And We’re Back

By: Martin | October 15th, 2009

Players report back to London today, and hopefully by the end of today or early tomorrow we’ll have an inventory of who picked up knocks playing in internationals. At the moment, the only one I’ve heard is Gael Clichy, who injured his thigh playing for France yesterday. This must have frustrated Wenger, who was actually commentating on the match for French television, noted that Clichy was hurt and should be substituted, only to watch him struggle through to the end of the game. That nutjob Domenech must have been too busy reading his horoscope or attempting astral projection to notice one of his players was injured.

Four more teams punched their tickets to South Africa yesterday. And it brings the list of players currently affiliated with Arsenal who will likely play in the World Cup at 8:

–Robin van Persie (Netherlands)
–Theo Walcott (England)
–Cesc Fabregas (Spain)
–Nicklas Bendtner (Denmark)
–Emmanuel Eboue (Ivory Coast)
–Carlos Vela (Mexico)
–Philippe Senderos (Switzerland)
–Johan Djourou (Switzerland)

There are others who may sneak onto their national teams (Denilson, Almunia) which have already qualified, and a number of Gunners who play important roles for national teams which still have a chance at qualifying (Clichy, Sagna, Gallas, Nasri, Song, Arshavin). I suspect when it’s all said and done we’ll have about a dozen or so players feature for their national sides in the World Cup.

But enough with the internationals. Arsenal is back, and we actually have five games between now and the end of the month. We have a triple-decker “ham” sandwich of league fixtures against Birmingham, West Ham, and Tottenham, plus a Champions League fixture against AZ and the Carling Cup match-up with Liverpool. Five important matches in 14 days will really show us what we have and dictate what happens the rest of the season, and that kind of fixture congestion can really tax the squad’s depth. Fortunately, the return of Walcott and the imminent return of Nasri (who says he’ll be back for the West Ham game next weekend), give us a few more options for substitutions and rotation.

This will be our first match-up with Birmingham since the Eduardo horror tackle/Gallas hissyfit game which was in many ways the beginning of the end of our title bid in 2007-2008. It’s a game we should expect nothing less than 3 points from, and a good chance to exorcise those demons. But I’ll be back with a full preview tomorrow.

Finally, in what could be big news, Stan Kroenke has again increased his share of ownership in Arsenal, and now owns 28.9% of the club’s shares. If he gets to 29.9%, rules mandate that he formally launch a takeover bid. In the past, he has consistently denied any intention of doing so, and has claimed that he is content to own just less than that and let the current board and management run things as they have in the past. And frankly, he has given us no reason not to take us at his word–unlike that Uzbeki d-bag Usmanov, who was transparently trying to take over the club with David Dein, Kroenke has maintained cordial relations with the board and current club management, and hasn’t criticized the club or Wenger in an obvious attempt to make fans feel like his ownership is the only chance Arsenal has to win trophies. Still, with Kroenke’s substantial stake in the club plus his substantial wealth, the fact is that he could probably take over the ownership of the club with a snap of his fingers, so it bears monitoring.



Arsenal EPL Match ScheduleBet on Arsenal games Travel to soccer games Discount Travel to London & Arsenal
Arsenal ScoresBuy arsenal TicketsEmirates Stadium information & hotels



Subscribe
 

rss_icon The Offside RSS Feeds

Print
Print article
Share
del.icio.us:And We're Back digg:And We're Back reddit:And We're Back fark:And We're Back Y!:And We're Back stumbleupon:And We're Back

Comments   |  Add your comment

  • vespo |  October 15th, 2009 at 7:22 am

    cornercorner

    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?

    Posted from United States United States

    cornercorner
  • Greig rose |  October 15th, 2009 at 9:07 am

    cornercorner

    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…!

    Posted from United Kingdom United Kingdom

    cornercorner
  • evaldo |  October 15th, 2009 at 9:14 am

    cornercorner

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

    Posted from United States United States

    cornercorner
  • Peevish |  October 15th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    cornercorner

    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.

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner
  • third eye |  October 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    cornercorner

    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….

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner
  • third eye |  October 15th, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    cornercorner

    “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!

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner
  • Martin |  October 15th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    cornercorner

    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.

    Posted from United States United States

    cornercorner
  • MoMONEY |  October 15th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    cornercorner

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

    Posted from United States United States

    cornercorner
  • Homey |  October 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    cornercorner

    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?

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner
  • third eye |  October 15th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    cornercorner

    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.

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner
  • third eye |  October 15th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    cornercorner

    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…

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner
  • vespo |  October 15th, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    cornercorner

    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.

    Posted from United States United States

    cornercorner
  • vespo |  October 15th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    cornercorner

    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.

    Posted from United States United States

    cornercorner
  • Alexinho |  October 15th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    cornercorner

    “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.

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner
  • Martin |  October 15th, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    cornercorner

    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.

    Posted from United States United States

    cornercorner
  • Arsenal Shirts |  October 16th, 2009 at 1:36 am

    cornercorner

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

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner
  • third eye |  October 16th, 2009 at 2:58 am

    cornercorner

    “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.

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner
  • Martin |  October 16th, 2009 at 3:54 am

    cornercorner

    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.

    Posted from United States United States

    cornercorner
  • third eye |  October 16th, 2009 at 5:23 am

    cornercorner

    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

    Posted from United States

    cornercorner

Leave a Reply

If you have not commented here before, please take a moment to peruse our
Commenting Guidelines.


England National Team News

Tickets to upcoming games


Offside RSS Feeds

Search The Offside


 

rounded_corners









Categories


rounded_corners

Send Your Tips!

Found a great story, photo or video that's perfect for The Offside?
Email arsenal[at]theoffside[dot]com

Related Links


Write for The Offside

LATEST COMMENTS


Archives