Even if that Scenario arises, he will sell his shares to another buyer who will invest it in the club. He'll make some money for himself if he sells at a profit. But again, this is a completely different argument to Directors taking money out of the club in share dividends.
What's the latest on this ? http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/spurs-given-green-light-to-drop-affordable-homes/6520463.article Have Spurs been pressured into making good on s106 agreements after all ?
I don't recall when any distinction was made? It's all money from the club. You can dress it up anyway you like. As to Kroenke, he may well hold for some time, but when the day arrives that he considers the shares are fully valued, he will sell. He's a businessman.
It's not dressing it up. The distinction is that dividends paid to shareholders come from the operating profits from the club, Arsenal do not pay dividends to their shareholders and the profits are reinvested back into the club. If a shareholder decides to sell his/her shares, then the buyer will invest that money into the club. Kronke might sell one day, but as I've said, another shareholder will buy those shares and the money will remain in the club. Kronke might make a profit, but that will only be on the relative value increase of those shares.
Any money taken from the club - or any business, must come from the profits. If there are no profits, there's no money! In fact, a salary is better for your directors, as if there are no profits they still get their basic salary anyway. When Kroenke sells, the money goes to him - he's the owner of the shares! He basically owns Arsenal Holdings, or certainly more than two thirds of it, he can do with it as he pleases.
You don't understand share value then. Shares are based on the value of the club which includes profit making potential, commercial revenue, stadium, players and assets etc. If Kronke sells his shares, then the buyer will buy them based on their value. If Kronke makes a profit, then that will come from the buyer not from the profits of Arsenal FC. Dividends are taken from profits, but to repeat, Arsenal do not pay their directors any dividends, the profits are reinvested back into the club.
Yes, I understand all that. What you don't seem to grasp is that Kroenke can change that structure any time he likes. Your shares are traded, therefore the basic value of them is there for all to see. Directors do not take dividends unless they are also shareholders. But, they certainly take bonuses, as this shows. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2212115/Arsenal-chief-Ivan-Gazidis-nets-2m.html Once again, it's all money from the bottom line.
I've already said that Kronke could in theory change it if he wants, but the evidence is that he doesn't, otherwise he would have when he became the majority shareholder. As for Gazidis, again that's salary and not dividends. Also Arsenal's profit margin allows for that salary to be paid.
The reason for becoming a majority shareholder is control. Kroenke has that now. Nobody can challenge him. As I pointed out earlier, that's actually better for the likes of Gazidis. Dividends on shares can only be paid from profits. However, bonuses can be paid for any old reason. Or, none at all!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34143614 The government has rejected a request from a group of football supporters to investigate the rental of the Olympic Stadium to West Ham United. Oh dear. The paranoid one will be throwing a helluva hissy fit.
