I too don't think it would perhaps need that much money and like Mr Enigma, feel that Silent Stan is all too quiet to be doing anything for us. If this is not the case, I too like others, wish he would simply stand up and be counted. AFAIK he has only bought shares, not put any money into Arsenal and that is way under the contribution a number of us here have made going back to the days of standing out in the cold, rain or sun, cheering on the likes of Malcolm MacDonald, Liam Brady, Frank Stapleton et al
I'm not one to jump to conclusions about someones guilt, but the way he is so guarded about his past makes me suspicious. The charges against him are too serious for me to support him.
Well Robin, I would agree that it does make one curious and cautious but as of now, it remains unproven. As said too, it certainly wouldn't go amiss if the board or Stan were to offer us something more by way of hope. The ball is round and can go either way in which it is pushed. Winning though would preferable though not at any cost.
The way he spends his money to me makes him seem less dodgy than abramovic Abra just chucks it all about, like hes not that bothered if its wasted where as usman, who can afford to lose everythin abra has and still be stupidly rich, seems to spend his wisely (investing in FB etc) And why i don't think we should go down the route of relying on 1 man to bankrole us, a 100 million or so to wipe off most of the stadium debt, an 2 incredibly rich and successful men working together could result in some major benifits throughout the world, not only the knowledge of the buisness world and their clout in that massive improvments on our sponsors etc, our global image (especially in russia and america) would be improved and he investment into the debt would result in us being sorted ALOT quicker, meaning we can compete alot quicker so basically a small investment could result in our self substainabilty improving by 100% if not more! and put us financially on a par with United etc
The only things I have seen are a few blogs damning Usmanov ... nothing more, certainly nothing that I would class as proof of anything ... I am not expert of course but I'd need to see something more substantial. I think there must be something wrong with the board - Hill-Wood is an old codger who doesn't want to move with the times and the very fact that he dismissed Kroenke immediately .. then welcomed him on the board only when Usmanov showed great interest in the club (and I feel as a slap in the face to Dein) shows his reluctance for change. Dein criticised the board and so did Lady Nina Bracewell when she put her shares up for sale !!
Thing is everyone who shows the slightest intention of looking in to his past is threatened with strong legal action. He is not to be trusted.
Yes I dare say you have a point there Piskie We don't need Mr U as much as perhaps some of his petty cash
It seems to me that your being slightly selective in your morals here, fair play if you feel that strongly about it, as the accusations are pretty strong, however judging by the name you have chosen for this forum "robin van fabregas" suggests that you like robin van persie, a man who spent the whole summer of 2006 in a dutch jail charged with rape. Everyone gave him a second chance as he had been cleared (to an extent), if we were to have had your attitude then he should probably have been booted out of the club. If usmanov has been tried and convicted then your quite right, get him in a jail and as far away from our club as possible, but I don't believe someone should be condemned purely on here say and rumours that don't have any foundation. The guy who wrote the article that you posted a link to is a human rights activist and TBH I'm pretty sceptical of people (human rights activists) who believe that we should not deport convicted terrorists and murders from our shores in case they might get tortured in there home country, I don't want to get all political, but these people have caused a lot of damage to this country, and usually have there own agenda.
berlusconi is more dodgy than usmanov, and hes the owner of AC milan and the italy president. if usmanov is a share holder then he should have a place on the board, even the ast which has around 1% share has a place on the board and rightly so. if it helps us earn more money then why not? if it gives us the opportunity to up the wage cape so we can sign the world class players most ppl on here was crying out for then why not???. if it dont then you (wenger out brigade) shouldnt call for his head every time we lose/dont buy a player YOU want. if it helps us move up the step needed for us to compete with the major clubs then i say yes.
Huh? Its a pretty big stretch to say I am not that bothered about rape because of the name I use here. Besides in the whole period where RvP was investigated and cleared of rape he was under contract to us, do you really think we would of chosen to take him if he was still under investigation? I don't get your mistrust of human rights activists either. As for the most part they do their job in the name of justice rather than money it's hardly the sort of job that people with crooked morals go for. With Usmanov, although I agree that in general you should be innocent until proven guilty in practice it can be difficult to condemn people, even though it may be very likely that they have committed crimes in the past. He is too well connected with the regime in Uzbekistan and the Kremlin which makes it very difficult to gather sufficient evidence of the alleged crimes. Moreover his highly paid army of lawyers are determined to stop any type of investigation in to his past. Basically, he is a very suspicious character, and we shouldn't allow him to gain any further power in our club until we can learn more about him.
Would you take on Stalin as long as he buys us the title? Do you not even consider ethics in an owner or do you not care unless they give us lots of money.
your example is flawed as stalin is dead so there would be no chance plus he is a politician not a businessman. and just having usmanov on the board would not be buying us the title or him a owner just a shareholder who is on the board. i am not asking for him to spend hundreds of millions but give us the chance to pay players a little more than what we can. even after stan brought his first set of shares fans where saying they dont want him at the club, look at him now we can afford to buy snijder for 35mil but we cant afford to pay him more than 90k a wk which he would not take another example here: "Manchester United and Arsenal are set to battle it out for the signature of German teenager Mario Goetze from Bundesliga champions Borussia Dortmund." if we can only offer 90k and man utd offer 150k which club do you think he would pick???? if we could offer 150k the chances would go up much higher
no im not just interested in money but having some does help if the rumours are true that the board wont up the wage cap from 90k to 150k even though arsenal make millions profit each year where is this money going exactly? last few seasons they've made 45+mil but the team has suffered in that time. with usmanov's help/knowledge of the business side then we could earn a lot more, if it does happen that way it would be a good step for the team. because the team wont get any better players than we have just bought on 90k a week
I have wondered if a reason in part for the retention of monies was by way of boosting the balance sheet, money in the bank being a current asset. Thus if anyone wants to up the value of their shares.........A decision by the board of course and I'm sure you get the drift. Since this is a member's club I imagine we can speak freely.
I would rather not have that extra money considering where it comes from. Obviously you feel differently.
