Stan Kroenke


#225

Not really, at the top of the list you have United, City and Chelsea and I’m tipping that will be the top 3 at seasons end.


#226

Stan Kuntke


#227

No doubt, but net spend, like all spending is subjective.

Kolasinac is £40m of anyone’s money at a bare minimum.

Likewise if City got Alexis for £62m vs Barca trying to get Coutinho for £140m.

Net spend in isolation is a load of nonsense when used as a barometer of success; context context context.


#228

I would have preferred it if they said nothing.
It’s like Wenger coming out, after getting thrashed against Liverpool after we didn’t have a shot on target, and saying I was happy with the result because we kept it down to four goals.

There are times when what Wenger and the club say is better kept to themselves.


#229

I tell you what’s not subjective then, our centre of the park situation is shambolic and everyone can see it, yet it still wasn’t addressed in the summer.


#230

I get what you are saying, but the loss to Liverpool wasnt a reflection of how talented our squad is, especially if we get 3 points in the reverse fixture.

But it really is by the book public relations and is mental that you let it bother you. As lovely as it would be to have a board member say ‘this isn’t enough, the fans dont deserve it, I’m sick of Wenger, once he’s gone i am personally going to make this once great club great again’, it just isn’t going to happen.

You cannot allow yourself to be annoyed by what is ultimately ethical and professional behaviour.


#231

Let’s hold those goalposts there and stay on topic. Are you acknowledging what I say?


#232

I still thinks net spend is important as it generally shows how much ambition a club has, if you receive inflated fees it could be slightly misleading but an ambitious club would reinvest the money anyways.


#233

Net spend is important, sure. But without context its worthless. Neither of Watford or Brighton are finishing in the top 4 so how is their net spend an indicator of their ambition vs ours?


#234

It’s Wenger completely and utterly, It always has been. Our Transfer dealings are definitely reflective of Wenger’s decline as a top manager and his outdated, flawed ideals on football.

Every negative aspect of the squad and our transfer dealing is solely directly attributed to Wenger. If you examine our activity in retrospect you can see this clearly. It symptomatic of the power Wenger has at this club, it make him totally accountable for everything.

SK is an easy scapegoat, only crime is naively believing in Wenger BS and letting him continue.

I’ll say it again: Once Wenger leave the culture of the club changes overnight


#235


#236

Kroenke gave 1 million dollars to Donald Trump’s inaugural fund. So yeah.


#237

Kroenke has also made donations of over $2m dollars to the Hillary 2016 campaign and smaller donations to Democrat organisations all over the US. If anything his donation profile clearly aligns with the Democratic party. So yeah.

Even with donation to Trump, that doesn’t invalidate his opinion on the current situation.


#238

its good for business for him to say this, trumps approval rating is low


#239

So was the trump donation. It was good for business.


#240

2m to Hilary and 1m to Trump? I guess that explains why he drains 3m from the club once in a while :nerd_face:


#241

Pretty much standard fare… look at all the big businesses/special interests… virtually all but the most rabid extremes contribute to both parties…


#242

And yet, funding Trump wouldnt be the worst thing we as Arsenal fans have to face.


#243

I really feel it could be disastrous for the club if this happens.

http://news.arseblog.com/2017/09/kroenke-turns-the-tables-and-makes-bid-for-usmanovs-shares/


#244

What I don’t get is the point in Kroenke even owning us, he’s not prepared to put the amount of money in needed to overhaul the squad, he’s not prepared to be ruthless with a failing manager, he doesn’t really take any money out of the club, other than this £3m we hear about (which in the grand scheme of things is peanuts) and he doesn’t seem hungry for us to be as successful as we can be in the pitch. Why not take the money and let someone who’s interested in seeing this club on top run it.

As much as people take a moral stand against Usmanov I’m pretty sure footballs moral days are long gone and I do wonder what a future under Usmanov would have been like had the club been sold to him instead.