So Kronke has "waived" his £3 million fee after suggestions it might be illegal

[World's End Stella]

If Kroenke wants to take £3m out of a business he owns, what the hell has that got to do with the customers? It was probably more tax efficient than a dividend, which he equally has full rights to take.

Despite not being on the Arsenal board, a poster here was telling us how much Wenger had to spend on transfers. The stupidity of the Arsenal fan is not limited to shouting 'shoot' every time Xhaka gets the ball.

That's inaccurate, I'm afraid. Kroenke does not 'own' Arsenal, he is the majority shareholder and he cannot therefore simply take money out of the club, it is illegal.

[AFC East]

Business.
Customers.



And hell yeah, if Kroenke wants to move his franchise to China, why the hell should mere customers give a damn about that! Stoopid customers!

That would be stupid wouldn't it, it would destroy the business. Kroenke is a business man, not a football fan. He is going to treat it like a business. We may see it differently, but it doesn't alter the truth.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Perhaps he's stopped providing the service to which the payment pertains. Any thoughts on the Twin Towers?

Perhaps he never provided the service to which the payment pertained? You may care to explain it in detail given that you know so much about it.

[AFC East]

That's inaccurate, I'm afraid. Kroenke does not 'own' Arsenal, he is the majority shareholder and he cannot therefore simply take money out of the club, it is illegal.

He is the majority shareholder who could quite easily declare a dividend, or perhaps that's illegal? Of course that would mean paying Mr. Shady as well, which is why he finds other means.

[AFC East]

Perhaps he never provided the service to which the payment pertained? You may care to explain it in detail given that you know so much about it.

I know **** all about it, nor do you, but I'm not the one crying foul about it.

[Sir C]

Perhaps he never provided the service to which the payment pertained? You may care to explain it in detail given that you know so much about it.

One might suppose that payment was made for a service rendered for two years, but then not made in the third year when the service was not rendered. This would seem to me logical and reasonable.

[Burney]

One might suppose that payment was made for a service rendered for two years, but then not made in the third year when the service was not rendered. This would seem to me logical and reasonable.

Why on earth are you doing this to yourself?

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I know **** all about it, nor do you, but I'm not the one crying foul about it.

I know it hasn't been given which is precisely why the payment has stopped.

""Could" and "might" are not words acceptable in the audited accounts of a company. The company can pay its shareholders - all of them - a dividend. It cannot camouflage a dividend as payment for a non-existent service to one of its shareholders.

That's why its stopped.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

One might suppose that payment was made for a service rendered for two years, but then not made in the third year when the service was not rendered. This would seem to me logical and reasonable.

See above.

[World's End Stella]

He is the majority shareholder who could quite easily declare a dividend, or perhaps that's illegal? Of course that would mean paying Mr. Shady as well, which is why he finds other means.

Well yes, I suppose he could declare a dividend although I'm not too sure exactly how and who approves the dividend and yes, he would then have to pay all shareholders.

But that wasn't what you suggested he could do. You suggested he could simply take money from the club. And that isn't true.