And We’re Back

Martin: Don't worry! As you stated it, I was not accusing you! :D.

On the other hand,

"Overall, I think staying the course might be the best thing–our current board and manager run one of the best-run clubs in the Premiership in terms of on-field product, fiscal responsibility, etc. I think it would be a shame to see that change regardless of who the owner is."

--->I totally agree. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that Arsenal is owned by Arsenal and Co. and it has been that way ever since its foundation. So, Why would we need to change? We have only been bankrupt once in our history (research on wikipedia :D) and I think ever since, we have come out well.

--->But, I guess that if we have been more oriented toward a single man ownership in the recent years, it might be due to Mr.Dein's failed attempt to give Usmanov the club. Further, the Emirates have cost us a lot and, with the lack of silverwares (which means less income), maybe the board is more inclined toward this alternative.

--->So it was Hicks...lol it is funny to see how ignorant I am when it comes to other sports... To add on this, I live in Montreal and I actually did not know if Gillets still owned the Montreal Canadians.:D

third eye:

Just to be clear, since I have, in fact been accused of being racist on this site before (against French players of all things, which is all kinds of ironic considering the club I support and that the French national team was kind my gateway into European football in the first place), I wanted to make sure my prior statement was clear. I definitely wasn't saying that one of the reasons I personally am wary of Usmanov is because of race or nationality--not at all. What I was saying was that I think it would be naive not to think the fans and the football media haven't been against him a little bit more because of his race/nationality than they would have if he had the exact same background but his name was Alisher Robinson from Omaha. I don't think you were accusing me of anything, it just struck me that I hadn't been clear in my previous statement, and wanted to make it clearer--I do, of course, agree 100% that it shouldn't matter one bit to us what country he comes from.

Hicks & Gillett both own other clubs in other sports--Gillett owned the Montreal Canadiens, and it was Hicks that owned the Dallas Stars (as well as the Texas Rangers baseball club), but so do the Glazers (Tampa Bay Buccaneers) and Randy Lerner (Cleveland Browns), and they've been all right.

Overall, I think staying the course might be the best thing--our current board and manager run one of the best-run clubs in the Premiership in terms of on-field product, fiscal responsibility, etc. I think it would be a shame to see that change regardless of who the owner is.

"but I think you’d have to pretty naive if you didn’t think racism/cultural differences played into it somewhat."

-->Which is stupid. We, as Arsenal's follower, should not judge the man about his nationality. The fact that he is Russian, does that implies that he will be a lesser owner than Kroenke?

--->Then, Vespo you stated a very good point there. The same situation goes with Mr.Gillet. He used to own the Canadiens of Montreal (I do not know if he still has it though), the Star of Dallas (If I am not wrong) and other sports teams just for the sake of his son's pleasure. Well, at least, he had a financial background, but he could not stand the heat of Liverpool and is now considering to sell them to an Arabic businessman (Thus, the reason why I jokingly stated the Arabic businessman previously :D)

Furthermore, I feel like Kroenke has not that much of funds to support the club and he is an American! I think if he has to invest in one of his failing sports team, he will prioritize one of his A.Football teams. Unless he is purely capitalist and he invest massively in his wealthiest Sports team in order to gain more income.

Good to see Nasri on the way back, he adds a lot to the team

I think the dislike for Usmanov basically comes from 4 things: (1) he's been involved in a number of shall we say contentious business deals over the years and his name seems to not infrequently be linked with terms like "fraud" and "extortion;" (2) before getting involved in Arsenal he was apparently a huge Manchester United fan, and his office was decorated with all sorts of United memorabilia; (3) he seemed to be kind of a pawn for David Dein to get back at the board by getting someone to back him with enough money to buy a majority of the club, a maneuver most fans viewed as petty and selfish; and (4) a lot of supporters think if Usmanov gets control, we'll basically turn into, as someone mentioned, a slightly poorer version of Chelsea, splashing cash on aging stars who developed their reputations elsewhere. Also, (5), he looks like a James Bond villain (although it has to be said that Kroenke looks like he's about to head out to California in 1849 to pan for gold, so it's really a toss-up there).

But having said that, the only time Usmanov has actually been convicted of anything was during the soviet days, and he was later pardoned because it was held that the conviction was fabricated and politically motivated. And as far as I know, all he has said is that he wants to help Arsenal win by giving it resources. I do think there are legitimate reasons to be wary of him, but I think you'd have to pretty naive if you didn't think racism/cultural differences played into it somewhat.

And Alexinho--yeah, Nasri says he'll back next weekend against West Ham, but I saw somewhere that Wenger thought it would actually be the Carling Cup match the following Wednesday against Liverpool. Regardless, we'll hopefully have him back in a couple of weeks.

"The imminent return of Nasri"?

I thought this cat was supposed to be out three months! Put in the recovery-of-fitness multiplier, and that's more like five months. It's been, what, seven weeks?

Er...YEAH! but I'm skeptical.

Anyway, my point with that is basically that yes, Usmanov does have "greasy taloned fingers" (I love it Peevish!). However, I'm not sure that Kroenke is any less greasy or taloned just because he's an American or because he claims to not want to make a takeover move (yet). At least Usmanov is open about it.

The thing about a lot of the American owners is that they end up owning more than one team. Glazer owns the American football team Tampa Bay Buccaneers as well as ManU, Lerner owns the American football team Cleveland Browns as well as Villa, and Kroenke owns the hockey team Colorado Avalanche, the basketball team Denver Nuggets, and part of the American football team St. Louis Rams.*

What you have to realize here is that that these owners have different amounts of success in different sports and they're mostly after the money. The Buccaneers, Browns, and Rams are all horrible this year and (at least in the Browns case -- I'm from Cleveland), the owners don't seem to do too much about it.

*The Rams, which Kroenke owns 40% of, are currently for sale. Although I don't believe Kroenke plans on selling his portion.

Homey: I do not know. Maybe people have associated Russian billionaires to Chelsea's owner (I totally forgot his name...). They are probably afraid of having someone who will likely transform the club as a superstar team; the land of retiring players. Funny though if it happens. We would have gone from Kindergarten to a retiring home. Such a drastic change...

Hum... I really do not know. Momoney, thanks to you, I will try to know more about the ownership of the club and who is better fitted to take in charge.

Well, this subject is interesting and would lead to an interesting debate. However, in oder to do so, we need to know more about the matter. As such, if it were not for you Martin, I would have never known that Aston Villa's owners were Americans. I knew about the Glazers though.

OK, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. But I'll ask anyway, and be curious to hear the answers. What's so bad about Usmanov? (Maybe I'm partial to Central Asians, since I married one.) But hasn't he repeatedly said he'd pump more money into the club in the transfer window? And isn't that what we always complain about?

If anyone is worried about the Kroenke money I suggest reading the article about it on Untold Arsenal.

I don't know, third eye. I know Liverpool fans love to complain about Hicks & Gillett, but Manchester United has done quite well under the Glazers, and I think Randy Lerner has been a pretty outstanding owner at Aston Villa. I know I'm probably biased as an American, but I'd say the overall record of American owners in the Premiership isn't too bad at all. And recession or no, as of 2008 he had a net worth of $3.5 billion, more than twice as much as Usmanov, so I'd actually be pretty surprised if he was very hard up for cash. To be honest, I wouldn't be thrilled if either out and out took over the club's ownership, but if it came down to the two, I think I'd throw my hat into the ring with Kroenke over Usmanov.

"Now, on a more serious note, he has a better financial stability than Kroenke who owes already a large amount of money to some departed shareholders."

My bad!

Peevish :

Firstly, Usmanov has had a box just for him in the Emirates (This is what I heard) for the past seven years.

Then, his son ad him have attended most of Arsenal games.

Now, on a more serious note, he has a better financial stability than Kroenke who owns already a large amount of money to some departed shareholders. If you think that he is the best solution, just look at Liverpool. I would not want to judge Americans, but they surely are suspicious in their way of managing a football club.

So, unless you want Arsenal to ultimately end up in the hands of some billionaire Arabic businessman (I would not mind it, but if it implies that Wenger will get fired and most of our current starts decide to follow him, then I guess I am agaisnt it...), you would not want Kroenke to take over the club. Furthermore there is something called recession in the United States. I wonder if it has affected Kroenke's wealth somehow.

Then again, Usmanov might not be the best solution neither. However, from recent gossips, I heard he would be slightly better than Kroenke, so....

Yep you're right vespo, he owes Danny Fiszman and a couple of others. I think I read somewhere that its 50 million. Not sure what the implications of that are - if that will stop him from a takeover if he gets to the magic share mark.
I just can't find it in me to be negative about the possibility of him taking over the club. I would prefer not for that to happen, but anything seems good when you compare it to the possibility of Usmanov getting his greasy taloned fingers on Arsenal.

i gotta say, it wouldn't have been a real world cup without eboue.

I'm making my way down to the emirates for the first time tomorrow. I feel like a school kid in December can't sleep and the days are feeling very, verl long. Just hope the lads pull out a massive performance do I can persuade the missus it's hot to become a regular thing…!

About Kroenke's shares -- I read somewhere (ESPN.com maybe?) recently that Kroenke hasn't yet paid for a large chunk of those shares. Anyone know anything about that?