroenke will just overload arsenal with debt and destroy everything wenger has sacrificed for

  • Comment number 36.

    #11

    I'm with #27. No way is Usmanov better for Arsenal. I also think you are wrong about Dein. Wasn't he the man bringing the World Cup to England. It appears as if he is no longer the playmaker that he would like to be, so he got involved with R & W more out of revenge than as a commitment to Arsenal, or perhaps to try and buy his way back in to being of influence in Europe.

    I think it may be a good move - the boardroom issues and lock down have meant that there hasn't been any directors leading from the front as Dein did, but maybe this will rectify things. Like so many, I think Gazidis was a Kronke appointment, and that Arsenal are going to tour and try and plug in to other markets.

    Hopefully though, they will have someone one to push Arsene Wenger, so that we can have more than one strategy. Let's develop the best young players, whilst recognising that bringing in one or two names each summer revitalises the squad, creates competition and pushes players on to new heights.

    My hope is that Arsene will be left to do what he does best, but that he has someone (like Dein - who despite what I said above was brilliant for Arsenal in his prime) whom he trusts to do all that is necessary to enable some transfers to come Arsenal's way, from countries other than France, so that the squad can be stiffened.

    So I think this is good news, but then I'm an optimist and expect Arsenal to win the EPL every year, so my judgement may not be the best.

  • Comment number 37.

    "Football is Business"

    Yes it is but to think that Arsenal will be happy always to be second is flawed.

    They will only keep existing fans and win new ones if they win things and the big two are the Premier League and the Champions League.

    Either Arsenal's model will work or the Premier League will need some change to ensure that one team cannot dominate for decades at a time as has happened with Man United. Otherwise the only option is the Chelsea model which is not sustainable.

    Sooner or later these issues will need to be addressed.

  • Comment number 38.

    Arsenal shares are privately owned which of course always makes for a fairly shady market and yes of course Usmanov was stitched up but the owners of the shares can deal with whomever they want. I Don't think anyone can squeal until they know what the intentions of the proposed new are going to be. I Bet he is not "hands on" and will probably be content to let things run the way they
    are. The problem with the other American deals were that Statler & Waldorf
    did it on borrowed money and choked on the debit. The Glazers haven't really done anything bad at Man Utd except of course that the debit is making them
    cough fairly long and hard, even so they have had plenty of offers to get them
    out. Nope, I think it will be business as usual at Arsenal and a year or two
    down the road the Arsenal supporters will probably have forgotten Kroenke's
    name. I Am presuming that in amongst all this, he is not doing it on borrowed
    money in the club's name tho.....

  • Comment number 39.

    I was expecting some clarifications to the important of 75% of shares before having full control of Arsenal and the significance of a 27% stake by Usmanov, but in vain.

  • Comment number 40.

    Some points that need to be made regarding Kroenke's impact on the teams that he owns in the States. First of all unlike John Henry of Liverpool who took over a storied and generally successful franchise with large following (Yes Redsox have always been a strong, and this nonsense that they were mediocre, is juts that, they were simply unable to clinch the final deal, that is winning the world series. Analogues to say Chelsea or Arsenal failing to win CL); Kroenke has been operating in smaller market of Denver and St. Louis. Very difficult to keep big basketball stars there. As far as American Football goes, it is a sport in which teams fortunes fluctuate from season to season a great deal.
    It takes years of good draft picks and luck with injuries to create a long term successful team.

    More importantly for Arsenal fans, he did not just appear in the scene. He has been
    a huger shareholder fro a while now, so he probably has a food understanding of
    the club, its traditions, and the fans.

  • Comment number 41.

    I’m shocked if Uzmanov genuinely does believe he’s been stitched up, it’s been obviously from the day he allied himself with Dein that the board were never going to deal with him. From a monetary perspective Uzmanov probably could have offered more than Kronke to Danny Fiszman and Lady Nina, but neither of them was ever prepared to sell to him. I feel the main reason this has taken so long is the genuine concern for the club both Fiszman and Lady Nina felt about the club being taken over by a majority shareholder, irrelevant of his nationality. They needed to make sure the person they sold to was trustworthy and the right man, in a way that neither United nor Liverpool did, hence inviting Kronke onto the board before the deal took place. What I would be interested to know, although this will obviously never come out, is who initiated proceedings over the deal. Did Lady Nina or Fiszman approach Kronke stating that they were now interested to sell or would Kronke have consistently been pressing his interests? I imagine it was something of a middle-route, ultimately offering both parties’ favourable terms. As long as there was any other interested figure, I don’t think there was a cat in hell’s chance of Uzmanov ever getting anymore shares – that doesn’t mean he’s going to be prepared to sell the 30% or so Dein and others were stupid enough to offer him though.

  • Comment number 42.

    #39 - You need 75% to pass special shareholder resolutions, so Usmanov can block those and has some remaining power. These are usually for major issues such as changing the capital structure of a company, #8 'tears4souvenirs' gave the example of the Glazers burdening Utd with their acquisition debt which required a 75% resolution. Otherwise Usmanov is left holding an illiquid minority stake, with only one realistic buyer... not a great position to be in. Hence the takeover regulations which require an offer to all remaining shareholders from Kroenke. Usmanov could launch a few annoying lawsuits if the company was clearly being run to the detriment of minority shareholders (eg: Kroenke packs the board with his family and pays them 10m each a year) but it's unlikely that Kroenke would give him anything so blatant to act upon. So it probably comes down to a number now, realistically Usmanov has lost (but will have profited nicely given what he paid for his shares).

  • Comment number 43.

    25. At 15:26pm 11th Apr 2011, Terry wrote:
    As an expat living in the US his other franchises as they are called here are all pretty lousy teams.

    ------------------------------

    I'm an American Gooner. None of his American sports teams have even remotely the history of success that Arsenal does. Not even close. The Rams come the closest if you take a very long historical view, and even they have only had maybe 10 good years in the last 30 (mid 1980's and 1999~2003), though they reached the Super Bowl twice during that latter timeframe. The Denver Nuggets historically have always been in the "relegation zone" where there such a thing in the NBA. The Avalanche have been good but were decimated six years ago by the new league salary cap - because they were a high spending team with a lot of good players.

    That said, Kroenke has always been a net positive to the team's he's owned. He put money into the Nuggets with Anthony when in their history they hadn't really done that. The Rams finally have a good coach and are starting to turn around after being completely inept during the mid-00's. The Avalanch are rebuilding so we need more time to see how they'll be.

    I'd also note that three of his four teams (including the MLS team Colorado Rapids, along with the Avalanche and the Nuggets) are located in the Denver area, so he does maintain connections with a community. His MLS stadium, Dick's Sporting Goods Park which he had constructed, also has a lot of youth (not-American) football fields constructed around it.

    I know that he will not spend like Abramovich (who does?) and that the club will remain solvent and profitable, but I also feel very confident that he'll spend more than the club has in the last five years and that they'll make prudent moves once again for top quality players as they did during the 15 years prior to David Dein's departure.

  • Comment number 44.

    42, smellslikesalmon.

    thanks.

  • Comment number 45.

    Maybe Kronke will eventually sell his shares to Usmanov.

  • Comment number 46.

    "the club's Old Etonian chairman Peter Hill-Wood famously remarked that he didn't want the American's "sort" involved in the north London outfit". Peter Hill-Wood is dead right. When u look at all the other clubs in the EPL that are owned by American owners you can see that they have invested next to nothing in these clubs (Man Utd, Liverpool, Aston Villa) compared to the other clubs that have been taken over recently. The Glazers have run Man Utd into the ground. This is not a Man City or Chelski style takeover and I would expect much of the same from Arsenal as far a transfer budgets are concerned.

  • Comment number 47.

    i dont undestand why this will change our transfer policy?

    Arsenal are currently running to try and pay of the stadium debt , as quickly as possible , so as in the near future they can invest more of the Turnover the incredible stadium produces into the players

    Kroenke will not be able to invest his own money into buying 'world beaters' because that is the whole point of UEFA setting up the FFP .

    the only thing he may change (with regards to finances) is how much turmover goes towards the debt / players , but this could go either way .
    i.e more money pay of debt = less transfer money for a few season + less interest
    less money pay off debt = slightly more money on transfers for longer period + more interest

    like i said ... not a lot changes?

  • Comment number 48.

    1. The questions regarding Kroenke's ability to finance the deal seem slightly insignificant when you consider that he is married to a daughter of one of the founders of Wal-Mart, whose personal fortune eclipses his own £1 billion plus.

    2. I thought Gazidis was South African, not British as the article states.

    3. The reason for the take-over is simply that he's paying a fantastic price for the shares he is purchasing from Bracewell-Smith and Fiszman. It is suggested that United were purchased for and are currently valued above their real worth, when in fact it represents the true value of the deal to Kroenke.

    Nothing has to change with Kroenke in charge. It is not compulsary that the board and structure of the club need to change overnight, nor the way that it is run. Silent Stan might be exactly that, the silent partner in the relationship, simply collecting more of the dividends that are paid out to our shareholders every year.

  • Comment number 49.

    @hifirob

    The Nuggets (his NBA team) haven't won a championship. The rest of teams do make for an impressive resume though.

  • Comment number 50.

    Im not an arsenal fan but i have huge respect for mr wenger. arsenal fans should never ever criticize a man who has transformed a club not just on the pitch.... people call the style of play the arsenal way, he was instrumental in moving to a new stadium and barring his comments favouring his own team (sometimes irrationally) is true gentleman and an exponent of his craft... manutd, barca, real have all had vintage teams over the past couple of decades but arsenal's team from 1997 to 2004 contained some of the best artistic football players.... a club with a stadium in london with such a huge global fan following, very little debt and now hopefully a good owner... i just wish arsene wenger stays with the club for the rest of his career.....after all it is arsene's arsenal. my team to win the title this year though.....

  • Comment number 51.

    Hilarious blog. You asked a question in the headline. Then didn't answer. And finished with a question. Usually I dont mind these blogs cos I like the fact and figures which are far more effective than the opinion of Phil McNulty (sp?). My only advice is dont ask question Dave you dont want to answer.

    Anyway there's no doubt with Wenger in charge, debt reducing and money pouring in, Arsenal are in prime spot financially. And thats why Wenger is right about finishing second. From a financal point of view it make no difference.

  • Comment number 52.

    Let's look at Kroenke's sports teams
    Nuggets: Kroenke bought into the Nuggets in 2000 after building their arena in 1998. The Nuggets, as a poster mentioned before, were in something similar to the relegation zone. In the previous 10 years before Kroenke's ownership, the squad had one season above .500. After 3 years of ownership, the Nuggets were in the play-offs for the first time since 1994. Since, the Nuggets have finished either first or second in their division with 3 Division titles. They finally got to the Conference Finals for the first time in 25 years in 2009. The recent debacle is Carmello wanting to play for his hometown team the Knicks. The Nuggets intelligently raided the Knicks lineup which was full of young talent in exchange for a few aging players and Carmello.

    The Rapids: In 2004, Kroenke purchased into the Colorado Rapids, Denver's MLS club. Between 2004 and 2007, the club went under wholesale changes. While the club was a consistent contender in the play-offs and had made it to the final of both the Open Cup and MLS Cup, it had failed to win a trophy. So Kroenke went about building a brand new stadium for the Rapids to get them out of the American football stadium which made the matches seem empty. Year after year, the Rapids climbed the table until they managed to squeeze into the play-offs in 2010, where on the back of a strong defense and the luck of avoiding the Galaxy, Real Salt Lake and New York had them sitting pretty with Anschutz trophy in hand.
    The Avalanche fell into Kroenke's hands however. They came with the purchase of the Nuggets and the year he bought them they became Stanley Cup Champions. This was on the back of perhaps the greatest goalie of all time Patrick Roy. After he retired, the team has since struggled. Then as mentioned above the Salary Cap restructuring forced the Avs to unload some talent and basically try to start again. The question is can the Avs find the cog that Roy was to the team. The team has been in and out of the play-offs over the years, but just can't seem to spark that magic.

    The Rams: Kroenke has only been part of the Rams over the years and was never the majority shareholder until 2010. In 2010 they did see an improvement.

    Also in regards to Kroenke's team investing. NFL rules stipulate that if one is the majority owner a NFL team, they cannot own a NHL, NBA, or MLB team. MLS and non-USA/Canada teams have long been exempt from this policy as MLS was founded by mainly NFL people and NFL people invest in EPL, etc. So Kroenke will be forced to sell his majority stake in the Nuggets and Avalanche by 2014 and cannot be in the day-to-day running of the teams as of 2011. Additionally, someone above stated that NFL teams take a lot of money to run. This is true, however, due to the profit sharing and monopolistic style the league is run in, all NFL teams are profitable and make money hand over fist if they become a national brand. (ie. Cowboys, Steelers, Packers)

  • Comment number 53.

    Furthermore, the Denver Nuggets, another one of his teams, just let their main star Carmelo Anthony leave because they could not convince him that the team is heading in the right direction and lacked the ambition to bring in more star name players to help win a championship that Anthony craved.
    -------------------

    Have you checked out what has happened tho? Anthony has moved to NY and been largely ineffective and NY are way down the East Conf standings while Denver have solidified and been playing great basketball.

    A good advert for the idea that the club is bigger than the individual no?

  • Comment number 54.

    @22

    your comment makes little sense. Stagnation is not exactly a magnet for further investments is it? That's where we are now. If indeed you understand its a business, then forget that " wenger forever" nonsense.

  • Comment number 55.

    @18

    The carmelo case you mentioned is similar to Fabregas. He wanted to go back to New york, simples. Cesc wants to go back home except that the team he'll join is way better than what he's leaving. you can't just spout this out there.

  • Comment number 56.

    I reckon all Arsenal fans will be praying that the new owner is an Abramovich & not a Glazer. Only time will tell but right now the Glazers are doing a bit better than Abramovich aren't they?

  • Comment number 57.

    This will change absolutely nothing from what i have seen and heard. The board is remaining the same with our chairman staying, also kroenke has been a strong advocate for bringing fans into owning shares so still seems like he has the clubs interests at heart.

    Bringing up a few points. Wenger is a genius so sacking a manager who bought success back to a club ailing before he joined seems ridiculous.

    Also to those who say u have to win trophies to bring in new supporters. What rubbish (unless ur a chelsea fan) i supported arsenal due to my family supporting them, and we consistently sell out our stadium.

    Finally at no point has it been said that wenger doesnt have money for players. He and the board constantly said money is available and it has been his choice not to spend.

    Nothing has or will change with the exception of a new majority shareholder being above the door. And football has always been a business, a lucrative one at that if u dont go down the route of leeds and portsmouth. Our business model will keep us going long after many of the other teams fold so just get behind the team and stop booing the manager, as we have been in the top 10 teams of Europe since he took over.

  • Comment number 58.

    @31

    our own country break cultural and economic barriers by stealing from poor countries. But when its us, lets tax them, let kick them out. Nonsense I say.

  • Comment number 59.

    "I was expecting some clarifications to the important of 75% of shares before having full control of Arsenal and the significance of a 27% stake by Usmanov, but in vain."
    ______________________________________________________________

    You only need 51% of shares to have 'full control' of a company.

  • Comment number 60.

    Until Platini's Fair Play financial regulations kick in there will be very little value to be had in the transfer market. Speculating 25 million pounds sterling on a player that might not fit, get home sick or be tapped up by Barcelona Real Madrid or Man City is a big gamble for clubs like Arsenal and most managers have got stung. Then there are the wage structures that can cause resentment and upheaval with big money players coming in.
    Scezney £50m. Wilshire £60m. Fabregas £60m Bendtner £40m Walcott £80m. Ramsey £60m Diaby £40m Gibbs £30m Van Persie £30m and a whole glut of skillfull talented hungry youth coming through, is the valuation of Arsenal at £900m an accurate valuation ?

  • Comment number 61.

    Thank your lucky stars it's Kroenke and not Usmanov !
    Man Utd's debt is big or small depending on the health and retirement age of Sir Alex Ferguson and his luck, he wields his foot on the throat of Man Utd and the Glazers' fortunes hang by the slimmest of threads, the same thread that Liverpool slipped from !

  • Comment number 62.

    If you purchase Reina for £25 million that means Comolli and Dalglish can purchase a top class midfielder, thanks Roman Abromavich.

  • Comment number 63.

    Does anyone else think that, for commercial reasons, the club might now formally name and market itself to the rest of the world as "The London Arsenal", "London Arsenal", or even just "London"?
    It seems to be increasingly fashionable to have a double-barreled name including the name of the city, and the "London" part seems underused by the other teams in the area. To a lot of people around the world (not just quite a few Americans), England and London are one and the same thing.

    Of course the "Arsenal" bit might not go down so well in America.....

  • Comment number 64.

    Comment#13; SPACED INVADER states Hill-Wood's 'American sort' comment is no different from the unworldly fans who once booed black players.

    Really? I urge you to think of the actual effect of prejudicial comments based on someone being say, ‘American’…. which makes no reference to the actual RACE of the individual; with the effect on British players playing in Britain in the 70s & 80s being racially abused on a weekly basis due to the colour of their skin.

    People saying they don’t want an American in charge are not necessarily being racist because they are not referring to the race of the person, who may well be the same race as they are.

    I’d agree that this is ignorance based on national stereotypes, but to compare this with the evils of racial hatred is not clever.

    British football clubs are not like NBA franchises, operating wherever the market is biggest. They are intrinsically connected to a place and a local community, when Hill-Wood made his ‘sort’ remark, I’m sure this is what he was referring to; the USA model of teams being franchises bought and sold on the open market, as opposed to the club ‘belonging’ to a community.

  • Comment number 65.

    Kroenke can't put debt on the club because Usmanov's shares are in the way. If he gets I think 75% (which would mean Usmanov has sold his holdings), he'll be able to do whatever he wants.

    Just because he's not loaded his other clubs with debt, when they're in oligopolistic competition, doesn't mean he won't do so with a foreign club.

    This guy's married to a Wal-Mart heir. If there are a couple hundred millions for grab, I don't think he'll pass it up.

  • Comment number 66.

    I think this is a great development for the Arsenal. Kroenke is a solid business man and renowned as a great sports businessman in the states. He will grow the Arsenal brand.

  • Comment number 67.

    @ #60

    Slightly confused by your post.
    I agree with the first part, but can't work out of if you're serious or sarcastic in the 2nd part (valuation of players)

    There is no-way you can value any of those players at those prices, the only close one is Fabregas at £60m! Scezney at £50m..!? Walcott £80m..!? You can't be serious........... are you...!?

  • Comment number 68.

    37. At 18:10pm 11th Apr 2011, JohnnyRotten wrote:

    "Football is Business"

    Yes it is but to think that Arsenal will be happy always to be second is flawed.

    They will only keep existing fans and win new ones if they win things and the big two are the Premier League and the Champions League.

    Either Arsenal's model will work or the Premier League will need some change to ensure that one team cannot dominate for decades at a time as has happened with Man United. Otherwise the only option is the Chelsea model which is not sustainable.

    Sooner or later these issues will need to be addressed.

    -----------------------------

    Unfortunatley, unless these issued are addressed the club with the most money will continually win the premier league. Personally, I expect Manchester United to win probably 8 out of the next 10 titles which will get them more "trophy hunter" supporters from across the UK and abroad which in turn will give them more revenue for even more success.

    Until there is a more level playing field the only clubs that can compete are the ones run using the "billionaire play thing" model, e.g. Chelsea, Manchester City, and that will come to an abrupt end shortly when the UEFA fair financials come in to play.

    As for Arsenal, they will win the premier league again in the future but they won't have the success that some people in the media think they need.

  • Comment number 69.

    The start of a new era.

    SK in now and soon he will de list the Club.

    Usmanov will now sell in due course. No point being there with 27pc if hes interested in 'power' as he has none and wont get a Board seat offer.

    Wenger will leave in 2014 and very possibly before then. Hes a tired man thats done his job admirably in my view steering us through the choppy post ground move waters. Any new chap at the helm will want his own people in and American employers are very, very hot on that issue.

    Not sure if the buy out is good or not. Time will tell. All rich guys have skeletons in cupboards everywhere and all have agenda's to make lots more money. Hes no different. Why should he be? Thats how money is made.

    Its quite sad that the old traditions of the Club are now in demise, but something had to change. Its been a Club with no helmsman at the top for at least 4 years and with a boss whos been totally insulated from any real pressure or accountability apart from a few disgruntled fans and shareholders once a year. Im not convinced Arsene will want to do 'pressure cooker' at his age and after so long gently strolling through his role as head Coach. Whatever, i just hope his eventual exit is smoothly planned dignified as is his entitlement.

  • Comment number 70.

    Foreign owned, foreign managed and teams full of all foreign players...welcome to 'English' football....

  • Comment number 71.

    As an Arsenal fan I am certainly caught between excitement and trepidation, which I think is natural when such a big change happens at any club. The main issue I have here is how much interest Silent Stan has in the club as an institution of its own right. Whatever people might say about our recent lack of silverware, Arsenal is a club that has fantastic history and tradition and hopefully this will not be left by the wayside.

    The trouble is that I am not convinced that Stan has any other motive in investing in Arsenal than cold hard cash. As a businessman, he must recognise that Arsenal have been arguably the best run club in the Premier League over recent years and as an investment it is therefore a relatively safe bet. Would Stan have invested elsewhere if other teams had such sound finances? I think not. Nevertheless, from a variety of articles and interviews I've heard he does love sport and in that sense I am relieved.

    One worry I do have is that whilst I don't think Stan will sack Wenger, when he does eventually retire, will the incoming manager have the guts and influence to stand up to Stan in the future. I would argue that should an offer for the likes of Cesc come in at the 40million price range, Arsene would still (as last summer) bust a gut to keep the player and his ability to do so is also down to his long term relationship with these players. If a new manager comes in with no such relationship, and Stan wants to sell, who is there at the club who can say no with any authority? Whatever fans believe about Arsene, we cannot doubt his absolute commitment to the club and whilst he can frustrate with his stubborness, it is also a vital quality to maintain stability at Arsenal.

    Judgement reserved!

  • Comment number 72.

    70. At 09:41am 12th Apr 2011, confiseur wrote:

    Foreign owned, foreign managed and teams full of all foreign players...welcome to 'English' football....

    -----------------

    Yet vast amounts of working class people are willing to give their hard earned cash to multi-millionaires so that they can live a life of luxury that they themselves can only dream about. Surreal.

  • Comment number 73.

    I'm a little bit uncertain about it all at the moment. There was a certain stability in the old way of doing things, which was comfortable. This could go either way really. This trend of single ownership is rampant now. There will be basically no clubs left with any kind of joint ownership before long. I have written a piece on this subject, regarding the Kroenke takeover, if anyone is interested?

    http://goodfeetforabigman.com/2011/04/12/stan-kroenkes-arsenal-takeover-the-managerial-revolution/

  • Comment number 74.

    I presume Usmanov obtained a 27% stake to ensure that no one could obtain a controlling interest, so his response is not surprising.

  • Comment number 75.

    71. At 09:49am 12th Apr 2011, Tonysaurus _Highbury Squirrel's No1 Fan wrote:

    Well said that man, I think i'll reserve judgement till september. This is a big summer for arsenal, players coming in and out, board members coming in and out, .... manager coming and out?!?

  • Comment number 76.

    I wouldn't think there's much doubt Mr Kroenke will get total control and then de-list the club.
    Will it be good or bad? Who knows?
    I'm a Manchester United fan and we've had the anti-Glazer campaign, we also had an anti-Martin Edwards campaign
    But, during that time we've also had great success - built on Alex Ferguson.
    Arsenal have had the same - based on Arsene Wenger.
    Fans stay happy if success is there. They attack the owners if it's not and they fear other teams are spending more.
    But there aren't many people out there who will splash millions on a football club without getting something back somewhere in the future.
    Remember, Manchester City were bought by mega-rich owners. But it was their investment group which did the deal. Investment being the key word.

  • Comment number 77.

    11 Merlin the Gooner

    Your 'great' David Dein was so committed to Arsenal, he sold out to Usmanov, not Mr Fitzman as you say. Suspect your history is a touch dodgy maybe. The Dein thing that you and others have is mythical. In any event hes Kronke's mate so your wish for your imaginary Messiah's return in some capacity could still occur perhaps.

  • Comment number 78.

    "What does Kroenke's purchase mean for Arsenal?"

    That we get another dull and uninteresting blog from you Mr Bond. According to what you've written you haven't got a clue, it's basically a re-wording of the original article put up on the BBC website, all you've done is turn it into a blog so people can comment at the bottom.

    And shock horror you haven't come back to make any further comments on it yourself. I may not always like some of the other blogs people put up but at least their writers take the time to come back and address some of the issues raised by the posters.

  • Comment number 79.

    So, foreign owners, foreign players and foreign managers. What exactly IS English about the English Premier League?

    Oh, of course, the money that is exhorted from the English fans.

    Anybody in favour of clubs being owned by their fans, like Barsa and Real Madrid, or involved in the running of the club they support, like in Germany?

    Or do we just hang on and wait for some foreign sugar daddy to bless us with their megabuck and land us with enormous debts?

  • Comment number 80.

    Stan Kroenke has only really started this takeover now because of Danny Fiszman's ill health which is failing due to cancer, in which non of his family wanted to continue with Arsenal.

    It was his leadership that has helped us move to a new stadium and develope further so give a thought to him and his family.

    From what I have read SK says he will not delist the club from the stockmarket and I can't see him getting his hands on too man more shares anyway as the AST said that they weren't selling their shares either.

    I'm sure not too much will change apart from summer tours to the far east and America to raise the profile of the club in those areas for commercial reasons. As long as this doesn't have too much of an effect on the players then everything should be OK.

  • Comment number 81.

    As an Arsenal fan, I'm happy about the takeover. There are other fans who aren't as happy with it but you need to think that this guy wants the best for the club even if risks have to be taken.

    Kroenke has a good record in the US and wants success - which is what Arsenal need!! Each of his teams have won their leagues recently (something Arsenal haven't done). It shows that his team know how to run a club and a business.
    If it means that money need to be spent as an investment (such as the youth team and development) so be it! We all know Wenger likes the youth and younger players and if we want to win then that area is what needs the most money. We've seen that experienced players such as Torres haven't been at their best since being bought so maybe it isn't such a bad idea!

    If Kroenke does want to improve the club, I believe we need to treat this a different way to how Manchester City have. I would like to win success rather than buy it. If we were to buy brilliant players I wonder if they will bond together. I'd rather see top class or good, enthusiastic, young players being introduced at different points rather than all at once. I believe that Robinho was bought to City as a statement rather than a purchase; something I would not like to see at Arsenal.

    But Kroenke will give Wenger the money he needs and this is something I'd like to see spent wisely although Kroenke is most likely to take his share. As long as the club's future is safe then I have no problem with the takeover.



  • Comment number 82.

    Welcome to our world gooners. Get the effigy out.

  • Comment number 83.

    #4

    "Importantly Kroenke is not loading the club with debt, a la the Glazers"

    Says who? This is not prevented in the terms of the sale. Believe me, I hope you're right but I strongly suspect that you're about to be plucked.

  • Comment number 84.

    83

    Arsenals assets arent being loaded like Utds were by Glazer, but he can use Club profits via dividends and cash reserves to fund his debt payments. Massively different.. though i suppose the full financial implications of it arent well understood by fans and so we cant write off the prospect of donning Nottm Forest shirts within a few years i suppose. Still, i prefer Forest to Norwich City any time of the day!

  • Comment number 85.

    #84 Bergysdeftflicks - I hope you're right but he will be recovering his investment at some point. The biggest flaw in the Glazers plan was the huge amount raised by PIKs. The other gamble is the future growth of the premiership and that is linked at some level to the economy. And that will be where any clubs owned by indebted owners will be under threat, though none more than ours.

    Luckily for us, Ferguson's transfers have worked out and Arsenal tend to have the same investment in youth under Wenger so that will probably have made you attractive as an investment. At least, like Henry, he has a genuine long-term interest in investing in the clubs he owns.

    There are some facts and figures here http://www.andersred.blogspot.com/

  • Comment number 86.

    @84 as long as Usimov has 27% he can't.

    Unless he buys out 75% he can't transfer debt / restructure the club financially. And while he has less than 100%, any other shareholders can sue him if he runs the club to the detriment of minority shareholders, which taking huge dividends to pay back debts would be.

    At the moment Usimov acts as a safeguard.

  • Comment number 87.

    Will the media now start to decry Kroenke's and arsenals behaviour re spending hundreds of millions and killing the game

    That after all is what Roman and Chelsea have had to put up with for years and Roman has spent only slightly more than what Kroenke has spent in just buying Arsenal!

  • Comment number 88.

    I guess time will tell how this works out for Arsenal Football club and their fans.

    I personally think it is a shame though that they have become another foreign billionaire owned football club, especially since they were operating successfully from a financial point of view, something which none of the other big clubs in this country can claim. The club should be owned by its supporters trust, not an American business tycoon.

    http://www.myfootballwiki.com

  • Comment number 89.

    "It is also unknown whether he has used or will use debt financing to assume full control."
    Erm...a little bit of research would have told you, as by now I am sure you are aware that debt financing was never on the table.
    Also@openside50 All Kroenke has done is increase his share of the club, he has been the clubs single biggest share-holder for sometime now. I think what the media and most football people find so grubby about Abramovich and his Chelsea adventure is not that he bought the club but the countless millions he threw at the club to win a couple of titles. If Kroenke does the same then I am sure people will draw comparisions, I somehow don't see that happening, Arsenal have a history of winning titles without the help of rich men. I guess if you are going to post it helps if you know what you are talking about.

  • Comment number 90.

    "I hope that history does not conclude that Arsene Wenger was the French Emissary sent to dismember the UK football scene to usher in a new European set-up controlled by France, Germany and the USA.

    It would not be a legacy a man of integrity would want put on his epitaph. from rjagger"
    What a ridiculous statement to make-where does that come into the equation. Could that statement not be made re any buyout and just change the countries involved.
    This seems to have been done the 'Arsenal way'-no fuss no bother with agreement-not blood on the floor despite the hopes of Bond and Peston.

  • Comment number 91.

    Nobody prevented a British citizen(s) from investing in the club at the time that Kroenke and Usmanov did. I understand the sense of regret from watching these clubs being sold to foreign investment. They are however, PLC's so anyone can invest.

    As for Stan, he takes this seriously and has a business model. He won't want any debt he can't eliminate quickly

  • Comment number 92.

    "We don't want his sort of money" was what Hill Wood said. It's still snobbery, but there is a difference

  • Comment number 93.

    Arsenal supporter living in Colorado since 1985.

    Lots of comments here on Mr. Kroenke's record with his American sports franchises, so I'll try not to be repetitive.

    First, judging Mr. Kroenke's potential for success with Arsenal based on his US franchises is questionable. It's very difficult to make a straight comparison between American sports and the EPL. In the US, salary caps, profit-sharing between large and small markets, and smaller, regional Divisions, are all designed to make success much more "democratic"; doesn't necessarily work, but the structure is very different from the EPL and European football environment. (Although that may be changing a bit with the new UEFA financial regulations scheduled for next year).

    Second, Mr. Kroenke keeps a very low profile, regardless of the performance of his teams. You won't see him dancing down the sidelines waving a glittery umbrella a la Tom Benson with the New Orleans Saints. This suggests that he sees his sports holdings as a business rather than a passion. So I wouldn't expect him to make any radical changes, or throw his weight around in the Board Room or the practice field. But I'm pretty sure he like to see his investments prosper, which in sporting terms means winning. And there has to be a reason Mr. Kroenke has chosen sports teams as his investment arena. Even if he doesn't show it, surely he must get some childish satisfaction when his teams win. With Arsenal being a first-rate business model and perennially competitive team, I would expect him to let them get on with it, celebrate their success when they win, and go watch the Rams/Avs/Nuggets/Rapids when they don't. Looking at some of the other examples of ownership out there, I'll take that...

  • Comment number 94.

    @#63, wow, way to come across as a moron. Arsenal is a recognized brand in America. When someone says Arsenal in regards to sports, people think of the soccer team from London. The nicknames come as a result of the early days of American Sports for three reasons. First, the nicknames had something to do with the team's features or the way they played or the characteristics of the city. Second, the nicknames were created to differentiate between teams with the same city name. Third, because it was the thing to do when our sports leagues began in the early 20th century.

  • Comment number 95.

    "I presume Usmanov obtained a 27% stake to ensure that no one could obtain a controlling interest, so his response is not surprising."
    ________________________________________________________________

    Usmanov acquired 27% of Arsenal shares because that's all that were available to buy from people willing to sell to him. It gives him no control whatsoever over what happens to Arsenal, which is now effectively at the whim of Kroenke.

    As I said earlier, you only need 51% of shares (in fact only 50% plus one share) to have control of a company. With his current 62% Kroenke can vote in his mates as an entirely new Board of Directors tomorrow and have the new Board issue, say, 100,000 shares of new stock to Kroenke, so that the stock ratio, which used to look like 62 - 38, now looks like 99.99 - 0.01 ... at which point he can sell Arsenal to the Cosa Nostra, if he feels so inclined.

    I don't believe for a minute that Kroenke has any such asset-stripping plans in mind, but he's already in a position to do what he likes with Arsenal whatever Usmanov or the AST say about it. Let's just hope he's not another Glazer (in it for the money) Abramovich (in it for the glory) or Mansour (in it as a toy collector).

  • Comment number 96.

    RIP_lennons_underwear wrote:

    As far as winning things go, we'd be better off with Usmanov. At least he doesn't have Emperor's new cloth syndrome, when it comes to Wenger.

    What we need is player investment and a manager who's willing to spend. Sorry, but that's just the reality of modern football. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

    I don't see any thing changing with this take over. We'll still scrape the bargain bucket ever summer, while our rivals strengthen, we'll still hear "we looked for a player in January, but no one was available", we'll still be a young team in developement, in 2015.
    .....................................More than likely we'll stand still, while the clubs around us look to move forwards.

    Usmanov would have been the sugar daddy, Kronke is the investor, the right choice is being made.

    It is completely delusional to think that paying well above market value for players would guarantee success and the title. I mean, how can 50mil for Tores, 35mil for Carol seem good business.

    Trying to Keep up with the Jones' is not a reason to spend obscene amounts of money on players. We are second in the league with a shot at the title, can this be said of Chelsea, Man City or Liverpool? Short term investing leads to long term pain. Arsenal have proven season after season that we are challengers. Every person in the club wants to win the title but gambling the future of the club is no guarantee of success.

    Standing still? On what grounds can you possibly say this? If the teams below us are moving forwards and we are still still ahead of them by the same margin, doesn't that mean we are moving forwards?

    Lest we forget what happened to Pompey and how it can all go Petetong!

  • Comment number 97.

    95. At 02:46am 13th Apr 2011, Chris_Wheatley wrote:

    Usmanov acquired 27% of Arsenal shares because that's all that were available to buy from people willing to sell to him. It gives him no control whatsoever over what happens to Arsenal, which is now effectively at the whim of Kroenke.

    As I said earlier, you only need 51% of shares (in fact only 50% plus one share) to have control of a company. With his current 62% Kroenke can vote in his mates as an entirely new Board of Directors tomorrow and have the new Board issue, say, 100,000 shares of new stock to Kroenke, so that the stock ratio, which used to look like 62 - 38, now looks like 99.99 - 0.01 ... at which point he can sell Arsenal to the Cosa Nostra, if he feels so inclined.

    ---

    I suggest you consult the Companies Act 2006, to disabuse yourself of your misconceptions...

  • Comment number 98.

    So far it looks unlikely Kroenkes will fully takeover Arsenal. Both Usmanov and AST do not want Kroenkes to fully takeover Arsenal.

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.