Swiss ramble confirming the view that Kroenke is c*nt

[Chief Arrowhead]

https://twitter.com/swissramble/stat...814902784?s=21

I didn't need Swiss Ramble to inform me that Kroenke is a cu*t. However it seems that there is a notion that owner's have a duty to plunge money into a club. No owner of American sports teams put money into a club to buy players, front salaries, etc. In fact it's forbidden by league rules. There are 'rich' clubs by nature of their individual media deals, ticket prices, concessions, merchandise, etc. The New York Yankees have about twice the revenue of the Kansas City Royals, for example, but that revenue is solely generated by the club and there are league rules in place regarding how much a team can fork out for player salaries. Plus there's really no such thing as buying a player with solely cash.

Painful to read, and say for that matter, but Arsenal is run like an American franchise.

[AFC East]

I didn't need Swiss Ramble to inform me that Kroenke is a cu*t. However it seems that there is a notion that owner's have a duty to plunge money into a club. No owner of American sports teams put money into a club to buy players, front salaries, etc. In fact it's forbidden by league rules.....

It isn't unthinkable that a businessman would invest in a business he has bought, nor is it unthinkable they'd allow the business to borrow to invest. Liverpool's owners have done just that.

Fenway have just won the World Series in Baseball with the best team of the modern era and look a reasonable bet to win the Premiership. They've invested from within the business to achieve that. Even within Baseball the owners have some freedom in this respect, salary caps notwithstanding. Of course, FSG is not owned by one person, which is probably a key factor.

Kroenke believes he can make easy money by retaining Arsenal as a top 6 Premiership franchise. Maybe he could have made more by allowing more investment, but this route is higher risk.

We got unlucky.

[Chief Arrowhead]

It isn't unthinkable that a businessman would invest in a business he has bought, nor is it unthinkable they'd allow the business to borrow to invest. Liverpool's owners have done just that.

Fenway have just won the World Series in Baseball with the best team of the modern era and look a reasonable bet to win the Premiership. They've invested from within the business to achieve that. Even within Baseball the owners have some freedom in this respect, salary caps notwithstanding. Of course, FSG is not owned by one person, which is probably a key factor.

Kroenke believes he can make easy money by retaining Arsenal as a top 6 Premiership franchise. Maybe he could have made more by allowing more investment, but this route is higher risk.

We got unlucky.

All of that is accurate, but not incongruent to my post. The Red Sox can't buy Nolan Arenado from the Rockies by paying $200 million, or any sum for that matter. Nor can they pay there players whatever they want to without incurring significant luxury tax penalties. Nor can the club borrow meaningful sums. The owner can borrow, of course, to buy a club but they can't borrow in the name of the club. I guess that difference is largely because of league rules, you don't really have that in Europe. NOw the Red Sox can charge high prices (they do!) and can refurbish the clubhouse, front office, etc., to their hearts and pocketbook's content. But not on players -- which I think is what the OP was getting at that Kroenke should do.

the root cause of this is Arsenal's decision to go public in the 90's. It unlocked the door for anyone to walk in. But that's another issue.

[AFC East]

All of that is accurate, but not incongruent to my post. The Red Sox can't buy Nolan Arenado from the Rockies by paying $200 million, or any sum for that matter. Nor can they pay there players whatever they want to without incurring significant luxury tax penalties. Nor can the club borrow meaningful sums. The owner can borrow, of course, to buy a club but they can't borrow in the name of the club. I guess that difference is largely because of league rules, you don't really have that in Europe. NOw the Red Sox can charge high prices (they do!) and can refurbish the clubhouse, front office, etc., to their hearts and pocketbook's content. But not on players -- which I think is what the OP was getting at that Kroenke should do.

the root cause of this is Arsenal's decision to go public in the 90's. It unlocked the door for anyone to walk in. But that's another issue.

You are entirely correct and I wasn't disagreeing with you, just pointing out that it's not ridiculous or unheard of for an owner to invest in a sport franchise. Even in the US, owners choose how much of the franchise money to spend. It's why fans want some owners to take a hike in the US as well.

Kroenke is not a popular man on either side of the Atlantic. The Wilpon/Madoff (Mets) affair is one of the funnier ownership turns I can think of, depending on who you follow.