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

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Funny. Loadsapeople here defended it at the time.

[Pat Vegas]

Funny. Loadsapeople here defended it at the time.

Can I have it instead?

[Pokster]

Funny. Loadsapeople here defended it at the time.

Was always a rather touchy subject, he doesn't own the club (just largest shareholder) so it can't be a dividend.... it was for a job that was never explained.

[PSRB]

Funny. Loadsapeople here defended it at the time.

I still do defend it and the other point is we made a £2.9m profit....not difficult to see why he didn't take his £3m

[Ash]

Funny. Loadsapeople here defended it at the time.

Yes, we were told to be grateful that he took such a modest stipend. We were also reminded that we are a business, not a football club, so we as customers have no business worrying about the internal affairs of the business of which we are mere customers.

[Sir C]

Funny. Loadsapeople here defended it at the time.

Well, I'd always defend the right of a business to pay an agreed amount to another business for an agreed service. I'm not convinced that's particularly radical thinking.

How is business done on your planet, m?

[IUFG]

Absolutely. "Thanks for your interest in our affairs"

[Ash]

Well, I'd always defend the right of a business to pay an agreed amount to another business for an agreed service. I'm not convinced that's particularly radical thinking.


That depends what the service is. So far no-one has been able to tell us.

Perhaps it's blow-jobs.

[Keith]

That depends what the service is. So far no-one has been able to tell us.

Perhaps it's blow-jobs.

You Not Get Yours Yet?

[Pokster]

Well, I'd always defend the right of a business to pay an agreed amount to another business for an agreed service. I'm not convinced that's particularly radical thinking.

How is business done on your planet, m?

Agreed service???

[Sir C]

Agreed service???

Tell me more. You were at the board meeting when the service wasn't agreed?

Now then, I understand that Tesco has paid millions to a milk producer over the past year. Please tell me all about the laglities of that deal because clearly YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!

[Sir C]

That depends what the service is. So far no-one has been able to tell us.

Perhaps it's blow-jobs.

Yes, and no one needs to tell us about it because it's got fúck all to do with us.

HMRC, yes. The SFO, perhaps. The general public, no.

[Pat Vegas]

Tell me more. You were at the board meeting when the service wasn't agreed?

Now then, I understand that Tesco has paid millions to a milk producer over the past year. Please tell me all about the laglities of that deal because clearly YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!

:hehe:

I don't know why everyone get's so upset. Do other clubs have such a business interest in things?
Other clubs fans sit around talking about football. We sit around with our spreadsheets and calculators.

[Ash]

Tesco

We don't support Tesco though, or give a toss about them.

I couldn't even name any of their players.

[World's End Stella]

Well, I'd always defend the right of a business to pay an agreed amount to another business for an agreed service. I'm not convinced that's particularly radical thinking.

How is business done on your planet, m?

What if the owner of the business receiving the money was also a significant shareholder in the business paying the money and the service provided was something as nebulous as 'consulting fee' or something similar?

Do you see a potential conflict of interest there that other shareholders of the business paying the money might be concerned about?

[Sir C]

:hehe:

I don't know why everyone get's so upset. Do other clubs have such a business interest in things?
Other clubs fans sit around talking about football. We sit around with our spreadsheets and calculators.

It's all these geniuses sitting round pontificating about what's legal when they know not the first thing about it that makes me worried for mankind.

[Sir C]

What if the owner of the business receiving the money was also a significant shareholder in the business paying the money and the service provided was something as nebulous as 'consulting fee' or something similar?

Do you see a potential conflict of interest there that other shareholders of the business paying the money might be concerned about?

Well in that case I suppose the other shareholders would ask such a question. Thick lads like you, with zero insight into the internal affairs of the club, might make better use of your time trying to see up a young girl's skirt.

In short, it's fúck all to do with us.

[Sir C]

We don't support Tesco though, or give a toss about them.

I couldn't even name any of their players.

True enough, I'm Ocado 'til I die.

[Pokster]

Tell me more. You were at the board meeting when the service wasn't agreed?

Now then, I understand that Tesco has paid millions to a milk producer over the past year. Please tell me all about the laglities of that deal because clearly YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!

No need to shout dear chap... where did I say i know everythiong about it??? It would be like Tesco's paying £2m to a majority shareholder without actually putting the service out to tender. That wouldn't happen

[Sir C]

No need to shout dear chap... where did I say i know everythiong about it??? It would be like Tesco's paying £2m to a majority shareholder without actually putting the service out to tender. That wouldn't happen

They haven't paid anything to a majority shareholder. They paid a company. You're mendaciously insinuating that the money was paid to Kroenke. This is the same tactic as Mo's shameful 'suggestions it might be illegal'.

No smoke without fire, eh? Nudge nudge. Burn the podiatrist's office down!

[World's End Stella]

Well in that case I suppose the other shareholders would ask such a question. Thick lads like you, with zero insight into the internal affairs of the club, might make better use of your time trying to see up a young girl's skirt.

In short, it's fúck all to do with us.

Well, what it has to do with us is that not only do we have an emotional investment in the company that paid the money, we also put money into that company when we buy tickets to see matches. And as a result we'd like to know that the company is run sensibly and legally.

And because of all that, someone posted something about it on an internet board devoted to that company.

If I'm honest, Charles, I'm struggling to see what anyone has done wrong here.

[Sir C]

Well, what it has to do with us is that not only do we have an emotional investment in the company that paid the money, we also put money into that company when we buy tickets to see matches. And as a result we'd like to know that the company is run sensibly and legally.

And because of all that, someone posted something about it on an internet board devoted to that company.

If I'm honest, Charles, I'm struggling to see what anyone has done wrong here.

Look, if some know-nothing halfwit on the internet started questioning an invoice paid by MY business and, indeed, making gross insinuations regarding the legality of my business dealings, I would tell them, in no short order, to do one. I'm not sure why Kroenke should be subkected the the rantings of the lunatic fringe without someone introducing a note of reason and fairness.

[Pokster]

Look, if some know-nothing halfwit on the internet started questioning an invoice paid by MY business and, indeed, making gross insinuations regarding the legality of my business dealings, I would tell them, in no short order, to do one. I'm not sure why Kroenke should be subkected the the rantings of the lunatic fringe without someone introducing a note of reason and fairness.

When someone introduces a note of reason and fairness please let us know... now calm down

[Sir C]

When someone introduces a note of reason and fairness please let us know... now calm down

Sorry, I'm a bit busy to reply, I'm just all over the internet posting about the rumours that you have been involved with certain illegal activities involving people trafficking and drug smuggling. I mean, they're only suggestions at the moment, and they come from people who don't know anything about your white slave trading activities, but still, I think it well worth while passing them on and encouraging idle speculation and and damage to your reutation. Because after all, that sort of thing is fine now, isn't it?

[TheCurly]

Well, what it has to do with us is that not only do we have an emotional investment in the company that paid the money, we also put money into that company when we buy tickets to see matches. And as a result we'd like to know that the company is run sensibly and legally.

And because of all that, someone posted something about it on an internet board devoted to that company.

If I'm honest, Charles, I'm struggling to see what anyone has done wrong here.

You're paying money for 90 minutes entertainment on a Saturday afternoon.You're not investing in the club

[Pokster]

Sorry, I'm a bit busy to reply, I'm just all over the internet posting about the rumours that you have been involved with certain illegal activities involving people trafficking and drug smuggling. I mean, they're only suggestions at the moment, and they come from people who don't know anything about your white slave trading activities, but still, I think it well worth while passing them on and encouraging idle speculation and and damage to your reutation. Because after all, that sort of thing is fine now, isn't it?

I do believe you are going stark raving mad... talk about AWIMB going off on a tangent. I don't believe I have started any rumours and have questioned what the £3m was paid for.. the same questions shareholders were asking and didn't get any sort of reasonable response.

[World's End Stella]

You're paying money for 90 minutes entertainment on a Saturday afternoon.You're not investing in the club

I didn't say I was investing in the club, I said we put money into the club. By that I mean the club's entire business model is dependent on people going to see matches, buying merchandise etc etc. And the people that do that are aware of how important they are to the club, and quite right too.

Hence it makes perfect sense that someone might comment on it on an internet board devoted to the club.

[Sir C]

I do believe you are going stark raving mad... talk about AWIMB going off on a tangent. I don't believe I have started any rumours and have questioned what the £3m was paid for.. the same questions shareholders were asking and didn't get any sort of reasonable response.

It's all very well being sorry now, but you really shouldn't need to be told these things at your age.

[TheCurly]

I didn't say I was investing in the club, I said we put money into the club. By that I mean the club's entire business model is dependent on people going to see matches, buying merchandise etc etc. And the people that do that are aware of how important they are to the club, and quite right too.

Hence it makes perfect sense that someone might comment on it on an internet board devoted to the club.

I'd say the gate receipts (our money) is a piddly fraction of the club's income.It's like paying into a Speilberg movie and demanding to know the finances of Amblin Group

[Lar d'Arse]

I think matchday income is about a third of our total revenue.

Edit: of the Club's total revenue, I meant.

[TheCurly]

I think matchday income is about a third of our total revenue.

Edit: of the Club's total revenue, I meant.

Really? Thought it would be nowhere near that.
Matchday brings in what? 60 thousand paying 50 a head roughly?
3 million
Take away cost of plod/stewards/shop staff/bar staff/electricity and what are you left with?
Not a whole load I would guess

[World's End Stella]

I'd say the gate receipts (our money) is a piddly fraction of the club's income.It's like paying into a Speilberg movie and demanding to know the finances of Amblin Group

People don't follow corporations that make movies in the same way that football supporters follow a club, Curly. I expect you know this. The supporters contribute to the club not only through gate receipts and merchandise, but also by watching the matches on television. Do you think BT Sport and Sky would have paid billions of pounds to broadcast matches if no one watched them?

The short answer is that Arsenal Football Club does not exist without the supporters and in addition to providing the club with the income it needs, those supporters have an enormous emotional commitment to the club. Therefore it is perfectly sensible and normal for the supporters to have an interest in and be concerned about the financial situation of the club.

So yes, it is our concern.

[TheCurly]

People don't follow corporations that make movies in the same way that football supporters follow a club, Curly. I expect you know this. The supporters contribute to the club not only through gate receipts and merchandise, but also by watching the matches on television. Do you think BT Sport and Sky would have paid billions of pounds to broadcast matches if no one watched them?

The short answer is that Arsenal Football Club does not exist without the supporters and in addition to providing the club with the income it needs, those supporters have an enormous emotional commitment to the club. Therefore it is perfectly sensible and normal for the supporters to have an interest in and be concerned about the financial situation of the club.

So yes, it is our concern.

Oh I agree with most of that BUT yes,you may have concern,yes you may have an interest but any rights in the matter? Don't think so.

[Pokster]

It's all very well being sorry now, but you really shouldn't need to be told these things at your age.

You seem to be reading words that i haven't typed... you'll be talking to yourself next

[PSRB]

Really? Thought it would be nowhere near that.
Matchday brings in what? 60 thousand paying 50 a head roughly?
3 million
Take away cost of plod/stewards/shop staff/bar staff/electricity and what are you left with?
Not a whole load I would guess

1st club to break £100m from matchday revenue, it's all them shiny boxes

[World's End Stella]

Oh I agree with most of that BUT yes,you may have concern,yes you may have an interest but any rights in the matter? Don't think so.

Oh I agree, we have no rights at all. But that is a different argument.

[TheCurly]

1st club to break £100m from matchday revenue, it's all them shiny boxes

Yeah, so roughly 3-4 million a game.As I say,after matchday expense it doesn't leave a hell of a lot.Certainly not enough to top up wages or transfers

[Lar d'Arse]

Do you have any idea what matchday expenses are per game? I don't have a rashers.

But one of the main reasons for moving from Highbury was so we could benefit from significant additional revenue. With 22,000 extra bums on seats it has to make a big enough difference and when 7,000 of the total are paying club level/premium prices the difference is even bigger!

I think we turn over more than anyone else in England bar Man Utd. Citeh and ourselves are pretty close but that's only because of their exceptionally dodgy stadium/shirt sponsorship deals etc. We turn over a lot more than Chelsea and Liverpool and a hell of a lot more than tottnumb.

We are however pretty **** at merchandising and sponsorship from what I recall.

[Ash]

Do you have any idea what matchday expenses are per game? I don't have a rashers.

But one of the main reasons for moving from Highbury was so we could benefit from significant additional revenue. With 22,000 extra bums on seats it has to make a big enough difference and when 7,000 of the total are paying club level/premium prices the difference is even bigger!

I think we turn over more than anyone else in England bar Man Utd. Citeh and ourselves are pretty close but that's only because of their exceptionally dodgy stadium/shirt sponsorship deals etc. We turn over a lot more than Chelsea and Liverpool and a hell of a lot more than tottnumb.

We are however pretty **** at merchandising and sponsorship from what I recall.

Prior to the 2014 renewal of sponsorship deals, and obviously the big new TV deals, Arsenal were highly dependent on matchday income as a percentage of overall revenues. To dismiss the punters as irrelevant to the club's fortunes would be erroneous. They don't need us as much now, of course, but it all helps.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Well, I'd always defend the right of a business to pay an agreed amount to another business for an agreed service. I'm not convinced that's particularly radical thinking.

How is business done on your planet, m?

In my planet payment for a service which hasn't been given is called "fraud". Yours?

[Sir C]

In my planet payment for a service which hasn't been given is called "fraud". Yours?

And you knew, at the time, that this service had not been given?

How?

[Mo Britain less Europe]

And you knew, at the time, that this service had not been given?

How?

Do you know now that the service was given?

How?

[Viva Prat Vegas]

Next Arsenal manager

Howe?

[Pat Vegas]

Next Arsenal manager

Howe?

Howe's about that then?

[AFC East]

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.

[Sir C]

Do you know now that the service was given?

How?

Well you could ask that same question about every bill the club pays. Indeed, every bill that you pay, or I pay, but we don't do that, do we? Apart from the lack of time at our disposal to question every single financial transaction carried out, we sort of operate on an 'innocent until proven guilty' basis.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

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.

Believe it or not there are rules in this country on corportate governance. Your idea that a business is simply a cash cow for one of its part-owners, similar to the shopkeeper being able to put his hand in the till in some ancient village shop, is out-dated. And someone has realised this at the Arsenal which is precisely why they've stopped the "payment" this year.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Well you could ask that same question about every bill the club pays. Indeed, every bill that you pay, or I pay, but we don't do that, do we? Apart from the lack of time at our disposal to question every single financial transaction carried out, we sort of operate on an 'innocent until proven guilty' basis.

See above. The payment being stopped would suggest to me that it should never have been made. If it's all so innocent and dandy why haven't they continued to pay it?

[Ash]

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.

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!

[AFC East]

See above. The payment being stopped would suggest to me that it should never have been made. If it's all so innocent and dandy why haven't they continued to pay it?

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

[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.

:hehe: 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]

:hehe: 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]

:hehe: 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.

[AFC East]

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.

Yes he can take money of the business, in the form of a dividend. Dividends are in my experience of company law, approved at a board meeting. I don't suppose Kroenke would have too much trouble getting a dividend approved from a board he hand picks. You can nitpick over semantics if you choose.

[AFC East]

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


How do you know it hasn't been given? Are you another Arsenal board member? As for your point about auditors, if this was an auditing issue the money would have to be returned, not just stopped for the future.

[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.


I'm not nitpicking over semantics, I'm using the semantics you chose in the quote above. You distinguished between 'take £3m out of a business' and declaring a dividend and said that he could do either. That isn't true. He can do the latter, not the former.

I'm bored with this now. G'night.

[Ash]

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.

But what if it didn't destroy the business? What if the best players in the world were going to china, and some owners started taking their clubs there too?

[AFC East]

But what if it didn't destroy the business? What if the best players in the world were going to china, and some owners started taking their clubs there too?

Galling as it may seem, what the **** could we do about it? Beside emigrating and developing a love of ****ing awful food.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Galling as it may seem, what the **** could we do about it? Beside emigrating and developing a love of ****ing awful food.

A team could call itself Arsenal in China but it couldn't play in the English Premier League from China. So if Kronke starts a team in China and gives up part-owning a team in London I would still support Arsenal FC's successor club which would be formed five minutes after he'd gone, if not before.

Arsenal was here before Kronke and it will still be here when the worms have consumed his toupee.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Yes he can take money of the business, in the form of a dividend. Dividends are in my experience of company law, approved at a board meeting. I don't suppose Kroenke would have too much trouble getting a dividend approved from a board he hand picks. You can nitpick over semantics if you choose.

If the board declares a dividend then all shareholders, including Mr Usmanov, will have to be paid it. Perhaps what Kronke has tried to do is circumvent that. He's been told to stop or he'll be in trouble.

[AFC East]

If the board declares a dividend then all shareholders, including Mr Usmanov, will have to be paid it. Perhaps what Kronke has tried to do is circumvent that. He's been told to stop or he'll be in trouble.

Told by whom? I think you've confused the words guess and know.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Told by whom? I think you've confused the words guess and know.

Actions speak louder than words.