Rich wrote:
I know you've stated all of this before but the difference is not what your owner is worth it is what they're willing to spend, and importantly write off! The only clubs with owners who throw money around and seemingly simply don't care whether there is any monetary return on their investment are City, PSG, Chelsea (may change now) and I presume Newcastle. If then we look at clubs who may have very rich owners but still spend in the realms of what they generate or earn then historically and/or current times you can add Real madrid, Barca and Man U to that list.
If Kronke suddenly decided to pump money in to Arsenal as Chelsea, City, PSG have done over the past 10-20 years then I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility that we'd be right at the top table for the major trophies year in year out. He doesn't, so clubs who have owners that do have a huge, (others can debate whether it is 'unfair') huge advantage based on nothing they as a club have done well. There is no pressure on them to spend wisely, they can buy a £70m gk and he flops and go and immediately buy a £30m gk. People may say Arsenal bought a £50m striker (Lacazette) who didn't do well enough so bought a £60m striker (Aubameyang), but we cant keep doing that if they fail. The list of transfer failures at those clubs I've noted above is enormous and rarely do they face the consequence of that awful decision like any other club would. Everton pumped a tonne of money at their project with a vast amount of awful signings, they're suffering, they can't simply buy their way out of it.
Hey Rich, more money doesn't always mean more to spend as you may know. At that level, your assets and resources are in a myriad of things, some more liquid than others. Kroenke spent his most recent years building a huge stadium in LA. A multi billion pound project. His NFL team is far more valuable than the Glazers as well, and he spent on the Rams. The Glazers won a super bowl spending less money than most sides who win.
Also, his wife doesn't mix her money with his except once to get around an NFL rule about owning multiple professional sides in different cities/markets. Its the only time I know of. If the rule wasn't there, they wouldn't have comingled funds. We shouldn't be adding her wealth into the equation.
The only reason Kroenke spent big money on the Rams as I've noted a few times on here was because the NFL had a private agreement with him that he would make a good faith effort to make the Rams a winning side. For years the NFL didn't have a team in America's 2nd biggest media market which is shocking actually. Its akin to the EPL not having a side in Manchester (or is Brum the 2nd biggest?).
He didn't spend money on the Rams when they were in St. Louis and their low positoin annually in the NFL table attested to it.
The history of Kroenke is clear. He spends only when he feels he must. He admired the Oakland A's baseball team success because it was similar to the Dein/Wenger era of '98 to '04, getting great undervalued players (Vieira, Henry, Ljundberg, etc).
The Kroenke's don't feel they need to spend unless external forces make them. Whatever those forces are. Winning titles is definitely subordinate to profitiability and net worth to Stan. His history makes that clear.