Farhad Moshiri

[Bullet]

If there really is a circa £100 million positive net spend on transfer fees available this summer and presumeably the intention to repeat that for at least another couple of seasons, as well as a new stadium coming, then this to me suggests the impending arrival of someone who is financially much more muscular than Moshiri who's only worth £1.3 billion.
What's the alternative? A new backroom team may be able to increase revenue but not by nearly enough to justify this kind of expenditure so either we're going to spend a lot less than mooted, Moshiri is happy to become much less wealthy or he's going to load the club with massive debt that requires us regularly qualifying for the Champs L to service. I hope it's not the latter because if so it's a massive gamble that we're likely to lose allbeit an exciting one while it lasts.

 

[The Esk]

Esk, while I agree with you about Kronke buying out Usmanov, and unfortunately agree with you about it being unlikely that Usmanov is coming to Everton, I don't understand why you say Usmanov is boxed in.

I would have thought that there would be interest in the Arsenal shares from outside, given the ever increasing profile and wealth of the premier league, and the fact that Arsenal are in a prime position to thrive over the next few years. Admittedly, that logic suggests he wouldn't want to sell, but as said before he may well have his own agenda.

The reason he is boxed in is because any buyer would find themselves in the same position as Usmanov is currently - Kroenke has no interest in power sharing, why would he?

Additionally any buyer of Usmanov's shares would buy in the knowledge that he was releasing Usmanov who potentially can create another Chelsea or Manchester City to directly compete with Arsenal whose business model is CL qualification with no additional investment required, in fact building cash reserves when doing so.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

So why not Usmanov's shares if they became available? 30% in the hands of a band of various scattered vocal dissidents would be more detrimental to Kroenke than buying them up and hedging his bets against Everton surely?

"In this situation at any sizeable company where one shareholder wants to own the business outright, he will “stock cash”.

He’ll do this by keeping the money in the company and then use it to buy out the remaining shareholders, with the backing of a financial institution that will lend against that money.

You can’t actually use the company’s own money but you can borrow against it.

This is similar to how the Glazer family funded the Manchester United takeover. Essentially, the financial institution lends against the value of the club."

 

[The Esk]

So why not Usmanov's shares if they became available? 30% in the hands of a band of various scattered vocal dissidents would be more detrimental to Kroenke than buying them up and hedging his bets against Everton surely?

Arsenal are a far bigger club than us at the minute so us going up against them for players wouldn't be that much of an issue? Take Mirallas for example, all we had to offer was regular football - surely Kroenke knows that players move to teams for reasons other then money.

Usmanov will never release his shares on the drip, that's never going to happen - he'd have to sell the block or not at all.

 

[mill]

The reason he is boxed in is because any buyer would find themselves in the same position as Usmanov is currently - Kroenke has no interest in power sharing, why would he?

Additionally any buyer of Usmanov's shares would buy in the knowledge that he was releasing Usmanov who potentially can create another Chelsea or Manchester City to directly compete with Arsenal whose business model is CL qualification with no additional investment required, in fact building cash reserves when doing so.

But that basically implies that the ownership of Arsenal will never ever change.

 

[d34noj]

Usmanov will never release his shares on the drip, that's never going to happen - he'd have to sell the block or not at all.

I'd assume the reason for that would be a premium price would be paid on a large amount of shares?

 

[The Mighty Quint]

Some itks must have heard something interesting if they are so sure of Usmanovs Everton interest/plans...or maybe just putting two and two together and getting result that satisfy their imagination

WRD, from TEF, proven ITK, said 1 million percent Usmanov is going to join Moshiri.

 

[The Esk]

So why is Kroenke still buying shares then (not just recently, he bought 2 shares last year, 2) if he doesn't need them?.

Is he duty bound to buy them?

"The two biggest shareholders in Arsenal Holdings are the American Stan Kroenke, who holds 66.64 per cent of the parent company, and the Russian-Uzbek Alisher Usmanov, who owns 29.11 per cent.

That means that under the official takeover panel rules, Kroenke must in due course make an offer for every available share in the club.

At Arsenal, it is a clear example of the majority shareholder stockpiling cash to pull off a full takeover of the remaining shares."

If he is duty bound, then Usmanov can sell his shares easily at a tidy profit and move on.

I've heard all you've said, and just like you think my views don't stack up, I don't think yours do either.

Kroenke is not duty bound to buy any shares. He attempted a takeover in 2011 and it failed when R&W refused to sell their holdings.

Having attempted a takeovery and failed Kroenke has no duty to acquire remaining shares.

 

[The Esk]

I'd assume the reason for that would be a premium price would be paid on a large amount of shares?

Partially that yes, the reverse is true if placed on the market, a 30% overhang would crush the share price.

It would also allow Kroenke to acquire shares in the market. If he wants to sell to Kroenke he would do so in one block.

 

[d34noj]

Partially that yes, the reverse is true if placed on the market, a 30% overhang would crush the share price.

It would also allow Kroenke to acquire shares in the market. If he wants to sell to Kroenke he would do so in one block.

Gotcha, personally I don't think Usmanov will be joining up with us - I'd love it if he did, but I have ingrained pessimism caused by 38 years of Everton.

 

[TheFinnFan]

WRD, from TEF, proven ITK, said 1 million percent Usmanov is going to join Moshiri.

Yes Im aware of that and I hope that proves to be right...if he's SO sure of it he must have other thingys to back it than just his own assumptions.

 

[The Esk]

But that basically implies that the ownership of Arsenal will never ever change.

Correct - it is a total deadlock. There would have to be a coming together by Kroenke and Usmanov for the situation to change. That seems most unlikely.

 

[Brownie]

The reason he is boxed in is because any buyer would find themselves in the same position as Usmanov is currently - Kroenke has no interest in power sharing, why would he?

Additionally any buyer of Usmanov's shares would buy in the knowledge that he was releasing Usmanov who potentially can create another Chelsea or Manchester City to directly compete with Arsenal whose business model is CL qualification with no additional investment required, in fact building cash reserves when doing so.

Is there no clever way around this? I mean if there were you'd expect someone with fifty trillion dollars to have found it by now, but at the same time there must be a lot of people that would benefit from having Usmanov's money in the league.

 

[caught]

Kroenke is not duty bound to buy any shares. He attempted a takeover in 2011 and it failed when R&W refused to sell their holdings.

Having attempted a takeovery and failed Kroenke has no duty to acquire remaining shares.

Didn't know that. I recall something you posted a week or two ago that seemed sensible to me: that Kroenke as it stands has Usmanov locked into a situation that prevents him from creating serious competition for Arsenal by purchasing another club.

If that's the case now, why might Kroenke have attempted a takeover a couple of years ago? And might one infer from previous actions he could still be interested in full ownership? Sorry if these questions have already been answered.

 

[The Esk]

If that's the case now, why might Kroenke have attempted a takeover a couple of years ago? And might one infer from previous actions he could still be interested in full ownership? Sorry if these questions have already been answered.

He was legally bound to do so once he passed the 29.9% threshold.

I have an article will I will publish once the manager/DoF situation is resolved which goes through the history of Usmanov/Moshiri's part ownership of Arsenal.