Arsenal Financials


#101

That statement is obviously PR bullshit but I appreciate that he’s happy to hold onto those shares and not be involved in other clubs. If I was him I’d have cut and run by now. He could easily sell his 30% and buy 100% of someone else and put some money in. I’ve no idea what he’s getting from Arsenal other than a slap in the face.


#102

I feel like you’re inventing what an Usmanov ownership looks like based on not much at all. There’s nothing to suggest we won’t be self sustainable or that Usmanov won’t hire football people.


#103

I think there’s only two likely scenarios if he had 97% (realistically 100% as he probably compulsorily purchase remaining shares) and that’s one of them. The other being floating us on the New York or London stock exchange (or both). Wouldn’t mind that as we’d probably get more transparency in that scenario. But he’s not silent Stan for no reason so he’d probably go for the first option. :smile:


#104

I accept this somewhat but why isn’t the same logic applied to people who Usmanov instead of SK?

Usmanov himself has been quite vague about how he intends to do if he became majority shareholder beyond PR statements. He’s mentioned outside investment to the club before (Most of his supporters want him in on this basis) which invalidates any self sustainability model and with outside investment provided by AU comes inevitable interference in footballing matters. We’ve seen this before with owners


#105

I’ve always held the impression that Usmanov wants to be like an Abramovic 2.0.

Right now we are a well oiled machine being run effectively within our means, however we’ll never compete with the Superclubs till we are bought out and have a hefty cash injection. But once you go down that route it’s a bit of a gamble with no way back to how we are currently run.

The way I see it as we stay as a second tier big club, rarely challenging for major honours, or go down the sole ownership path and become mega rich.


#106

We can do just fine with the way the club is run. We should be beating clubs like bvb to the signing of guys like Dembele, for example.


#107

That seems the likely scenario if he did take over. The problem I would see with that is that he’d be likely to follow the same model where all the money he puts in gets stored as debt. There’s a massive unknown at Chelsea as to what happens once Abramovich is gone but realistically it could be 30-40 years before they have to worry about that.

Usmanov ain’t in good shape so if he did the same here it could be a massive problem much sooner than that. Who knows what whoever inherits his assets would do. We’re in the shit (long term) with either of them as outright owner imo.

A consortium of some description or maybe even a hedge fund taking like 5% of turnover as their return is probably the best long term ownership model for Arsenal.


#108

What about FFP? Since PSG got fined (and we’ll have to see how this summers antics will play out) I’ve not heard it as a restraint for any club. So are all the clubs breaking all the rules or are they to some degree more self sufficient?

Chelsea for example don’t feel like a club being entirely backed by an oligarch now. Morata by far their biggest signing but their wages aren’t out of this world. They seem reasonably self sufficient but they’re not scared to buy and sell players.

Usmanov simply would not need to do what Abramovich did on his first few years because Arsenal are already there as a club and revenue earner.

If he puts in a little money and gets us some sponsorship deals with dodgy Russian companies is it really going to ruin the club? As far as I’m concerned an owner concerned with on the field success is all that matters.


#109

I have a lot of respect for the utd fans that started F.C. utd after the glazers bought them


#110

That’s true but if he spends two billion buying us then he’ll likely warehouse that as a debt owed by the club.


#111

EXactly, Their was absolutely no needn’t for Dein to being in kronke (and then usmanov) apart from the fact that had it been sucsessful he would have had much more power

He needs to be stripped naked and marched through the streets of Finsbury Park with people shouting “shame” at him and throwing tomato’s and dirty nappy’s at him


#112

#113

They must have factored in United’s depth.


#114

Arsenal have more ‘financial power’ than every club but Man City.

Hardly surprising when we have had a net spend of around nothing in two out of the last three transfer windows, yet are one of the biggest and most profitable clubs in Europe.


#115

Very little detail in that article will see what I can dig up on it later. We’re definitely in a position to do more than we do though.


#116

LOL they factored in ‘Owners potential investment’ for Arsenal


#117

I think it’s indisputable that we could spend more than we do.


#118

Or better than we do.


#119

That goes without saying lol


#121

Compared to 2008, our spending power has increased 3 or 4 folds.
But transfer fee has increased 10 folds, so we are back to square one.

We just have to suck up the reality & become a bitch to some sugar daddy if the expectation is to compete on regular basis.