I don't like this takeover business and I don't trust Kroenke. I would prefer Arsenal to be in the hands of someone who has been brought up with the club and is a true supporter rather than some foreigner making an investment, which Kroenke is. He's done very well to get where he is and his press campaign seems to have made a positive impact on supporters and have put him in a positive light compared to the alleged big, bad Usmanov but I still think the spanner is to be thrown into the works here.

I too am very dubious when it comes to Kroenke, I will err on the side of caution for now, time will reveal his hand! I do wonder if he has some how pulled the wool over the eyes of the shareholders.

Also I'm know wondering whether Usmanov would have been a better owner, maybe he would have followed the Abramovic route, turning the shares into a personal loan. Since he now is more wealthier than Mr Chelsea and Kroenke, I couldn't see him burdening the club with debt.

Alisher Usmanov tries to buy Arsenal shares not owned by Stan Kroenke
• Uzbek offers £14,000 for each remaining share
• Stan Kroenke has majority holding with 64%
By Matt Scott - Wednesday 25 May 2011 00.17 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... an-kroenke

Alisher Usmanov has given his first meaningful response to Stan Kroenke's takeover of Arsenal by raising his bid for the remaining shares in the club to £14,000 each. The Uzbek businessman has spent £2.15m on Arsenal shares over the past week, taking his stake in the club to 27.37%. However, with the American's control of almost 64% of the shares confirmed last week, Usmanov's actions have been little more than a token gesture that cannot alter the ownership of the club. Usmanov will nonetheless hope that Kroenke will not be able to increase his stake beyond its current level. The Russian's purchase offer is also a message to the 8.66% of independent shareholders who remain that he would like them either to retain their interest or to sell to his Red and White investment vehicle. Last month Usmanov said: "I'm not going to sell. Arsenal can't do without me."

I think it may be a good thing that Usmanov is taking this position. I still remain to be convinced that a hard headed business man such as Kronke would invest hundreds of millions without wanting some return (although he would make plenty if he took up the Russian's offer right now). Nevertheless I don't think Kronke is like Abramovich,or the Man City mob. Although he seems to be playing the long game, at some stage in the future he WILL want a return on his dough.

As long as the Russian plays hardball, there will be a moderating influence on Stan.

By the way, it's worth repeating that those who have made a financial killing out of all the changes in ownership are the previous "guardians" of Arsenal Football Club. Noone wil make more than them in the future. Of the "hundreds of millions" spashed out by Kronke and Usmanov, not a penny went into AFC...it all went into the bank accounts of indivduals who no longer have anything to do with the club. Can someone find me a job as a caring "guardian"!

Why shouldn't the money for shares sold go into the pockets of those who, due to old age/impending death/wanting to leave, owned the shares before selling them? The reason some, and I include myself, think highly of the late Fizman and co is the stuff they did for the club before handing it on to a new generation. I may disagree with the way they handled the transfer of power and am pleased that Usmanov is building up his powerbase but think that, overall, our previous owners have done well for the club.

My point follows up discussion about owners and how some wring money from their clubs by raising loans, and lumbering them with high interest repayments a la Man U. There is much hostility to these guys but the money they make/take out is far less than the much lauded previous owners of Arsenal made from their investments. Even David Dean, whose shares cost him about £300,000, got about £15million when he went. It could be argued that if any of them deserved high rewards it was Dein. A real football man, he achieved a lot for the club including getting Wenger and introducing Fiszman. Also, he was pushed out and would possibly still own those shares in different circumstances.

I guess it's debatable that what these past owners did for the club, good though it was, deserved the £400million plus they received. I doubt anyone else has ever made this sort of money from a football club?? Would have been nice if they had kicked back say 10% of this amount to the club's transfer kitty.

Neither Kronke nor Usmanov can look forward to this sort of profit, nor should they. I may be cynical but I wager that at some stage in the future Kronke will be looking to get £40-50million a year from his shareholding. We are all a bit unsure about Usmanov, but he could be another Abramovich. Either way, I'm glad he's staying around, at least for the present.

He also thought moving to Wembley was a good idea and tried to backstab the board. Dein did a lot for the club and I'm quite happy for him, like others, to be able to get money from shares when they feel their time at the club is over. Where I would have issue is if they decided they were worth such and such so took the money out of the club.

That was the price the market was willing to pay so yes, they deserve it. I would say a new stadium+training ground+umpteen trophies was a nice thing they gave us, how each person values that is up to them but has little to do with share prices.

Investing in football for profit is a huge huge gamble, particularly if trying to take over a football club, I would be surprised if either got much of a profit in the short term at least.

I don't get the negativity towards Kroenke as opposed to Usmanov. The only conclusion I can see is that Kroenke as an American must be in the mold of Gillette/Hicks or the Glazers whereas as Usmanov, being Russian must be like Abramovich?

Kroenke is a sportsman not a hard headed investor. I'm not sure where that perception comes from. He buys and owns sports franchises. In multiple sports and multiple cities. There's no indication from any of his other sports franchises, of which there are many, that he is going to burden the club with debt while he pads his own wallet. He hasn't done so with the Rams, Nuggets, Avalanche, Rapids, Mammoth (is that all of them)? Might he with Arsenal? I suppose and then I will have to eat humble pie, but all his North American franchises are pretty well run. Isn't it better to predict what Kroenke will do based on what he has done with his other franchises as opposed to what people who aren't Kroenke are doing with their franchises?

A while ago Usmanov was the villain who if he took over would spend like Abramovich, and then leave when it wasn't fun anymore and the club was riddled with massive debt. Now all of a sudden he's the better option? No way, he is still shady to me.

I'm not arguing for Usmanov to be the sole owner. What I was trying to say is that I think we are better off NOt having a sole owner, be it Kronke or Usmanov. Hopefully Kronke will turn out to be the great man everyone hopes for. If he dosn't, with Usmanov hovering, he will find it harder to get too greedy and do anything damaging to the club.

Whenever AFC next changes hands, if the new owner has 100% of the stock, there will be the option to raise loans against his/her share ownership and pass the debt onto the club. This is the case whether it is Kronke or Usmanov as the seller. It would probably more difficult to do this if there was a substantial minority shareholder ie Usmanov.

I share TPB's sentiments. I would also add that even if our new owner was the best owner in the history of football, his successor or buyer may be a lot worse.

A very good point, that is principally why the AST prefers multiple ownership model. The fact Usmanov has not sold hiss shares following the offer is actually good news in a sense because it blocks Kroneke getting to 90% and then being able to mop up the remaining shares. I don't think that would have been his intention in any case but he would have been obliged to make an offer for them. I'm that we have someone who seems to be capable of running the club very much in line with custodian model and that the board now holds a significant majority, had Usmanov bought Lady Ninas shares the board may have ended up with less than 50%. The risk of Lady Nina selling to an unfavourable owner has gone too so Kroneke at 65% ish looks the most favourable option we could have got.

I think we will see some board changes in 12-18 months time, I think not making changes too soon would have been a move to assure fans that mass change was not on the cards. A sensible move but in fact there is a big school of support behind Peter Hill-Wood remaining chairman, he continuously embarrasses the club. Hoping for that change particularly.

Shareholders given notice for closure of deal
http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archiv ... re-of-deal

Arsenal Football Club has announced that it has received the Premier League’s confirmation that Stan Kroenke has completed its change of control processes to become the formal majority owner of the Club to its satisfaction. In addition, Mr Kroenke has given a formal 14 days notice for the closure of his unconditional offer to shareholders as part of the process for his takeover of the Club. A copy of that announcement is available here. Mr Kroenke, owner of Kroenke Sports and Entertainment and The Kroenke Group, a successful and well-respected real estate development company, currently holds 66.06% of Arsenal shares. This follows the sale of shares from the estate of late Arsenal director Danny Fiszman and former director Lady Nina Bracewell Smith to the American who has been on the Arsenal board for three years.

Arsenal Chairman Peter Hill Wood said: “The Club is very pleased to announce that the Premier League Board has confirmed that the change of control processes under the rules of the Premier League have been concluded to its satisfaction in relation to Stan Kroenke's control of the Club. KSE's offer for Arsenal Holdings PLC is wholly unconditional and we now look forward to a new and exciting phase in the life of the Club. The plan is to maintain the PLUS listing provided there are a sufficient number of shareholders for that to be permitted." Mr Kroenke owns the St. Louis Rams of the National Football League, the Denver Nuggets of the National Basketball Association, the Colorado Avalanche of the National Hockey League and the Colorado Rapids of Major League Soccer.

“As the controlling shareholder of Arsenal Football Club, it will always be our intention to do what’s necessary to assure success on the pitch, provide long-term stability and build on the accomplishments and history of the Club,” said Mr Kroenke. “We recognise that overseeing the operations of the Club is not only a privilege but a responsibility that will require attention and dedication as the Club strives to reach all of our goals on and off the pitch. We will continue to grow the Club’s presence globally while also adhering to the Club’s self-sustaining economic model. The Club has funds to invest and will do so wisely. Our constant aim will be to compete for silverware and championships. The long-term health of the Club is of utmost importance and the Board, chief executive, manager and the wider team will be working hard to achieve success for the Club and our fans, and to play our part in our communities in North London and beyond. Arsenal is not about one shareholder, one player or one fan. It’s a special institution and we look forward to celebrating that further during the 125th anniversary year of the Club.”

A formality however it adds a little confirmation that he is man who goes about his business in a correct manner.

Now changed the poll. Kroenke is in place and we know now that he's happy without owning the whole thing and that so far we have not seen anything to upset us, mass change or loading the club with debt, all the things we feared have not materialised. The ticket price rises are somewhat an issue but we should reserve judgment in how that pans out in terms of spending, if it turns into dividends then what I have said above maybe takes a different perspective.

The next issue is Usmanov, he has kept his shares following Kroneke buying a majority stake and despite seemingly wanting a controlling stake in the club doesn't seem deterred by Kroenke's stake holding and clearly is in no rush to sell, in fact since that move by Kroneke Usmanov has increased his stake slightly, so he is not going away it seems. Should then as shareholder with a major stake holding he have a place on the board, would the club be healthier with all owners 'in on the process' or should he be shunned regardless of his share holding?

Usmanov blasts Arsenal board for Gunners trophy drought
By MirrorFootball, 12/06/11
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Ar ... 46428.html

Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov has laid the blame for Arsenal's failure to secure any silverware in the last six seasons squarely at the door of the club's board. The 57-year-old, who is not an Arsenal director, even though he owns almost 30% of Arsenal Holdings, believes self-interest among the board members is stymieing the Gunners' chances of on-field success. Usmanov also claimed there would need to be a switch in emphasis if he were to end up on the board.

He told the News of the World: "If the role of a board member is to oversee a trophyless period, while making significant personal profits and asking fans to pay inflation-busting ticket price increases then, no, I would not want to be on the board. If instead it is to try to deliver sustained success, to increase your personal investment in the club, to help develop the commercial position and to ensure the fans have a say in the running of the club then, yes, I think I certainly have something to contribute. In terms of doing things differently, let me give you a very clear example. Arsenal has all of its major commercial contracts coming up for renewal in the next couple of years. It's no secret that to maximise the value of those you want to have success on the field and be winning trophies. To do that you need to invest now in building a winning team. This is simple commercial logic. Whether it comes to pass, we shall see."

Arsenal's season collapsed in spectacular fashion following their Carling Cup final defeat to Birmingham in February, with their challenges in the Champions League, FA Cup and Premier League all crumbling in the wake of that Wembley reverse. And Usmanov is of the opinion that manager Arsene Wenger needs to be given the financial backing to bring in experienced players to complement the crop of talented youngsters the club have at their disposal. "There is a widely-held view among most commentators - and one that I agree with - that the club needs to stiffen the defensive spine of the team, with a dominant keeper, strong centre-halves and a powerful defensive midfielder in the mould of Claude Makelele," he said.

"The Premier League is one of the most competitive in the world and whilst we have consistently challenged for honours, the club needs to develop talent and buy top-class players to win the trophies we all crave. This requires greater investment which, I believe, has been lacking thus far. What however is not clear is whether the board shares this view. For too long they have seemed happy to sanction second, third and fourth as being acceptable, whilst at the same time they are planning to sell their shares."

What a loveable bloke. I hope we win a trophy next season, if only to ram it down his throat to shut him up.

I actually agree with what he is saying.

I think he is saying that though to manuoever himself into an alignment with the disgruntled fans but whilst Wenger and the current board continue to do nothing in the transfer market, as they have done thus far although it is very early days, it is a very strong argument.