Stan Kroenke is set to take full ownership of Arsenal in a deal valuing it at £1.8bn

[NieThePiet]

The Gazer family has 98% (or 100%?) from United too?

It was a bad deal for United at the end, what changed negatively since this adoption for you?

I'm not 100% in this topic. Sadly i think it's a bit normal in this time - Arabs, Russians, Americans will overtake clubs more and more.

 

[ivaldo]

The onus is on you to prove it not me. I did I quick Google search and nothing came up. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just find it hard to believe.

In 2003/2004 a breakdown of United’s full time employees was as follows

Players - 69
Ground staff - 90
Ticket office and membership - 47
Catering - 108
Administration and other - 190

Average number of employees - 504

In 16/17 it was

Players - 74
Football technical and coaching - 136
Commercial - 120
Media - 90
Administration and other - 445

Average number of employees - 865

No mention of commercial staff in 2003/04 unfortunately.

Link to BBC article.

After inheriting a commercial department of two, the Glazer family sanctioned an increase in staff to more than 150.

 

[Brophs]

And right on cue, Usmanov is being linked with investment in Everton. He definitely wasn’t just funnelling money through his chum, Moshiri. And on and on the game of bullshit bingo goes.

 

[Grinner]

I'll bet Usmanov would make it his life's mission to take Everton above Arsenal.

 

[Grinner]

Link to BBC article.

This is an Arsenal discussion. You can cover this topic in the Man Utd forum.

 

[Revan]

Every big club in Europe has grown a lot in the past decade and a half. As a percentage of revenue, all of Bayern, Real, Barcelona, Atletico, Tottenham and Arsenal have grown more than United between 2004-2013, plus, of course, all the sugar daddy clubs. Even Liverpool is only slightly below, only the big Italian clubs are significantly lower on the list. Source: https://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&sour...FjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2GzpdEG0GY-5VAjonqARKg

Obviously it's safe to say that without the Glazers you would grow anyway, and on a comparable ammount, unless an abnormal cataclysm had happened. The whole of the industry grew in that time.

Why 2004-2013 instead of 2005 (when they bought United) - 2018 (they are still the owners).

Considering this time: United's revenue is 2.61 times as big big as it was (417m more). Real's revenue is 2.86 times as high as it was (438m more). Barca's revenue is 3.83 times as high as it was (478m more), Chelsea's is 1.87 times as high as it was (211m more), Bayern's is 3.6 times (422m more), Juventus' is 1.88 times (191m more), Liverpool's is 3 times (284m more), Arsenal's is 2.8 times (314m more).

A few times to consider though:
- Percentage is probably not a good measure. Going from 1m to 2m is 100% growth, but is it more impressive than a 50% growth from 100m to 150m? I guess it isn't.
- United's revenue is slightly lower than it should be cause of UCL money (we got qualified via Europa and didn't get a shitload of money that clubs who get qualified are given). With those money, the difference will be higher than Madrid's and Bayern's.
- United has not been successful in the last few years, so this takes a hit. Compare it to Madrid who won 4 out of the last 5 UCL.
- The trends need to be considered. United was almost getting overtaken by Chelsea as England's richest club, now we are by far the richest English club. *

TLDR: Only Barcelona has done better than United when it comes to financial growth (Barca arguably wasn't even considered an elite club until last decade, and now they are easily a top 3, if not top 2 club). This despite that we have been pretty shit (cause of a series of bad management choices and not having a long term vision). The fact that we are actually on pair with Real while we are in the worst period in the last 3 decades, while they have had arguably their greatest ever spell is a testament on how well (financial wise) United is run.

Would this have happened under different owners? Possibly, it depends who those owners were. Under the previous ownership is very dubious considering that their 'have Nike and vodafone as sponsors and that's it' philosophy wasn't going to work on the new era. Obviously, they would have adapted to some degree, but it is extremely likely that United wouldn't have had this aggressive growth that we had.

* From 2002 to 2005 United's revenue increased for 42m. On the next 3 years it increased for 56m. On comparison, from 2002 to 2005, Chelsea's revenue increased for 99m, on the next 3 years it increased for 66m. On other words, United was stagnating while Chelsea (cause of Roman's investment) was gaining territory. United needed to increase much faster in order to continue being England's top club, and that was what happened in the next 3 years when we started to make some of the 'noodle deals'. Of course, the longer under this regime we were, the larger the gap between us and the other English clubs become, and the trend is continuing.

Comparisons with clubs from other leagues are a bit more difficult to be made (especially in the past when revenues were smaller) cause some variable totally out of owners control (like new TV deal or Calcioppoli) skew them a lot.

 

[Mastadon]

Honestly if every club was owned by it’s fans win no owners intervention Man Utd would be so far ahead of the rest that it wouldn’t be fun. That’s why the universe sent the Glazers to come and saddle the club with debt to balance things out.

 

[Minimalist]

I for one welcome Arsenal FC's new American overlord.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Why did Dein bring Kreonke in to begin with? I admit I never paid attention to these happenings back then as they aren't as relevant as now, what with the oils running things.

The problem really begian in the early 2000s when the old Board all lost the plot. Dein and Fiszman fell out over some private beef over their diamond business and that transferred over to the club. This caused them to basically be fighting about every single decision out of animosity more than logic - Fiszman wanted to build a stadium so Dein decided he wanted to rent Wembley instead, etc.

This was all happening behind the scenes as we fans were simply reveling in the most successful period in club history. Yet it was all rotting from the inside even then. Basically Fiszman had the board try to force Dein out. So Dein desperately went around casting his rod for a billionaire investor. He found Kroenke and immediately brought Kroenke into the club without any due diligence.

Then seeing all the £££££, the old owners like Hill-Wood and Bracewell-Smith decided to cash out. They met with Kroenke behind closed doors, made a deal with Kroenke to cut out Dein and then they sold Kroenke all their stock, profited hundreds of millions and went away to Monaco. Ironic because back in 1992 Peter Hill-Wood brilliantly said "David is more interested in Arsenal. I'm delighted he is - but I still think he's crazy. To all intents and purposes it is dead money."

So after the board sold out to Kroenke, took their money and ran, Dein found Usmanov and then brought him into the fold to try to regain his role.

Basically, after being an outstanding custodian for Arsenal in the 80s and 90s, finding both Graham and Wenger, Dein completely lost the plot in the early 2000s. Maybe he got overly greedy or just did too much cocaine, who knows. But a lot of the clubs current problems are the direct result of Dein losing the plot, and the other board members seeing a cash grab and selling out their custodianship of the club. And because all this was behind closed doors and Wenger is too loyal to call out the bullshit of the Board, most of the fans were not aware of how bad this was - unlike at United and Liverpool where the fans saw the problems and protested.

 

[JMack1234]

Exactly what difference will this make to the running of Arsenal exactly?

He's been the majority shareholder for a while now and they have made some moves in getting rid of Wenger and they've got the 2nd highest net spend out of the top 6 (at time of writing, come on Ed get us Toby). Of course, this is a problem for Arsenal because they need change and Kroenke will offer them status quo + and he's got but his debt on the club so they'll be paying the debt back for a good few years (God this sounds familiar). I just don't buy into some of the doomsday scenarios i've seen Arsenal fans on twitter melting down about.

 

[Kapardin]

Honestly if every club was owned by it’s fans win no owners intervention Man Utd would be so far ahead of the rest that it wouldn’t be fun. That’s why the universe sent the Glazers to come and saddle the club with debt to balance things out.

While I am not a fan of the Glazers, this is an Utopian situation you will never get. Fans who have no business background won't be able to sustain the success of a club for long, even if it is Manchester United, in the modern world. Soon, mismanagement will lead to financial drain and the club will be in dire straits. If you find a savvy businessman/financial whiz who is a fan as well, that is great, but even he would soon fall into the trap of being guided by his business interests than having the well-being of the club in his heart. That is the ever the way in the business world, money is a monster that will ensnare even the hardcore fan.

We could however, aspire to have decent owners. Much as I hate to say it, Liverpool are the best run club in the Top 6 not counting City's owners. FSG have done a great job maintaining the balance between business interests and ensuring the club's sporting activities are at a healthy level --- zero trophies in the past 3 years is Klopp's ineptitude, not theirs'!

 

[Castia]

Of our own money, not the Glazers. And you can argue that the Glazers have improved sponsorship all you want, but that's not true either. The club is benefiting from an enhanced TV deal and our past successes under Sir Alex. The Glazers only started allowing the club to invest its own money into the team when we finished outside the top four. This year is another indication of how the Glazers intend to slow down spending on the first team to pocket the difference.

Well we’re heavily linked with a CB Im certain one will be signed before the deadline and we’ve already spent around 80m on Fred and Dalot so our final spend this summer could be 140m-150m easily that’s a lot of money.

I’m almost certain Sanchez came out of the summer budget too, his reported contract must eat away at our budget.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Exactly what difference will this make to the running of Arsenal exactly?

He's been the majority shareholder for a while now and they have made some moves in getting rid of Wenger and they've got the 2nd highest net spend out of the top 6 (at time of writing, come on Ed get us Toby). Of course, this is a problem for Arsenal because they need change and Kroenke will offer them status quo + and he's got but his debt on the club so they'll be paying the debt back for a good few years (God this sounds familiar). I just don't buy into some of the doomsday scenarios i've seen Arsenal fans on twitter melting down about.

He can take the club private which means the books are closed to the public. This means Stan could be taking money out of the club as he did for a few years with his "management fees". Since the club was publicly traded then that was known publicly so eventually the pressure from fans, small shareholders and Usmanov's group forced Kroenke to stop taking that money out of the club. Now he could just close the books and siphon off a few million from Arsenal every year to service his debt on American projects. There was a lot of worry that Arsenal wasn't spending as much as it could as a club because Kroenke wanted 200m cash in the bank as leverage for his huge loans he took out for his ranch and the LA stadium project.

 

[breakout67]

Well we’re heavily linked with a CB Im certain one will be signed before the deadline and we’ve already spent around 80m on Fred and Dalot so our final spend this summer could be 140m-150m easily that’s a lot of money.

I’m almost certain Sanchez came out of the summer budget too, his reported contract must eat away at our budget.

You must work for sky. Convert the fee to Euros then slap a pound sign on it and call it an exclusive

 

[R'hllor]

Its not really a surprise how those owners act, there is a clear difference between one type from another.

 

[Mastadon]

While I am not a fan of the Glazers, this is an Utopian situation you will never get. Fans who have no business background won't be able to sustain the success of a club for long, even if it is Manchester United, in the modern world. Soon, mismanagement will lead to financial drain and the club will be in dire straits. If you find a savvy businessman/financial whiz who is a fan as well, that is great, but even he would soon fall into the trap of being guided by his business interests than having the well-being of the club in his heart. That is the ever the way in the business world, money is a monster that will ensnare even the hardcore fan.

Well Barca, Real and Bayern are owned by fans and that seems to work decently.

 

[Arruda]

Why 2004-2013 instead of 2005 (when they bought United) - 2018 (they are still the owners).

Solely because it was the data from the study I quoted.

I think percentage is a fair comparison. A club with only 1m revenue will probably have it harder to double that than one with 100m to grow to 150m. Of course the bigger you already are (and United, stagnating or not, was already comparatively big) the less you "must grow" to be competitive (as opposed to the likes of City and PSG) and United's growth during the Glazer era was insane - as where the growths of all clubs of similar stature bar the italians. Which was my point.

 

[RoyH1]

Well Barca, Real and Bayern are owned by fans and that seems to work decently.

Don't tell that to the billionaire apologists club here. They'll give you a lecture on brand, image rights, licensing, expansion, etc, etc. As if another ownership model was impossible.

I'd like to add the Green Bay Packers of the NFL to that too. Owned by fans and it's one of the most succesful and popular teams in the league.

 

[VP]

While I am not a fan of the Glazers, this is an Utopian situation you will never get. Fans who have no business background won't be able to sustain the success of a club for long, even if it is Manchester United, in the modern world. Soon, mismanagement will lead to financial drain and the club will be in dire straits. If you find a savvy businessman/financial whiz who is a fan as well, that is great, but even he would soon fall into the trap of being guided by his business interests than having the well-being of the club in his heart. That is the ever the way in the business world, money is a monster that will ensnare even the hardcore fan.

Yup, those losers at Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern have really struggled over the last decade, haven't they?

When we say fan ownership, no one actually means fans running the club. We'd still hire the right people to do that - except all profits get reinvested back into the club, instead of, say, servicing some pricks' debt.

TLDR: Only Barcelona has done better than United when it comes to financial growth (Barca arguably wasn't even considered an elite club until last decade, and now they are easily a top 3, if not top 2 club). This despite that we have been pretty shit (cause of a series of bad management choices and not having a long term vision). The fact that we are actually on pair with Real while we are in the worst period in the last 3 decades, while they have had arguably their greatest ever spell is a testament on how well (financial wise) United is run.

.

I'd say that's equally a testament to United's enduring popularity. Anyway, in terms of multiples, I'm guessing United's revenues really took off from the 1990s - do we give credit to the ownership structure then?

Also if Glazers get credit for financial decisions, why do we absolve them of the other poor management choices?

 

[Castia]

You must work for sky. Convert the fee to Euros then slap a pound sign on it and call it an exclusive

Give or take 10m I’m right.

It’s a waste of time trying to argue the Glazers aren’t investing when Jose will probably take his spending past 400m come Thursday.

 

[JPRouve]

Yup, those losers at Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern have really struggled over the last decade, haven't they?

You noticed how all of these clubs have morally bankrupt administrators? Personally I don't mind it but most United fans are still living in la la land.

 

[breakout67]

Give or take 10m I’m right.

It’s a waste of time trying to argue the Glazers aren’t investing when Jose will probably take his spending past 400m come Thursday.

If the Glazers are investing by not actually investing their own money, but simply allowing the club to circulate it's revenue back into the club then Kroenke is also investing in the club. Which was the whole point I was making.

Kroenke is seen as the bid baddy for spending within the club's means, if you are to remain consistent then the Glazers have to be viewed the same way. The only major difference is that the Glazers put in more initial money and so could buy a bigger club. Arsenal have grown just as well as United, if not better in real terms.

You can't have it both ways. I have no problem with saying that the glazers have invested in the club; since it's technically correct. But so has Kroenke if we are talking technically. He just has less money available to him to invest.

 

[Ooh2B]

Well, this proves yet again that the system is rigged for the oligarchs.
I can’t understand why all these “billionaires” need loans for these playthings of theirs.

And this borrowing and putting it on the club is a farce. He gets to own it, but ultimately the fans (this goes for all clubs in this position) will pay off the debt against their club just by turning up every week. How ironic.
Really is a screwed up system!

However, it’s not the end of the world, just football as we know it.

 

[Castia]

If the Glazers are investing by not actually investing their own money, but simply allowing the club to circulate it's revenue back into the club then Kroenke is also investing in the club. Which was the whole point I was making.

Kroenke is seen as the bid baddy for spending within the club's means, if you are to remain consistent then the Glazers have to be viewed the same way. The only major difference is that the Glazers had more money and so could buy a bigger club. Arsenal have grown just as well as United, if not better in real terms.

You can't have it both ways. I have no problem with saying that the glazers have invested in the club; since it's technically correct. But so has Kroenke if we are talking technically. He just has less money available to him to invest.

Why are you mentioning Arsenal I don’t care if they spend 1m or 400m?

The Glazers are investing heavily in the team that’s the bottom line for me.

If they weren’t spending money whilst keeping us riddled with debt it would be another matter.

 

[JPRouve]

If the Glazers are investing by not actually investing their own money, but simply allowing the club to circulate it's revenue back into the club then Kroenke is also investing in the club. Which was the whole point I was making.

Kroenke is seen as the bid baddy for spending within the club's means, if you are to remain consistent then the Glazers have to be viewed the same way. The only major difference is that the Glazers had more money and so could buy a bigger club. Arsenal have grown just as well as United, if not better in real terms.

You can't have it both ways. I have no problem with saying that the glazers have invested in the club; since it's technically correct. But so has Kroenke if we are talking technically. He just has less money available to him to invest.

I'm pretty sure that the Glazers have never been richer than Kroenke, without even counting his wife.

 

[ivaldo]

Don't tell that to the billionaire apologists club here. They'll give you a lecture on brand, image rights, licensing, expansion, etc, etc. As if another ownership model was impossible.

I'd like to add the Green Bay Packers of the NFL to that too. Owned by fans and it's one of the most succesful and popular teams in the league.

Well there you have it then. The Glazers must be doing a shit job! Let’s ignore the plethora of information that suggests they’re doing a fine job.

Both are perfectly viable operating models, and the growth we have seen under the Glazers would suggest what we have is working well.

 

[Grinner]

Why are you mentioning Arsenal I don’t care if they spend 1m or 400m?

The Glazers are investing heavily in the team that’s the bottom line for me.

If they weren’t spending money whilst keeping us riddled with debt it would be another matter.

He's mentioning Arsenal because this is a thread about Arsenal. If you want to argue about the Glazers you have a whole other forum to do it. Stop derailing this thread.

 

[RoyH1]

Well there you have it then. The Glazers must be doing a shit job! Let’s ignore the plethora of information that suggests they’re doing a fine job.

Both are perfectly viable operating models, and the growth we have seen under the Glazers would suggest what we have is working well.

Where did I write that the Glazers were doing a shit job?!

I'm just stating that other ownership models are possible and extremely succesful, and that fan ownership is not the socialist experiment some people here argue it to be.

 

[breakout67]

Why are you mentioning Arsenal I don’t care if they spend 1m or 400m?

The Glazers are investing heavily in the team that’s the bottom line for me.

If they weren’t spending money whilst keeping us riddled with debt it would be another matter.

Maybe you forgot what thread we are in?

The Glazers are investing in the team by using the revenue generated by the club, I have never denied this. Kroenke does the same with Arsenal.

I'm pretty sure that the Glazers have never been richer than Kroenke, without even counting his wife.

My apologies, I meant the initial investment made. The Glazers invested more money into the industry and so got a bigger club.

Both the Glazers and Kroenke only invest into ownership; they do not invest into improving the team through transfers.

 

[Revan]

Yup, those losers at Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern have really struggled over the last decade, haven't they?

When we say fan ownership, no one actually means fans running the club. We'd still hire the right people to do that - except all profits get reinvested back into the club, instead of, say, servicing some pricks' debt.



I'd say that's equally a testament to United's enduring popularity. Anyway, in terms of multiples, I'm guessing United's revenues really took off from the 1990s - do we give credit to the ownership structure then?

Also if Glazers get credit for financial decisions, why do we absolve them of the other poor management choices?

Glazers and Ed should be blamed for management choices and for total lack of vision on the last 5 years. When Moyes was sacked (rightfully so), we should have hired more football men to envision our future not just hire the manager with the highest reputation and rebuild the team every 2 years.

So there, I am with you. Blaming them for lack of investment in the last few years or not giving credit to them for financial is wrong anf unfair. Blaming them for football decisions in the last 5 years is totally correct and more people should talk about it.

 

[ivaldo]

Where did I write that the Glazers were doing a shit job?!

I'm just stating that other ownership models are possible and extremely succesful, and that fan ownership is not the socialist experiment some people here argue it to be.

The “billionaires apologist club” has a pretty strong implication...

 

[NinjaFletch]

He's mentioning Arsenal because this is a thread about Arsenal. If you want to argue about the Glazers you have a whole other forum to do it. Stop derailing this thread.

Why was my post deleted whilst Ivaldo's was kept?

If we're arguing that Kroenke will or can be a success at Arsenal based upon the Glazer's supposed success at United then it's legitimate to discuss what that supposed success looks like. If the comparison being made between United's ownership structure and Arsenal's potential new one is somehow not relevant to the discussion of Arsenal's takeover then can we move all the posts on the Glazers and Kroenke comparisons to a new thread so we can discuss it in there please?

 

[JPRouve]

My apologies, I meant the initial investment made. The Glazers invested more money into the industry and so got a bigger club.

Both the Glazers and Kroenke only invest into ownership; they do not invest into improving the team through transfers.

If they had any intention to spend money in Football neither would have bought United and Arsenal, the initial investment is way too big that's why Qatar and Abu Dhabi didn't bought these clubs too. Arsenal and United are typically the type of clubs that you buy because you want to be associated with the name and/or you want to make easy money. If you have one billion to burn, you buy a cheap club, in a relatively big city where you will have construction permits or support of local politicians.

 

[breakout67]

If they had any intention to spend money in Football neither would have bought United and Arsenal, the initial investment is way too big that's why Qatar and Abu Dhabi didn't bought these clubs too. Arsenal and United are typically the type of clubs that you buy because you want to be associated with the name and/or you want to make easy money. If you have one billion to burn, you buy a cheap club, in a relatively big city where you will have construction permits or support of local politicians.

Yes you are right. Arsenal and United are nice cash cows for American owners. A very good investment.

 

[Offsideagain]

I believe that Mr. Kranky isn’t using his own money to buy the shares but using a loan, just like the Glazers. I always giggle when I hear ‘If only the fans owned the club’. It would be a disaster.

Last time I looked, the club was valued at £3,000,000,000. If 100,000 fans found £30,000 each, they could buy the club. But then where would the money be found to pay the salaries the following month? If Woodward was retained, and like every decision it would need a vote from the shareholders, the fans that is, he would have to agree with the owners, the fans, who to buy and how much to pay. We can’t even go and buy the players we want now so it would be so protracted an operation it would be unworkable. It would be like Brexit but much worse if that’s possible.

Get real, no individual will buy United with their own money. If the Glazers sell it, a loan will be involved. SKY are reporting that the Kranky loan will not be against Arsenal.

 

[Mastadon]

TLDR: Only Barcelona has done better than United when it comes to financial growth (Barca arguably wasn't even considered an elite club until last decade, and now they are easily a top 3, if not top 2 club). This despite that we have been pretty shit (cause of a series of bad management choices and not having a long term vision). The fact that we are actually on pair with Real while we are in the worst period in the last 3 decades, while they have had arguably their greatest ever spell is a testament on how well (financial wise) United is run.

Is it really a surprise that the best supported club in the world which is based in the richest league in the world is making the most revenue? Unless you had cretins as owners it wouldn’t have been any other way. Why give credit to the Glazers? Post 2005 you had Rooney and Ronaldo tearing up the league and Europe I think the success of United under Fergie is to credit for it DESPITE Glazers.

How hard is it to secure commercial deals when you’re winning the league 3 times in a row including a CL double with Ronaldo in your team? Sponsorship revenue was increasing for every team it’s only natural that it would increase the most for the most successful and well supported team.

 

[Nikelesh Reddy]

The Glazers haven’t been half as bad as everyone thought they would be in 2005...As for Kroenke,the arsenal supporters won’t be too pleased with this news at all...

 

[Mastadon]

. I always giggle when I hear ‘If only the fans owned the club’. It would be a disaster.

.

You should have a giggle at the disasters known as Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern then. A right and proper giggle.

 

[ivaldo]

Why was my post deleted whilst Ivaldo's was kept?

If we're arguing that Kroenke will or can be a success at Arsenal based upon the Glazer's supposed success at United then it's legitimate to discuss what that supposed success looks like. If the comparison being made between United's ownership structure and Arsenal's potential new one is somehow not relevant to the discussion of Arsenal's takeover then can we move all the posts on the Glazers and Kroenke comparisons to a new thread so we can discuss it in there please?

Don't be jel.

 

[GuyfromAustria]

Last time I looked, the club was valued at £3,000,000,000. If 100,000 fans found £30,000 each, they could buy the club. But then where would the money be found to pay the salaries the following month?

I'd guess it would come out of the £600m turnover, or do you think the Glazers are paying the wages out of their life savings?