sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 5, 2012 17:55:16 GMT
Sensi - while I take the point that transfers "can" take time, they never take time for us when we do things properly and identify what we need and go for it. We did it with Gervinho and OXO, we did it with Pod and Giroud. Now it looks like we have done it with Cazorla. So I don't see why we continually drag our feet with some transfers. If the player wants to come to us there should be no problem, but our penny pinching seems to be issues especially when clubs openly say what they will accept for a player. I understand what you're saying. It is frustrating when we seem to miss out on our targets. I just think that some transfers are more complex that we'd like to think they are. Great when they get done quickly, but there are so many variables, that there is always scope for them to drag out or go wrong. The blame does not always lay at the feet of Arsenal.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 5, 2012 17:56:24 GMT
Sensi - you do understand Kroenke is bad news, don't you? Why is Kronke bad news ? What has he done to give you this opinion ?
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 5, 2012 17:57:16 GMT
I imagined your name might have been Dickie's Tash or similar? I never fell out with anyone - just thought it was a double-speak place. You say one thing, and before you know it - its all changed. If anyone had a critical view which people chose to disagree with you got beat-up and then banned after they carefully rewrote history. Anyway enough of taking the Mick.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 5, 2012 17:59:46 GMT
Sorry, you have lost me.
Is this forum for talking about Arsenal, or trying to scare off your new members ?
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 5, 2012 18:01:55 GMT
Misogyny? - not here sweetie.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 5, 2012 18:02:07 GMT
Sensi - you do understand Kroenke is bad news, don't you? Why is Kronke bad news ? What has he done to give you this opinion ? I think it's more of what he has not done. When you look into his past he is not a popular owner - because money comes first. He is even considering taking one of his NFL clubs away from the fans city to relocate in order to make more money. He seems to be a money man first and foremost. Its that kind of background and feeling about the man that makes me agree with Ammaar on this. I think he is bad news. I also think there is a lot more we dont know about relating to the goings on during the Dein/Usmanov/HillWood/Kroenke 'wars'.
|
|
|
Post by ammaar on Aug 5, 2012 18:02:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 5, 2012 18:08:34 GMT
I am yet to see what Gazidis has done that is good for Arsenal. Increase in what revenues exactly ? If you are talking about more money from new sponsorship deals compared to deals done in 2005/2006 - even I could've managed that lol.
Gazidis is nothing but a yes man, a slippery politician, the AST members are all proof of that from the last Q&A.
Transfers are not complicated, they are only complicated when Arsenal are concerned. A club either want to sell a player or they don't. A player either wants to come to the club or he doesn't. It is down to us, the buying club, to offer the selling club enough money for the player. It is down to us, the buying club to offer the player the wages he wants.
Problems will only arise if the club fail to meet these conditions and a club like Arsenal seem to fall short far too often. I don't know a single Arsenal fan who can say in the past 2 seasons Arsenal has done well. We have been on the back foot playing catch up.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 5, 2012 18:23:42 GMT
Why is Kronke bad news ? What has he done to give you this opinion ? I think it's more of what he has not done. When you look into his past he is not a popular owner - because money comes first. He is even considering taking one of his NFL clubs away from the fans city to relocate in order to make more money. He seems to be a money man first and foremost. Its that kind of background and feeling about the man that makes me agree with Ammaar on this. I think he is bad news. I also think there is a lot more we dont know about relating to the goings on during the Dein/Usmanov/HillWood/Kroenke 'wars'. As I understand it, Kronke wants to relcoate the Rams, because St Louis is bankrupt. That would suggest that rather than see them go down the chute, he would rather protect their (and his) interests by relocating them.
|
|
|
Post by ammaar on Aug 5, 2012 19:00:18 GMT
Kroenke's asset is Arsenal and the price value on the shares are increasing rapidly through broadcasting rights and other commercial opportunities. Given that he has had a reputation of not investing properly in teams and that his lack of judgment led to putting one of his big enterprises into bankruptcy, it's not farfetched to suggest he wants a money making machine. Why else would he allow us to sell our prized assets each year with very little investment? Why does he barely ever speak to any of the fans? Why do other clubs then have to end up paying his bills for the mess he leaves his sports clubs in? And when we renew our sponsorship deals in 2014, he will have millions and millions and millions of pounds. All he cares about is making money and has takes no consideration for any other aspects of the clubs he owns.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 5, 2012 19:07:05 GMT
As I understand it the Rams are bankrupt because the city is bankrupt, that's why he wants to relocate them. You can't blame him for the demise of the US economy.
Also we were selling our 'prize assets' before Kronke came in. And in the last couple of years since his arrival, we've spent more on the squad than we have since we moved from Highbury.
I agree that he's too quiet with his communication with the fans, but that's not uncommon for owners.
It's in his personal interest to see Arsenal's value rise, but surely that would go hand in hand with the 'product' being successful ? It makes no sense to suggest that he's simply here for a cash grab. It's in his long term interest to see his 'product' flourish.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 5, 2012 19:16:11 GMT
As I understand it the Rams are bankrupt because the city is bankrupt, that's why he wants to relocate them. You can't blame him for the demise of the US economy. Also we were selling our 'prize assets' before Kronke came in. And in the last couple of years since his arrival, we've spent more on the squad than we have since we moved from Highbury. I agree that he's too quiet with his communication with the fans, but that's not uncommon for owners. It's in his personal interest to see Arsenal's value rise, but surely that would go hand in hand with the 'product' being successful ? It makes no sense to suggest that he's simply here for a cash grab. It's in his long term interest to see his 'product' flourish. So as an Arsenal fan would you be ok with Kroenke moving the team out of London to say, Glasgow, if the financial district in London collapsed?
|
|
|
Post by ammaar on Aug 5, 2012 19:32:34 GMT
You can blame it on the US economy if you want, but he has too many franchises that he can't sustain. He has also made some ludicrous business propositions for the Rams. There was a proposal that he made where he wanted to reconstruct and possibly reloacte the Dome which meant spenting $700 million dollars and a predicted $500 million +/- in convention. In this current Economic climate? That would exacerbate things not make it better. Ticket prices are increasing, profits are increasing and wage bills are increasing in the team yet we still see very little improvement. Spending more doesn't necessarily mean we're doing better and so what if we have spent more? The inflation of the transfer market has led to that. Kroenke has made it clear that he has no intention of investing in Arsenal and has praised the Glazers in the past: www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/7284614/This indicates he could adopt a similar strategy from what the Glazers do. Without investing into the club, it is basically impossible to market the club's brand and allow it to grow. The non commitment on developing the brand typifies the intentions of American owner. It doesn't matter what anyone says, it's important to see actions and he's not done anything. Kroneke takes £25,000 p/w. He also had to borrow all the money to buy the shares in the first place from Deutch Bank. He couldn't afford in the first place and he pays himself a wage for doing - what, exactly? He then doesn't invest and gives the manager a duty to build a team whilst taking no interest in the club or the fans whatsoever? It is bewildering why you are defending this man. If we do end up slipping down the table, he will see the club's value go downhill and he I can guarantee you, he would be off like a rocket. I don't see how he can maintain Arsenal's stature without proper money being sanctioned to spend. And no, the product doesn't need to be successful on the pitch in terms of trophues, so long as he is getting Champions League revenue which is exactly what we have been getting for the last 16 years. That's why he's happy with us getting a top four spot each season. He is just happy with 'competing' (and I use the term loosely) and has no drive to take the clubs forward simply because he is stingy, money grabbing arse.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 5, 2012 19:40:22 GMT
As I understand it the Rams are bankrupt because the city is bankrupt, that's why he wants to relocate them. You can't blame him for the demise of the US economy. Also we were selling our 'prize assets' before Kronke came in. And in the last couple of years since his arrival, we've spent more on the squad than we have since we moved from Highbury. I agree that he's too quiet with his communication with the fans, but that's not uncommon for owners. It's in his personal interest to see Arsenal's value rise, but surely that would go hand in hand with the 'product' being successful ? It makes no sense to suggest that he's simply here for a cash grab. It's in his long term interest to see his 'product' flourish. So as an Arsenal fan would you be ok with Kroenke moving the team out of London to say, Glasgow, if the financial district in London collapsed? Well, I don't think the same parameters really exist to draw a parallel. Firstly, it's not uncommon for NFL teams to move city. Remember that the Rams used to play in Los Angeles and St Louis had another team, the Cardinals. It's happened plenty of times before, so culturally it's acceptable within the sport. Also, the same conditions that affect the operational budgets of towns, cities and states in the US are not governed in the same way that local town and city councils are in the UK. In the US you have have bankrupt 'zones' whilst others flourish. There are many 'unicorporated' area's in the US that sit outside of local governance. In the UK, our Govt have ultimate accountability for the operation of local councils. So, it's a hypothetical question. But if it meant the difference between Arsenal existing or becoming extinct. Then of course I would choose the option that ensured its survival.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 5, 2012 19:59:45 GMT
You can blame it on the US economy if you want, but he has too many franchises that he can't sustain. He has also made some ludicrous business propositions for the Rams. There was a proposal that he made where he wanted to reconstruct and possibly reloacte the Dome which meant spenting $700 million dollars and a predicted $500 million +/- in convention. In this current Economic climate? That would exacerbate things not make it better. Ticket prices are increasing, profits are increasing and wage bills are increasing in the team yet we still see very little improvement. Spending more doesn't necessarily mean we're doing better and so what if we have spent more? The inflation of the transfer market has led to that. Kroenke has made it clear that he has no intention of investing in Arsenal and has praised the Glazers in the past: www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/7284614/This indicates he could adopt a similar strategy from what the Glazers do. Without investing into the club, it is basically impossible to market the club's brand and allow it to grow. The non commitment on developing the brand typifies the intentions of American owner. It doesn't matter what anyone says, it's important to see actions and he's not done anything. Kroneke takes £25,000 p/w. He also had to borrow all the money to buy the shares in the first place from Deutch Bank. He couldn't afford in the first place and he pays himself a wage for doing - what, exactly? He then doesn't invest and gives the manager a duty to build a team whilst taking no interest in the club or the fans whatsoever? It is bewildering why you are defending this man. If we do end up slipping down the table, he will see the club's value go downhill and he I can guarantee you, he would be off like a rocket. I don't see how he can maintain Arsenal's stature without proper money being sanctioned to spend. And no, the product doesn't need to be successful on the pitch in terms of trophues, so long as he is getting Champions League revenue which is exactly what we have been getting for the last 16 years. That's why he's happy with us getting a top four spot each season. He is just happy with 'competing' (and I use the term loosely) and has no drive to take the clubs forward simply because he is stingy, money grabbing arse. I think you're mistakenly drawing the parallel between Kronke not investing his personal money and the ability for the brand to grow and revenue streams to increase. The two are not intrinsically linked. The revenue generation is what Gazidis does, he promotes the brand and develops the product to increase revenue into the club. Also remember that Arsenal invest all of their money back into the club, the shareholders don't take money out. They do this because they recognise that without personal wealth investment, they need to ensure that their product is successful. Of course he pays himself a wage, would you work for nothing ? Even if you had to borrow money (as Kronke did) to get a job (paying for a student loan, or a qualification to get a job) you would expect to get paid in that job wouldn't you? That's a basic prerequisite of any job. Also, I should point out that far from not giving any money to invest in the squad. Arsenal have been investing significant amounts in the last couple of years, remember that we spent around £54m in the last transfer window, we've just bought two strikers and it looks like we're about to secure the services of two of Europe's most talented midfielders (at no small fee) I can appreciate your fears about the unknown with Kronke at Arsenal, like I said, I'd like to see him communicate with the fans a bit more, but you need to look at what is actually happening at the club instead of taking these fears and blowing them out of all proportion. He hasn't bankrupted our club, taken any money out or threatened to relocate us. He's simply overseen the transition of the club, appointed some new faces and as far as I can see, the club are moving in the right direction again.
|
|