http://arsenal-news.com/finally-ali...ajority-shares-in-arsenal-kroenke-beware/2384 http://highbury-house.com/2012/02/12/alisher-usmanov-finally-in-at-arsenal/ Usmanov has brought his shareholding to greater than 30% - and now can demand a seat on the board. If he pushes this through it may also lead to more transparency on what is happening with the finances of our club - and why we are building up such a huge cash pile. Let the battle commence. I am not sure whether this is good or bad news, but the possibility that Usmanov will push for the return of David Dein has to be good news.
A very partisan article, not sure that I share all the views really. The sentence "Good on you Alisher Usmanov, the majority of fans are behind you on this" is a massive assumption to be honest. I'm also not sure that it's a given that Usmanov would reinstate David Dein. Is Dein still involved with Red and White Holdings? I thought he'd cut his ties. However, if it meant that Dein was brought back into the fold, then it would be a good thing in my opinion. As it is anyway, it is highly unusual that a majority shareholder hasn't been offered a place on the board. So this will be a very interesting development indeed. I just hope it doesn't get messy and disrupt the players and manager.
Yes the article is very partisan - i posted a second more balanced link. There are actually a few references popping up on Google now. The main change is that Usmanov will now get to see the detailed books from the last few years - individual wages, investments, details of loans etc... If he gets his seat on the board it may become messy unfortunately. There is another scenario here too - what if Kreonke only bought up the shares because he knew Usmanov would bid a high price. It would be a quick return for him - Usmanov is stupidly rich. Kroenke could demand a high perecentage over his bid and make close to £100m in a few months if he sells his shares at a 30-40% premium. (after all , he has not exactly been proactive since he bought the majority shareholding)
I'm not sure that all business men are as mercenary as is portrayed. Kronke obviously has a passion for Sports as demonstrated by his US portfolio, so I'm not sure he would simply cash in. I think he's genuinely in for the long term at Arsenal. Does Usmanov have to be offered a seat on the board ? I'm not sure what the rules are around shareholders entitlement. Is it up to the current board to decide who sits on it ? If Usmanov were to launch a takeover bid, then obviously that would change things. But as I mentioned, currently it is very unusual for a majority shareholder not to be offered a seat. I did read a while back that both Kronke and Gazidis were not opposed to Usmanov coming on board and investing some of his personal wealth into the squad. I understand that it's Hill Wood who is opposed to the Russian.
One good outcome would be getting rid of Hill-Wood and replacing him with Dein! Hill-Wood comes across as a senile old git trapped in colonial Britain.
QUOTE: http://angryofislington.com/2012/02/10/alisher-usmanov-and-his-30-arsenal-shareholding/ Why does Alisher Usmanov want 30% of Arsenal shares? * There is a Premier League rule that when a shareholder in a club reaches a stake of 30% he is allowed full access to the club’s books. That means he gets all the details of who is paid what, where all the income comes from and where the expenditure goes. * This knowledge will allow any shareholder to judge whether the business is being run well much better than they can by reading the published accounts that are available to anyone. There is a wealth of detail that can be hidden in ‘overall wages’ and ‘miscellaneous expenses’. * But the Premier League didn’t put this rule in place to help minor shareholders like Mr Usmanov, they put it in place so that if ownership of a club was split between several parties, those with relatively big holdings could not duck out of the responsibilities of ownership, they would be forced to take an interest. * What the PL didn’t envisage was the situation at Arsenal, where there is a majority shareholder (over 50%) plus another shareholder at 30% who is not welcome on the Board. * So Usmanov wants to get to 30% to allow him full access to the accounts. * Stan Kroenke may or may not care whether Usmanov reaches 30%; he doesn’t care enough to buy up remaining small shareholdings in order to stop Usmanov getting them. * However, Kroenke still may resist opening the books on the basis that the rule was implemented to stop people avoiding liability, and Mr Kroenke is very happy to take full liability at Arsenal, thank you very much.
Agree 100% - Also remember it was Hill Wood who ousted Dein over Kronke, and who then did a massive U-Turn by embracing him into the club.
I'm not sure either. I guess any disharmony at the top can't be good news but then I don't like the idea of us being in the hands of one overseas invester who has no emotional attachment with the club. What I don't like is the continuing reducting in Arsenal fans aho are shareholders - I don't blame them for selling at a huge profit but we were unique in that we had a % of our ownership was fan. Hindsight of course is a wonderful thing but I wish when Nina Bracewell sold she had reserved 5% for independent purchase only....
Looks like some interesting times ahead. If Kreonke does refuse to open the books to a 30% shareholder then I would be worried. What is there to hide? Hopefully nothing.
With the way City are going at the moment, you would have to spend ludicrous amounts to be able to compete at the top of the table imo. Utd need to re-build sooner or later, and Spurs will not be able to compete with our wage structure untill we have built our stadium. For me, there is a middle way in terms of the amount you spend on wages, transfers etc. You pay double what we do in wages, but generally litle on transfers (we've only recenently become frugle -Bent + Bently 16m!!!!! ) I think if wenger could adjust his spend on wages, vs transfers you could have a better ballance. especially if he trusted oldder players more.... look at Scotty, Henry, Gallas, Saha, Giggs and Scholes and what they can offer. So in short... Abramovitch style spending would make the last 4-5 years pointless, and put the club in jeapardy imo.
Short of a takeover, I don't think there's any way the club will suddenly ditch their sustainable approach for one that replicates Chelsea, or City's.
I certainly do not think we should go down a route of spending more than we earn. We can afford our wages and still make a healthy profit (there are rumours that we are going to post a profit of £50m-£60m in the next accounts). What I would like to see is a different distribution of our wages. The main thing that I am excited about is the possible return of Dein (if the Usmanov / Dein relationship is still strong - not sure on that)
What I would like to see is a different distribution of our wages. ---------- Exactly. You pay the youngsters that fill your accademy very high wages compared to most teams, if you adjusted that so that you paid a world class first team 11 higher wages, then the insentive to get into the team would make the lesser wages acceptable. I bet Barca do not pay as high as you do for instance. It's all if's and buts though. I don't think your squad is a million miles away, certainly healthier than Chelsea's, in terms of quantity of talent, and age, but there is a lack of winners, and experience that is not bleeding through to the younger players.
Good post Spursguru Many Arsenal fans are angry at the fact we don't buy big named players because the money (that could be used to subsidise such purchases) has been used in paying average players high wages. I don't disagree with the view but I think our hands are tied because of Bosnan. The days of a 1-2 year deal are over, every manager now is forced to tie every player, regardless of how good they are, to 3-5 (or longer) year terms because of the fear around a player becoming unsettled and wanting to leave, potentially on a free. This whole scenario has been created by Bosnan and has had the reverse affect that the ruling was designed. Yes Arsenal got it wrong with players like Denikson, Vela, Bentdner etc, these players are never worth £50k a week but they were signed at a time when they could have turned out to be as good as Rooney or Owen or Cesc was at 18. It's understandable that managers get the odd one wrong and that players they feel coudl be world beaters never quite make the grade. As for Tottenham you have all this to come, yes the ground development has to happen (and if fairness you're probably 3 years too late for that already) which will bring financial restraints, but you appear to be doing things the right way which you must be commended for....
Some good details in this article, Pointedly - this one: "Some people mistakenly think that 30% entitles Usmanov to a seat on the Board. It doesn’t. The Board is voted for by the shareholders and votes require a majority, 50% plus one share. As Kroenke has about 67% his vote wins. Usmanov is not joining the Board." http://angryofislington.com/2012/02/10/alisher-usmanov-and-his-30-arsenal-shareholding/
Cheers Girzzly I think Spurs could be an example to Arsenal in terms of personnel, and wages though. We were screaming out for a new world class striker. Somone to replace Ade when he goes back, or to even buy him. But whilst we didn't get that, we did get Saha, for free, who is also linking up with our other free striker, and a new free cb in nelsen, to replace the unreliable bassong. It's not always about the price you pay, but getting the right people.
No question there's a lot of good things going on there at the moment. But you have upcoming: Loss of 'Arry Loss of Ade (you can't afford him and his presence (financially) would rile many players Fight with Modric (you know he wants more money, do you give in or play hard ball ? And how desperate are Chelsea? Fight to keep Bale (he may love the club but a desperation £50m bid from whoever might just push Levy over I agree getting the right people is important and no-one wants to see a more level playing field in football than me as opposed to the chequebook bullies buying success, but to compete you have to have world class players and world class players come at a price, you can't pay Modric £50-60k and expect him to take the club to the next level, you want someone get you up a notch you have to pay them silly money, and neither Tottenham or Arsenal can consistently afford that (for various reasons). These 'world class players' have their heads turned by greedy agents looking for a fee, there are half a dozen clubs who are happy paying £200k+ a week to players, Modric knows this and knows he can probably command such wages, seriously it's a no win situation for clubs like ours IMO until FFP takes a lead....
I understand your sentiment, but I think the difference in wages largely comes from the fact that we are regularly in the Champions League, and thus have to offer better wages to reward the level that the players are playing at. No disrespect to Spurs, and despite your good season and commendable approach your club has taken, but you are not on the same level as Arsenal yet. When Spurs are playing CL football consistently, your players will start demanding better wages, which may precipitate a similar approach that we took, to develop players as we could no longer afford to buy in ready made top quality. Spurs also have the stadium issue to contend with. As Grizzly pointed out, if you can sustain your success, you have all of these issues to come.
