If you’ve ever been to Wembley you’ll know that it is no place for a football club. It’s a great place to build a stadium that is relatively accessible and the venue is up there among the best as far as seating, visibility, and all that but while it’s a great place for a stadium it’s no place for a club.
A club needs it’s history to be near by so that supporters can walk by the famous old ground on the way in or the way out of a game, look at the old Art Deco facade, and feel the presence of the millions who partied on those famous streets after cup glory. A club needs a station named after it. A club needs, well, our club needed to stay in Islington.
But our club also needed to get out of Highbury. Not just from an amenities standpoint but also to accommodate the fan growth that Arsenal had undergone and keep up with Europe’s best.
Ken Friar attributes the fact that Arsenal built Ashburton Grove in Islington rather than leased Wembley from the FA to Danny Fiszman, who sadly passed away yesterday after a long battle with illness. Friar called Fiszman a great friend and tireless worker for the Arsenal cause. It turned out that it was his life’s work to not only give Arsenal the stadium which could be filled with her ambitions but also to keep that stadium in North London.
It is also with the passing of Danny Fiszman that questions of why Stan Kroenke had to bid so suddenly and in the middle of a season have finally been answered. But one last question remains: surely, Danny Fiszman could have sold his shares to the highest bidder. Or even better, allowed his estate to sell them after his passing which could have given his heirs even more value and absolved him of any blame in the ensuing dog fight. But instead, it was almost his dying wish to pass the torch to Stan Kroenke.
Can Mr. Kroenke live up to that selection?
But what’s a billionaire really worth?
I wish people would stop talking about how much Usmanov and Kroenke are “worth” as if you could ask them for their debit card and check their account balance at the local ATM.
I blame Forbes and their “rich list” that they put out every year. It’s really not as simple as people like to think — especially since both are still heavily invested in high growth areas.
For example, Usmanov went from being worth $9bn in 2008 to worth just $1.6bn in 2009. In fact, he’s had several huge swings in his valuation. His first came when he doubled from $2.6bn in 2006 to $5.5bn in 2007 largely due to the fact that the Russian government, uhhh, encouraged him to buy Russian Newspaper Kommersant after Boris Berezovsky fled the country. It’s also important to note that during the economic collapse of 2009 Usmanov’s value plummeted to ‘just’ $1.6bn and in fact his most stable holding, Mettaloinvest, needed to be bailed out by the Russian government to the tune of $3bn after his gamble on Norilsk Nickle lost $1.9bn.
What’s he supposedly worth now? $17.7bn. That’s up an astonishing $10.5bn in just one year. He could buy the entire Premier League with the amount of money his net worth supposedly went up just last year. This happened because, we are told, he took a flyer on Facebook and his newspaper and mobile phone companies have taken off.
Meanwhile, little ole Enoch Stanley Kroenke has just been plodding along, buying sports teams and building little media and real estate empires from them. As a result, Kroenke’s net worth has gone from $1.1bn in 2002 to a high of $3bn in 2009 and back down to $2.6bn in 2011. His fortunes have been heavily subsidized by the way American sports work, which is to say that he is part of several monopolies which have locked out or are threatening to lock out their players in order to force the players to meet their demands.
The other factor to consider is that Kroenke’s wife is one of the many minor heirs to the Walmart empire and is worth $3.4bn herself. I don’t know how their family finances work and as such it’s a factor that we can rule out with one small caveat; Stan Kroenke doesn’t need any money from his investments to live lavishly for the rest of his days.
My impression is that the two men are wildly different. Usmanov is a very successful gambler who has been and still is heavily involved with the Russian government and who has recently diversified his portfolio and been even more successful. The other is a successful long-time sports investor who has capitalized on the sports structure in the USA to slowly buy bigger and more valuable sports teams.
But how much are they worth? To me, they are only worth what they can bring to Arsenal. We can argue over which one of the two will “bring more to value” to the club, what that means, and how we will define it.
Feel free to do so below.
Tim words above: “To me, they are only worth what they can bring to Arsenal. We can argue over which one of the two will “bring more to value” to the club”
My words: I will tie my ribbon to the mast and pledge allegiance to whomever uphold the ethos and the continuance of Community, success, pride, humility, delight and pleasure of play, HONOUR, best practice, integrity, dignity and respect of Arsenal Football Club.
Alisher Usmanov said “My principle in regards to Arsenal is that it can’t do without me”.
I could say so much about this quote, but Tim would ban me from his blog so sssshhhh sssshhhh.
Be good to one another. Laters.
I think Fiszman got it right. Kroenke seems to be a sensible owner who runs his teams well (if at all). And he’s been part of the Arsenal setup for a while now and he’s been a good influence.
You can judge what the two would be like as owners by what they have done regarding Arsenal so far. Usmanov has simply offered us cash in return for more power. Kroenke offers us a lot more in terms of improving our overseas and media revenue, and he has always had a good relationship with the board and management and seems to respect the Arsenal way.
Thanks Tim for another good read.
I recently listen to an interesting BBC radio programme on football. Just thought I’d share its existence with others.
The link is below if you fancy it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fbcrt
I think that the largest portion of Arsenal fans’ ideal setup would be to have had continuity of a plurality of ownership. By which I mean it would have been best to have what we had: 5 or so major investors who own somewhere between 12 – 20 percent of the shares and few “major” minor shareholders like the Supporters Trust. This corporate set-up is best because it protects well our Arsenal values, such as maintaining a self-sustaining model of club and squad building, and moving forward on sound financial ground that will protect us from the swings in the world economy and the whims of fanciful owners whose speculations in the EPL market can be ruinous for their clubs (Newcastle or Liverpool, anyone?).
It would have been ideal if Fiszman could have found someone not already an owner to take his shares. Someone who was Arsenal through and through and who would have owned their part of the club for the love of the club and not the money. His sons would have been ideal. Alas, they care not for the Arsenal as did their father.
But We can’t have what we really would want. So what we get instead is not the ideal choice, but a Hobson’s Choice: which do you prefer between two non-ideal choices. In that regard I would side with Kroenke, for the following reasons:
1) He was Danny Fiszman’s choice. Fiszman really was Arsenal through and through. We are unlikely to see Directors like him again who genuinely want success only for the Club and not for financial gain (although, I admit, Fisman did very well for himself and his family by his sale of Arsenal shares and his move to Switzerland). If I had to trust a person’s judgment as to whom I would ask advice from if I were passing on my own shares in the club, that person would be Arsene Wenger first, and Danny Fiszman second. So I place a lot of stock (no pun intended but haha anyway) in the fact that Fiszman chose Kroenke and not Usmanov.
2) Kroenke is more financially conservative. He has slowly built his financial empire on stable investments rather than risky and speculative ones. I prefer a business owner who is familiar with English style corporate rules (American rules are much closer to England than the shady “rules” of Russia) and is reputable. Usmanov may be a good or even better businessman than Kroenke. I cannot tell, because Russian oligarchs build their empires in an opaque way. What I can tell is that Kroenke is a *good* businessman. That’s assurance enough for me over the uncertainty of Usmanov.
3) Kroenke has experience in sports ownership, and has been the best kind of owner in that time – a distant one. I want an owner with the humility to recognize that they are not an expert in the sport they are an owner in. I want an owner that will hire good experts and let them work. When he bought the Rams, Avalanche and Nuggets, Kroenke took a hand off approach. He hired good sports people and left it to them. Usmanov strikes me as more the Abramovich type, who wants to go into the locker room to talk to players, who wants to tell the manager who to buy and how to play. That is a recipe for trouble. Let the experts do their jobs almost always works better in the long (and short) term than amateur meddling. I prefer Kroenke’s humility.
I like that Usmanov won’t sell to Kroenke. It preserves as best as possible my ideal scenario, because at least this way there is a majority and minority owner – Kroenke can’t change the financial structure of the club without the 75% “supermajority”. Usmanov is actually a great protective shield for us, regardless of his personal issues that make me dislike him. It also means the fans will continue to own their very small stakes since they won’t be forced to sell under the Takeover rules if Kroenke gets to 90%.
I would like to see things either not change further (Kroenke 62%, Usmanov 28%, Smaller holders 10%), which might happen, or better yet, see another minority owner come in an buy some shares of Kroenke’s so we are closer to a split ownership again.
But choosing between Kroenke and Usmanov, as major holder or outright owner, I would take Kroenke.
Cheers,
-Jon
@Jon, Very well said! I too wish the board had found some other wealthy supporter to take his shares and perhaps he tried–we don’t know. It is odd, though, that it was DD who drummed these others up but still found himself on the outs. The shareholders did very well for themselves certainly. Let’s hope Kroenke feels some sense of responsibility to the club and becomes a genuine supporter who wouldn’t sell it to someone who would damage it.
Danny Fiszman, true true Arsenal man, would never let Arsenal go to anyone who would intentionaly damage the club…i.e Glaziers type. I,ve been to his old offices (Star Diamond) years ago and the place was covered with Arsenal murals/deco. Believe me this guy truly loved Arsenal.
“Arsenal can’t do without me”? I can imagine Emmanuel Adebayor saying that. But I can’t imagine any other recent player saying that. I can’t imagine even Arsene Wenger, who would have a slight justification, saying that. And I can’t imagine Stan Kroenke saying that. But if Usmanov really said that, then, Danny Fiszman, your last stand was a damn good one.
@Uncle Mike, Where was this statement published? What megalomania!
Can he, will he, indeed? As usual a cogent post, Tim. Lady Nina also could have cashed in and reportedly made 20 odd million more selling to Usmanov but didn’t. Initially, it seemed she was going for a higher per share price the last 18 months (around 14-15K) and didn’t want to sell to either Kroenke or Usmanov. I wonder what changed and why? For that matter, I still don’t understand why she was removed from the board either.
In terms of our ownership structure, however, why do we need to frame it as an either or? Obviously SK seems more relaible a manager of a sports team while Usmanov might be an Abromovitch type but we don’t really know as he is a bit of a gambler. If Usmanov doesn’t want to sell it might be best for the club that they work together or that Usmanov maintain his blocking interest to limit some of the potential changes that might allow $ to be taken out of the club. In any case, this Kroenke vs. Usmanov doesn’t seem like the most interesting debate. And frankly I wish we had neither of them since Arsenal has build a successful vision for success in the future without either of them.
@Limestonegunner,
Lady Nina was axed from the board after a complete breakdown of relations with the board and in particular Danny Fiszman mainly over his intention to deal with Stan. It does seem a bit drastic to sack someone over a falling out though doesn’t it? I find her rather attractive in an exotic kind of way, and wealth has no influence here.
@jax, Wasn’t Danny originally anti Stan along with Hill-Wood? Perhaps it was his about face which upset the lovely Nina and set her off.
RIP Danny.
I really don’t get the anti-Usmanov sentiment. Some above who slated me last week for picking on one or two line of Wengers comments last friday chose to do the exact same thing with Usmanovs. And i think its even worse considering the rest of Usmanovs comments.
“I’m not going to sell my stake. I love Arsenal, that’s why I’m a shareholder”
“The board of Arsenal always held the position that none of the shareholders should take control over the company,” Usmanov added yesterday. “That is why I never [made] any offer to increase my stake [to] more than 50 per cent. But probably something has changed, to my surprise.”
“We know that Kroenke is a large investor in sports brands,” Usmanov said today. “We hope that experience will help Arsenal.”
“I am big fan of Arsene Wenger and as long as he heads the team, I am sure of Arsenal’s success,” he said.
David Dein is Red&White Holdings main man and no-one can question david deins love for arsenal. Why would Dein endorse anyone that may jeopardize the club. And he introduced Kroenke to the club. Who was also met with skepticism by the old fart PHW.
The fact is its good for arsenal for usmanov to keep his shares and stop kroenke gaining full control of the club. Everything suggests usmanov wants success on the field. Who can blame him being annoyed with how the board has treated him. I think we should stop vilifying him and invite him onto the board so all ownership can work together going forward.
So i was thinking of joining the AST. 30pounds for a year. anyone on here a member? I wonder about how much say i can have now i’m in Toronto seen as i’d never get to any meetings. or should i just buy a fanshare?
@Chief Gooner, Well said re David Dein. I remain a big fan and although he made a mistake selling his shares to Red & White he had the welfare of the club at heart. I know most of the folk here will not agree but I would like to see a role created for him. Director of Football maybe?
Here’s an excellent article on DD from just yesterdayhttp://www.sabotagetimes.com/football-sport/arsenals-biggest-signing-this-summer-should-be-david-dein/
@jax, Unfortunately the link doesn’t work. Must be something I’m doing wrong, so you’ll have to type it into the box, but well worth reading.
@Chief Gooner, Dein is no longer with R&W, and hasn’t been for quite some time now.
@Chief Gooner, What do you think Usmanov meant by the line about how the club couldn’t do with him?
Apparently Dein is no longer associated with Red and White as of a couple years ago.
I’ve thought about joining AST too and/or the fanshare program–and if I lived in London rather than in eastern Ontario (hi neighbor!) I would definitely do it.
Haha, it seems Tim has a vocal group of Canadian followers, since CG and Limestone are in Ontario and I am in Nova Scotia.
@CG, I wouldn’t want to be seen as villifying Usmanov, I just find him to be less trustworthy than Kroenke, and, if given (er, forced into) the choice, I would prefer Kroenke over Usmanov. I find Usmanov to be a little shady, as is the case for most Russian oligarchs. I don’t like the idea of not really knowing where his money is from, what its risk exposure is, that he has experience with a well-regulated corporote model like the UK, or that he is a well-versed sports investor.
I wouldn’t want to besmirch the man. Maybe, and hopefully, he does genuinely have Arsenal’s best interests (long term not just short term winning) at heart. I just think since I have to speculate on a preferred owner, Kroenke is the better choice. There is a large degree of uncertainty in Usmanov’s background and intentions, and I don’t like uncertainty all that much when it comes to the well being of my football club.
I agree that Usmanov would be taking a big step in the right direction for me by not selling his shares, which I said in my original post on this topic today. I’m not sure on the whole “give him a Board seat” idea – one of the most important things on a Board of Directors is harmony. I like the idea of alternative perspectives being available and it seems right that a protective minority shareholder should be on the Board, but if it is going to cause a problem in the Board dynamics, then I think it is a bad idea. In that regard I would trust the current Board, who have chosen not to invite Red and White to the Board. What I really would like is a seat on the Board for the AST.
Cheers,
-Jon
@Jon, Perhaps the problem some people are having is with the term “better choice”, and all the baggage that comes with “better”? Another option might be to refer to Kroenke as a “more well-known risk” in comparison to Usmanov. Semantics? Sure… but sometimes they matter.
@Jon, haha, indeed, shadiness is the common trait among those oligarchs.
to chiefgooner i hear AST is 4 ‘homegrown fans’ only.usmanov is no angel(i am not saying hes evil) neither is kroenke but his mudslinging is is only a PR stunt so we can believe he cares 4 arsenal.his description as a gambler is scary coz gamblers walk into a casino in a ferrari and leave in a taxi cab.
Which can bring more money? Undoubtedly Oozemanov.
Which can bring more expertise, “value” and stability? Probably Kroenke. His investments and holdings are all similar, he has knowledge of the pro-sports industry. He is somewhat withdrawn and doesn’t seem to like to rock the boat unnecessarily.
Oozemanov is, almost the polar opposite, his investments, sure they are diverse and you can take whatever you like from that (he’s minimizing his risk for maximum reward, blah, blah). But, does he have the expertise to make Arsenal a better football club? If we look at Abramovich as an example, probably not. Does he have the knowledge of how to increase our commercial revenue streams? Nope. Does he want to play football manager? Most likely, yes he does. And do we really want to become the next Chelsea or City? No, not really. We have our own identity and we have a club that stands on it’s own two feet. And that makes me proud. So Kroenke is almost certainly the better choice to see our clubs traditions maintained.
quoted from another forum
“Danny Fizeman ,thank you
I am truly saddened at his passing because after reading the various papers and Blogs ,I realise that in fact he was the second coming of Christ not a money grubbing Shyster that I had thought he was prior to yesterday .
He is named in the press as being a lifelong Arsenal Supporter which means he can’t of been the Danny Fizeman that admitted in his first interview that he didn’t really know a lot about football but had got involved because of his friend David Dein ,silly me.
I’m even more astounded by the newly released information that it was him and not Dein that forced the move to the Bowl ,and had even identified the site, seems very odd that my muddled Brain remembers us trying to buy land over there in the 70’s and 80’s when Mr Fizman was dealing diamonds in Antwerp and South Africa ,
How confused I must have been because as everyone has said ,he was a true gooner.
He of course was not the man whose lust for money led him to spend little on players so he could drive up the share price so he could sell to an American at a vastly
inflated price which will mean the club will be used to squeeze the fans out of ever spiralling sums of money to support the repayment of investment .
How stupid I have been !
I’ve now been told he personally paid for Dennis Berkamp the list of his incredible triumphs is growing hourly ,I feel humbled .
This reminds me very much of when Robert Maxwell died and everyone said nice things about him until they found out all the nasty things he was up to and fleet street
Did an immediate volte face .Similarly in the weeks before her death Princess Diane was vilified in the Tory press and being a called delusional slapper who was damaging
Britains exports by fatty Soames on TV (in mines) and once dead became the St Diana the virtuous.
I’m expecting more gushing lies from the spins camp at pravda as the man we thought of as an utter cunt is canonised by all and sundry all based on anecdotal bullshit “
@richiegooner, Are you in support of this or have you put it here for our info? Who wrote this crap. I also heard that story about Dein bringing the “not very interested in football” Fiszman to Arsenal. Another good piece of DD business I’d say but the man can’t be criticised for being a late comer.
@richiegooner, it’s amazing how David Dein, who is such a huge supporter of the club would sell his shares to Alisher Usmanov after putting all that work into building the club just for the sake of the club. It is equally amazing how when rebuffed by the board in trying to bring Kroenke in in order to shove his Wembley plan down everyone’s throats he went out and got a different billionaire.
He probably sold those shares at a huge loss and is now living in penury, refusing to work in any football capacity, and in no way trying to undermine the club as it is currently configured by unsettling Henry, Cesc, and now the fans because his massive fucking ego won’t let it go that he lost.
@Tim, His biggest mistake was selling those shares to the Russian gangster who he wanted as a sugar daddy to the club al la Chelsea, but I suppose he felt justified having been virtually sacked by the board. And why shouldn’t he make a profit? Stan Kranke certainly will.
For all his faults I like David Dein who getting lots of positive PR right now and would love him to return although imagine the punch ups with Ivan Gazidis.
@richiegooner, I am puzzled by this submission. It’s confusing yet readable, it’s damming yet has some humour, its exasperating true in places yet false in many ways. I am still uncertain why it’s lodged on this blog…has Mr Dein got himself a publicist in RichieGooner.
Throughout my two years of internal blog submission I have rarely, maybe never wrote about Mr Dein. Why? Maybe because I always appreciated him as an Arsenal Supporter but also a “Chancer”. I often categorised him as a survivor from the Titanic, because he’d dressed as a woman to get on the Life Craft.
Mr Dein was around when the Board looked at opportunities to move away from Highbury, and Mr Fiszman may have been a later arrival to the Arsenal Board (1992), but it’s a confirmed fact that Mr Dein wanted Arsenal to move to Wembley and he voted against the build of the Emirates. Once the Board decided on the new stadium, (a Board Room vote, not only Fiszman), the Board selected a Project Board Leader, and that was Mr Fiszman.
Yes he may be receiving all the accolades today for the stadium, but it was a Board’s decision. If as Richie Gooner say Mr Fiszman was digging for diamonds by the time Mr Dein was taking chances and making Arsenal into a better managed club… that does not excuse Mr Dein from being a money grabbing aspirant who himself made large sums of salary and expenses for his role on the Arsenal Board. To this present day, his family continues to do well from Arsenal, (although I need to be careful here), our Club Captain and others are managed by his close family.
Mr Dein was ousted from Arsenal Board for” irrecoverable differences”, and yes I do believe he introduced both Fiszman and Kroenke to Arsenal… but what you are forgetting, or maybe glossing over is the £75m he received from the Russian for his shares and the immediate set up of Red & White Holdings, and he became Head of their investment whose main business objective was to buy shares of Arsenal and take over the Club. I’m sure he was well compensated for that role.
But maybe like Tim says below… maybe he is now broke and he wants to come back… it will not happen, no number of positive PR will welcome him back.
P.S. Robert Maxwell was denounced as a crook and a charlatan long before he threw himself overboard from his yacht in the Mediterranean, the icing on the cake came afterwards. His sons are still feeling the tire marks on their backs from the old aged pensioners he swindled.
P.S: Diana was an angel to the common people long before, during and after Fat Soames come on national TV and called her a slapper… who remembers him… but maybe like him you are Mr Dein equivalent to Fat Soames, a Conservative Pompous Royalist who was protecting his friend Prince Charles and his current wife reputation at that time.
no im neutral,i am open minded and aware of the media spin put out to portray the board as die hard gooners who have nothing but the best interests of the club in mind, when in reality they are business men first,and love arsenal because of all the perks they got from the club, when i say club i mean the old fanbase that has basically been sold up the river
@richiegooner, Oh for the days of the Hill-Woods and Bracewell-Smiths.
OFF BASE SUBJECT: Did Laurent Koscielny become a father as yet. I recall during the last Interlull his girlfriend was about to have thier baby. What was it? anyone know.. Boy or Girl.. I know fellas,, but I’m a girl… and we like to keep abreast of these things.
@London Calling & Overseas, Per Wiki… “Koscielny and his wife Claire welcomed their first child, Raina, in March 2011.”
@JV Mauer, Ahh how sweet. I like the name.
I’m undecided on where I stand regarding the Kroenke vs. Usmanov, Kroenke has a good track work and seems to me his ethos is to build sustainable models that can manage themselves. Which is good because it will mean business as usual for our club, with potentially a bit of spending on transfers to win over a few of the undecided crowd, ofcourse.
But unfortunately we’ll never know the true plans of either of them men until they’ve moved on from the club, we won’t know if Usmanov is refusing to sell his shares because he believes he can still take control of the Arsenal and borrow against it and run it into the ground. Or whatever it is people think he’ll do to it…
I like to put myself in the shoes of anyone with the money to do what these two are doing, and I don’t see how anyone no matter how wealthy, would just throw briefcase after lorry’s of cash in a wasteful fashion. So to me, its unthinkable that anyone who looks to invest that sort of money into taking a full controlling share of Arsenal would ever run it so that they couldn’t get their money back out of it if needed.
That said, theres an unfortunate track record in the premier league of owners doing just that for the sake of onfield success.
Hopefully, Kroenke can get some very savvy people around him and they can work out the secret to getting a couple of shiny things for the club and keeping enough cash around to square off debts.
What is a billionaire really worth these days? That is a good question. It is just Arsenal’s luck that our billionaire is not a ‘Bill Gates’ or a ‘Warren Buffet’ class but someone who just crosses the billionaire threshold line. Kroenke not only has to pony up for Bracewell-Smith’s shares but now he has to buy Fiszman’s shares within 30 days of his passing. I hope Kroenke has it all worked as to how he’s going to suddenly come up with that much cash without using any debt instruments.
Check out this 7 vs 1 video guy with a bat fights off a gang