Never was happy.
Dein, Bracewell-Smith and the rest of the old Arsenal board completely sold the club and the supporters down the river. From 'Custodians' to wealthy parasites.
And for what? A bland bucket of a stadium, devoid of atmosphere, character, or charm, that's revealed itself more a burden, than a benefit.
Still, at least Spurs don't appear to have learnt from our mistakes. Silver linings, an' all that.
Who the fack was happy bar a few wealthy shareholders who cashed in?
Usmanov has always come across more as someone who wantes success on and off the pitch, more so than Kroenke anyway. Then again we will never really know if it was just empty words.
I know Usmanov is stinking rich but with FFP rules would his wealth have made much of a difference? You've already got a new ground so he couldn't invest in that. I'm not really clued up on Arsenal's financial situation, is Kroenke taking money out of the club?
Usmanov would have been the right choice. he knew that if he wanted to make loads of money from arsenal the team would need to be challenging.
In essence to make.money you gotta spend money especially in football.
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
Who the fack was happy bar a few wealthy shareholders who cashed in?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On here (or was it the old BBC 606 then) I'd say about 2/3's of people were arguing they wanted him over Usmanov, even years after he had bought us.
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 11 minutes ago
is Kroenke taking money out of the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the surface no, but one of his common ways of getting richer is to award contracts to his own companies for various things and make money that way. For example, I read that he awarded a $1bn contract for his LA stadium build to a construction company he owns. The cost went up to $4bn apparently. So while we dont know for a fact that he takes money out of the club, the fact we (a big club with a big stadium) were haggling over the Mari signing and said it had to be a £4.5m loan followed by a £4.5m permanent deal in the summer because we reportedly couldnt afford the reported £7.5m permanent deal they wanted in January is very very worrying. And another one is the Pepe deal, we agreed £70m but paid £20m with £50m said to be coming out of future transfer funds for the next 5 years. Getting in early with the excuses maybe?
A number of clubs who had their stadium projects around the time of the economic crunch still have massive problems to this day. Missed deadlines, painfully restructured debt, intrusive publicly-funded bailouts etc. Valencia's project is still under construction almost 15 years later despite a massive capacity reduction.
Kroenke provided the safe pair of hands we needed during those tumultuous years. We extended Wenger's contract just like the lenders wanted and kept the club profitable while meeting our mortgage commitments.
The problem is that we became too conservative for our own good. And we've ended up with a club that's run with all the ambition of a primary school tuck shop. Permanently stuck in 2005 with our archaic 50:25:25 revenue ratio.
50% TV money
25% Match-day
25% Commercial
The TV money is more or less fixed. And so is the match-day income. Everyone knows the real money is in bigger and bolder commercial engagements but we're absolute crap when it comes to that.
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 2 minutes ago
The TV money is more or less fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for the massive increase a few years ago. From memory, didnt ours go up to £120m?
comment by The Wonky Kronke (U16927)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 11 minutes ago
is Kroenke taking money out of the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the surface no, but one of his common ways of getting richer is to award contracts to his own companies for various things and make money that way. For example, I read that he awarded a $1bn contract for his LA stadium build to a construction company he owns. The cost went up to $4bn apparently. So while we dont know for a fact that he takes money out of the club, the fact we (a big club with a big stadium) were haggling over the Mari signing and said it had to be a £4.5m loan followed by a £4.5m permanent deal in the summer because we reportedly couldnt afford the reported £7.5m permanent deal they wanted in January is very very worrying. And another one is the Pepe deal, we agreed £70m but paid £20m with £50m said to be coming out of future transfer funds for the next 5 years. Getting in early with the excuses maybe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That does sound worrying. I don't really know much about the goings-on at Everton, but they're having a new ground built and Usmanov seems to be getting more involved with them, he could be up to the same tricks as Kroenke.
comment by The Wonky Kronke (U16927)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 2 minutes ago
The TV money is more or less fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for the massive increase a few years ago. From memory, didnt ours go up to £120m?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's not much we can do about it independently to gain a significant financial advantage over our league rivals. It only comes to about an extra £2m per league place.
We'd have to reach the Champions League final to come anywhere near the yearly revenues of the Manchester clubs.
Eh I doubt anyone was ever happy that we sold to Kroenke. I read this morning that we have announced a first loss since 2002 which is pretty astonishing. Maybe if we continue to bleed money he will finally sell
comment by Joe Goldberg (U18355)
posted 3 minutes ago
Eh I doubt anyone was ever happy that we sold to Kroenke. I read this morning that we have announced a first loss since 2002 which is pretty astonishing. Maybe if we continue to bleed money he will finally sell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were. I got loads of abuse for saying I didnt want he buying the club before and after he bought it. Even a year or two ago people were still arguing he was the best choice.
comment by Joe Goldberg (U18355)
posted 1 minute ago
Eh I doubt anyone was ever happy that we sold to Kroenke. I read this morning that we have announced a first loss since 2002 which is pretty astonishing. Maybe if we continue to bleed money he will finally sell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's nothing more than a shareholder. A shareholder who bought most of his shares at between £10-20k a piece.
The most recently quoted share price was north of £30k when he forcibly bought out the last remaining holdouts among the fan base.
The share price could shed a third of its value and he wouldn't even be bothered.
Our current owners used your club as an example how to grow our club off the field. Arsenal were a well run club before Kroenke the parasite took you over.
The only difference was we decided to build a new stadium and have invested the money in our squad.
Making the right decisions off the field and on the field.
I think Wenger was the reason your club has been run well in the last 20 years before the big money came in.
*we decided against building a new stadium
comment by The Mane Man - WORLD CHAMPIONS-"Sadio, I’ll get him back don’t worry.” (U19731)
posted 8 minutes ago
*we decided against building a new stadium
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didnt you try to build a new stadium but due to not being able to get planning permission decide to stay at Anfield instead? Stanley Park wasnt it?
comment by The Wonky Kronke (U16927)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by The Mane Man - WORLD CHAMPIONS-"Sadio, I’ll get him back don’t worry.” (U19731)
posted 8 minutes ago
*we decided against building a new stadium
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didnt you try to build a new stadium but due to not being able to get planning permission decide to stay at Anfield instead? Stanley Park wasnt it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We had planning permission for Stanley Park
comment by The Mane Man - WORLD CHAMPIONS-"Sadio, I’ll get him back don’t worry.” (U19731)
posted 3 minutes ago
Our current owners used your club as an example how to grow our club off the field. Arsenal were a well run club before Kroenke the parasite took you over.
The only difference was we decided to build a new stadium and have invested the money in our squad.
Making the right decisions off the field and on the field.
I think Wenger was the reason your club has been run well in the last 20 years before the big money came in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's be honest, there's only so much you can do to increase the capacity of a 38,000-seater stadium without having to go through a total rebuild. Comparing Highbury to Anfield is totally unfair.
Same applies to other medium capacity grounds like Stamford Bridge, the Old White Hart Lane and Upton Park.
As for Liverpool's decisions on the pitch, I find it very brave of you to base your entire financial model around winning the Champions League every year.
I’m not sure Arsenal using a self sustaining model should be that big a criticism, they should be capable of being successful under that model. It’s the clear lack of planning and an effective strategy to bring success which is holding them back.
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
I’m not sure Arsenal using a self sustaining model should be that big a criticism, they should be capable of being successful under that model. It’s the clear lack of planning and an effective strategy to bring success which is holding them back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're paying "Top 4" transfer fees and wages despite our stagnating annual revenues and a financial department stuck in the middle ages.
Only way a club can get away with that is with a sugar daddy.
Doesn’t all that just corroborate what I’m saying? If Arsenal had been run well there wouldn’t be much of a need for a ‘sugar daddy’. The model itself isn’t the issue, it’s how badly it’s been implemented.
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
I’m not sure Arsenal using a self sustaining model should be that big a criticism, they should be capable of being successful under that model. It’s the clear lack of planning and an effective strategy to bring success which is holding them back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're paying "Top 4" transfer fees and wages despite our stagnating annual revenues and a financial department stuck in the middle ages.
Only way a club can get away with that is with a sugar daddy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or rebuild when the contracts run out.
Tbh the idea that somehow any of us have a say in the matter is incredibly stupid.
Sorry to undermine the article.
I had my misgivings when Kroenke first took over the club but since then I don't lay the problems at his feet. We have spent a lot of money and wages on poor players.
Essentially we kept Wenger too long and worse still allowed him to award long contracts on huge wages without CL drop out clauses. These players weren't good enough to qualify for the CL and yet Gazidis and his m8 Wenger thought they deserved 4 and 5 year contracts. We can't get rid of them because buying clubs don't want to risk the wages and we can't pay them off because that counts towards FFP. Which means we can't bring in sufficient quality replace to them. Like it or not it will take time to fix this.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
I’m not sure Arsenal using a self sustaining model should be that big a criticism, they should be capable of being successful under that model. It’s the clear lack of planning and an effective strategy to bring success which is holding them back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're paying "Top 4" transfer fees and wages despite our stagnating annual revenues and a financial department stuck in the middle ages.
Only way a club can get away with that is with a sugar daddy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or rebuild when the contracts run out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our entire player recruitment policy over the past 10-15 years has been all about getting one up over Twitter ITKs and proving the "haters" wrong.
Last time we rebuilt a side was after the 2002 World Cup.
Sign in if you want to comment
Are you still happy Kronke bought Arsenal?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 29/2/20
Never was happy.
Dein, Bracewell-Smith and the rest of the old Arsenal board completely sold the club and the supporters down the river. From 'Custodians' to wealthy parasites.
And for what? A bland bucket of a stadium, devoid of atmosphere, character, or charm, that's revealed itself more a burden, than a benefit.
Still, at least Spurs don't appear to have learnt from our mistakes. Silver linings, an' all that.
posted on 29/2/20
Who the fack was happy bar a few wealthy shareholders who cashed in?
posted on 29/2/20
Usmanov has always come across more as someone who wantes success on and off the pitch, more so than Kroenke anyway. Then again we will never really know if it was just empty words.
posted on 29/2/20
I know Usmanov is stinking rich but with FFP rules would his wealth have made much of a difference? You've already got a new ground so he couldn't invest in that. I'm not really clued up on Arsenal's financial situation, is Kroenke taking money out of the club?
posted on 29/2/20
Usmanov would have been the right choice. he knew that if he wanted to make loads of money from arsenal the team would need to be challenging.
In essence to make.money you gotta spend money especially in football.
posted on 29/2/20
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
Who the fack was happy bar a few wealthy shareholders who cashed in?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On here (or was it the old BBC 606 then) I'd say about 2/3's of people were arguing they wanted him over Usmanov, even years after he had bought us.
posted on 29/2/20
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 11 minutes ago
is Kroenke taking money out of the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the surface no, but one of his common ways of getting richer is to award contracts to his own companies for various things and make money that way. For example, I read that he awarded a $1bn contract for his LA stadium build to a construction company he owns. The cost went up to $4bn apparently. So while we dont know for a fact that he takes money out of the club, the fact we (a big club with a big stadium) were haggling over the Mari signing and said it had to be a £4.5m loan followed by a £4.5m permanent deal in the summer because we reportedly couldnt afford the reported £7.5m permanent deal they wanted in January is very very worrying. And another one is the Pepe deal, we agreed £70m but paid £20m with £50m said to be coming out of future transfer funds for the next 5 years. Getting in early with the excuses maybe?
posted on 29/2/20
A number of clubs who had their stadium projects around the time of the economic crunch still have massive problems to this day. Missed deadlines, painfully restructured debt, intrusive publicly-funded bailouts etc. Valencia's project is still under construction almost 15 years later despite a massive capacity reduction.
Kroenke provided the safe pair of hands we needed during those tumultuous years. We extended Wenger's contract just like the lenders wanted and kept the club profitable while meeting our mortgage commitments.
The problem is that we became too conservative for our own good. And we've ended up with a club that's run with all the ambition of a primary school tuck shop. Permanently stuck in 2005 with our archaic 50:25:25 revenue ratio.
50% TV money
25% Match-day
25% Commercial
The TV money is more or less fixed. And so is the match-day income. Everyone knows the real money is in bigger and bolder commercial engagements but we're absolute crap when it comes to that.
posted on 29/2/20
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 2 minutes ago
The TV money is more or less fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for the massive increase a few years ago. From memory, didnt ours go up to £120m?
posted on 29/2/20
comment by The Wonky Kronke (U16927)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 11 minutes ago
is Kroenke taking money out of the club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the surface no, but one of his common ways of getting richer is to award contracts to his own companies for various things and make money that way. For example, I read that he awarded a $1bn contract for his LA stadium build to a construction company he owns. The cost went up to $4bn apparently. So while we dont know for a fact that he takes money out of the club, the fact we (a big club with a big stadium) were haggling over the Mari signing and said it had to be a £4.5m loan followed by a £4.5m permanent deal in the summer because we reportedly couldnt afford the reported £7.5m permanent deal they wanted in January is very very worrying. And another one is the Pepe deal, we agreed £70m but paid £20m with £50m said to be coming out of future transfer funds for the next 5 years. Getting in early with the excuses maybe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That does sound worrying. I don't really know much about the goings-on at Everton, but they're having a new ground built and Usmanov seems to be getting more involved with them, he could be up to the same tricks as Kroenke.
posted on 29/2/20
comment by The Wonky Kronke (U16927)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 2 minutes ago
The TV money is more or less fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for the massive increase a few years ago. From memory, didnt ours go up to £120m?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's not much we can do about it independently to gain a significant financial advantage over our league rivals. It only comes to about an extra £2m per league place.
We'd have to reach the Champions League final to come anywhere near the yearly revenues of the Manchester clubs.
posted on 29/2/20
Eh I doubt anyone was ever happy that we sold to Kroenke. I read this morning that we have announced a first loss since 2002 which is pretty astonishing. Maybe if we continue to bleed money he will finally sell
posted on 29/2/20
comment by Joe Goldberg (U18355)
posted 3 minutes ago
Eh I doubt anyone was ever happy that we sold to Kroenke. I read this morning that we have announced a first loss since 2002 which is pretty astonishing. Maybe if we continue to bleed money he will finally sell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were. I got loads of abuse for saying I didnt want he buying the club before and after he bought it. Even a year or two ago people were still arguing he was the best choice.
posted on 29/2/20
comment by Joe Goldberg (U18355)
posted 1 minute ago
Eh I doubt anyone was ever happy that we sold to Kroenke. I read this morning that we have announced a first loss since 2002 which is pretty astonishing. Maybe if we continue to bleed money he will finally sell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's nothing more than a shareholder. A shareholder who bought most of his shares at between £10-20k a piece.
The most recently quoted share price was north of £30k when he forcibly bought out the last remaining holdouts among the fan base.
The share price could shed a third of its value and he wouldn't even be bothered.
posted on 29/2/20
Our current owners used your club as an example how to grow our club off the field. Arsenal were a well run club before Kroenke the parasite took you over.
The only difference was we decided to build a new stadium and have invested the money in our squad.
Making the right decisions off the field and on the field.
I think Wenger was the reason your club has been run well in the last 20 years before the big money came in.
posted on 29/2/20
*we decided against building a new stadium
posted on 29/2/20
comment by The Mane Man - WORLD CHAMPIONS-"Sadio, I’ll get him back don’t worry.” (U19731)
posted 8 minutes ago
*we decided against building a new stadium
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didnt you try to build a new stadium but due to not being able to get planning permission decide to stay at Anfield instead? Stanley Park wasnt it?
posted on 29/2/20
comment by The Wonky Kronke (U16927)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by The Mane Man - WORLD CHAMPIONS-"Sadio, I’ll get him back don’t worry.” (U19731)
posted 8 minutes ago
*we decided against building a new stadium
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didnt you try to build a new stadium but due to not being able to get planning permission decide to stay at Anfield instead? Stanley Park wasnt it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We had planning permission for Stanley Park
posted on 29/2/20
comment by The Mane Man - WORLD CHAMPIONS-"Sadio, I’ll get him back don’t worry.” (U19731)
posted 3 minutes ago
Our current owners used your club as an example how to grow our club off the field. Arsenal were a well run club before Kroenke the parasite took you over.
The only difference was we decided to build a new stadium and have invested the money in our squad.
Making the right decisions off the field and on the field.
I think Wenger was the reason your club has been run well in the last 20 years before the big money came in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's be honest, there's only so much you can do to increase the capacity of a 38,000-seater stadium without having to go through a total rebuild. Comparing Highbury to Anfield is totally unfair.
Same applies to other medium capacity grounds like Stamford Bridge, the Old White Hart Lane and Upton Park.
As for Liverpool's decisions on the pitch, I find it very brave of you to base your entire financial model around winning the Champions League every year.
posted on 29/2/20
I’m not sure Arsenal using a self sustaining model should be that big a criticism, they should be capable of being successful under that model. It’s the clear lack of planning and an effective strategy to bring success which is holding them back.
posted on 29/2/20
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
I’m not sure Arsenal using a self sustaining model should be that big a criticism, they should be capable of being successful under that model. It’s the clear lack of planning and an effective strategy to bring success which is holding them back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're paying "Top 4" transfer fees and wages despite our stagnating annual revenues and a financial department stuck in the middle ages.
Only way a club can get away with that is with a sugar daddy.
posted on 29/2/20
Doesn’t all that just corroborate what I’m saying? If Arsenal had been run well there wouldn’t be much of a need for a ‘sugar daddy’. The model itself isn’t the issue, it’s how badly it’s been implemented.
posted on 29/2/20
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
I’m not sure Arsenal using a self sustaining model should be that big a criticism, they should be capable of being successful under that model. It’s the clear lack of planning and an effective strategy to bring success which is holding them back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're paying "Top 4" transfer fees and wages despite our stagnating annual revenues and a financial department stuck in the middle ages.
Only way a club can get away with that is with a sugar daddy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or rebuild when the contracts run out.
posted on 29/2/20
Tbh the idea that somehow any of us have a say in the matter is incredibly stupid.
Sorry to undermine the article.
I had my misgivings when Kroenke first took over the club but since then I don't lay the problems at his feet. We have spent a lot of money and wages on poor players.
Essentially we kept Wenger too long and worse still allowed him to award long contracts on huge wages without CL drop out clauses. These players weren't good enough to qualify for the CL and yet Gazidis and his m8 Wenger thought they deserved 4 and 5 year contracts. We can't get rid of them because buying clubs don't want to risk the wages and we can't pay them off because that counts towards FFP. Which means we can't bring in sufficient quality replace to them. Like it or not it will take time to fix this.
posted on 29/2/20
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gillespie Road. (U18361)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
I’m not sure Arsenal using a self sustaining model should be that big a criticism, they should be capable of being successful under that model. It’s the clear lack of planning and an effective strategy to bring success which is holding them back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We're paying "Top 4" transfer fees and wages despite our stagnating annual revenues and a financial department stuck in the middle ages.
Only way a club can get away with that is with a sugar daddy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or rebuild when the contracts run out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our entire player recruitment policy over the past 10-15 years has been all about getting one up over Twitter ITKs and proving the "haters" wrong.
Last time we rebuilt a side was after the 2002 World Cup.
Page 1 of 2