Shareholders only meet once every year, and this isn't even mandatory per English and Welsh law. I presume as this was a major decision, Kroenke had prerogative to do this by himself. Just for legal reasons, he needs the board to draw up the contract and do the legal paperwork with the NXE Exchange.
Having a majority of the shares means your vote is the only one that matters. Whatever you vote for is 50.1% of the vote.
It could also depend on the Articles of association Arsenal operates by. Maybe Kroenke in cases like this, has the right to make the choice, and then board just have to rubber-stamp it. I think this is the first game Kroenke has attended all season though.
Not exactly, but to answer NorthBank's question, Kroenke's majority means he picks the board. Because the board is beholden to Kroenke, they do what he want. If they stop doing that, they stop being on the board.
That's what I've been assuming, that most key decisions (like this one) aren't decided by any kind of straight vote based on weighted shares. That instead, these kind of things come down to a bunch of guys (and gals, back in the day of Nina Bracewell-Smith) sitting around a table and deciding. But what is the actual decision/voting mechanism they use for issues like this? And do they really defer 100% of the time to whatever the majority holder wants (in 2017 that's Kroenke)... I find that a little hard to believe. Board Room fights and all. Which raises another, broader question: Is there any visibility/transparency into how Arsenal's Board operates, specifically with these type of decisions? If this line of discussion grows any bigger in here, maybe we should it to one of the old Arsenal Finances threads.
That depends on how you look at it. In terms of position in the league table, it's the worst finish since the year before Wenger signed on. But the 75 points is a total that has been exceeded only once in the past 9 seasons. So it's partially a product of the competition at the top end of the table being strong. Arsenal finished second the previous year with less points because everyone else did poorly.
Interestingly, and perhaps not too surprisingly, since our strong run-in and FA Cup win, the #WengerOut's have lost a little bit of ground to the #WengerIn's: 81% Out / 19% In (32 votes) I'd still like to see a bigger sample size. Hmm, I wonder if the club might make some announcement in the next 24hrs that might spur that?
I'm looking more at xG differential than point totals - the performances were the worst for the time we have xG data.
Even in a statistic-driven sport such as baseball, analytics have their limitations. In a sport where so many things are subjective, I'm highly skeptical. The point of the season, after all, is to compile as many points as possible, not to impress statisticians. For example, during the 2014-15 season, Southampton was the 4th best team according to xG. They finished 7th, a full 10 points behind 4th place Manchester United. Manchester City was 6th in xG, but finished 2nd, 17 points ahead of 6th-place Liverpool. So obviously xG needs some work in the real world.
You have to remember that Arsenal is effectively a privately held company - the only reason they are still listed is because of the Russian holding out Given Stan K appoints the entire board, that means he gets what he wants within reason. The non-exec directors are rubber stampers. So corporate governance is weak. On the operations side, only the CEO and Wenger have any real power. But Stan K can sack either of them. So Stan is holding all the cards and Ivan has no real political power over Wenger Contrast this with Bayern for example. Both Hoeness and KHR are close to untouchable. But they don't always agree and have to lobby others to get what they want. There should be transparency via the board minutes. But they won't tell you much.
As you know I am on the statsbomb train and they have said for a long time that arsenal's data is a hot mess This article alone illustrates why Wenger should have been sacked. Hot off an elite season, Wenger wrecks Ozil's output, then persists with it. 821671023380664320 is not a valid tweet id