Arsenal Finances

[Herbas]

I don't know, what do you guys expect from a person paying loads of money to buy a club?
Everyone in business and football are to make money. Why are you so surprised and riled about this?

 

[juice man]

Not really a shocker tbh. The board have said in the past that there is no commitment to not take money out of the club.

 

[amirkat]

Over £200 million in cash reserves which is pretty staggering.

To place that into context, the next highest cash balances in the Premier League in the 2012/13 season were Manchester United £94 million, Chelsea £26 million and Southampton £14 million. Since then, United’s 2013/14 balance has come down to £66 million, so Arsenal’s cash balance really is in a class of its own, over three times as much as the next highest figure.

The Kroenke news is disturbing.

 

[clockwork orange]

I don't know, what do you guys expect from a person paying loads of money to buy a club?
Everyone in business and football are to make money. Why are you so surprised and riled about this?

From shareholders I expect to make money by dividends and/or selling shares at a higher value.

The Glazer's didn't pay loads of money to buy a club. They borrowed loads of money, which they used to buy the club and thereafter they moved the loan to the club. In the end this means the Glazer did pay **** all. The only thing the Glazer's did is come up with a dubious way to own a football club.

 

[DanDare]

Take from this what you will regarding the cash reserves:


AFC_Andrew @PR_WhoRu · Sep 22
Yes, Arsenal have £208m cash in the bank, but only about £50m (max) is available to spend. Club can still buy on credit, however.

 

[entropy13]

<a class="postlink" href="http://theshortfuse.sbnation.com/2014/9/24/6838667/arsenal-premier-league-stan-kroenke-payment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://theshortfuse.sbnation.com/2014/9 ... ke-payment</a>

 

[bingobob]

Finances are where you expect them to be and the reserves are good although they do seem excessive. They are none the less, or I'd be shocked if they aren't, earning us a pretty penny in interest around 4m per season at 2%. We have hopefully set aside reserves for January with a back up if we don't finish in the top three. That has tui be our aim going forward guaranteed champions league football.

 

[Suave Gooner89]

Clearly one $132 million ranch isn't enough for Kroenke...

 

[Dokaka]

Why would you be surprised that Kroenke is pulling money out of the club? He doesn't give a **** about football in any way, he's just a businessman.

He seemingly doesn't have any hidden agenda like Abramovich or the Sheikhs. He saw a profitable business and jumped at the opportunity. The Arsenal brand - and football in general - keeps growing.

 

[clockwork orange]

According to the subscript below Kroenke's picture in the article entropy posted the money could be for a mustache transplant. The top Istanbul mustache transplant companies aren't cheap and it will take all their expertise to do Kroenke's thinned out one.

 

[VancouverCanuck]

From shareholders I expect to make money by dividends and/or selling shares at a higher value.

Exactly. In this case, it would appear not only is Kroenke screwing with us fans. He is also "stealing" from other shareholders. If he continues to get substantial amount for his so-called services, this is indeed something we should all worry about.

Also, the comparison with the Glazer's situation is not valid. Glazers, and their board, have always supported Ferguson in purchasing big name players and giving out high wages. And they have spent an enormous amount of money, albeit not very wisely, this past summer in an attempt to regain top 4 status. I cannot ever see Kroenke doing that.

 

[clockwork orange]

The Glazer's indeed allowed the club to sign a lot of big players, so in that sense they do better than Kroenke.

But the money the Glazer's have spent was the club's (which is paying off the loan to buy itself) not theirs. Brilliant scam.

 

[Iceman10]

The timing is interesting to an extent in terms of coinciding with the FA Cup win, probably using that as a little cover. As has been mentioned on the previous page the real issue is whether a slippery slope has been initiated. Hopefully someone will ask a question at the next AGM (mid next month), he (Kroenke) needs to be kept as honest as is practicably possible.

 

[Rex Stone]

Genuinely interested in people's opinions here, what would be the ideal owner for you guys?

I'm disgusted as most are with the news about Kroenke, but there's really not many alternatives in the murky world of Premier League ownership. Would a consortium or a local owner be a realistic possibility?

 

[dave_rwr]

Genuinely interested in people's opinions here, what would be the ideal owner for you guys?

I'm disgusted as most are with the news about Kroenke, but there's really not many alternatives in the murky world of Premier League ownership. Would a consortium or a local owner be a realistic possibility?

I think this is a great question. The ideal situation, I suppose, is one where our owner is a life-long Arsenal supporter with a big wealth earned through standup businesses, who is willing to invest money into the squad without taking anything from the team itself. But in the year 2014, frankly, that just isn't realistic. This Kroenke situation isn't ideal and I hope he will at least be frank and honest about the matter because that is what we deserve as supporters, but the question of what could we realistically expect is an important one to also consider.

 

[Toast]

Genuinely interested in people's opinions here, what would be the ideal owner for you guys?

I'm disgusted as most are with the news about Kroenke, but there's really not many alternatives in the murky world of Premier League ownership. Would a consortium or a local owner be a realistic possibility?

I like the German model.

The clubs of the German Bundesliga this week voted overwhelmingly to keep the rule that they must all be controlled by their members, and cannot be taken over by private investors. Even Bayern Munich, Hamburg SV and the other great names of the Bundesliga have to be owned 50% plus 1, a majority, by their members ( there are two exceptions, Wolfsburg and Bayer Leverkeusen, which were originally works teams).

Many fans treasure this system, believing it has been instrumental in keeping German football close to its fans and roots even in the slick, commercial modern age. Ticket prices are low, affordable to young fans and the grounds, among the best in the world, boast the highest average attendances in Europe.

I don't like that football clubs have become businesses in England (and elsewhere). Football clubs should exist for their fans, not to line some dickhead's pockets.

 

[Suave Gooner89]

I don't like that football clubs have become businesses in England (and elsewhere). Football clubs should exist for their fans, not to line some ********'s pockets.

 

[redanddread]

The Glazer's indeed allowed the club to sign a lot of big players, so in that sense they do better than Kroenke.

But the money the Glazer's have spent was the club's (which is paying off the loan to buy itself) not theirs. Brilliant scam.

The biggest and best around. Imagine how much richer the club could be if it wasn't going to have to pay out $1 billion to various outside entities (Glazers incl.) as a result of the debt repayment expenses.

 

[jones]

Said it a couple times before, but the German model is a myth really. Sounds great because of the PR work the DFL is putting in (and certainly because of it being the lesser evil compared to the EPL) but it doesn't work like it's advertised as a lot of examples can show (Wolfsburg, Leverkusen and Hoffenheim the more notable examples, Red Bull Leipzig and Ingolstadt are following soon). Even without controlling 51% on paper, owners of minority stakes and other financiers can pretty much run the club like an owner would do in England, lots of ways to circumvent the ruling.

The low ticket prices also are only possible because of the stadiums being owned by an investor/the respective city and the work on the infrastructure in the build up to the WC 2006. Lots of clubs also have already spun off their footballing section as a PLC and are long getting in external funds, in part even just to pay for specified transfers.

There are no more clubs owned by the fans in the top flight, nowhere in Europe. You have a couple left in Spain that are barely surviving and, again, depend on donations from fans and the likes, which often is equivalent to what others would call investors, as the funds come with strings. Football is broken beyond repair, there are no shining examples on how to keep the moral high ground and keep the level of the sport as high as it is now. You'd have to drain the money completely, but if that happened there wouldn't be any possibility for most here to even watch their team play.

 

[entropy13]

Oh my goodness do people really ignored the link I posted?

A duly-registered company has its own identity. KSE LLC is not Stan Kroenke.

Might as well say that Microsoft is Bill Gates only.

Microsoft bought Mojang (studio responsible for Minecraft). That doesn't necessarily mean Bill Gates was the one that bought Mojang. If in the future Mojang gives Microsoft $100m for some reason or other, that doesn't mean "Bill Gates gets $100m from Mojang for himself".


And as said in the link, this is a tax-saving measure, and even just a saving in a way. It's quite likely that if a third-party was the one that "rendered" those services, it would cost twice as much (but there won't be any brouhaha about it because that third-party isn't owned by Kroenke :roll.