Stan Vs Usamov
It's real easy to back Usamov, because of the money, but is it that simple?
Stan.
I know absolutely nothing about him. He has been the major share-holder for some time, and as a fan, what has he bought to the club? Nothing. It could have been Stan, it could have been a monkey. Stan has not shown why he has been willing to spend a large amount of money without making his position clear. Is he here to help the team move move forward, or just to collect on his dividends? The one and only saving grace to Stan's credit is that he has not made any knee-jerk reactions. Looking at other teams, major/solely shareholders buy into a club and make decisions based on their own pre-conceptions. Chelsea have had more managers then Ive had underwear. City sacked Hughes (who was doing a decent job). Hearts have been in trouble since they got rid of Burnley. Blackburn - much as I despise allardyce and his "tactics" - was doing a good job there, until the 7-1 defeat at Trafford - rumour has it the blackburn owners (Venky's) held a "party" that day and were so embarrassed by that the result they sacked allardyce. Having an outsider OWN a club means what he says is law. Stan has not succumbed to that. (Fans, please note this is not a pro/anti wenger post, but one regarding owners). Stan shows stability, and an eye for the future, not immediate results; and the subsequent sacking of managers seen at other clubs.
Usamov.
He brings money to the club. For the last 10,12 years Arsenal have just not been able to compete financially because the board have chosen to re-pay our debt before investing in new/exist moment.
Usamov would wipe that out in a second. He could bring much needed money to the club, and is an apparent fan. He has the backing of David Dein, he could make us "richer" then city, and financially, it would seem that we have no worries.
However, given our last decade of scrimping, and being so close to paying off our stadium, should we have suffered for the last 7 years with no trophy just like that? Chelsea or city, take your pick.... Ive derided both because they are sugar-daddy clubs. They got no history, but they are making history now. Ive laughed at them, dismissing them as toys for the rich.... if Usamov takes over, there is just is no difference between them and us. We will be toys for a uber-rich "fan" of the game.
What happens when abramovich sells? Or the Sheiks at city? At the mo, their wages alone means they would have to sell players to pay player's wages, meaning the money made from sales goes toward wages rather then new players (leeds anyone?)
2014, the FIFA FFP rules come into affect - a law saying you can not spend more money then you earn. What will abramavich do then? After years of throwing money at chelsea, will he say.... "I"m bored? My money is not enough"? The sheiks at city are trying to circumvent that rule - one of the owners other business has reccently sponsered man city for £400 million to get around that rule - Fifa will be looking into this, but no ruling has made at this moment.
Recent going ons between suarez and evra? We cant say sh*t if Usamov takes over. (google him).
I am proud of being in a position where we dont over-spend (rangers? fans that dont know about rangers, they are a scottish team that have won the Scottish PL for the last three years running. Two days ago they went into administration because they over-spent. They now have to pay a possible £75million tax to the tax people..... how will they manage that? by selling players, at the very least!) and we are still considered as being top team. Usamov would change that. We would turn from paupers to dildo's. Pleasuring our owner at his beck and call. That does disgust me.
Yes I would welcome Usamov. I do look at Chelsea and city with envy. But long-term, where will chelsea, city, and even us end up?
The only reason I would back usamov is because of David Dein.
He, more then any other person connected to Arsenal, has been our greatest loss.
Stability vs uncertainty?
Whats your take?
