An excellent point EXCEPT that is NOT what I'm doing.VforVictory wrote: On your posts on here, there has been a "Fixed line" approach from you. You have berated me for introducing new ideas into the discussion, yet now claim to champion such an approach from yourself. You cannot have it both ways
It is perfectly reasonable for one's views to evolve and grow over time based on new facts - such as gaining a closer undertsanding of the club's debt over a period of time and realizing that there not one but two significant loans the club took and had the only taken the first one that the negative impact would have certainly been far less significant, instaed of assuming that all of the negative impact was in fact down to the new stadium.
That is drastically different from simply offering scattershot theories with little or no supporting evidence to contradict theories based on factual evidence which is what you are doing. You are absolutely within your right to offer a contraidctory theory or theories but they should have some genuine basis real conviction butressed by provable fact, and not scattershot speculation solely meant to cloud or confuse the issue.
Your trust in the Board's judgment may yet be proven right when all is said and done (and I don't mean in 50 years
) but it won't be this way I assure you. But whatever happens I don't want or need I both ways - I want it one way and that is I want the truth for the sake of the football club.Its funny how much we are in agreement at times yet how far apart we remain. I suspect that is down to your hesitancy to criticize or condemn these actions by the Board as what they are – a failure to protect the best interests of Arsenal Football Club ahead of their own personal self-interest. I would suggest that you may even AGREE with that last sentence but as I suggested earlier to admit as much is more difficult than anything else. Maybe I am wrong but many Gooners seem this way as I said, preferring to sacrifice their own credibility at times to preserve their notion of the Board’s credibility remain intact, offering arguments that contradict their own arguments simply to fight off other arguments to again preserve and protect their basic beliefs in Arsenal, the Arsenal Way, and the Custodians of the ClubVforVictory wrote: agree that the board's insistence that the stadium development would not affect the team is not true. One might split hairs and say that the board only mention the stadium development, rather than Highbury, but the inference is in my opinion that the move from Highbury would not affect the team. It clearly has. But so have the era of the "Oligarchs", and factors concerning individual players.
True enough, but if the Board had just continued as it had prior to 2005 would we even be having this debate? And because we are stuck with them as you suggest are we helpless do anything but just accept whatever they say or do without question or criticism? There were VERY REAL and GENUINE questions and concerns about the is project and the Board’s approach to it, and very few people were willing to ask them and fewer still who got anything approaching real answers. Fair enough they did what they were legally obligated to do and say as you rightly alluded to earlier, but that doesn’t mean we were obligated to thank them and go home and forget our concerns. Too many Gooners WANTED to believe them facts be damned because all they knew growing was believing and trusting our Board on these matters unconditionally I believe.VforVictory wrote: I have never had 100% confidence in the board, but we are stuck with the board.
Fair enough but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about as you yourself suggest the Board mis-leading the supporters about the consequences of an unnecessary project that benefitted them far more than it did Arsenal football Club short or as far as I can see long term. THAT’S what we need to be asking aboiut and just how long our Board intends to persist with this course of action.VforVictory wrote: Many have, and continue, to write to the club urging a better standard of player.
No one is suggesting separating emotion from supporting your club. That’s unfathomable.VforVictory wrote: They would be discussed a lot on this Forum, because Spurs are traditional rivals. They would be less emotional, but one cannot and should not seperate emotion from support of one's club.
I am saying we need to separate emotion from rationalism in discussing rational issues affecting Arsenal – I would suggest whether or not the Board is acting in the club’s best interest pursuing these projects as it has and can be trusted to act in its best interests going forward are questions that cannot be determined emotionally or based on preconceived belief and faith or even simple optimism or pessimism. There is no room for anything that would cloud honest judgment in this discussion, and nothing clouds honest discussion and objective analysis and conclusion more than emotion or faith – in ANY subject.
You can’t believe in something or someone simply because you want to, but because the facts show you can. That’s my point here. Tom Vermaelen isn’t 6-1 because you want to believe it or 5-9 because you want to believe that. He’s 5-11 because by official records believed true that is how tall he actually is (could those records be fake – save that for another day…) But again the point is simple facts should always trump hopes. Few groups fail to recognize that as spectacularily as football supporters period. Look at the madness at Old Trafford since the Locusts – oops - Glazers came in.
And before you ask I know little or nothing about United and the Glazers. That name comes from their conduct on my side of the pond. Not good people.
