Some Honesty?

i'm guessing he means the money of paying back the bonds, i doubt he means it as a transfer policy, if true i worry about the champions league. from the figures that the club release i would say that he means through the bonds. we do need to trim down our squad however:
denilson
bendtner
scallaci
traore
park
rosicky
chamakh
arshavin

all of these could go with only a midfielder and striker coming in.

Roman Abramovich is also businessman. And a more successful one than Stan Kroenke.

No one in their right mind invests in the premier league to generate profits. Those who have are trying to get out. Lerner has been trying to sell. Hicks/Gillete have sold. Glazers are doing an IPO to get out. The Liverpool owners background is in Baseball so they have a little better understanding of the business model. Americans who consider 'Sports' as profit centres usually end up regretting what they have got into.

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

How is RA a better businessman? How much has he spent on Chelsea? How much has he made? What effect has the decisions he's made at Chelsea affected his potential at making a profit, from buying players that don't fit in to hiring and firing coaches at will...? Yep, such a better businessman.

Then there are the examples of owners you've mentioned. With the business model they've followed, of course they (the majority anyway) aren't going to make a profit. It's their money on the line. With Arsenal, the great thing is that the club looks to invest the money it makes back into the club, essentially living within its means. Therefore, the likelihood of making a profit is higher. Something we've been doing... maybe not every year, especially with the move from Highbury and the property crash, but still something we've been doing. It may be unusual, but it isn't impossible for clubs / sports to generate profits.

Lastly, what evidence is there to support your assertion that Kroenke is using profits from Arsenal to fund his business ventures in America?

How is RA a better businessman? How much has he spent on Chelsea? How much has he made?
-------------------------------------
You have completely missed the point. Try reading the entire thread if you want to get into a discussion. The point is that businessmen do not get involved in football to make money. They know from the beginning that football is loss leader. There were a few American franchise owners who thought it was possible to make money from football as a single entity businesses. They have discovered to their cost with massive losses on investments that is not possible. Those names I have quoted all want to sell up and are desperate to find buyers. I believe if Kroenke is unable to move the Rams franchise to UK , he will do just that. But till then he will take money out of Arsenal. Thats what generating profits implies.

essentially living within its means
---------------------------------------
What does that mean?

Lastly, what evidence is there to support your assertion that Kroenke is using profits from Arsenal to fund his business ventures in America?
----------------------------------------
I have written articles with links to interviews. And they are easy enough to google. The Guardian has a good analysis if you actually support Arsenal and want to find out I suggest you do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/11/stan-kroenke-arsenal-takeover

Kroenke has point blank refused to rule out paying dividends. Something that the previous owners were on record for promising never to do with covenants.

Arsene Wenger's admission that he NOW has to generate profits for the club makes it obvious that Kroenke's funding for the Arsenal takeover and the new takeover being launched for Dodgers after buying St Loius Rams comes from Arsenal's cash reserves as explained in the article.

Arsene Wenger's admission that he NOW has to generate profits for the club makes it obvious that Kroenke's funding for the Arsenal takeover and the new takeover being launched for Dodgers after buying St Loius Rams comes from Arsenal's cash reserves as explained in the article.

-----

Time will shortly prove you correct or incorrect. But I still find this theory ridiculous and your proof of asset-stripping weak and circumstantial, so I'll believe it when I see it.

You are implying that Kroenke, the ostensible heir to the Walmart chain and one of the richest businessmen in the world would loot Arsenal's cash reserves to fund other sporting projects. Did he loot one of his American football teams to fund the purchase of Arsenal?

What has changed for us since Kroenke took over? Very little. What did Kroenke say about his takeover of Arsenal? That he would not interfere with the self-sustaining model on which we're based. We continue to sell established players to guarantee an overall profit thus paying off the stadium debt as soon as possible. He never once claimed that he would be a sugar-daddy saviour, and yet for being consistent in that claim he's being accused of looting?

Your assertations will remain as conjecture and guesswork until May's end-of-year accounts are released, although speculation on this front can feasibly continue beyond that even if he is vindicated. Btw, Gazidis stated in his interview after the Villa game that dividends would not be paid out and I believe him, because he starts stammering when asked if we're looking at players to sign (a sure sign that he's towing the company line).

I don't disregard your theory wholesale, but at this juncture it's that and no more based on circumstantial speculation, yet you keep offering it up as irrefutable evidence proving you right. Your theory is intriguing and keeps me coming back for more, but why not wait for some hard evidence before declaring it as fact?

Time will shortly prove you correct or incorrect.
----------------------------------------
The time frame is actually 3 years. Thats when we will know. Not in the summer.

But I still find this theory ridiculous and your proof of asset-stripping weak and circumstantial, so I'll believe it when I see it.
-----------------------------------------
Read Arsene Wenger's quote. Name another manager who is required to produce a profit of £15-20m a year.

the ostensible heir to the Walmart chain and one of the richest businessmen in the world would loot Arsenal's cash reserves to fund other sporting projects.
------------------------------------------
Stan Kroenke is not the heir to anything. However Ann Walton is. She is not the primary inheritor. Ann Walton is the primary backer of her husbands first venture. After that he is said to be self-made. How much of that is true is a secret for even Colorado reporters. Business and personal wealth are not the same things. Ann Walton has not given money to Stan Kroenke to fund his sports ventures. Thats why MLB are doing due diligence on Stan Kroenke's accounts before he bids for LA Dodgers.

Did he loot one of his American football teams to fund the purchase of Arsenal?
---------------------------------------------
Stan Kroenke was junior partner in St Louis Rams before he acquired the controlling interest in Arsenal. Its only after that he has taken major control of the Rams by buying out the main owner. Stan Kroenke's real estate investments were not doing well because of the crash in 2008. So it was a legitimate question when the reported from the Guardian asked where the money was coming from to buy Arsenal. He refused to say. The only confirmation was that he was not going to leverage Arsenal's brand. Thats why there is speculation that he is going to do with the money that Arsenal generates and has generated in the past.

What has changed for us since Kroenke took over? Very little.
--------------------------------------------------------
Danny Fiszman's policy, as stated in the link I gave you a few weeks ago clearly stated that Arsene had to produce sales in order to fund the 'property development'. That part of the business has been completed. There are no mezzanine loans anymore. So why do Arsenal have to produce profits of £15-20m a year? Why does any business make profits unless its to pay dividends to its shareholders? I have said it doesn't have to be this year. I suspect it will be in 3 years when it becomes clearer whether he will move his prize 'the Rams' to LA or London.

He never once claimed that he would be a sugar-daddy saviour, and yet for being consistent in that claim he's being accused of looting?
----------------------------------------------------------
Do you even accept he has already been involved in at least one team decision, selling Nasri. Reported in the Independent?

Your assertations will remain as conjecture and guesswork
-----------------------------------------------------------
Off course it is. It is a theory. Thats what analysts do. You gather information as it drips out in policies that then can be pieced together to understand a strategy. I do not analyse Arsenal in detail anymore as I don't hold shares in the company. But let me assure you that I bet Gazidis is also guessing at the moment. The only people who would know what Kroenke intends is his inner circle. I hope I am wrong. I hope we sign RVP to a long contract and buy Hazard. But,

We now have another piece of the puzzle from Arsene's own mouth,

"Wenger, who sold Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri for nearly £60m last summer, said: “You should know that each season, it is imperative to show a profit of between fifteen and twenty million pounds. I would add that the purpose of a coach is to always buy at a price he sees fit."

What do you think it means? Net profits are only declared after interest payments are paid. So this is nothing to do with our debt that is often confused by many to indicate a self-sustaining model. Self-sustaining does not mean profits of £15-20m. It means break-even as Danny Fiszman stated on record.

The time frame is actually 3 years. Thats when we will know. Not in the summer.

----

Why 3 years? What happens in 3 years?

====

Name another manager who is required to produce a profit of £15-20m a year.

----

Yes, but with due respect to the rest of your post, name me another manager in a situation as unique as ours. i.e. paying for a stadium without the luxury of a generous benefactor.

-----

Stan Kroenke is not the heir to anything. However Ann Walton is. She is not the primary inheritor. Ann Walton is the primary backer of her husbands first venture. After that he is said to be self-made. How much of that is true is a secret for even Colorado reporters. Business and personal wealth are not the same things. Ann Walton has not given money to Stan Kroenke to fund his sports ventures. Thats why MLB are doing due diligence on Stan Kroenke's accounts before he bids for LA Dodgers.

----

I know little about Kroenke and how he acquired his wealth. However, assuming you're correct in saying that after his wife funded his first venture, Kroenke has made his own fortune which is valued at over £1.5 billion, it's fair to say that the man posesses business acumen. Is there some sort of suggestion here that Kroenke gained his fortune in another way? What way if so?

====

Stan Kroenke was junior partner in St Louis Rams before he acquired the controlling interest in Arsenal. Its only after that he has taken major control of the Rams by buying out the main owner. Stan Kroenke's real estate investments were not doing well because of the crash in 2008. So it was a legitimate question when the reported from the Guardian asked where the money was coming from to buy Arsenal. He refused to say. The only confirmation was that he was not going to leverage Arsenal's brand. Thats why there is speculation that he is going to do with the money that Arsenal generates and has generated in the past.

----

Yes, but my point remains. Kroenke has bought several sports teams in America. Has there ever been any history of him withdrawing money from one to pay for the next? Kroenke is obviously well within his rights to not answer that question, which doesn't mean he'd be using Arsenal in a Glazeresque manner as the media at the time of his takeover seemed keen to imply.

====

Danny Fiszman's policy, as stated in the link I gave you a few weeks ago clearly stated that Arsene had to produce sales in order to fund the 'property development'. That part of the business has been completed. There are no mezzanine loans anymore. So why do Arsenal have to produce profits of £15-20m a year? Why does any business make profits unless its to pay dividends to its shareholders? I have said it doesn't have to be this year. I suspect it will be in 3 years when it becomes clearer whether he will move his prize 'the Rams' to LA or London.

----

Right but we still have £260m to pay off on our stadium and why shouldn't I just assume that the ethos of the people running Arsenal is to pay that off as quickly as possible reducing the amount of interest payments and bringing us to the paramount position of being completely debt-free?

====

Do you even accept he has already been involved in at least one team decision, selling Nasri. Reported in the Independent?

----

Quite probably so. It's understandable that the money men would be keen to remind Arsene of the futility of keeping hold of a player for a year in a move that would cost us £22m. If there's one thing I've seen that worries me, it was Park coming on at a critical juncture in a game as important as the United game. Commercial substitution?

We now have another piece of the puzzle from Arsene's own mouth,

"Wenger, who sold Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri for nearly £60m last summer, said: “You should know that each season, it is imperative to show a profit of between fifteen and twenty million pounds. I would add that the purpose of a coach is to always buy at a price he sees fit."

What do you think it means? Net profits are only declared after interest payments are paid. So this is nothing to do with our debt that is often confused by many to indicate a self-sustaining model. Self-sustaining does not mean profits of £15-20m. It means break-even as Danny Fiszman stated on record.

----

Again, you say that any profits made will in turn be transferred to our cash reserves which Kroenke will raid to fund his next sporting business venture.

And I say that any profits made will instead be used to pay off large segments of the debt hastening our progress to being unstraddled by any debt whatsoever.

Why 3 years? What happens in 3 years?
--------------------------------
This is what I mean by little snippets that sometimes gives away a strategy as a whole.

St Louis Rams have just signed a deal with NFL UK to give away one home game every year to play at Wembley for the next 3 years. Thats when the lease between the Rams and St Louis runs out. This indicates when Kroenke plans to move his franchise. Kroenke will then decide whether there is enough support in London for a London Rams or whether he moves the team to LA at the home of his LA Dodgers franchise (if his bid succeeds).

In my opinion, as I stated in Aug thats when he will he declare dividends at Arsenal to facilitate this move. He could do it earlier but I suspect 3 years. Whats more I think if his experiment of London Rams doesn't work, he will sell up to Usmanov.

i.e. paying for a stadium without the luxury of a generous benefactor
------------------------------------
Read the last paragraph. You are conflating two issues. Profits are different to a self sustaining model. Self sustaining as set up by Danny Fiszman was to provide debt cover for the long term mortgages. Not declare profits. Profits or retained profits only have one purpose. You either save up for a a huge capital investment (like the London Rams) or declare dividends.

it's fair to say that the man posesses business acumen.
--------------------------------------
Absolutely. But as with all business men you don't know where his focus is. Is it for a club far away from you home, fame and fortune or is it your American sports franchises. Arsenal football club doesn't actually fit his portfolio unless the plans for a London Rams comes about.

which doesn't mean he'd be using Arsenal in a Glazeresque manner as the media at the time of his takeover seemed keen to imply.
----------------------------------------
I think you misunderstood my point. This is a difference between understanding various types of corporate finance. When companies take over, they do it by for example mergers, leveraged buy-outs or by using ratcheted management takeovers using future earnings. Now generally the 3rd type funding is used by venture capital because it requires inside knowledge of the balance sheet. And I believe as was hinted by the Guardian article that Stan Kroenke is using the 3rd method because he has been a minor shareholder for years.

Now the Glazer type takeover is better to some extent. Because the cash flow is not affected that much. Obviously there is an increase of interest payments but the club doesn't have to recover large chunks of the investment. Basically in the Glazer type takeover, the debt is paid off when the club is sold or floated.

And I say that any profits made will instead be used to pay off large segments of the debt hastening our progress to being unstraddled by any debt whatsoever.
------------------------------------------
No. I don't think it would be even possible in the long-term debt agreements. The interest rates are 0.5% in this country and are 'forecasted' to remain around that for the next 10 years. It makes no sense whatsoever to pay off the long term debt. None!

The high interest loans have already been paid off.

It's understandable that the money men would be keen to remind Arsene of the futility of keeping hold of a player for a year in a move that would cost us £22m.
-----------------------------

No. He could have said I back the manager and I think the wage structure needs to go. I want to keep Nasri, RVP and build the same way as Man Utd have done. Through commercialisation based on success.

I think Arsene is considering his position. No manager can tolerate any interference or financial restraints that he is facing.

No. I don't think it would be even possible in the long-term debt agreements. The interest rates are 0.5% in this country and are 'forecasted' to remain around that for the next 10 years. It makes no sense whatsoever to pay off the long term debt. None!

The high interest loans have already been paid off.

----

In which case I'm correct in saying that this year's accounts will go a long way to confirming or denying your theory. If a significant profit is made, but the stadium debt reduced only slightly whereas the coffers are given a sizeable injection, then I'll join the ranks of the disillusioned and spread your theory far and wide. Especially if RVP is sold and another transfer profit made.

====

No. He could have said I back the manager and I think the wage structure needs to go. I want to keep Nasri, RVP and build the same way as Man Utd have done. Through commercialisation based on success.

I think Arsene is considering his position. No manager can tolerate any interference or financial restraints that he is facing.

----

Considering our current kit/stadium sponsorship deals, their hands are somewhat tied. I suppose they could start boosting our profile with a far-east pre-season tour, which they have, and could work on finding more smaller sponsorship deals, and it's my understanding that they have been doing that too.

United were forced to sell Ronaldo with little of that money being spent on new transfers. Their commercial growth has been stunning, but their policy has not been hampered by having a stadium to pay off.

Also struggle with the notion that an American businessman is comfortable with our egalitarian wage structure. Interference in this kind of strategy may be what drives Wenger to leave.

Their commercial growth has been stunning, but their policy has not been hampered by having a stadium to pay off.
-----------------------------------
Their debt is far greater than our stadium debt.

Also struggle with the notion that an American businessman is comfortable with our egalitarian wage structure. Interference in this kind of strategy may be what drives Wenger to leave.
-----------------------------------
Kroenke wanted to sell Nasri against Wenger's wishes. How is that not interfering? Its already on record that Wenger does not negotiate wages or transfer fees. He only decides what players are required, surplus to requirements and who deserves another contract. Wages and transfers are left to the board after the player agrees to join and the selling club agrees to sell the player.

The Ashley Cole, Flamini, Nasri situations are all proofs that he does not negotiate wages. And Gazidis has already stated on record that transfers are also negotiated at board level. Type Arshavin and Friar in google for an example.

The egalitarian wage structure was an attempt to keep high profile youngsters at the club by the board not Wenger. And if you type Sol Campbell, Edelman and Dein in google you will find that the wage structure is also flexible depending on the owner. Danny Fiszman paid his wages directly in order to circumvent the 'wage structure'.