Arsenal poised to be subjected to £1.5bn takeover bid from Middle East consortium

The group do not want their identities made public yet but a bid source told Telegraph Sport the intention is to buy out Arsenal’s American owner, Stan Kroenke, whose perceived weak stewardship of the club has also been called into question by frustrated supporter groups.

The cash offer, which is more than twice the amount at which Arsenal were valued two years ago, will be for 100 per cent of the club, and if successful would wipe out debts that stand at around £250 million according to the last full year’s financial results.

According to a bid source, there would be substantial transfer funds made available to transform the club into a major force in European and world football. There would also be a pledge to reduce ticket prices at the Emirates Stadium — currently among the highest in the world — as well as an attempt to recreate “some of the feel of the old North Bank” at Highbury.

The bid team has noted the damage caused by Kroenke, who owns two-thirds of the club, refusing to engage with Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov, who owns 29.96 per cent.

The bidders would like to unite the ownership, putting all the shares together in one fund. The offer will be for the full 62,217 shares which have been issued, but effectively it will be to buy out Kroenke, in the first instance, paying around £830 million for his 66.83 per cent shareholding (41,581). The offer equates to around £20,000 per share.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/9904640/Arsenal-poised-to-be-subjected-to-1.5bn-takeover-bid-from-Middle-East-consortium-within-the-next-few-weeks.html

Would be nice to have the debt wiped clean in one fell swoop. But imagine Wenger sitting on top of a £100 million war chest Still unwilling to pay that extra 1.5 mil to land someone like Diame

going through all these Hard times just to become another big spender from oil money?

we could get Usmanov in if we Wanted to go that way

Please be true.

Sina wrote:going through all these Hard times just to become another big spender from oil money?

we could get Usmanov in if we Wanted to go that way

I agree. Otherwise we're counting on this oil money group to run the club with class and principle - and while it's theoretically possible (and of course they'll always pay lip service to "the supporters"), I just don't see it. But personally I see the German model of club ownership as the most ideal, and English football isn't heading that direction again anytime soon ...

Best case scenario, the club would keep (and improve) its focus on youth development and global scouting, while making the periodic big money signings that other elite clubs make, and winning some trophies. Worst case scenario ... doom.

If this happens ,well all those who were slating City would look like a bunch of hypocrites.

Not really. Arsenal were winning trophies back when City were chilling in League 1

If UEFA have their way, the promise of "making extra transfer funds available" would mean sod all, because there'd be a cap on just how much an owner would be able to invest in our club. There wouldn't be any major changes in how the club is run. We wouldn't become entirely dependant on these guys.

Of course, it could mean that they'd make more of what we have available to be spent, but we've already established that our manager isn't particularly willing to spend a lot. I'm all for putting a bit of extra pressure on Wenger to spend a bit more, but I don't want owners who'd try influence the football side of things too much. That would be my biggest fear.

It all sounds good, but it's impossible to judge how good they'd be for the club without knowing a bit about their background and intentions. To be honest, I'd rather not be taken over by some random people who just felt like owning a football club one day. It just sounds wrong to me. And it's not like our current business model needs changing much; the only things that need to be changed are our commercial deals and our willingness to spend more in the transfer market.

If I were Kroenke and was offered £400mil profit on my investment, I'd be probably take it. However, this is the man who's resisted the temptation to sell to a man capable of making offers of similar size in Usmanov, so I doubt he'd accept this offer. If it were to happen, I wouldn't be totally against it, so long as they have the club's best interests as their priority, don't change the club's current set-up too much and leave the football matters to football people.

I don't buy this story. It suddenly came up a day before the derby ? the quotes doesn't make sense and the group doesn't have a name ?

It could be real but i find it odd.

Not to mention i agree with what Sina and Jay said. We are traditional club who believe in its values and respect football for what it is. We don't want to turn into another City or Chelsea

Sure we are not winning anything but rather stay the club we are then to go against everything we believed in.

Lex wrote:Not really. Arsenal were winning trophies back when City were chilling in League 1

Some fans hate City only for the sole reason that they spend money or overspend rather.

History doesnt matter any more(especially talking about silverware which was won almost a decade ago) and with all due respect Arsenal isnt an attractive destination for 'Top players' at the moment.But with money everything goes out of the window and you can attract just about anybody in the world.What if Arsenal end up going on a City-esque spending spree then ? So you would tell me that Arsenal can afford to do that because they have 'history' ? That sounds rather lame mate.

Surag wrote:Arsenal isnt an attractive destination for 'Top players' at the moment

Poppycock. Arsenal are an attractive destination for players who look to actually play football. City are an attractive destination for anyone who wants to upgrade from a Lexus to two Mercs

from matt law

Arsenal insist Stan Kroenke not interested in selling and point to fact he had chance to sell Rams a few years ago and declined. Usmanov camp also insist he is in it for the long term with Arsenal. Don't think he needs the money, either.

If the people who were slating City and Chelsea for spending an owner's money supports the idea of Arsenal doing the same thing, then yes, they are hypocrites.

Arsenal insist Stan Kroenke not interested in selling and point to fact he had chance to sell Rams a few years ago and declined. Usmanov camp also insist he is in it for the long term with Arsenal. Don't think he needs the money, either.

Sounds about right. I reckon the only way Kroenke will sell is if the fans turn completely against him. That's probably why this story was even leaked in the first place; stir up some excitement in the fans and get them thinking of the possibilities ahead of a season-defining match where, if we lose, the knives will be out again for our current board and management.

From David Ornstein who is probably THE most reliable arsenal man

"Not questioning Arsenal takeover story but Kroenke has absolutely no intention to sell, is adamant he's here for long-term. Serious Middle East interest never advertise plans. Qatar/UAE buying together v.unlikely. Long-winded anonymous source out of character. Takeover experts spoken to all say valuation of £1.5bn is way over the top for Arsenal, especially if no Champions League "

So it's pretty much bullshit.

Makes you wonder why and how such a story came to be with so much going against it.

A great article in regard to this

http://angryofislington.com/2013/03/02/1-5-billion-bid-for-arsenal-whats-the-truth-what-difference-does-it-make/

Funniest thing is that some papers seem to be debating if Kroenke will actually sell

Wenger and 100m does scare me. We'll want Cavani and Hummels but we'll get 20 Andre Santos'.

These are just rumours, but if true...as much as I dislike Kroenke, I would hate us to become another Sugar Daddy club.

I would prefer JW to lift the FA Cup in four years time in the normal way rather than we win the quadruple after selling everyone including Jack and buying Messi, Ronaldo, Iniesta, Martinez, Bale etc.

I'm a bit torn on this one. As long as they make sure our wages are competitive and that we keep our best players...that will do. Oh, and spend 20-30 mill every season if possible. Nothing too mental...just keep us competitive with Utd. Bayern confuse me. I believe their cheapest season tickets are 96 pounds. Some of the nicer seats at the Arsenal vs Bayern game were that price! As far as I know they have no Sugar Daddy. So can anyone tell me how they have 200m ready for Guardiola? I don't get it.

However, back on topic, I think the new owner would go mental and although (we have to admit) we would be excited at seeing massive names arriving..I would feel as though a part of our soul had been sold to the devil.

I dont care who ownes us as long as he doesnt take money from the Arsenal to his pocket and puts pressure to manager to use the available money.

furiouswindbottom wrote:Bayern confuse me. I believe their cheapest season tickets are 96 pounds. Some of the nicer seats at the Arsenal vs Bayern game were that price! As far as I know they have no Sugar Daddy. So can anyone tell me how they have 200m ready for Guardiola? I don't get it.

Bayern massively overprice corporate seats and use the money gained from that to subsidize the seats for the fans. Plus they have some business geniuses at the helm who always make top commercial deals. And moreover, I highly doubt that Guardiola will get 200mio Euros, the Bayern board is much too financially sane for that.

As some of you might have already seen and posted..

Kroenke has 'no intention' of selling Arsenal stake despite bid reports http://gu.com/p/3e723/tw

furiouswindbottom wrote:

However, back on topic, I think the new owner would go mental and although (we have to admit) we would be excited at seeing massive names arriving..I would feel as though a part of our soul had been sold to the devil.

I think we sold our sold to the devil about a decade ago when we won silverware and we are suffering the aftermath of it now.

Lot of people on Twitter mentioning this Wenger quote from the post-match interview (about the takeover rumors): "If they're ready to invest, it means the club doesn't go in a bad direction."

People are interpreting it to mean that Wenger endorses a takeover, but it seems to me that what AW is saying - much more pokerfaced - is that outsiders' willingness to invest suggests that Arsenal aren't doing so bad overall (i.e., it's a measured justification of the status quo). Can anyone who's seen the interview in context clarify?

http://news.arseblog.com/2013/03/club-dismiss-takeover-talk/

Good Forbes article on the takeover, which reiterates how some of Arsenal's cash holdings simply aren't just fun money to be spent on huge transfers - http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2013/03/03/congratulations-your-takeover-bid-for-arsenal-arrived-only-a-decade-late/