At no stage during the interview did Kroenke state he would "take money out of Arsenal."

I am sorry but that is his intention. Otherwise why defend the principal? Its an old media trick. First get an acceptance of the idea and then do it yourself.

Well, if we win as many trophies as United to and have their long term success, maybe it is acceptable?

Read the full interview.

We can all spectulate at his intention, but that really the problem. Silent Stan hasn't really come out and stated his intentions to the fans.

At the AGM meeting it was all about him and his family, which was really cosy and nice but didn't get to the point which is what are his long-term ambitions for the club?

Personally i would support a joint venture between Kroenke and Usmanov, simply because i see the FFP rules falling way short of expectations and Arsenal FC following suit. Like or lothe it, money talks in modern football.

Kronke was asked his opinion on the Glazers taking money out of united and he argued that the players were taking massive amounts of money from the club in wages, and that they were still successful.

I can never understand why people get upset over this.

A football club is a business, owned in whole or in part by a businessman/businessmen.... of course they should make a profit. it'd be pointless being in business if you didn't want to make money.

When directly asked how he would make money from Arsenal he answered.

"Well, we'll see. That's the risk. There's no guarantee I'll make any money. As a matter of fact, believe it or not, you can actually lose money in sports! I know you'll find that shocking"

Lets be honest here KSE are at N5 to make a return on their investment. They also require the team to be successful for the club to generate monies.

Is that not what we all want - the team to be successful.

people make no comment about players 'taking money out of the club' in the form of wages, so why is it remotely a big deal if the owner makes a return on his money?

do people really expect people to come in, pump money in and expect nothing back?

on a side note though OP, as at no point he says he will take money out of the club, your title is a little 'tabloid'

"people make no comment about players 'taking money out of the club' in the form of wages..."

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

Erm... they don't?

I'm not so sure about that ZZ.

What would Stuart Pearce do?

I don't know how clear you want someone to be on his INTENTIONS. You will never get anything more explicit than this when trying to predict corporate strategy.

The purpose of this interview was to tell fans that the Glazers model of extracting money from football club is the right way to go. It is sort-sighted and naive. The Glazers are desperately trying to get out of football through an IPO before the markets tanked. It is now very unlikely that they will get the money they expected.

It is better not to gamble with borrowed money. It is an open secret that Stan Kroenke borrowed the entire amount needed to buy out Nina Bracewell-Smith and Danny Fiszman. This interview is an obvious inference of how he is going to recover the money. It would be better for us now if he sold up to Usmanov with a £90m profit.

I was actually pro-Kroenke at the beginning of all this. There are rumours that the NFL want to move a franchise to London. I thought there could be a great tie up between Arsenal and a NFL franchise and so an expansion of the brand. But there is none of this. I don't think Stan Kroenke has it in him.

"people make no comment about players 'taking money out of the club' in the form of wages..."

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

Erm... they don't?

I'm not so sure about that ZZ.
------------------------------------------------
ok, maybe i worded that badly, but no-one really has anything like the problem with it that they do if it's mooted that an owner might like a return on his money.

People seem to expect owners to be some rich benefactor and expect nothing in return... which seems, well, odd.

It would be better for us now if he sold up to Usmanov with a £90m profit.
---------------------------
No. just no.

Jenius99

Have you actually read the interview. The Glazer part was one single question out of over a dozen.

At no part of the interview did Kronke suggest how he was going to make a return on his investment.

Anything else is no more than gossip.

Funny thing is you're at least half right ZZ.

A lot of us - myself included - moan that we pay our youngsters and bit part players way too much, whilst we don't pay our top players nearly enough.

For such as parsimonious club, we sure have a weirdly balanced wage structure.

Zaphod

Football in itself does not generate profits. It is not a profit center. It is in America because they run a closed market. People have been trying to make money from football directly for years. And all you do is lose money through wage price inflation. In America the owners shut down leagues (NBA) when they think that wages are getting too high and effecting the bottom line. I would like any owner to suggest that here. He would be in the shock of his life! Even the FFP is being openly flouted before it has even come into effect.

Football is a marketing vehicle used to expand brands from its popularism. Thats why large corporations are buying clubs rather than spending money in sponsorships.

I want my club to survive as the income from advertising deteriorates in the next 5 years. That requires owners who have enough income to support the club rather talking about extracting money from it. Especially because its a pipe dream that they can do it while maintaining the CL position required to have any chance of sustaining a 60k stadium..

Correction, Kronke was asked 26 questions ranging from AW, RVP, London, and Usmanov.

There was one single question on the Glazers.

On another point United fans have no beef with Rooney despite him holding the club to ransom to get more money from them.

If Rooney loved United so much and was committed to United why did he threaten to leave unless they paid him in excess of over 200k a week when he was already earning a fortune.

Sorry, but that is just naive.

clubs are businesses, they have to make a profit, unless they are the plaything of a ridiculously rich individual.

Jenius99

"Football in itself does not generate profits."

Errr...yes it does.

Winning games puts bums on seats, and increases gate turnover and merchandise returns.

Winning games makes the club more appealing to better players and enables the club to move forward.

Winning games ensures CL qualification and the millions that come with it.

Being in the CL ensures the club can attract better players.

In short football is paramount in regard to generating profits.

Why is there also this attraction to Usmanov?

Someone who has no prior interest in sport or sports investment and is a convicted criminal.

At least KSE have have experience in sports franchise, while Usmanov has experience in making money from oil.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

What would Stuart Pearce do?

No it doesn't. It never has. Do a Dupont analysis on ALL the clubs in the premier league. Profits are always eaten away by player wages. There are always very limited years when a club shows a profit. And then when you do a P/E analysis on those (even Man Utd this year) you will find the share price is bloated. Thats why the Glazers wanted the IPO near China. They hoped that Chinese millionaire supporters would buy overpriced shares because of emotion rather than business sense.

I don't have any love for Usmanov. But I know he has enough income to support us during the hard times that coming off the field. In fact if Kroenke was to say that instead of talking about how good the Glazers are in taking money out of the club, I would support him as well.

I simply want us to keep RVP. Not make the excuse that we do not have enough money to pay our top stars. But have enough money to pay huge dividends as we drop in league position.

(got to go, will continue the discussion later if people wish, have to discuss the GDP figures with my consultants)

i'm sure there are many around who, like myself, hate the idea of usmanov having anything to do with the club. the fact he owns a load of shares is bad enough, and is a huge stain on our club.

Personally I hate the idea of him getting more shares or getting a seat on the board.

this is a man with convictions for corruption and for rape. i don't care how much he tries to re-invent himself. he is skum.

even ignoring his past, he is a successful businessman in oil and telecoms. kroenke is a successful businessman in sports. i think (again, personally) that it is fairly obvious who is the best man of the two to be in charge of a football club, unless there is a mobile aerial and/or an oil derrick in the centre circle that i haven't noticed before.

Jenius99 (U4918)
Kronke has been in it for the money right from the beginning.

WengersNearlyMen

Breaking News - Investor wants to see a return on his investment.