[Peggles_*]

(Original post by Nucleolus)
By reaching the 30% mark, he automatically becomes a director of the club, and can attempt to buy the remaining shares [not that Kroenke will let him]. That's all really; as long as Kroenke holds the majority of the shares [67% I think], then he'll have the majority vote and control the running of the club.



I think it's a conflict of principles; Kroenke is not keen on investing his own money into the club, and relies on fan generated income and cheap signings, whilst from what I've read Usmanov wants to invest. Kroenke controls who is allowed on the board, and he certainly won't let Usmanov in.

Why did we let Kroenke in anyway? I thought that Hill-Wood wasn't that fond of him when he first expressed an interest in Arsenal

[Xotol]

(Original post by Darth Vader 7)
It is irrelevant that this is Van Persie's last big "pay day". You repay the club that has spent season upon season trying to help you overcome your injuries. I don't care what age you are. Your morals don't change.

Again, the quality of the player means nothing. Clichy went to City and yet we don't say anything about him. He was nowhere near our best player. He left with his head held up high because he gave it his all for multiple seasons, something Van Persie and Nasri can't say.

Nasri went to a better team than us. You have no proof that he went for money (although we all know he did). The same applies for Van Persie.

Basically, you're willing to keep a player hostage for something that is not his fault.

[Darth Vader 7]

(Original post by Nucleolus)
By reaching the 30% mark, he automatically becomes a director of the club, and can attempt to buy the remaining shares [not that Kroenke will let him]. That's all really; as long as Kroenke holds the majority of the shares [67% I think], then he'll have the majority vote and control the running of the club.



I think it's a conflict of principles; Kroenke is not keen on investing his own money into the club, and relies on fan generated income and cheap signings, whilst from what I've read Usmanov wants to invest. Kroenke controls who is allowed on the board, and he certainly won't let Usmanov in.

So Usmanov can become a director but still not be allowed on the board? There must be some sort of ulterior motive concerning Usmanov and what he wants to do with the club.

[Darth Vader 7]

(Original post by Xotol)
Basically, you're willing to keep a player hostage for something that is not his fault.

How is that keeping a player hostage? I'm not stopping him from moving. This isn't a dictatorship. He can move if he wants. I'm just saying that he will be IMO considered in the same regard as Nasri.

Everyone in the world has to deal with altercations towards their lives and deal with it. Van Persie can as well when he's getting however much he is earning at Arsenal.

[Xotol]

(Original post by Darth Vader 7)
Everyone in the world has to deal with altercations towards their lives and deal with it. Van Persie can as well when he's getting however much he is earning at Arsenal.

Money probably isn't the issue though, it's success.

Van Persie has ridiculous talent and skill... he does not deserve to walk away from his career with two medals that he played barely any major part in. And he only has 3 or 4 years at the top to achieve it all.

If he feels that the club is not being ambitious enough (i.e. surrounding him with players capable of competing seriously), he has every right to seek better opportunities at a club that does. You seem to be holding the stance that if he does leave for whatever circumstances, he will still be an *******.

Having said that, if he leaves for money, then yes, he is an *******. But he deserves success.

[Darth Vader 7]

(Original post by Xotol)
Money probably isn't the issue though, it's success.

Van Persie has ridiculous talent and skill... he does not deserve to walk away from his career with two medals that he played barely any major part in. And he only has 3 or 4 years at the top to achieve it all.

If he feels that the club is not being ambitious enough (i.e. surrounding him with players capable of competing seriously), he has every right to seek better opportunities at a club that does. You seem to be holding the stance that if he does leave for whatever circumstances, he will still be an *******.

Having said that, if he leaves for money, then yes, he is an *******. But he deserves success.

I completely understand that he deserves success, however, since Arsenal will never be able to meet anything that Man City/Madrid can offer in terms of wages, we will never know whether it's money related or success related. I'm guessing it's a bit of both but I will always hold grudges on players that leave Arsenal after having only one good season. That's what fans do.

[In2deep]

(Original post by Xotol)

Yes, but it sounds like you think the injuries were his fault? How exactly is it?

As far as I'm concerned, he's already repaid the debt (if there ever was one in the first place). Look at the table, and think about where we would be playing Chamakh/Park instead of him.

I think one of the main reasons Arsenal fans got under Nasri's skin this season was because he thought what he did was morally wrong, a guilty reaction of some sorts. When somebody like Wenger trusts you and tells others to be patient, when you vindicate his patience but then go on to leave for greener pastures preventing the club from reaping what they sowed; I would feel bad too.

Same applies for RVP, of course the injuries weren't his fault but that didn't prevent the club from paying him weekly, it didn't matter to Wenger when a considerable amount of fans were questioning RVP's role at the club (similar to how people want to get rid of Diaby now). He could have easily been sold to whoever was interested (and not many were) but here we are, after years of patience and he finally produces, it would be wrong in my eyes to leave now.

Having said that, he is free to leave, he wouldn't exactly be like Nasri because Nasri was a **** before, during and after the transfer. If RVP keeps his mouth shut in respect to the fans and the club (assuming he leaves of course) then farewell to him, I personally though won't be singing his name.

The lack of ambition at the club is a legitimate reason to leave, if he feels that the club is actively doing the bare minimum to get CL football then I hope he tells us that is the case, if he's using his negotiating position to better the team than that is great.

[Mr.Messy]

Should RVP go, who do you replace him with?

If I was Wenger I'd give the guy the money he wants and ask for 1 year to prove that Arsenal can win big. If at the end of the season he isn't satisfied/ you haven't challenged for anything, then fair enough he can leave through a minimum transfer release clause of £25m or w/e they agree on.

It may create an imbalance in wage structure for a year or two but you have always been financially secure so it shouldn't be a problem.

Then again, giving into his demands may turn the heads of other players who may want improved deals if they see them selves as a 'key player'.

Doubt you'll implode if he leaves but I also doubt that it would be an easy transition.

[Nucleolus]

(Original post by DisconcertingWink1)
Some Russian oligarch pumping money into the club from his own pocket? No. No, thank you. We ain't cheats. We'll invest money which is generated, not injected.

The fact that a club like Manchester City can make a loss of nearly £200m and still be allowed to compete in Europe's premier competition, thus reaping the benefits — financial and profile-wise — it offers, is obscene. It's cheating, end of! And it makes a mockery of the competition.

We need a balance; we need board members that are willing to invest in the club when it's needed [I'm not talking Man City style, but sensibly injecting a bit more money into key signings to make us competitive], but we also need to maintain the philosophy and principles of the club. Wenger, who represents everything that Arsenal is about, has even said that he's open to Usmanov becoming a board member, and Usmanov's installation could in turn mean the return of Dein, who was pivotal to the club's success and is on the exact same wavelength as Wenger in terms of maintaining our principles and philosophy. If Usmanov means spending money in a sensible manner whilst still upholding our values, I'm all for it.

(Original post by Peggles_*)
Why did we let Kroenke in anyway? I thought that Hill-Wood wasn't that fond of him when he first expressed an interest in Arsenal

Hill-Wood knew that either Kroenke or Usmanov would gain the majority of shares, and although he didn't trust either, he didn't trust Usmanov more, so it was really a matter of allowing Kroenke to take the majority in order to counteract Usmanov's bid [if I recall correctly, they believed his wealth was founded upon corruption.]

(Original post by Darth Vader 7)
So Usmanov can become a director but still not be allowed on the board? There must be some sort of ulterior motive concerning Usmanov and what he wants to do with the club.

Yep; only Kroenke could let him on the board, since he owns the majority of shares. As I said, I think it's just a clash of principles, since Usmanov has been very vocal about the club's lack of ambition, effectively criticising Kroenke's regime, and they have very different ideas when it comes to investment. Usmanov of course wants to buy out Kroenke once he reaches 30% in shares, and there have been rumours that a mystery businessman is buying the remaining shares to prevent Usmanov from reaching 30%, and that Kroenke is behind it. He evidently wants to keep hold of Arsenal and stop any competition.

[In2deep]

(Original post by Mr.Messy)
Should RVP go, who do you replace him with?

If I was Wenger I'd give the guy the money he wants and ask for 1 year to prove that Arsenal can win big. If at the end of the season he isn't satisfied/ you haven't challenged for anything, then fair enough he can leave through a minimum transfer release clause of £25m or w/e they agree on.

It may create an imbalance in wage structure for a year or two but you have always been financially secure so it shouldn't be a problem.

Then again, giving into his demands may turn the heads of other players who may want improved deals if they see them selves as a 'key player'.

Doubt you'll implode if he leaves but I also doubt that it would be an easy transition.

The biggest problem in the long-term is attracting players who want to be successful, why would they come to a team that is clearly lacking ambition and is keen on making a profit on their best players? We'd attract players yes, but just the type that would use Arsenal as a stepping stone to whatever team can pay better once their performances on "the big stage" commands it.

I don't want to even contemplate what the rest of the players must think if he does leave.

[jit987]

So much discussion.....

[Mr.Messy]

(Original post by In2deep)
The biggest problem in the long-term is attracting players who want to be successful, why would they come to a team that is clearly lacking ambition and is keen on making a profit on their best players? We'd attract players yes, but just the type that would use Arsenal as a stepping stone to whatever team can pay better once their performances on "the big stage" commands it.

I don't want to even contemplate what the rest of the players must think if he does leave.

Which is why you should do everything possible to keep your best players. Keeping RVP and signing players to complement him will be a big sign of intent.

Letting him go will be disastrous because then the 'pulling power' of having great players like RVP at your club will diminish. Its the only thing you have at the moment. Other than the Manchester clubs, who in the Premier League can offer major title successes?

And does any world class player honestly want to play with Djourou or Ramsey? Its what we are facing at Liverpool, we can't attract the best players any more because we have no Champions League or world class players that can draw other quality players to us.

It all links back to your ambition point, it would be almost as a "we've given up" notice by not investing and just selling your best prospects/ established talent year on end.

The rich clubs can always offer the best wages but they can't guarantee game time, and there has to be players who care more than just money.

[alexsong]

In terms of looking like mugs and unambitious if RVP goes, that ship has already sailed. "I believe for us it is important that the message we give out - for example you see about Fabregas leaving, Nasri leaving - if you give that message out you cannot pretend you are a big club. Because a big club first of all holds onto its big players and gives a message out to all the other big clubs that they just cannot come in and take away from you." Wenger

[Kevmeister]

[omilawal]

(Original post by Nucleolus)
I don't think I've heard his name linked to Arsenal for a while now. There were rumours that Tottenham had made an offer but it didn't meet Ajax's expectation, and Vertonghen has said in the press recently that if AC Milan were to make a bid he wouldn't turn them down. So I think that door is pretty much closed now.

I heard about the Tottenham rumour too, didn't know it fell down. Vertonghen says a lot, and all these transfer rumours are getting me uneccessarily excited.

I reckon Vertonghen will say at ajax though. He probably didn't want to come to us as we can't guarantee him first team football

[Nucleolus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...persie-arsenal

Robin Van Persie awaits suitors as he delays signing new Arsenal deal

Robin van Persie has indicated that he has no intention of signing his proposed new contract at Arsenal in the immediate future as he waits to see which of his suitors will make official offers for him.

Manchester City and Juventus are prominent among that group and sources at each club say their information is that Van Persie will not agree to fresh terms at the Emirates Stadium under any circumstances, increasing the likelihood of his departure this summer.

The striker opened negotiations with the Arsenal manager, Arsène Wenger, and the club's chief executive, Ivan Gazidis, in London on Wednesday and it was never likely that the meeting would end with Van Persie's signature on the new deal, which would pay him £130,000 a week, plus a £5m re-signing bonus. Van Persie's contract has a little over 12 months to run.

Arsenal maintain there is plenty of time for Van Persie to reflect and commit his remaining peak years to them and they also have the option of holding him for one final season, even if that policy would risk them losing a hugely saleable asset for nothing as a free agent next summer.

Van Persie travelled to the Netherlands on Thursday to join his national team for their Euro 2012 preparations and developments are not expected until after the finals in Poland and Ukraine, although Wenger will remain in contact with his captain and, as such, talks will be ongoing.

Van Persie, the Footballer of the Year, who is central to Arsenal's plans for the future, would favour a move to Barcelona while Real Madrid may also appeal. It is unclear how he would feel about a move to Manchester City, who are prepared to pay him £250,000 a week.

Patrick Vieira, City's football development executive, confirmed his club's interest in Van Persie, but expects the Dutchman to have plenty of suitors given the uncertainty surrounding his contract.

"I don't think it will only be City who would like these kind of players," he said. "I don't think you have so many good talents like Van Persie who have just one year left on his contract. There will be a lot of teams who will want a player like Van Persie."

If Van Persie does decide to leave, Vieira believes that it would be a huge setback for Arsenal and could even convince more star players that their futures lie elsewhere, especially after Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri left to join Barcelona and City respectively last summer.

"It will be as difficult as when they lost Fabregas or Nasri," said Vieira. "Then you knew that Robin was behind. If they lose Robin, who is behind? Of course it is going to be difficult to keep or to convince Robin.

"It was a shock for them to lose Nasri and Fabregas and if they lose Van Persie, it will be a drama. If Robin decides to leave, that means maybe next year it will be Walcott and the next year maybe it will be Wilshere. It will be difficult for Arsenal to keep all their top players. But if they keep Robin, they will send out a positive message to all the clubs around them."

With that in mind, Vieira, a former Arsenal captain, is surprised that his old club have not already resolved Van Persie's future. Last summer, Arsenal's plans in the transfer market were disrupted by holding on to Fabregas and Nasri for as long as possible, which played a major part in their shambolic start to the season.

"I think that is something they should have closed a long time ago but Arsenal don't need me to tell them that," Vieira added. "It is really difficult to find a player with the quality of Van Persie with one year left on his contract, so it is difficult to understand."

Vieira has no such worries at City, who won their first league title since 1968 last Sunday, and says that all anyone is concerned with at Eastlands is building on their success this season. As a player at Arsenal, Vieira won the title three times, but he was never able to retain it – in the Premier League era, the only side other than Manchester United to win back-to-back titles are José Mourinho's Chelsea in 2005 and 2006.

"I think it is really important for a team when you win the league back to back," said Vieira. "With Arsenal we never did that. If you want to dominate, it is really important to win the league back to back and improving our run in the Champions League is really important."

[Gob Bluth]

It would be quite sad to see RVP go to Man City. RVP might love the club but he is surely gonna get booed if per se he goes to City. In fact in all honesty i would like to see Arsenal challenge again. This season was fun and games having a laugh at some of your awful blips, but it's nice to see you play good football and compete in the CL.

[Nucleolus]

(Original post by omilawal)
I heard about the Tottenham rumour too, didn't know it fell down. Vertonghen says a lot, and all these transfer rumours are getting me uneccessarily excited.

I reckon Vertonghen will say at ajax though. He probably didn't want to come to us as we can't guarantee him first team football

I think Tottenham are still in the race, it's just that there probably has to be a bit of negotiating regarding the fee. Yeah, one minute he was talking about Arsenal, then it was Spurs, and now it's AC Milan.

I personally think he'll leave; he's already said that he wants to, and referring to all these clubs in the media wouldn't sit too well with Ajax fans if he were to stay. But I agree that he didn't choose us due to not being able to guarantee him first team football, especially since he'd get that at Spurs.

[Nucleolus]

(Original post by Kevmeister)

I hate John Cross with a passion.

[Zyyz]

If he goes to city I'll have literally zero respect for him what so ever, **** him. City buying him would be just ruining the league in my opinion can't they just get there ****ing players from abroad? At least the league would have new exciting talent to look at, rather than stealing everyone else's and destroying the league.

And surely Viera can't be saying that... can he? please no