speedy wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:
Daniel Ek may be a jerk but he could hardly be worse than Mr Walmart. No such thing as a good billionaire.
One issue with the deal is that Ek's nett worth is not really anywhere near high enough to sustain such a venture by himself and without a pile of leverage.
Swopping an owner who chooses not to invest for one that can't afford to invest, is jumping out of the same plane but cutting off your emergency parachute first. It's just removing the safety net. The other issue is he doesn't have the money to fund a take over so he'd probably put us into a shit load of debt. In the same way the glazers have cost United 1.2 billion in servicing debt already. We can't afford to take that like they have and still have spends. On the plus side servicing the debt long term would highlight how hard Wenger's job was. And having hardly any money for the next 20 years would give everyone who's not an arsenal fan a great laugh.
This would be an even greater lack of foresight than when fans were frustrated with a break even model they invited kronke in who promised a break even model long term. And just endlessly used the term investor not presuming he invests for his own gain not the charitable benefit of others.
I said with the glaziers if that happened arsenal I'd stop supporting them. It'd take an empty vessel to support a team who's main function is to service debt it didn't create for 20-30 years.
I asked the question last week - if we get rid of the Kroenkes, what is the plan after them. You can’t topple a tyrant without a proper plan to replace him. You might end up with much worse in the aftermath.
I share your concerns on Ek. He is not rich enough to sign a check, and likely will not use a cent of his own money. He will raise a SPAC of £1-1,5m, and then load it up with debt. So he will ‘own’ Arsenal, but have a diversified shareholder base looking for an equity return plus creditors looking for their debt repayments.
He is not going to use any of his cash. If all of his value is in Spotify shares, then he is worth exactly $5bn today. The problem is Spotify has a dual share structure where his shares give him double power, so his 9% shareholding is an 18% vote, which comes out to 36% with his co-founder. If he sells his shares, he erodes his voting power. So at best, he will raise money against these shares, but shares are volatile and you cannot raise 1:1 against them.
