Farhad Moshiri

7+ Years On... Your Verdict On Farhad Moshiri

  • Pleased

    Votes: 107 7.8%
  • Disappointed

    Votes: 1,264 92.2%

  • Total voters
    1,371
Open letter Moshiri and Usmanov wrote to Arsenal in 2012:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18725835

RED AND WHITE SECURITIES LIMITED

To: The Board of Directors of Arsenal Holdings Plc: Peter Hill-Wood, Ivan Gazidis, Ken Friar, Sir Chips Keswick, Lord Harris of Peckham, Stanley Kroenke

With copy to: David Miles, Mark Gonnella

5th July 2012

Re: Open Letter to the Board of Directors of Arsenal Holdings Plc (the "Club")

Dear Sirs,

In recent weeks a couple of separate actions have occurred, which have caused us, as a near 30% shareholder in the Club, to have serious concerns about the approach of the Board and the management team:

• Firstly, there were some very deliberate and public comments by Ivan Gazidis which were intended to leave the Club's supporters with an impression that Red & White is in some bitter stand-off with the Board over its desire for a Board seat and that our involvement on the Club's Board might cause conflict and "destabilize" the Club; and

• Secondly, OJSC MegaFon (Russia) received a cold call letter from Mr Gazidis requesting a meeting to discuss a possible international partnership deal including shirt sponsorship. MegaFon is one of the three largest mobile phone companies in Russia and also happens to be over 50% owned by Alisher Usmanov. Is this really the level of professionalism that is being applied to securing long-term commercial contracts?

Let us not forget that we have invested circa £200 million of cash in the equity of the Club. We are part of this Club and naturally want the best for it, but our investment is less important than the fact that we are loyal supporters and will never do anything that would destabilize or "create conflict" at the Club.

We do however believe that you, the Board, and the executive management team should focus your energies on the most efficient operation of the Club and desist from seeking to create a false enemy in Red & White. In our view it is clear that you are trying to distract attention from the more fundamental issues facing the Club, and which indeed many of the supporters discuss through social media sites and other forums on a regular basis. These are the financial model, the lack of investment and the Club's future strategic direction.

However, before addressing these points, it is important to deal with the issues surrounding a Board seat for Red & White once and for all. As you all know well, Mr Usmanov has never sought for himself a Board seat at the Club. Indeed Mr Usmanov does not hold any board seat in any of the companies where he is an investor. Since the purchase of our first share in the Club, we have not only steadfastly adhered to a policy of non-interference in the running of the Club, but have consistently supported the management and given no reason whatsoever to be accused of subversion or sabotage. The history of our voting in support of the Board at the annual general meetings is proof of this.

Indeed, in any conversation about conflict, it is clear from a look at the history of the Club in recent years that the Board has achieved conflict without the help of any outside parties, notably the acrimonious departures of David Dein, Keith Edelman, Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith and Richard Carr, who then reappeared on the Football Club Board. You also instituted a lock-down agreement originally to prevent Mr Kroenke from gaining control and then, later, to exclude our involvement even though there were no grounds or need to do so.

The real conflict seems to be between the supporters' expectations and your vision for the Club and at the heart of this is the policy of so-called self-financing. The self-financing model was created to suit the major shareholders at the time, all of whom subsequently sold their shares.

The previous decision by the Board to fund the building of the Emirates Stadium with long-term debt was, we believe, certainly not about self-financing. If it had been, it would have been funded through a mixture of debt and non-dividend equity. Instead it allowed, in our view, the major shareholders of the time, who happened to all be Board directors, to load the Club with a liability, to benefit from increased future revenue streams and consequent increase in the value of their holdings, whilst avoiding dilution of their equity. The Board of the time then appeared to pursue a policy of increasing ticket prices and squeezing the fans to cover the short term cost increases which allowed them to bridge until all of these shareholders and Board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits.

This policy does not seem to have changed. We have sought and been refused any meetings with Mr Kroenke despite the fact that we own almost 30% of the Club or to put another way almost 1 in every 3 seats in the stadium. It is clear that our stated policy for the major shareholders, namely Mr Kroenke and ourselves, to inject non-dividend paying equity into the Club by way of a rights issue to reduce the debt and invest in the future is of no interest to the Board. Mr Kroenke was sold a vision by the Board at the time that the Club could be successful without further investment, so he is pursuing a similar policy which is to run the Club without any investment and to avoid any dilution of his equity, a good part of which was funded by a loan from Deutsche Bank AG to KSE, UK, Inc. at the time of the mandatory offer. The status of that loan and whether it is still outstanding has not been clarified by Mr Kroenke.

As a consequence of this policy, which is dressed up as prudent financial planning, it is down to our manager, and not the shareholders, to have to deal with the Club's tight finances, carry the burden of repaying the stadium debt by selling his best players and having to continue to find cheaper replacements. All of that, naturally, comes at the expense of performance on the pitch.

This policy is leading to the loss of our best players, often to our main competitors, and even causes the players themselves to question their future at the Club and the Club's ambitions. The situation with our captain and outstanding performer from last season Robin van Persie sums this up. Yet again we are faced with losing our true marquee player at the Club because we cannot assure him of the future direction and give confidence that we can win trophies. Where are the safeguards to ensure that this doesn't happen again and again in the future? As a top Club we should, at the very least, match if not beat the offers that other clubs make to try and lure our very best players away, and also provide a more compelling vision of the future. You can try and put a good face on a bad game for as long as you want, pontificating about the merits of this model, but it will not hide the obvious fact that it just does not allow our great manager to fully realize his managerial talent and deliver success for the fans who are paying the highest prices in the land. It appears that a place in the Champions League will be the pinnacle of our ambition again next season. Unfortunately, in the future we may see this ambition lowered further. It doesn't help to turn a blind eye to the reality of the situation and keep thinking of ourselves as being in the same league as Real Madrid, Chelsea, Manchester City and Barcelona. To have a fighting chance of success, which means winning trophies, we need to match them in every aspect, including, if not first and foremost, financial.

So what is Red & White's vision for the Club? It is simple. A debt free Club, with a big enough war chest to buy top talent players who can hit the ground running and who can complement the Club's long tradition of developing young players and homegrown talent. Together they can help the Club win the most prestigious trophies - because it is the trophies which are the crowning achievement for everybody at the Club. The trophies are also key to the commercial success of the Club - they increase the value of the players, the value of the brand, attract the best sponsors and maximize the value of our commercial contracts which should in turn mean that the Club does not have to squeeze any more income from hard pressed fans. We also believe in the transparency that a stock market listing brings so are committed to the Club remaining listed on the stock exchange and to greater fan involvement both through share ownership and also Board representation for the fans.

Today we wish the majority shareholder Mr Kroenke every success in running the Club, even though we have deep reservations about the viability of the policies being pursued by his management team and sanctioned by the Board.

Finally and reflecting our long-term commitment to the Club, we will continue to purchase more shares in the Club from anyone who wants to sell them to us. Also in order to formalize our long-term involvement with the Club and put an end to any speculation over our position, we, as the co-owners of Red &White, will proudly retain our holding in the Club as a long-term investment for ourselves and our family members to benefit for generations to come. We want the absolute best for the Club and will do what is necessary to ensure the success of the Club that we all love.

Yours sincerely,

Alisher Usmanov

Farhad Moshiri
Found this bit particularly interesting, suggests they would try different approach when building/paying for our stadium.
"The previous decision by the Board to fund the building of the Emirates Stadium with long-term debt was, we believe, certainly not about self-financing. If it had been, it would have been funded through a mixture of debt and non-dividend equity. Instead it allowed, in our view, the major shareholders of the time, who happened to all be Board directors, to load the Club with a liability, to benefit from increased future revenue streams and consequent increase in the value of their holdings, whilst avoiding dilution of their equity. The Board of the time then appeared to pursue a policy of increasing ticket prices and squeezing the fans to cover the short term cost increases which allowed them to bridge until all of these shareholders and Board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits."
 
Moores and Noell were rejected by Swansea don't forget.
And unless I missed something, there was always a doubt that if they went ahead, any deal might be a leveraged one aka the Glaziers at Manure?

At the very least, this single individual has stepped in with a substantial, seemingly unfinanced and therefore in lay mans terms a cash deal to buy just shy of half the club.

With his history of involvement at the Arsenal, serious connections and proven track record of business dealings - quite frankly I'm staggered at the level of negativity towards him that has mushroomed in less than eight short hours since the deal was confirmed.

Seems to me that some folks just want to exist in a glass-half-empty world.
 
And unless I missed something, there was always a doubt that if they went ahead, any deal might be a leveraged one aka the Glaziers at Manure?

At the very least, this single individual has stepped in with a substantial, seemingly unfinanced and therefore in lay mans terms a cash deal to buy just shy of half the club.

With his history of involvement at the Arsenal, serious connections and proven track record of business dealings - quite frankly I'm staggered at the level of negativity towards him that has mushroomed in less than eight short hours since the deal was confirmed.


I think the negativity is just nerves and uncertainty. when the full details come out - IF and when other big investors are announced - their optimism will grow.

Mine is sky high. Im so freakin happy right now.
 
For what it's worth, some RAWKer who seems familiar with Usmanov and Moshiri seems to be quite concerned about what would happen if Usmanov was to join his partner here.

"He'll be a good owner for them, he'll certainly get them a stadium and improve there dreadful commercial performance however if his partner Usmanov takes the other half, which wouldn't be surprising at all, it'll be fantastic for them.

Both Moshri and Usmanov have wanted to spend big and use Arsenal as a status symbol for sometime but haven't been allowed to do so by the old board there. I think the 2 of them may have decided they've had enough now and we'll buy someone else.

Moshri sells his shares to his partner yesterday and buys Everton today. It would not surprise me at all to see Usmanov sell his now that they've got their foot in the door.

They've both being major shareholders without a voice for too long. This looks like the chance they've been waiting for IMO."

"I don't believe anything I hear from people in football.

I just can't see him sitting on his hands there whilst his long time business partner and best friend has control of a premiership club, something they've both being trying to a achieve at Arsenal for some time. Especially as he's getting no encouragement or has no say in the running of the club.

It was easy for Usmanov to buy Moshri's shares yesterday allowing there partnership to break and Moshri to buy Everton. It would not surprise me at all to see him now sell his shares over the next few months and join him there now time is on there side.

These could be dangerous owners. They've been trying to get Arsenal to spend big for years and I get the feeling they're looking for a club as a status symbol not something to make money from, very similar to what Abromavic did and Usmanov blows Abromavic out the water money wise."
 
I'm not aware of that. There must be heavy penalties if it can be paid off early.
Never seen the loan document and probably never will, but like any loan it can be repaid earlybut the penalties are an unknown tbh, but I would imagine more onerous than you're average mortgage.
It really is a case of needs must and all that because it is the largest impediment to progress currently.IMHO
 

stock-photo-tourist-made-gesture-by-iran-flag-colored-hands-showing-symbol-of-heart-and-love-106103177.jpg
 
I'll be happy to see someone as hands on as you suggest. If he has effective control then there shouldn't be too much of a time lag in him making his presence felt in terms of CEO and officer level appointments. I get what you and @hibbo'sclass say about the Pru. and that possible roadblock to full control. But if that's the case - and given the length of that securitisation deal - it closes off full control (surely the only condition under which he or anyone else would be willing to invest in the squad or infrastructure? Why would he take on that onerous task and give a free ride to smaller shareholders historically unwilling to invest a red cent?

In short: I'm not sure I see the logic of all this if I look at in the way we'd all like to look at it: as a precursor to serious investment. I look forward to not having fears about having been here before with a simple sale of shares that effectively solves nothing - as per the Gregg sale of shares to Earl.

I can see why you would be wary mate, but the deal is growing on me the more I consider it.

As the Open letter above states, for Arsenal they have obviously grown frustrated by inability to have control and ability to make decisions. This is also tied to them wanting to make serious investment into the club. For me both of these things are good.

Usmanov can't sit on both boards, but Moshiri is sort of his right hand man. If they want to seriously fund Everton they will be able too.

For now I see this as a halfway house. Invest a relatively low fee, do the ground up/get a new stadium. Then either sell up or dilute the shares further with some serious investment, all the while knowing that if they keep a 25% stake (after dilution) in a football club that will be seriously invested in will only continue to grow.

We keep Kenwright on the board. I am as critical of him as anyone but I can't say I am too disappointed he stays. I think he has been quite central to some of the good stuff we've done, the EITC, investment in the youth academy and idea that we give managers time. I think this deal gives Martinez more security and the knowledge we shouldn't have to sell our best players. Not ideal but a nice balance.

Look at it this way.
1) Option 1- Moshiri got bored with Arsenal and wanted to have his own project. Moshiri has enough money on his own to make a serious difference to Everton. His wealth is estimated between 1.3-2 billion and growing. Unlike those on the board before, he must know that to unlock a serious return on that investment will require some funds up front, notably for a new/upgraded stadium. He has the ability to do that for us. I have to say, from a business sense he will be well beyond the current operation.

2) Option 2, he and Usmanov are frustrated by lack of control. This is similar to the above scenario but a bit more optimistic. It may mean over time we bin off our core values a bit more. But Usmanov and Moshiri's wealth combined would make us very serious players, probably second to only City and Chelsea in pulling power.
Usmanov may withdraw from Arsenal over time.

3) Option 3- He and/or Usmanov are frustrated by lack of direction- For me this is the best possible scenario. Namely they would be happy being minority shareholders but just not for someone like Kroenke who won't seriously invest (i.e. to the level of a City). Frankly when trying to convince someone like DIC, Kroenke/Moshiri will have far more influence than Kenwright, they will know they are serious.

I think you are right to see it as part of a process. Even if this is the end goal (i.e. option 1) we have done well to of it. It has enormous potential though. The fact he was involved with Arsenal is a major plus.
 
For what it's worth, some RAWKer who seems familiar with Usmanov and Moshiri seems to be quite concerned about what would happen if Usmanov was to join his partner here.

It's a good theory to be fair, we need moshiri to bring his partner over, it's seems that kroneke is not going anywhere and he might give up and join his pal. Fingers crossed.
 

Open letter Moshiri and Usmanov wrote to Arsenal in 2012:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18725835

RED AND WHITE SECURITIES LIMITED

To: The Board of Directors of Arsenal Holdings Plc: Peter Hill-Wood, Ivan Gazidis, Ken Friar, Sir Chips Keswick, Lord Harris of Peckham, Stanley Kroenke

With copy to: David Miles, Mark Gonnella

5th July 2012

Re: Open Letter to the Board of Directors of Arsenal Holdings Plc (the "Club")

Dear Sirs,

In recent weeks a couple of separate actions have occurred, which have caused us, as a near 30% shareholder in the Club, to have serious concerns about the approach of the Board and the management team:

• Firstly, there were some very deliberate and public comments by Ivan Gazidis which were intended to leave the Club's supporters with an impression that Red & White is in some bitter stand-off with the Board over its desire for a Board seat and that our involvement on the Club's Board might cause conflict and "destabilize" the Club; and

• Secondly, OJSC MegaFon (Russia) received a cold call letter from Mr Gazidis requesting a meeting to discuss a possible international partnership deal including shirt sponsorship. MegaFon is one of the three largest mobile phone companies in Russia and also happens to be over 50% owned by Alisher Usmanov. Is this really the level of professionalism that is being applied to securing long-term commercial contracts?

Let us not forget that we have invested circa £200 million of cash in the equity of the Club. We are part of this Club and naturally want the best for it, but our investment is less important than the fact that we are loyal supporters and will never do anything that would destabilize or "create conflict" at the Club.

We do however believe that you, the Board, and the executive management team should focus your energies on the most efficient operation of the Club and desist from seeking to create a false enemy in Red & White. In our view it is clear that you are trying to distract attention from the more fundamental issues facing the Club, and which indeed many of the supporters discuss through social media sites and other forums on a regular basis. These are the financial model, the lack of investment and the Club's future strategic direction.

However, before addressing these points, it is important to deal with the issues surrounding a Board seat for Red & White once and for all. As you all know well, Mr Usmanov has never sought for himself a Board seat at the Club. Indeed Mr Usmanov does not hold any board seat in any of the companies where he is an investor. Since the purchase of our first share in the Club, we have not only steadfastly adhered to a policy of non-interference in the running of the Club, but have consistently supported the management and given no reason whatsoever to be accused of subversion or sabotage. The history of our voting in support of the Board at the annual general meetings is proof of this.

Indeed, in any conversation about conflict, it is clear from a look at the history of the Club in recent years that the Board has achieved conflict without the help of any outside parties, notably the acrimonious departures of David Dein, Keith Edelman, Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith and Richard Carr, who then reappeared on the Football Club Board. You also instituted a lock-down agreement originally to prevent Mr Kroenke from gaining control and then, later, to exclude our involvement even though there were no grounds or need to do so.

The real conflict seems to be between the supporters' expectations and your vision for the Club and at the heart of this is the policy of so-called self-financing. The self-financing model was created to suit the major shareholders at the time, all of whom subsequently sold their shares.

The previous decision by the Board to fund the building of the Emirates Stadium with long-term debt was, we believe, certainly not about self-financing. If it had been, it would have been funded through a mixture of debt and non-dividend equity. Instead it allowed, in our view, the major shareholders of the time, who happened to all be Board directors, to load the Club with a liability, to benefit from increased future revenue streams and consequent increase in the value of their holdings, whilst avoiding dilution of their equity. The Board of the time then appeared to pursue a policy of increasing ticket prices and squeezing the fans to cover the short term cost increases which allowed them to bridge until all of these shareholders and Board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits.

This policy does not seem to have changed. We have sought and been refused any meetings with Mr Kroenke despite the fact that we own almost 30% of the Club or to put another way almost 1 in every 3 seats in the stadium. It is clear that our stated policy for the major shareholders, namely Mr Kroenke and ourselves, to inject non-dividend paying equity into the Club by way of a rights issue to reduce the debt and invest in the future is of no interest to the Board. Mr Kroenke was sold a vision by the Board at the time that the Club could be successful without further investment, so he is pursuing a similar policy which is to run the Club without any investment and to avoid any dilution of his equity, a good part of which was funded by a loan from Deutsche Bank AG to KSE, UK, Inc. at the time of the mandatory offer. The status of that loan and whether it is still outstanding has not been clarified by Mr Kroenke.

As a consequence of this policy, which is dressed up as prudent financial planning, it is down to our manager, and not the shareholders, to have to deal with the Club's tight finances, carry the burden of repaying the stadium debt by selling his best players and having to continue to find cheaper replacements. All of that, naturally, comes at the expense of performance on the pitch.

This policy is leading to the loss of our best players, often to our main competitors, and even causes the players themselves to question their future at the Club and the Club's ambitions. The situation with our captain and outstanding performer from last season Robin van Persie sums this up. Yet again we are faced with losing our true marquee player at the Club because we cannot assure him of the future direction and give confidence that we can win trophies. Where are the safeguards to ensure that this doesn't happen again and again in the future? As a top Club we should, at the very least, match if not beat the offers that other clubs make to try and lure our very best players away, and also provide a more compelling vision of the future. You can try and put a good face on a bad game for as long as you want, pontificating about the merits of this model, but it will not hide the obvious fact that it just does not allow our great manager to fully realize his managerial talent and deliver success for the fans who are paying the highest prices in the land. It appears that a place in the Champions League will be the pinnacle of our ambition again next season. Unfortunately, in the future we may see this ambition lowered further. It doesn't help to turn a blind eye to the reality of the situation and keep thinking of ourselves as being in the same league as Real Madrid, Chelsea, Manchester City and Barcelona. To have a fighting chance of success, which means winning trophies, we need to match them in every aspect, including, if not first and foremost, financial.

So what is Red & White's vision for the Club? It is simple. A debt free Club, with a big enough war chest to buy top talent players who can hit the ground running and who can complement the Club's long tradition of developing young players and homegrown talent. Together they can help the Club win the most prestigious trophies - because it is the trophies which are the crowning achievement for everybody at the Club. The trophies are also key to the commercial success of the Club - they increase the value of the players, the value of the brand, attract the best sponsors and maximize the value of our commercial contracts which should in turn mean that the Club does not have to squeeze any more income from hard pressed fans. We also believe in the transparency that a stock market listing brings so are committed to the Club remaining listed on the stock exchange and to greater fan involvement both through share ownership and also Board representation for the fans.

Today we wish the majority shareholder Mr Kroenke every success in running the Club, even though we have deep reservations about the viability of the policies being pursued by his management team and sanctioned by the Board.

Finally and reflecting our long-term commitment to the Club, we will continue to purchase more shares in the Club from anyone who wants to sell them to us. Also in order to formalize our long-term involvement with the Club and put an end to any speculation over our position, we, as the co-owners of Red &White, will proudly retain our holding in the Club as a long-term investment for ourselves and our family members to benefit for generations to come. We want the absolute best for the Club and will do what is necessary to ensure the success of the Club that we all love.

Yours sincerely,

Alisher Usmanov

Farhad Moshiri


Music to my ears that.
 
200 million for a stadium,please maybe in the 00's,but now it would cost double that for a 50K plus stadium.

Spurs and Chelsea are spending 450 and 500 respectively for their stadiums.[/QUOTE]

Yes that is true, though they are both building in quite central London, where the price of land in particular is higher. I wouldn't imagine ours would be quite so high.
 
It might not have been the cash-laden complete takeover we were hoping for but surely this is a massive step in the right direction ?

The status quo has gone and there seems to be a plan in place which will lead to brighter days ahead and and with a better future for EFC in prospect. The old figureheads might still be there, but de facto they will have less power and influence as a single individual now owns half of the club with a likelihood that this will rise in the future when the stadium issue is tackled.

Not a lot to be unhappy about at the moment. This could mean that our better players see their immediate future here rather than elsewhere after this season as many of us were dreading. It could also have a beneficial effect on performances on the pitch between now and the end of the season.

It's all good. :pint2:
 
Last edited:
Interested to hear why a deal couldn't be worked out with the American's, or maybe it was just a case of Moshiri just appealing to Bill for whatever reasons.
 

Top