Not just for Arsenal fans

The world would be a far better place without Stan Kreonke. Hope he gets eaten by a lion on his next hunting trip

comment by Tu Meke Nketiah (U3732)
posted 9 hours, 28 minutes ago
Aye, saw it on Twitter. Sad state of affairs that they don't have a choice in the matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This really.

Not a good look, and probably happening at lots of clubs.

The old guys story got to me.

I could just about understand someone being forced to sell something off to the state in the name of a greater good, but really don't get why anyone should be forced to sell anything they own to private interests.

The past decade has treated us to a soap-opera where 100s of millions of £ have simply moved from one wealthy shareholder's pockets into another's. Without a single cent ever being put into the club.

This is simply the sad final chapter.

It also looks like the suits at the club have gone as far as putting off the release of the yearly financials.

As an ex-shareholder in 90s and early 2000s. I just have to say - who cares? What difference does it make?

Both those questions answered in the NYT article linked in the OP.

Yes, it's sad, but this is trading law isn't it? I'm sure plenty of people have had to give up shares in various ventures over the years - ventures they have actually worked for.

I'm no expert in how these stocks and shares work, but if you accept your club is sold as a commodity in it's own right to raise a bit of cash, you have to accept this is possible. I'm sure the £30k a share will help them through this tough time of losing a piece of paper - not sure why it changes their fan-ship.

Yes, HC, I suppose it is trading law - but it still doesn't seem right to me.

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
Both those questions answered in the NYT article linked in the OP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no logic but just sentiment. You couldn't acquire shares unless you employed a specialist stockbroker who could trade on the alternatives market. That requires a lot of money in fees. That level of sophistication is rarely attributed to a sentimental purchase. And I usually find the stories of lost grandparents bequeathing shares down linages even more funny. Think about how much a share is worth now compared to even 20 years ago. 100x more? Any small shareholders who were middle class sold up long ago. Those who remained were so fantastically rich that they could afford to frame up a share, £15000 each? rather than buying an oil paining from a lesser known master artist? Come on. That entire article is nonsense.

Genuine smaller holders sold up mostly to Fiszman and then Usmanov.

( I am being a little disingenuous). I remember selling up at abt £3k a share in early 2000s.