Arsenal FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

OPENROAD

Villa 5/1 worth a bet imo also villa ht/ft 10/1 might be worth a bet

SDTimeout

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5790205,00.html

what do we think lads ? There's the free option sorted anyway

Pepe LeFrits

Could be the ideal short term option, but how often does Arsene do pragmatic?

hblock21

When are Arsenal going to play their game in hand lads?

Its against Bolton in January iirc

leninbenjamin

Yup. We play them twice in the space of a week or something stupid like that.

G1032

hblock21 wrote: »

When are Arsenal going to play their game in hand lads?

Jan 06th 2010

leninbenjamin

and then we play them away on the 17th the weekend after the Everton game.

I dunno why, but i hate playing a team twice in such quick succession. Sure fire way to drop points as it tends to add a little bit of edge to the tie as the weaker team looks to save face...

I'm quietly confident of 6 points from playing Bolton. I'm really looking forward to just getting this "game in hand" out of the way, so we look at the table properly

Kirnsy

Papa Smut wrote: »

I'm quietly confident of 6 points from playing Bolton. I'm really looking forward to just getting this "game in hand" out of the way, so we look at the table properly

agreed it's too easy to look at the table and just add on the three points one presumes we'll get from the game in hand!

deisedevil

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5791964,00.html

Kroenke ups his stake to 29.9, just 0.1 short of autmoatic takeover bid. How long will it be before he goes for it would you reckon?

Do Arsenal fans want this?

thorbarry

deisedevil wrote: »

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5791964,00.html

Kroenke ups his stake to 29.9, just 0.1 short of autmoatic takeover bid. How long will it be before he goes for it would you reckon?

Do Arsenal fans want this?

I'd think it will happen over the course of the next couple of months, I'd think i'd be done by the end of the season. I have faith in the board at Arsenal, and they seem to be backing this guy over Alisher Usmanov, so I'm with them and I will support Kroenke when the takeover happens


But I would rather nobody take over the club, as I am pretty happy with how its being run, and how it has been run over the years

Souless

thorbarry wrote: »

I'd think it will happen over the course of the next couple of months, I'd think i'd be done by the end of the season. I have faith in the board at Arsenal, and they seem to be backing this guy over Alisher Usmanov, so I'm with them and I will support Kroenke when the takeover happens


But I would rather nobody take over the club, as I am pretty happy with how its being run, and how it has been run over the years

+1. I like the way that we are not run by one person or a couple of business partners would be sad to see it change, but I'd have to side with the boards decision

leninbenjamin

deisedevil wrote: »

Do Arsenal fans want this?

A takeover of some kind seems inevitable. The old guard are gradually falling away so it will come from somewhere given the profile of the club.

Personally, I see no reason to doubt Kroenke. Bit like the Glazer's, I think he sees this purely as a commercial investment and wont interfere too much in on pitch matters. It will depend of course on how he finances his takeover (Arsenal cannot afford to saddle another couple hundred million of debt on top of the stadium loans), but so far he's only had a positive impact on the club imo and seems to use his position on the board to reinforce the traditions of the club. Whether that was simply a political ploy to gain him access to shares, only time will tell.

The alternative is Usmanov. Granted, he could plough a few hundred million into the club overnight without batting an eyelid, however I think it's pretty clear Usmanov is only using his stake in Arsenal to raise his profile the same way Shinawatra, Gaydamek, the Abu Dhabi and a few other less savoury individuals are doing with football clubs these days. The way Usmanov conducted his attempts of takeover are so out of character it has to be a front. Anyway, regardless, it will simply lead to the same shenanigans as are going on at City and Chelsea and most Arsenal fans do not want to see that.

thorbarry

leninbenjamin wrote: »

The alternative is Usmanov. Granted, he could plough a few hundred million into the club overnight without batting an eyelid, however I think it's pretty clear Usmanov is only using his stake in Arsenal to raise his profile the same way Shinawatra, Gaydamek, the Abu Dhabi and a few other less savoury individuals are doing with football clubs these days. The way Usmanov conducted his attempts of takeover are so out of character it has to be a front. Anyway, regardless, it will simply lead to the same shenanigans as are going on at City and Chelsea and most Arsenal fans do not want to see that.

That really is a nightmare scenario, I would hate to see it happen

yahoo_moe

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear Usmanov is only using his stake in Arsenal to raise his profile the same way Shinawatra, Gaydamek, the Abu Dhabi and a few other less savoury individuals are doing with football clubs these days

I know what you're saying but I do think there's been a bit of a xenophobic undercurrent to a lot of the coverage of Usmanov, compared to media treatment of Kroenke. Granted, Kroenke seems to be better advised so far but while we've no obvious reason to fear him, we've no reason to be jumping for joy either.

Also, remember that while a takeover bid might soon have to be made, it might not be successful. I personally wouldn't mind if it wasn't, though I don't want to see a two-owner system wracked with tension either.

yahoo_moe

SDTimeout wrote: »

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5790205,00.html

what do we think lads ? There's the free option sorted anyway

Link is dead now - who was it referring to?

Pepe LeFrits

yahoo_moe wrote: »

Link is dead now - who was it referring to?

Luca Toni available on a free transfer or loan iirc?

SDTimeout

Luca Toni,

bayern ready to cut their losses and let him leave on a free

leninbenjamin

yahoo_moe wrote: »

I know what you're saying but I do think there's been a bit of a xenophobic undercurrent to a lot of the coverage of Usmanov...

Hey now, I didn't even mention the alleged fraud, racketeering and drug trafficking connections associated with this guy. Not to mention he's paid an army of lawyers to keep these allegations out of the mainstream media.

There seems to be good reason for that 'xenophobia' if someone is willing to go to so much lengths to hide it imo. Surely it would be easier to disprove it by producing hard evidence to the contrary instead of going directly after the webhosts of such content :rolleyes:

Pepe LeFrits

Agreed. There are very good reasons why many Gooners are greatly concerned about Usmanov. I'd like the ownership of the club to remain split but if I had to choose one I'd choose Kroenke. He goes about his business discreetly which is the Arsenal way and he seems to be a genuine sports enthusiast and not purely a businessman out to make a buck - although he is shrewd. Ivan Gazidis has been a huge hit since arriving and it appears he has a good relationship with him.

Headshot

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Hey now, I didn't even mention the alleged fraud, racketeering and drug trafficking connections associated with this guy. Not to mention he's paid an army of lawyers to keep these allegations out of the mainstream media.

There seems to be good reason for that 'xenophobia' if someone is willing to go to so much lengths to hide it imo. Surely it would be easier to disprove it by producing hard evidence to the contrary instead of going directly after the webhosts of such content :rolleyes:

did you see that Panorama report about usmanov

it was very enlightening

leninbenjamin

Headshot wrote: »

did you see that Panorama report about usmanov

it was very enlightening

No actually, when was this aired? might it be on their site?

Headshot

leninbenjamin wrote: »

No actually, when was this aired? might it be on their site?

it was a small segment at the beginning of panorama

for the life of me I cant find it at the moment

Headshot

Headshot wrote: »

it was a small segment at the beginning of panorama

for the life of me I cant find it at the moment

stupid me

it was on Dispatches

episode called

Lords, Billionaires and the Russian Connection

here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=686rcGyBNUY

SDTimeout

Well Kroenke would be my prefered choice, admittedly it's due to me reading arseblog and the way usmanov is portrayed. However stan is a business man and the american links with gadiz who has taken his job at the emirates so well gives me the confidence in stan kroenke.

leninbenjamin

Headshot wrote: »

here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=686rcGyBNUY

Cheers for that, it seems he comes to the exact same conclusions as most Arsenal bloggers who've been targeted by Usmanov's lawyers. Strange that that Channel 4 are still broadcasting though given past precedent. It must be because they can afford to hire a lawyer.

tony1kenobi

Have ye seen this ?

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/take-part-in-wenger-s-exclusive-video-webchat

OPENROAD

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Arsene-Wenger-heading-for-a-windfall-as-Arsenal-seek-sponsorship-cash-article265803.html

L'prof

OPENROAD wrote: »

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Arsene-Wenger-heading-for-a-windfall-as-Arsenal-seek-sponsorship-cash-article265803.html

Robbing Peter to pay Paul if you ask me!

Definitely worth it though, we can probably haggle and reduce the £30m it may cost to buy out the contract but, could receive up to £120m (£90m extra which would be worth an additional £15m a season :eek:).

Can't believe our deal is so poor in comparison!

jank

The reason those deals, actually all our deals with Nike, emirates etc were that poor is that they were all front loaded. These sponsors had to put a huge lump sum in place at the initial stage of the contract so that we have finance and stability for the stadium. Now that the stadium is done, revenue is stable these are ticking over nicely its time for

leninbenjamin

the free webchat with Wenger is on now.

http://www.arsenal.com/freewengerwebchat

edit: It's all a bit light tbh, not very interesting. Now talking about who designs the matchday suit...

edit 2: briefly touched on potential transfers. He didn't give much away other than to say he would consider a cup tied player...

he's "studied a little bit Spanish" and to live there wouldn't take (much).

Sherifu

Wengar must hate Delap. Wants to change throw ins to kick ins.

yahoo_moe

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Hey now, I didn't even mention the alleged fraud, racketeering and drug trafficking connections associated with this guy.

Oh I'm not saying he's whiter than white, just that there doesn't seem to be the same desire to bring Kroenke's background under the microscope. The Soviet regime and break-up were very messy and ethical standards were vastly different. The origins of Abramovich's big contracts are similarly shady but it seems to be glossed over a lot.

I guess my main point was that the coverage/reputation of Usmanov makes Kroenke the 'well if I had to choose one...' fallback choice, though nobody's that sure why they'd actually want him in charge otherwise.

This Young Guns piece is the only attempt I've seen to make a case for him and it seems worryingly like a Kroenke press release - since when is Denver the sports capital of the US for instance?

Split ownership please...

leninbenjamin

yahoo_moe wrote: »

though nobody's that sure why they'd actually want him in charge otherwise.

But you don't even need to look towards his alleged criminal activity to be entirely put off by him. As I said in my first post, if you compare the behaviour of the two over the past two years there's a much better case for Kroenke. Usmanov has been very vocal about the 'failings' of the club, some of his statements would appear to completely undermine Wenger's leadership and favour the 'Perez' style hollywood signings. He will attempt to buy success while completely ignoring the traditions of the club and everything Wenger has worked for.

On the other hand, Kroenke has kept very low profile, seemingly backed Wenger and the traditions of the club at every opportunity and was invited onto the board by the old guard. As fans, we will never know the inside story fully, but that's about as good a case for Kroenke as you will get. Plus he has no criminal convictions.

yahoo_moe wrote: »

Split ownership please...

I don't think this is as good as people make out. You could end up like Liverpool in house fighting, lack of financial direction, players worried about their futures etc. etc. Arsenal were very very lucky with how the old arrangement worked, largely because so many people were on the same page.

Now you have the situation where Usmanov and Kroenke are battling it out and the two of them duking it out over Bracewell Smith's shares... As the old guard drop out one by one things could get ugly if the status-quo remains, the club will end up in the hands of two people with completely different opinions on how it should work and could enter a period of stagnation until one pushes the other out.

yahoo_moe

leninbenjamin wrote: »

if you compare the behaviour of the two over the past two years there's a much better case for Kroenke.

But that's my point - Kroenke only looks good when compared to Usmanov, whereas he's an unknown when we consider him in his own right. Yes, he seems accepted by the board, etc. but a certain amount of that has to be due to the original hostile Usmanov move, when he bought in with Dein fronting Red&White. Kroenke might work out fine, but I'd imagine we'd be interrogating his shareholding a lot more if the other big stake was held by Richard Branson or whoever rather than Usmanov.

I don't think this is as good as people make out. You could end up like Liverpool in house fighting

By split ownership, I meant a continuation of the current situation. My first post already said that I don't want a two-owner system where there's tension between the two of them.

everdead.ie

Anyone know what the punishment will be for arsenal & Hull for not controlling there players I'm not old enough to remeber but back in 1990 didn't arsenal and man u get a points deduction or is this a different case?

Arsenal where deducted 2 points and man u 1 point

L'prof

everdead.ie wrote: »

Anyone know what the punishment will be for arsenal & Hull for not controlling there players I'm not old enough to remeber but back in 1990 didn't arsenal and man u get a points deduction or is this a different case?

Arsenal where deducted 2 points and man u 1 point

What exactly are you referring to? Haven't there been numerous cases since where only fines have been handed out?

everdead.ie

jasonorr wrote: »

What exactly are you referring to? Haven't there been numerous cases since where only fines have been handed out?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5795363,00.html
FA charge Gunners & Tigers

I don't remeber the FA ever charging them with this before i was just wondering what kind of punishment it would be because it could have a huge effect if it was a points deduction especially for hull as it could be the difference between staying up and going down

OPENROAD

everdead.ie wrote: »

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5795363,00.html
FA charge Gunners & Tigers

I don't remeber the FA ever charging them with this before i was just wondering what kind of punishment it would be because it could have a huge effect if it was a points deduction especially for hull as it could be the difference between staying up and going down

No chance of points deduction imo, I'm surprised both clubs have been charged, I hope we will see consistency for the rest of the season.

everdead.ie

OPENROAD wrote: »

No chance of points deduction imo, I'm surprised both clubs have been charged, I hope we will see consistency for the rest of the season.

Ah hear now thats as likely as me not eating all the mince pies this christmas:pac:

OPENROAD

everdead.ie wrote: »

Ah hear now thats as likely as me not eating all the mince pies this christmas:pac:

We have been involved in some big bust ups on the pitch down through the years, anyone remember Norwich at Highbury back in around 1991.

L'prof

everdead.ie wrote: »

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5795363,00.html
FA charge Gunners & Tigers

I don't remeber the FA ever charging them with this before i was just wondering what kind of punishment it would be because it could have a huge effect if it was a points deduction especially for hull as it could be the difference between staying up and going down

OPENROAD wrote: »

No chance of points deduction imo, I'm surprised both clubs have been charged, I hope we will see consistency for the rest of the season.

Not a hope in hell of a points deduction. Not much happened really, definitely nothing worse than what happens once or twice every other season. When was the last time a Premier League team got deducted points and what was it for? We've been involved in worse with United a couple of times!

OPENROAD

jasonorr wrote: »

Not a hope in hell of a points deduction. Not much happened really, definitely nothing worse than what happens once or twice every other season. When was the last time a Premier League team got deducted points and what was it for? We've been involved in worse with United a couple of times!

As far as I know it was us and Utd, we got deducted 2 points utd 1, we still went on to win the league that year despite this and Tony Adams extended holiday.

L'prof

OPENROAD wrote: »

As far as I know it was us and Utd, we got deducted 2 points utd 1, we still went on to win the league that year despite this and Tony Adams extended holiday.

I don't think we were deducted points in the Premier League though? Last time was 97 anyway!

OPENROAD

jasonorr wrote: »

I don't think we were deducted points in the Premier League though? Last time was 97 anyway!

No the old Division 1, are you sure a premier league team have been deducted points, certainly wasn't for a brawl though.

L'prof

OPENROAD wrote: »

No the old Division 1, are you sure a premier league team have been deducted points, certainly wasn't for a brawl though.

Yeah, it was Boro for cancelling a match or something!

OPENROAD

jasonorr wrote: »

Yeah, it was Boro for cancelling a match or something!

Thats right, didn't they get relegated that season.

L'prof

OPENROAD wrote: »

Thats right, didn't they get relegated that season.

Yeah, would have stayed up only for the deduction!

leninbenjamin

jasonorr wrote: »

Yeah, would have stayed up only for the deduction!

I vaguely remember that. Was it them that had only 6 or 7 outfield players fit and the league deducted them because they didn't play the youth team?

it was an odd decision anyway because had they turned up the referee would have had to make them forfeit the game...