How could that happen: I completely forgot to say something about DD!! Now there can be no doubt about two things: firstly he loves the Arsenal and secondly he did some great things for the club. But it that it? I think there's more that should be mentioned for I don't like this 'knight in shiny armour' image he got now:
He was for a move to Wembley - an absolute crackpot idea and we're all lucky it didn't happen. Especially if it was meant to share with the Spurs!
He had a massive hand in the appointment of Sven 'The Red' Erikson - not the smartest of moves as it turned out. Would be interesting to know if he had his hand in the contract negotiations as well, allowing Erikson to still cash in big time (damn, I'd love a contract like that). And it is said that he was also massively involved in replacing Erikson with McLaren (if I may refresh your memory: that's one of the lads in Eriksons looser team, rumor has it that he's spineless and I wouldn't disagree).
If (even more reliable) media reports are at least partially true it wasn't very gentlemen like how he handled the contacts with Kroenke, was it? If I was on the board I'd be pissed too!
DD deserves credit - quite a fair share of it, but let's face it: he's not Mother Theresa.

Why fix something that's not broke?

The club is being run perfectly as it is, we have a brand new stadium and a state of the art training centre. Add that to the best youth development program around and I can't see a fault.

Wenger has the funds available if he wants them...

Unfortunately now the last of the big teams is coming under the very fashionable takeover bracket and it hurts. Really hurts.

I believe that Arsenal are a shining example of how masses of riches are not necessary to achieve success. We have bought and produced some of the finest talents in Europe and the World, all at the fraction of the cost as what Chelsea or Man Utd have spent. Liverpool have spent the economy of a small African nation for 1 trophy!!! Yet we have always turned a huge profit on our players and been able to replace with the next generation, although the past two seasons can be considered a transition period of somesorts. We are the perfect model of a club who DOESN'T NEED a takeover approach and other clubs should be following our model rather than selling out. We built our stadium without a new board, why cant Liverpool do the same?

However I put Yes on the poll but thats only if DD is on-board, Wenger stays as does the model for how the club is run

I haven’t decided yet whether I’d welcome it or not. It all depends on Kroenke and whether he’s the interfering type or not in which case I’d be against his takeover of the club (though by the time we discovered that, we’d already be under his ownership.) If he just sat back and injected money when Wenger needed it then I wouldn’t worry too much. The majority of our squad is already made up of foreigners so as someone’s already said in the thread, it’s not like we can care much about losing our English identity. English or not, I’m merely concerned about how a takeover would affect the running of the game and Arsene Wenger as I’m confident he’d walk out if Kroenke began to interfere and for instance, instructed Arsene to bring in Freddy Adu and other American talents.

No for me at present. I've now been treated to the stories being put out by both Dein's camp and the party line. I don't honestly know which is factually correct, nor do I know anybody who is likely to be party to that info.

I am aware however that the existing board have moved us into a state of the art new stadium, with allegedly manageable terms of repayment, and there is said to be a pot of money available for transfers which the manager publicly proclaims he does not need.

Since Mr Kroenke has not put his case publicly I am left to assume that, because he is asset but not cash rich, that he will borrow heavily to make any takeover, which common sense tells me will be loaded back onto a club already in debt, and therefore paid by you and me.

I don't know about you, but I've paid for this stadium once already, and I'm not about to support someone who wants me to do it all over again. If you are reading Stan you can convince me by giving us a clue what you are up to. Be warned that at this precise moment in time I hold you entirely responsible for losing us a good man, you interfering prat!

I voted no, for two reasons:

1. I'm not sure a takeover will really bring that much new money into the club - on the opposite, it might put the club into even more debt.

2. A new owner would most likely look to make a healthy profit from the club, whereas the current owners seem more likely to put the money back into the club. I'd like Arsenal's owners (regardless of nationality) to be in it for the love of football rather than business intentions.

The only reason why a takeover would be "inevitable" as someone put it is that the owners are made an offer that is too good to refuse. At the moment, that doesn't really seem likely.

Haven't reed any comment but ATM there 45% for yes!!!
I really can't understand that. "Emirates Stadium" was already to much, now this...Club can lose his tradition, identity(bring back the watch!!!)

Im pretty happy how things were working by now so any big changes are no for me.

Now Im going to read this comments to see what's wrong with you guys

Agree entirely with the sentiments expressed about the club being loaded up with additional debt. KSE is not a cash-rich organisation, and whatever money they need to borrow to acquire Arsenal (and at the latest share price it's valued at well over £600m) will then need to be paid back on top of the debts for the building of the Emirates. That will take a damn sight longer for the fans to help pay off than the five years currently forecast for the stadium loan.

Even if, as has happened at Liverpool, Kroenke throws Arsene Wenger £40m and says "Go out and buy something nice", how is that what Arsenal need? £20m is already available, and there's a £40m borrowing facility sitting untouched, because Arsene Wenger wants to develop the young stars in which he's already invested three years.

I've said it before, and I still believe it absolutely - foreign investors are snapping up English clubs for one reason and one reason only - the new TV deal. The ink was hardly dry on the sale of Liverpool before Gillett said "... the new TV contracts are outstanding and we are proud to be a part of it." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 323037.stm Too bloody right they are! Arsenal don't need foreign investment to compete with Liverpool and even Man United. Investment is the wrong word - those poor fans are being bribed with their own money.

Remember Wenger has an Economics degree too. I'm sure he's got his eye perfectly on the ball.

I might be missing something here, because I don't see anything wrong with the club having a new owner. After all hasn't the club had new owners before during its existence.

Can someone who is adamantly against the club being owned by someone new tell me the worst case scenario they expect to happen and why?

I'm not trying to be provocative. I'm just trying to understand other people’s strong feelings.

I'm not sure I understand. You want everyone to repost what they've said on this thread?

No sorry for the misunderstanding FR. I was trying to get a worst case view on what might happen if this buy out goes through.

It seems that fans have all sort of fears of losing tradition etc. But I was wondering if any fan saw Arsenal being assets striped or the club not existing in the future?

For me the tradition argument isn't the most important. Read FRs post above.

Kroenke's company doesn't have a lot of cash to throw around, most of it is locked up in property. He would need a loan to buy the club, which would mean more repayments on top of what we're paying for the stadium. He may be able to throw some money at Arsene for initial investments, but it couldn't be sustained for long. The club would have to live on its own terms, and the most important factor allowing us to do that is the stadium, which we already have. Wenger has £20m to spend, there is a £40m loan facility, plus possible sales of Reyes and some other players this summer. Arsene can buy players if he wants, I think. In short: I'm not all all convinced Kroenke would be financially beneficial to Arsenal, which is the main reason some fans want a takeover.

I see what your saying Lenny, You believe Kroenke is not rich enough to ultimately make a difference to Arsenals finance position in the positive. And may well give Arsenal a greater debt burden.

That being the case if he could prove to generate more money for Arsenal without putting them into more debt would he be good for the club. Or if not him someone richer who could increase the wealth of the club?

As Lenny + FR have already stated KSE are not cash rich and would burden us with a greater debt than we already have and any initial investment could not be sustained.

This is what puzzles me.

David Dein has always had the best interests of Arsenal FC in his heart, I believe and has been the driving force behind the club for years.

So why is he so supportive of a takeover which will burden us with a greater debt and will give us minimal money for investment ?

There has to some other angle behind it, that we are not seeing.

There must be something encompassed in what KSE and Dein have spoken about which will be highly beneficial to the club and will drive the club on, otherwise David Dein would not have been so in support of it and risked his place on the board lobbying for it.