Yeah, that never made sense to me. Why would Fizman lower his shares to <25% and intentionally lose power. At the time, I believe that fueled speculation of the Kroenke+Dein+Fizman? takeover bid. Now given all that has transpired since then, can anyone see why Fizman would've done that? And still feel OK about it now?
Is it inconcievable that Fiszman thought that Kroenke would be a good director someday, and nothing more?
It's possible. Having Kroenke involved on the board would give him something for his investment, and he would have the ability to improve our marketing / merchandising in the states etc. It looks unlikely that the 2 investors are unlikely to combine, and it would make some sense to keep in contact with Kroenke in case he now sees his investment as worthless (other than the money he'd get from selling up). I know Rick is for the Russians, but personally although I'm happy that the threat of a potential takeover from Kroenke has subsided, I'm a little worried about these investors. DD is hardly covering himself in glory with his actions and statements at the minute, and I'd be interested in seeing the financial results. The reason that there is so much interest in buying our club is not because we're struggling financially and need investment, as DD states. No bugger is going to stick £700 mill into a club that will then need further investment, but rather that the club will be extremely wealthy in the future and is a 'honey pot'
<<<The above article gives me a warm glowing feeling inside. Can someone please inform this stupid fan below who believes arsenal cannot support itself financially? http://www.bleacherreport.com/artic...for_Arsenal_Why_a_Takeover_Makes_Sense-030907
Clearly another misinformed idiot. One of my friends was in the same boat (the first one on the Facebook group to support Dein) but once he was informed of the full facts he admitted that he was in the dark to Dein's true persona and has now pledged to join the anti-Orange brigade! Also, that idiot looks like he won't change his mind. Just because the other members of the big 4 have been taken over we should to? What a turd. EDIT: "Hey, Im a 15 year old from Massachusetts and ive been an arsenal fan for about 5 years but havent really payed really close attention to them until two years ago. If you want to know anything about current arsenal news ask me or read my blogs. thanks." Perhaps I will put his stupidity down to the fact he has not yet turned into a man and got "fur where there was no fur before".
I haven't read the entire thread so pardon me if I'm repeating what someone else already said. Dein is correct; we need money to keep up. Not just to acquire new players, but, at a minimum, to keep the ones we have. It's only a matter of time until Real or Barca offer a fortune for Cesc (and possibly some of our other young players who may turn into stars). We need to be able to tell them to piss off, we don't need or care about the money, we're more interested in winning now (including beating your butts in the CL) by keeping our best players (regardless of the price). Historically, we haven't done this.
Hence the new stadium, converting Highbury into flats, the office building, etc. That wasn't all done for shits and giggles.
See, that's your first mistake. Read up a little bit and you understand a little bit more, and then you wont say something like... Making us a bigger club to compete with the likes of RM is exactly what the current board is doing. If you walk out of Arsenal tube, you'll see cranes where Highbury was. Then take a right turn, follow your nose, and you'll see our new stadium. The stadium that the remaining members of the wanted and that DD didn't...
Originally Posted by AnotherGooner View Post I haven't read the entire thread so pardon me if I'm repeating what someone else already said. Dein is correct; we need money to keep up. Not just to acquire new players, but, at a minimum, to keep the ones we have. It's only a matter of time until Real or Barca offer a fortune for Cesc (and possibly some of our other young players who may turn into stars). We need to be able to tell them to piss off, we don't need or care about the money, we're more interested in winning now (including beating your butts in the CL) by keeping our best players (regardless of the price). Historically, we haven't done this. Overmars. Petit. Anelka. How about them, antifan? I guess the real question is, how long have YOU been an Arsenal fan? As for the comments from others that the new stadium, the flats, etc. will allow us to keep up, the reality is that plan was to allow us to keep up with pre-Glazier ManU. It will not generate sufficient funds to keep up with Glazier ManU, Chelski, today's Liverpool, etc. In other words, the stakes have gotten much higher since that plan was hatched.
Overmars, Petit, Anelka. Which one of those should we have held on to? In the past few years we've turned down repeated approaches for Vieira and Henry, until those players decided that they wanted to leave. We've got plenty of money to pay our players, they don't leave because they want more money. I don't think Henry is getting paid more by Barcelona. The only players we've lost for financial reasons are guys like Pires who were aging and wanted longer contracts than we were offering. And you mention pre Glazer Man United as the benchmark. How did Glazers takeover generate more money for their squad? Honestly you have no idea what your talking about.
anothergooner with regards to you saying we need to be able to tell teams to piss off if they bid for Cesc, we can tell them to piss off. If we needed money we would have held out for more for Henry, he was tied down to a contract and we would have been entitled to more than £16m. Unlike other clubs money doesn't make Arsenal go round.
Wenger decided to sell Vieira;Vieira didn't pressure it. I intentionally left out Henry bec. he wanted to leave. (Although many, if not most, believe he left bec. Arsenal would not spend the money to acquire top transfers). As for ManU, my point is that ManU's transfer budget went up considerably after Glazier bought the team. They've spent a ridiculous amount of money the last couple of years. Keeping up with their spending now requires a lot more than it did before Glazier. Same for Liverpool and Chelsea, which didn't spend nearly as much under the old ownerships. Interestingly, Petit himself, Dein, and others recognize this. http://www.arsenalpies.tv/2007/08/arsenal_just_a_selling_club_sa.html You might not agree with this view (the blogger discussing Petit's article apparently does not), but it is not something I just dreamed up. Perhaps you should consider my comments to be an opinion given by a fellow Arsenal fan (who, I note, has been on this board for about the same time as you), respectfully disagree, and refrain from personal attacks.
Henry gave plenty of reasons for leaving, but oddly forgot to mention the dissolution of his marriage. Again he did not leave because he wasn't happy with his salary. ManU's transfer budget actually didn't go up under the Glazers. Until this summer they were essentiall at a zero balance, with purchases offset by sales. After a few years of that they are back to their old ways of spending big. But i don't see that they are spending more over time than they did before, and ticket prices and TV money have increased greatly. You seem to think that selling players is a problem and a takeover is the only solution. But Chelsea and ManU have both been bought out, and have still sold major players to Real Madrid. Do the names Van Nistelrooy and Robben ring a bell? Liverpool have splashed out this season, but they've been doing that for years, even before the takeover. Wenger has made it clear that he has money to spend but believes in the players he has and wants to build stars, not buy them. What personal attacks? I asked how long you've been a fan for because you don't seem to remember the multitude of approaches we've rejected over the last few years. You act as though our best player are being pawned off to pay the bills when that simply isn't the case.
for a guy who's been on this board since 2004.. i cant remember one single post from him..... maybe its just me.
Interesting article regarding Dein and his vision as compared to the status quo. Thought it was a pretty good read filled with some decent points regarding a variety of topics regarding a takeover. Dein's 'vision' is not wanted or needed AnotherGooner i suggest you read the above article. It makes some good points regarding finances and how a takeover from Dein, or anyone for that matter, would not benefit the club at all. Contrary to popular belief the club is on a solid financial foundation. Yearly revenue increased from 115 million british pounds to 170 gbp just with the development of the stadium alone. After expenses we are rumored to make around 70 million a year. These are significant numbers. Along with this we have a solid plan to cover our debt and it isnt hindering our yearly activities at all, so basically it is like we dont even have debt. Simple economics, to make more money you increase your revenues or decrease your expenses(bottom line). Well i would like you to come up with 1 way that Dein or any other potential owner could do this that the current board couldnt.
Interesting... reads like it was written by someone on the board. So who is this guy "David Young, Arsenal Correspondent"? It's complete with comments about Dein such as: "The current board of directors have enough of a shareholding not to be worried by such talk should they not wish to sell." "...had been appointed the chairman of the laughably named 'Red and White Holdings', the company that holds the shares on behalf of the Russian, really does seem to reveal Dein's true intentions." "...it seems that Dein has gone out to find himself a new investor and someone who can deliver what he wants - to be made chairman of Arsenal Football Club." Hard to disagree with any of these quotes really. Dein has really showed his hand now I think. Another theme of the article is about Wenger and his quiet, frugal style of building a contender. I keep thinking of how VERY different Wenger is from Dein and how surprising it is that they end up being such close friends.