Du må være logget inn for å bruke denne funksjonen.Logg inn Ny bruker? Registrer deg her.
Ny bruker? Registrer deg her!
Hva skjer med Armand Traore kommende sesong?
Han tas inn i a-laget
Da begynner vi å få et forsvar med fylde hvertfall.
Han er ikke god nok.
Dessuten har han vist at det er vingspiller han er, ikke back. Men jeg syns han mangler tekniske ferdigheter, men han har hurtigheten som skal til, og han har brukbare innlegg.
Der putta Fabregas for Spania
Russian predator Alisher Usmanov is making his most significant move yet at Arsenal by proposing a rights issue to the board to raise much-needed funds.
Oligarch Usmanov, who has a 25 per cent shareholding but no director’s position, has offered to fully underwrite the initiative — guaranteeing to buy all shares that are not sold — which will need the full support of the club to work.
The Usmanov plan, recently outlined to the club hierarchy, is due to be discussed at the next board meeting. Arsenal’s influential Supporters’ Trust have joined the debate in a meeting with the club and Usmanov is keen for their backing.
The detail of any rights issue would not be finalised until it gets the green light from the club. But Usmanov wants a percentage of the new shares to go to fans, which would mean selling at a fraction of the £8,000 plus at which shares have been trading during the power struggle between Usmanov’s Arsenal vehicle Red & White Holdings and American board member Stan Kroenke, who has a 28 per cent stake.
Neither Kroenke nor his close Arsenal board ally Danny Fiszman, the ringmaster behind the scenes, would be keen on anything that might dramatically increase Usmanov’s standing with the fans, as well as his influence at the club.
But Usmanov knows Arsenal, especially after their Highbury Square property development did not produce anywhere near as much revenue as planned, need to do something significant to find the extra money to compete for the best players.
A spokesperson for Red & White refused to comment on Usmanov’s plans.
Tipper han prøver å kjempe seg inn i laget i høstsesongen men selges i januar pga manglende spilletid.
Måtte Usmanov holde seg LAAAAAANGT unna Arsenal!
Går rykter om Hitzlsperger til Arsenal ?
Noen som har hørt no om Tomas Rosicky til neste sesong?
Så skal vi spille mot Valencia på Mestalla den 8 august.
et interressant intervju med Keown her:
Interessant fra David Conn i Guardian
The Arsenal board may believe Alisher Usmanov's rights issue proposal was a stalking horse to gain more control, something the Russian denies.
Arsenal's Russian major shareholder, Alisher Usmanov, does not perhaps fit every fan's ideal image of a man you would most like to be involved with your football club. But his proposal that Arsenal should hold a rights issue, which would mean he and Arsenal's other shareholders would reach into their own pockets to provide money, not debt, directly for the club to spend, was a shrewd one which probably merited a rather more serious response than it got.
Arsenal's chief executive, the bright, genuine Ivan Gazidis, somewhat slipped the news out yesterday, that the club's board had rejected Usmanov's suggestion. It was tucked into a Q & A format with Arsenal's own website, between positive player news: Robin van Persie has signed a new contract, Eduardo and Tomas Rosicky are back, Thomas Vermaelen, Arsenal's one signing so far of the summer, "will make a big impact," and other young players including Theo Walcott, Kieran Gibbs and Jack Wilshere, have "committed their long term futures to the club."
So all good news and lots to look forward to. And in addition the board, with its financial advisors, Rothschild, has examined and rejected the rights issue idea, which Usmanov's advisors said could raise £150m for the club if he and the other shareholders, including Stan Kroenke and Danny Fiszman, had paid their money in substantially.
Gazidis' reasoning was that Arsenal do not need the money. They do not need it to reduce the club's £416m debts, because "the club has a very efficient capital structure with long-term debt on attractive interest rates." Nor should Arsenal raise money from shareholders to spend it on "one or two players in an inflated transfer market." Instead, they should continue as they are, because they make enough money from the high ticket prices Arsenal fans fork out for, and all the other till-ringing revenues at the Emirates Stadium, "to comfortably meet the annual costs of [the club's] debt while at the same time generating surplus funds to invest in the club."
There are, however, one or two obvious counters to that argument. The first is that the swish apartments being built in the sacred shells of Highbury's East and West Stands - the most prestigious flats in north London, the estate agents' brochures would have you know - were intended to deliver the club a windfall of £100m if the property bubble had not popped. The vast majority of the flats are contracted to be sold, but the prospective buyers cannot now get mortgages. Not only is there no prospect of the £100m windfall – which could well have been used to reduce debt or buy a player or two – but also, a £133m bank loan on the development is due for repayment in April and having to be renegotiated right now. To say Arsenal have no use for money from the rights issue is a little close to arguing they would have had no use for the £100m hoped-for profit from the Highbury flats.
The second most obvious difficulty with the rejection of the rights issue is that Arsenal could have set an example had they given it serious consideration. It is important to understand what a rights issue actually is. It is an issue of new shares to the existing shareholders, principally Usmanov, Kroenke and Fiszman, who would pay Arsenal directly for those new shares. All the other, smaller shareholders would also have the right to buy more shares, some new ones could also be created for fans or investors to buy. Care could have been taken not to give Usmanov or Kroenke a much larger stake, and to protect the stakes of the smaller shareholders.
The virtue of this way of raising money for a football club – or any company - is that the shareholders pay money directly in to buy the shares. Pure cash goes to the club's bank account for it to spend as it thinks wisest. It is not debt; the shareholders are not lending the money, as happens at many other football clubs, which are so in hock to their "benefactors."
Arsenal like to think of themselves as a model club, embodying traditional virtues. A rights issue, in which the rich men in charge actually invest real money, no strings attached, for their club to spend, would have set an example to the clubs existing beyond their means on loans from "sugar daddies," or, worse, those like Manchester United and Liverpool, whose north American owners loaded the clubs with debt to pay for the costs of their own takeovers.
The other problem Arsenal have with rejecting the rights issue is that three longstanding shareholders have recently made multi-millions personally out of selling Arsenal shares, but not a penny of it has gone into the club. Usmanov himself paid £75m to David Dein for the former vice-chairman's stake, which Dein bought in the 1980s and early 1990s for a fingernail of that sum. Fiszman made £42.5m personally – tax free because he is resident in Switzerland – by selling an eight per cent slice of Arsenal to Kroenke in April. Richard Carr, holder of shares which were in his family for generations, made more than £40m when he sold 4,839 shares to Kroenke for "£8,500 per share and £10,500 per share," according to Arsenal's official announcement, on May 1.
All these millionaires, including Fiszman and Carr who are directors, custodians of the club, have made many more millions for themselves out of selling their Arsenal shares. That makes the board's argument that the shareholders, including Fiszman, do not need to pay money into the club, a little more difficult.
Kroenke has rapidly become Arsenal's largest shareholder, with 28.3%, even though David Dein was effectively marched out of the building in 2007 for having encouraged Kroenke to buy into the club. Now Kroenke is a director, favoured by the board, a close ally of Fiszman, while Usmanov, who has 25% of the club, is kept away from decision making.
Kroenke, though, has said almost nothing about why he is buying up so much of Arsenal, and what his intentions are. For all the money he has spent buying up shares, none of it has gone into the club itself.
Nor has any of Usmanov's, but by making the proposal, he was offering to put significant money in, and inviting the other shareholders to do the same. They may well have valid reasons for rejecting that offer. The board may believe the rights issue is a stalking horse for Usmanov to gain more control – which he denies – and they may feel they have good reasons for being suspicious of Usmanov, who spent time in prison in Russia before, he has said, being officially pardoned when the regime changed.
It might, though, make more sense if the Arsenal board spell those reasons out. The idea that the club could simply not use, at all, £150m, does not quite wash. And the club's ordinary supporters, not many of whom are tax exile multi-millionaires, are being asked to pay some of the highest ticket prices in football, while the rich men in the boardroom solemnly maintain a firm public stance that they should not have to put any money into the club at all.
Misforstå meg ikke, jeg ønsker ikke Usmanovs feite pølsefingre i nærheten av klubben, og jeg ønsker ikke et eierskifte. At de ønsker å drive klubben selvfinansiert uten en "sugar daddy" som spyler inn penger er helt fint. Men Fiszman og Carr har gjort sykelig mye penger på klubben i mange år, og det kommer aldri en dråpe tilbake som kan brukes på klubben som de styrer og bedyrer sin elskov til. Hadde også vært interessant å fått høre mer fra Kroenke hva han planlegger å gjøre med klubben han gradvis eier mer og mer av..
(Innlegget ble redigert 10.07.09 14:51)
(Innlegget ble redigert 10.07.09 17:53)
En ny 'Fox in the Box' klar for Arsenal?
Forhåpentligvis en større suksess enn den forrige.Fox heading overseas to build Arsenal’s global bran
Veteran sports marketer Tom Fox is taking his considerable game overseas.
Multiple industry sources said last week the former NBA, Nike and Gatorade executive has accepted a job offer from Premier League power Arsenal where he will be the No. 2 executive to CEO Ivan Gazidis.
Fox’s title is still to be determined, but it likely will be chief commercial officer, a position in which he will have responsibility for all revenue
Fox would not comment. Sources said he will start the new job in August. - sportsbusinessjournal.com
Hvis vi setter frykten for ytterlgere byråkrati og papirflytting til side, tror jeg dette er en smart trekk. Det gir oss bedre forhandlingskort både sportslig og utenomsportslig.
Det gleder meg å se at det satses i administrasjonen også.
En tankevekkende artikkel som forklarer ett og annet mtp økonomien (utdrag):
Kevin Whitcher, the editor of Arsenal’s popular fanzine The Gooner and co-author of the critically acclaimed Arsènal: The Making of a Modern Superclub, has warned fellow supporters of the north London club that Arsene Wenger faces several more years of tight financial constraints (...)
Widely regarded as an authority on all things Arsenal, Whitcher explained to sport.co.uk that the transformation of Highbury stadium into a series of flats under the banner ‘Highbury Square’ will not reap the club any profit and was having a direct negative influence on the manager’s spending capability.
“The problem is that the club have either got to push through the Highbury Square development or cut their losses and effectively declare that part of the organisation is bankrupt and walk away from it,” Whitcher explained.
“They’ve got a £120m debt repayment to find for next April. The club have always maintained that the football and the property business are completely separate, and legally that is true, however, if they are going to see it through they do need to find money from somewhere. (...)
“That is the conclusion to make from (a) the net transfer spending of the last five seasons and (b) even the balance sheets. At the end of the day the accounts don’t lie. I think if he was seriously desperate the board would give him a little money. However, I think in a way he has used the situation because he is actually very much into the idea of building a team from scratch without spending any money.
“I don’t think he wants to sell his players, but certain players effectively make themselves expendable through different reasons. (...) “Wenger is therefore as culpable as any of them and perpetuates the idea that he does have money. If in fact he did have cash, surely he wouldn’t be foolish enough not to spend it.”
Resten av artikkelen kan leses ved å følge linken.
(Innlegget ble redigert 21.09.09 16:29)
Skremmende. Det kan skje fort at vi havner utforbi topp4 fortere enn vi liker.. Men Wenger er heldigvis rett mann til å styre skuta om det er trangt om penger.
Jeg tror dette ordner seg rimelig greit. Forholdene blir nok som de har vært i de siste årene.
Men jeg håper fansen da skjønner at topp 4 ikke er noe å grine over. Ikke så lenge dette er forutsetningene.
Leses bør i denne sammenheng også følgende intervju (utdrag):
(...) Sport.co.uk interviewed Kevin Whitcher, the co-author (alongside Alex Flynn) of Arsènal: The Making of a Modern Superclub a detailed analysis of Wenger’s achievements in north London and the troubles facing the Gunners as economic adversity bites hard.
Do you think that Arsenal have been unlucky in the manner in which the football and economic landscape have shifted since the decision to (...)
Yes I do, but at the same time I don’t think it needs a lot of investment to allow Arsenal to remain competitive. The frustrating thing is that if we did spend on transfer what Tottenham spent I think we could have a far better squad and more chance of competing, even with the billionaire clubs.
The club’s venture into property development has certainly been controversial; it appears that there is little to no financial gain to be made (...)
The problem is that the club have either got to push through the Highbury Square development or cut their losses and effectively declare that part of the organisation is bankrupt and walk away from it. They’ve got a £120m debt repayment to find for next April. (...)
Many fans find it incredibly frustrating to hear Wenger come out at the end of a season claiming that he knows which positions he wishes to (...)
There is an element of illusion here. Arsenal have to maintain the idea that they could get a superstar player for the ‘bums-on-seats’ factor. They have some very expensive seats to sell in the corporate boxes and the club level, and to actually come out and be honest about the situation is very, very bad for the box office. (...)
Most fans would appreciate a bit of honesty; I’m not sure how much it would alter ticket sales because I think people have cottoned on now anyway (...)
At the moment, the single most likely chance of them doing exactly that is through the purchase of Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith’s shares?
Unquestionably; it really is a question of meeting her asking price because she is quite happy to sell. It appears that Red & White would have the money to basically complete a full takeover and ultimately it depends on the long-term intentions of Messrs Kroenke and Fiszman (...)
From a personal point of view, would you be happy to see someone like Usmanov take the reigns at the club?
I have reservations about the individual. The things I’ve heard about him don’t inspire me with a great deal of confidence in terms of his personality.
It’s the devil and the deep blue sea stuff with regards the ownership of Arsenal and it’s frustrating. I don’t think the current board are bad in terms of their personalities, it’s more a case that they don’t grasp the concept that you can speculate to accumulate.
If they did pump in, let’s say £20 to £30m to the club, and they started winning things again, you would reap the dividends and get that money back (...)
For example, the rejection of the idea of a rights issue last summer – to me it was a no brainer, but the directors rejected it, because they didn’t want to put their own money into the club. They are happy paying for shares but do not want to put money directly into the club.
Del to av intervjuet (som er sterkt beskåret her) finner dere på denne linken.
Anbefales, og spesielt for de som trodde på PHW's ord om a £40M warchest
(Innlegget ble redigert 21.09.09 16:50)
Det aner meg at man har en viss kontroll på dette her, og jeg tror at de £40M som forsvant fra transferbudsjettet til AW i sommer er øremerket en kommende refinansiering (som fort kan koste opp i mot noe slikt) av dette lånet og andre, en eller annen gang ut på nyåret.
Å ta seg til CL år etter år på vekslepenger, er intet mindre enn en gigabragd...