It is perhaps part of the sports fan’s philosophy that while the owner of their favorite team may own the most shares in the business, he can never truly own the club, because the club is not really comprised of shares of stock. The club is made up of people, fans, who sit in seats and go to the games; fans who watch Arsenal together at Maggie McGarry’s in San Francisco; fans who fly thousands of miles to see one game in their entire life just so that they can be part of something bigger than themselves for a mere 90 minutes. I feel a little bit like William Wallace in saying this but Kroenke may own a majority of the Arsenal shares but he will never own a majority of the fans.*
It should be no surprise, then, that when asked who they would prefer for owner of the club the vast majority of Arsenal supporters surveyed opted for either a multiple-owner scheme or to turn the club into a fan-owned enterprise.
Pro-Kroenke and pro-Usmanov voters combined for nearly 30% of the vote, leaving over 70% firmly in the “some type of mixed ownership” category. It would be interesting to drill in to the “no single owner” and “fan owned” categories here to get a better sense of what people are thinking. Is the “no single owner” answer a bit of nostalgia for the Invincibles era when the club were owned by Dein, Fiszman, Lady Nina, and others or are there other reasons why plurality of ownership is so appealing?
Similarly the fan-owned question, is this just an “anyone but Usmanov and Kroenke” answer or do a sizable majority of people who answer this question understand how a community owned team work? There was one person who selected “other” and wrote in “Model after the Bundesliga, 51% supporter ownership minimum” so, perhaps there are.
The reality of Arsenal’s ownership is that it’s mixed with most holdings in the hands of two men: Kroenke and Usmanov. In other words, Arsenal’s ownership is as, or somewhat like the way, the majority of fans want it to be. Kroenke is majority shareholder at nearly 63% of Arsenal but Usmanov owns somewhere near 30%. Not wanting to set up a false dualism and forcing respondents to choose between the two, I allowed them to pick who they would naturally prefer. Whether that person is Kroenke, Usmanov, a group, the fans, or other (Arsene Wenger was the most oft written in name) was entirely left to the respondent. Ostensibly, asking this was should pull out respondents ho self-identify as more of a “Kroenke man” or an “Usmanov man”.
In the dualism, you can see that a majority would prefer Usmanov over Kroenke. Why this disparity exists could be a study of epic proportion. I suspect that should one ask questions like “who would be more likely to put money into the club” versus “who do you trust with the long-term future of the club” and cross tabulated them with questions about winning trophies and losing players we might find answers as to why Usmanov was given the edge. But given the media savvy way that Usmanov and Kroenke have manipulated public opinion, a survey like that would have to be very carefully constructed so as not to mislead people to one answer over the other.
One of the reasons that I wanted to even do this survey is that I saw the results of Phil’s questionnaire at Angry of Islington where some astounding number of people from all over the globe preferred Usmanov to Kroenke. Anything over 55% in favor of one candidate over the other is a very strong majority and anything over 60% is, well, it’s a 20% difference. So, when you see results like 70% versus 30% you have to wonder if the person who is getting 30% isn’t a convicted rapist or if perhaps there was a problem with the survey.
While Phil’s survey forced respondents to choose, my survey allowed people to self-identify as Kroenkeists or Usmanovists and the numbers, to say the least, are slightly more comforting.
Among the top three groups of fans (N. American, European, and Asian) there was a slight edge in favor of Kroenke. But once you add in the people from the rest of the world, that’s when Usmanov takes the lead.
The N. American and European numbers are also interesting in that they are nearly directly inverse: Europeans gave Usmanov 43% and Americans gave Kroenke 43% of their total numbers. This is true in pure numbers as well: between the two choices, N. Americans chose Kroenke 61% of the time versus Europeans who chose Usmanov 59%. In Asia, Kroenke held an edge as well with 55% of the vote but in Africa, Usmanov won with all but two of the respondents. Outer space aliens also preferred Usmanov to Kroenke 5 to 2.
On the issue of “Kroenke v. Usmanov” the wide disparity between results of Phil’s survey which included a false dualism and mine which included an unattainable idealistic option could be explained just by design flaws but also could partly be explained by audience. Both Phil and I write very different types of blogs and as such our audiences tend to be very different. A third party (preferably not an Arsenal blog) would have to do a survey to suss out what type of support Usmanov really enjoys.
Still, while this was just a straw poll and drawing conclusions from a group of self-selecting respondents who read one blog over another is dangerous there is some evidence that despite the recent media blitz from both Kroenke and Usmanov there may be a large portion of Arsenal fans who don’t want either owner. This could be down to nostalgia for Arsenal’s golden age or some other factor which only a further and more neutral study would determine.
*Because slavery is illegal.
When given the option of “other” I don’t get how anyone could pick Kroenke, what exactly has he done to be not just “the lesser of two evils” but actually a desired owner? Is it the lack of involement that appeals to people? The lack of investment? The rarity of appearance and seeming disinterest in the sport as a form of entertainment? Seriously, I don’t get it
Interesting perspective, conversely what has he done to deserve to be deposed?
Tim, he should be deposed for not offering a net positive effect, “not hurting” isn’t enough, we should want someone who is actively helping
It might well be that they feel anything other than single ownership would give way to chaos, much like the fears over our signing of Cazorla, nobody really knew who was in charge so there was a chance there simply wouldn’t be anything done. It’s something that could happen, and in that situation I think the lesser of two controlling evils rather than the chaotically neutral commune would hold sway over most. Whilst I have no idea as to whether that’d happen though, I’ll stick firmly on my fence.
Personally, I was *relatively* happy with the status quo, as long as we had people who understood the balancing of class, financial stability and competitiveness that typifies Arsenal whilst giving way to the more knowledgeable footballing parties I’d have been okay.
I’m reading this on my phone and may have missed it… How many responses did you get in total? And the Islington poll?
I was voting with the question, “what do we have to do to be competitive with the best?” in mind, which, unfortunately, left only one response: a bazillionaire sugar daddy who wants nothing more than to dump a ton of gratis money into the club a la Chelsea and City. Until that happens, we will need to satisfy ourselves with a top four finish as the height of our ambition, with a title only a very, very remote possibility. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, and I’ll support Arsenal no matter what, but it is horribly depressing to think that the Premier League is turning into the SPL in terms of competitiveness (only we have three teams instead of two who can realistically achieve the title).
The answers “fan ownership” and “no single owner” change nothing really–you might as well opt for Kroenke, who also does nothing–as neither offer the funds required to enable a proper challenge for trophies. Again, I’m not saying it’s impossible for us to win the title, but the chances are highly remote. How does “fan ownership” and “no single owner” improve those chances?
“The answers “fan ownership” and “no single owner” change nothing really–you might as well opt for Kroenke, who also does nothing–as neither offer the funds required to enable a proper challenge for trophies. Again, I’m not saying it’s impossible for us to win the title, but the chances are highly remote. How does “fan ownership” and “no single owner” improve those chances?”
Because, if you ask most football supporters whose teams have won nothing for years, winning trophies is just one of the many reasons you support a team. My 50 years unbroken loyalty is simply because it was my father’s team. And my two girls support Arsenal for the same reason. And it’s more important for me that I can hope that if I have grandchildren, they also will be Arsenal supporters.
And I firmly believe, in this age of money takes all, that the best way of ensuring a football club’s long term financial future is not to be an investment vehicle, so sorry Stan and Alisher; not as a rich man’s plaything, so no Roman or Mansour; or, God forbid, part of a leverage buyout, so no Malcolm et al. But welcome anyone who wants to be part of the the living history and collective identity that is a great football club like ours.
Earlier today, I was speaking with one of the people trying to rescue Pompey from extinction. This guy is 100% Portsmouth, through and through. He’s prepared to put his money where his mouth is, which is far more than most. He doesn’t want to see his money go down the drain but he doesn’t expect to make any either. But the comments he receives about just being in it for himself made by those empowered by the Internet but not encumbered by facts or intellect, are making what is already a difficult task unpleasant as well.
Although I prefer the idea of fan ownership combined with other forms of ownership, Stan Kroenke has done nothing at his time as Arsenal’s majority shareholder to suggest that he doesn’t have both the club’s and his own financial interest at heart. Myself, I wish Danny Fiszman was still alive. But he trusted Stan Kroenke. And, for the moment, that’s good enough for me.
That’s very well said, and I agree with you, though I don’t think supporting a team no matter what is inconsistent with also wanting them to compete with the best. When I lived in the UK, I commingled (non-sexually) with fans of many lower division clubs, and there wasn’t a single loyal voice among them that didn’t at the same want their team to return to / move toward success at the highest levels, even if it felt like a pipe-dream. It may be true that Chelsea and City, for example, will cease to exist when their owners tire of them, but it may not. It may be that long after their owners have passed on or left, the years of success they brought the club return a long and rich legacy.
As a non-Brit, I found my love of Arsenal instead of inheriting it (though my sons have), but I know without a doubt that this is for life. There is no going back, for better or for worse.
I never said that I have no hunger for silverware. I do and believe I share that desire with everyone. The need for a recognition of excellence, in whatever form, is almost universal.
But it’s the price you have to pay to get there. As much as Chelsea and Man City, and before them Blackburn (remember them?) invested disproportionately for their success, I can guarantee that most of their supporters (OK, maybe not Blackburn as Jack Walker was a long established supporter and his money really was like the fans investing in the team) would have much preferred to have achieved their success organically. I’m pretty sure that although they say they love the money, they hate themselves afterwards for taking it. Or then again, maybe I’m just deluded.
But I take example from Dylan Thomas for my unconventional thinking:
“Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light”
I enjoyed seeing Dylan Thomas quoted, though, as the rest of the poem makes clear, the problem is that, unlike all other men, the speaker’s own father is acquiescing meekly to the coming of death. You’re like the wise, the good, the wild, and the grave men… I’m a bit like the dying dad. Arsenal fans are divided in their desire to coax fierce tears.
This is the second day now that I do not know the result of the juegos he thought. But I must have confidence and I must be worthy of the great DiMaggio who does all things perfectly even with the pain of the bone spur in his heel. What is a bone spur? He asked himself. Un espuela de hueso. We do not have them. Can it be as painful as the spur of a fighting cock in one’s heel? I do not think I could endure that or the loss of the eye and of both eyes and continue to fight as the fighting cocks do. Man is not much beside the great birds and beasts. Still I would rather be that beast down there in the darkness of the sea.
“Unless sharks come,” he said aloud. “If sharks come, God pity him and me.”
Do you believe the great DiMaggio would stay with a fish as long as I will stay with this one? He thought. I am sure he would and more since he is young and strong. Also his father was a fisherman. But would the bone spur hurt him too much?
“I do not know,” he said aloud. “I never had a bone spur.”
I don’t think too many of the nouveau Man U, Chelsea or City fans are gonna be around when their clubs hit a rough patch. They just don’t build fans like they used to. And it is very common to find youngsters with multiple favorite clubs here in the US
I was careful not to lump Man Utd in with the Chelseas and Man Citys of this world. As a football supporter, I despise the way the Glazers have used Utd to line their pockets, but they are no worse than alleged supporters who sold their shares to them in the first place. Utd was put into play a long while ago when it became a traded company. The Glazers just treated them like any other investment to be bought, sold and, ultimately exploited, especially the supporters.
Oh dear. Diaby has just pulled a Diaby. See you next year, mon frere!
He’s being rested as a precaution, I’ve not seen anything to suggest injury.
But the Daily Mail is using inflammatory language to inflame Diaby’s inflammation. How am I supposed to react? With reason and equanimity?
What I think we will end up with is Usmanov buying out Kronke after the yank has seen the price reach a level he wants. He obviously has no interest in AFC other than cash.
It is a sick old world when these creeps can appear, sling money around, and go on to their next toy. AFC is far too important to the UK and the world to be changed into another Chelski……we have history and quality that Chelski will never have.
If there was any justice, the UEFA mob would introduce the new fair play law overnight and put in place massive fines for any club who try to use false investment (ie Man City) to bypass it.
Ideally i would love to see a board made up of billionairs (say 4 of them) who would own up to 80% between them. The other 20% should be sold to fans in small quanities and no trading should be allowed except upon death for 5 years. This would make all of them invest for AFC not for a game of monopoly. Every owner of up to 20% should be a board member. All the fans who make up the other 20% should be allowed to elect 4 share owners to be board members.voting on restricted policies only.
But, we will not see this ever and will be played like donkeys whilst these creeps have control. I dread to think what this planet is going to be like in the next 20 years….football or anything else.
Each option has it’s pro’s and con’s, but what works for any given team in any country may not work in another.
My only concern about Kroenke, would be one of an apparent lack of ambition for the club. Presumably he sets the parameters which the club has to work within. To make profit year on year, should not be demeaned, however it is more in keeping with owning a supermarket than a football club.
Surely this was highlighted when PHW put up the white flag.
We CAN compete on the football field, as we show every year.
Personally I would have looked to sign another striker, to give us options up front in case of injuries etc. I can’t believe that there was no one out there that couldn’t be bought for sensible money. For me we lack the extra yard to make the difference.
Thanks for a great Monday morning read. Lifts my spirits, starts my week right. I voted for fan ownership because owners come and go, players come and go, but for us fans, the Arsenal is our club forever!
Considering Kroenke is a majority share owner, the club should be likened as having a single owner. Usmanov’s 30% is ultimately useless for decisionmaking so long as Kroenke maintains his majoriy share.
I think an owner should be capped at a minority share to ensure there are atleast 2 parties combining on decisions. I admittedly do not recall the ins and outs of the English law that required Kroenke to make a bid for the club after reaching ~30% control. That ofcourse plays into the max share an owner can maintain before legal requirements are initiated. It would be ideal to have multiple parties hovering near or below the 30% threshold to encourage deliberation and require communal decision making.
Tim, I’m interested in learning what vote you would cast in this poll. I know, a man might not want to share his vote, but share if you want.
I would also like to know how many votes went to ‘one Arsene Wenger’. Cheers.
A good way to phrase the question regarding Usmanov or Kroenke might be: “You want to be the LA Lakers, or you want to be the Denver Nuggets?”
Difficult question.
Quite obviously it would be great to have more fan ownership.
But the sums in volved are fairly immense AND there is also a positive in having clarity in decision making with one over-riding owener (proviso the owner isn’t insane)
In this case of Kroenke, much of it is a hands off approach with little micro-management in evidence. This is a good thing as it ultimaely holds Gazidis (and Wenger) accountable for the actions they unertake but also affords them freedom to make those decisions.
The last thing we would want at the club is a grating impasse between several parties leading to paralysis or compromise in decision making.
Not suggesting we go all communist but the result in over democratisation in decision making can be seen in the feet dragging over high speed rail in California where as the Chinses have just gone ahead and done it.
Similarly, right or wrong we need to empower the decision makers and then hold them accountable for what obviously are difficult decisions more to do with fine detail than any overidding merit in one direction or the other.
I don’t see Usamov’s game plan as anything concretely viable (And indeed his extrapolation of it is somewhat vague to say the least)
So the best option at the moment is a ‘hands off’ Kroenke.
Let the management do the work they are being paid to do (rightly or wrongly)
I don’t agree with some of the decisions made (Song for instance) but we are not privvy to the inner workings/politics so unless they are losing money for the club and putting us in a precarious position financially, they still have my backing.
OTOH, an increase in fan ownership may at very least lend a better voice towards those most concern with benefit of the club in mind and provide determined feedback for the board that cannot be so easily ignored.
So someway to increase fan ownership should be the way to go.
I voted for yoda as owner, but I think both kenobi and Lord Vader should work with him in a plural ownership. “use (the exessive) force Vermaelen” or “do or do not, there is no try theo”.or vader in contract negotiations with rvp “I find your lack of faith disturbing”, we would be a major force in all competitions.
Hmmm… A Jedi you seek?
A Jedi has no need to speak for his actions speak for him.
A Jedi has no need to act for the force acts through him.
A Jedi has no need for glory for the universe is glory enough.
A Jedi you seek? In Stand Kroenke have not a Jedi you found?
For a really good owner, owning a storied club, indeed the greatest of clubs such as Arsenal with a rich history that spans 3 centuries with a fair share of glory sprinkled throughout all those decades is just like owning any business. Except it isn’t.
You have a fiduciary obligation to your business to make a profit but you also have a social obligation to be a proper custodian of the club to both its local community and to its worldwide fan-base.
Like any business a good owner is committed to excellence as well as profit. Whether it’s making shoes or winning football trophies.
Any owner that has those fundamentals down and can find real ways to apply in the 21st century is a genius and has my vote.
I wish Arsene Wenger would win a huge Powerball lottery (though that might not be nearly enough…)
I am firmly entrenched in the “Anyone other than Kroenke” camp. A look of his entire sport franchises shown an unerring result of mediocrity on the field and personal financial success off the field.
Under kroenke we will never do what is necessary to win unless not winning threatens his financials.
Yes, he will keep it financially above water, but nothing else. If perennial mediocrity is what you desire for AFC then Stan is the man. Personally, I hate mediocrity. Maybe hate is too vivid a word, but intensely dislike would also suffice.
First of all, i would like to thank you to Tim for giving us this insightful post. When i first read Tim response to critics and opinion from Phil (And much, maybe all, of people who disagree with Tim) he come as a super confidence person. Ok, if I’m honest it bore down to arrogant. He’s like Arsene when someone told him something that he doesn’t agree with: “Have you manage 500+ match?”, “How many years have you manage football clubs?”. And for Tim, “How many data that you’ve been complied into stats?”, “How many years have you manage a datasheet?”. My conclusion is, he is just like Arsene for his result. He might seems to be arrogant, but he really does know what he’s doing. Simply put, he is a genius.
On to the data, I myself put fan owned as my choosing. It’s more between no single owner and fan owned, but at the end i choose fan owned. Honestly, when I choose it, i didn’t think thoroughly on the mechanism of fan owned football clubs. When i chose it, I’m more of thought about a more fan accountable club and it’s only be foreseen with a majority of share by fans.
Now, the interesting part is Tim did not specify what fan owned is. You can say that fan owned is Usmanov, if you believe he is a fan. Or you might think it is someone who is a fan of a club which will operate like Usmanov and don’t have the suspiciousity (new word i invent) like him. Personally I’m more inclined to fans owned like the Bundesliga.
What i don’t get with Burnburyst and Barry on the upper post is you all think that we is skint. I don’t share the view of us can only compete if we become a sugardaddy clubs. No, we can compete if we spend what we earn to the most. Basically, my view is a fans owned club will have a major accountability with fans and in so fans can put more pressure to board to spend what we have to it utmost potential. And what we have is a LOT.
Sorry for all of the typos. A bad habit of not review the text again before I send.
“What i don’t get with Burnburyst and Barry on the upper post is you all think that we is skint”
I’m not sure if the “we” you refer to his the royal we i.e. Arsenal, or an individual we (sorry for the grammar meltdown but I’m not sure there is a plural of we). Re-reading my posts, I don’t recall saying anything like that. Arsenal are one of the wealthiest clubs on the planet so it can’t be that. I do believe that most people don’t have the spare cash available for what effectively becomes a dead investment if you are doing it purely for the love of the club. If you treat it just like any other investment then perhaps different rules apply but wouldn’t that simply bring us back to where we are now?
But the simple fact is that the vast majority of English clubs that change hands today do so to an owner(s) from outside the UK. And, considering the escalating value of many of the top clubs, I doubt there would be many takers for a general share ownership scheme considering what I’ve said already about this becoming dead money.
Yeah, sorry for the grammatical error. I mean “we” as in Arsenal.
I feel that you’re implying that to move forwards, we neccesarily have to have a sugar daddy. We’re not that desperate and if we spend our resources fully, we don’t need the sugar daddy.
There’s also a fundamental question of wether our transfer activity depenss entirely on Arsene or not. If it is, no.matter how much money being put, it won’t be that much different.
No, I don’t think we need a sugar daddy and I personally don’t want one. Stan Kroenke is an investor/owner that basically allows the club to manage itself. As I said in an earlier post, I would have preferred if Danny Fiszman still was with the club because not only was he an excellent business man, and you do need that for a club the size of Arsenal, but he loved the club. But, as I already said, if Stan was good enough for Danny, then he’s good enough for me. Although selling his shares was an investment decision, I am sure it would have been made with Arsenal’s future in mind.
As it stands, because of our incredibly low commercial income, Arsenal just about breaks even on the footballing side of the business. The costs of participating at the highest level in terms of both transfer cost and wage cost has been driven out of Arsenal’s reach by the likes of Chelsea, Man City, Real Madrid, Barcelona, PSG, Zenit and, to a lesser extent, Man Utd. It was interesting to note that despite Zenit lashing out $64M on two players, they claimed that Nani’s wage demands were too rich for their blood.
Now, I don’t know how much more income we would have if we had one some silverware in the last few years. That’s a very difficult question to answer: If we had invested x more money on the team, how much would this have returned? If the answer is positive or break even, then everyone’s happy. If it’s negative then it’s hello Leeds, Pompey, Aston Villa, Rangers et al, obviously depending on the size of the loss.
The bottom line is, whilst Arsenal continue to maintain their very conservative business model AND other teams that they directly compete with are not similarly restrained, then it’s always going to be difficult. Not impossible, just very difficult. But when success does return to the team, as it surely will, it will feel all the better for the wait. Just ask Andy Murray what it’s like to win the US Open.
I agree with everything. On the ownership thing, i think that what is more important or let’s say what I really want is the owner who has the mindset of a fan. I don’t see that in Kroenke and the general suspicious of Usmanov money make me doubt him.
I will come back to this post and laugh at all y’all mofos (I’m referring to everybody very lovingly of course), myself included, when Arsenal win the league this season
Apparently I have, for not the first time during the project related to today’s post, fucked something up.