I won’t be renewing my season ticket if… (8/10)

[26may1989]

Where to start...

Ok, here we go. Fred N White-Oldings's article is probably the best piece I've seen written on the whole Usmanov situation. Fred covers all of the points, both in terms of the obsessive Arsenal fan and the business of corporate take-overs. (Can you see where I'm heading Redbull?)

One thing I want to make clear is that Fred does not say he would stop supporting Arsenal - if you doubt me, Redbull, just read what Fred wrote. He said he would stop going to games but that is not the same thing as no longer supporting the club, especially when the club we all love is threatened by coming under the control of a man with a background just about as dubious as they come. It is clear from every word he wrote that Fred will carry on supporting Arsenal, even if that is manifested by fighting something Fred (like most Arsenal fans, me included) would find disgusting.

So don't say Fred, or anyone else who chooses to do the same thing, would no longer be an Arsenal fan. In my opinion (and it's only my opinion), people like Fred would count as greater fans than those who unthinkingly carried on as if nothing had changed.

As for Usmanov, presumably you saw the allegations made against him by ex-UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray (before Usmanov's lawyers, Schillings, attacked dozens of websites reporting them). The allegations were truly gross, well beyond anything that has been said of Abramovich (which would be bad enough) and way, way beyond any criticism that can be made of someone like Fiszman. (And before you pull the South Africa card on me as well, I did a stint in South Africa working for a human rights organisation, actually doing something about apartheid, so be careful, I get sensitive on that one!) I don't want to be insulting, but your attempts to draw a parallel between Usmanov and previous Arsenal boards who wanted to replace Don Howe with Terry Venables are just mad. Do you seriously think these things are even vaguely equivalent?? I can only think you haven't actually read the allegations made against Usmanov.

If Murray's allegations against Usmanov are wrong, then I would be very pleased if Murray was bankrupted by judgment being made against him. God knows, English libel laws are as strong as any in the world and would give an innocent Usmanov plenty of opportunities to challenge them. But he doesn't. So why doesn't he sue? There are a few answers to that question, but how many are credible?

I emphasise for the benefit of Schillings, if they're reading this, that I don't say or imply that any of the allegations is true. But if any of the allegations against Usmanov were true, then there could be no question of Usmanov being an acceptable owner of the club we all love.

There will be a variety of views on an issue like this. Some Arsenal fans will be pleased if a change of ownership brings more money (though I don't see the point given current revenues and Usmanov's indication that he would like shareholders to get dividends - meaning he wants to take money out of Arsenal). Some fans will be pleased to see the back of people like Hill-Wood, given his silly Little Englander responses to Kroenke etc. Some won't give a toss. But some, and I hope many, would want to fight Usmanov (and his lackey, David Dein - what a wanker he is).

Wenger has not said he does not care about who owns the club - he has said he will get on with his job without worrying about it. Very different things. Personally, I would be delighted if Wenger said he would leave if Usmanov took over (that would bring the whole thing to an immediate halt, since eceonomically it would be disastrous for Wenger to leave suddenly, before an orderly succession had been arranged). However, I can understand that Wenger is relucatant to get drawn into something like a shareholder/board-room power struggle.

Also, don't be complacement and rely on the UK Government to prevent Usmanov getting into the UK or the FAPL to prevent Usmanov taking ownership by way of the so-called "fit and proper person test". Usmanov very smartly had his criminal conviction annulled following the break-up of the Soviet Union. So his record is as clean as mine (assuming he has a few speeding points).

I'm still undecided whether I could bear to give up my season ticket, but I would think about it, and I would respect anyone who decided to do so. If I couldn't take that step myself, I would look for any other way to fight a repulsive owner of our club, and yes that would include taking part in protests in and out of the ground, to drive out someone who would be unwelcome in a club that has been a part of my life since I was a small child. I would do that becuase I love Arsenal.

I'm afraid I just don't understand you, Redbull. I can see that you're as much an Arsenal fan as any of us, but your logic on this issue is twisted. Sorry mate!

So, to the barricades!

[Redbull]

Where to start...


Ok, here we go. Fred N White-Oldings's article is probably the best piece I've seen written on the whole Usmanov situation. Fred covers all of the
points, both in terms of the obsessive Arsenal fan and the business of corporate take-overs. (Can you see where I'm heading Redbull?)





Also, don't be complacement and rely on the UK Government to prevent Usmanov getting into the UK or the FAPL to prevent Usmanov taking ownership by way of the so-called "fit and proper person test". Usmanov very smartly had his criminal conviction annulled following the break-up of the Soviet Union. So his record is as clean as mine (assuming he has a few speeding points).

I'm still undecided whether I could bear to give up my season ticket, but I would think about it, and I would respect anyone who decided to do so. If I couldn't take that step myself, I would look for any other way to fight a repulsive owner of our club, and yes that would include taking part in protests in and out of the ground, to drive out someone who would be unwelcome in a club that has been a part of my life since I was a small child. I would do that becuase I love Arsenal.

I'm afraid I just don't understand you, Redbull. I can see that you're as much an Arsenal fan as any of us, but your logic on this issue is twisted. Sorry mate!

So, to the barricades!

It's exactly this type of attitude of yours that gives me cause for concern , the thing that would drive me, and I suspect also, many others away from football is if the political types like yourself start to dictate to us how we should think and act. If you don't like Usmanuv that's your prerogative. I have no idea what he's like personally, the various allegations that are flung about regarding him being unproven, how do you know he was not guilty of the offences for which he was pardoned? No rhetoric here please, just facts, if you don't mind. And I am not impressed by Murray's involvement either , he's made unsubstantiated allegations on other matters and is regarded as being a bit of a loose cannon politically - and a man with an agenda.
Also despite the 'loose cannon' bit he's not an Arsenal supporter!

My points are that it's up to the individual person to decide to support or not support AFC, for whatever reason. I cited a couple of examples of past instances involving the clubs board to show that some supporters felt strongly enough on these issues to consider their support for the club. To my knowledge however I can't recall anyone that actually stopped doing so.
We will have to see what happens on this one - if that scenario of Red and White gaining control of the club transpires. What you and others have to understand is that the majority of supporters are not interested in the goings on at board level on morality issues, sad, but true! And you yourself admit this. A bit of lost cause syndrome at work in your thinking here from what I can see of it.

If Usmanov does take over AFC, and this is not certain anyway, then obviously given the reaction by a few people these ones will have to consider their positions in regard to supporting Arsenal.
I respect their rights to do so. However, the claims by yourself regarding the Internet smear campaign instigated by Craig Murray, the fired for misconduct and discredited former Ambassador from the UK , is a two edged sword, why don't the people making the allegations show us some proof of them, instead of just posting innuendo's ?

[26may1989]

Thanks for the response to my typically overlong post, Redbull. A few comments back to you:

It's exactly this type of attitude of yours that gives me cause for concern , the thing that would drive me, and I suspect also, many others away from football, is if the political types like yourself start to dictate to us how we should think and act.

Could you tell me where I've said I would dictate to anyone how they should think on this? What I actually said was that there will be various different views. You've expressed your opinion, fair enough, I just think you're wrong. Just like you think I'm wrong.

If you don't like Usmanuv that's your prerogative. I have no idea what he's like personally, the various allegations that are flung about regarding him being unproven, how do you know he was not guilty of the offences for which he was pardoned? No rhetoric here please, just facts, if you don't mind. And I am not impressed by Murray's involvement either , he's made unsubstantiated allegations on other matters and is regarded as being a bit of a loose cannon politically - and a man with an agenda.

You make some good points: Murray is clearly a very colourful character and I wouldn't put it past him to have made the whole lot up. But he says he has witnesses to support his allegations and has invited Usmanov to sue him so the allegations can be debated in court, to establish whether they are correct. The fact that Usmanov hasn't done so, and has limited himself to having various websites, blogs and forums taken down or revised on threat of legal action against hosts etc, speaks volumes - can you see that?

My point as far as Arsenal is concerned is to ask whether we the fans, who really are the club, are happy to run the risk of some of the allegations being true.

To my knowledge however I can't recall anyone that actually stopped doing so.

So?

What you and others have to understand is that the majority of supporters are not interested in the goings on at board level on morality issues, sad, but true! And you yourself admit this.

You may be right in predicting how most Arsenal fans feel on this one, and you may be wrong, neither of us know. But I did not admit your point: I said some fans wouldn't give a toss. In fact, from debates on this Forum and others, and from my discussions with various other Arsenal fans, I would say the majority (for a variety of reasons) are against an Usmanov take-over. So perhaps your rather patronising assumption about most fans not being interested is wrong.

I would certainly agree that I'm more political than most, and that I probably take the moral dimensions of this issue more seriously than many, but a lot of fans are against the idea of Usmanov taking over because they have different concerns (many of which I also share): destabilising the club, making the club subject to the whims of one person (see the experiences of Hearts under Romanov and recently Chelsea for examples), perhaps undermining the club's finances (dividends, loading up with debt etc), driving out Wenger and many of our brilliant young players etc. Even if the moral aspects don't matter, these are all real threats to the future of our club.

I respect your right to have an opinion different from mine of course, but what worries me is the complacency you show. I just don't think it's good enough to so "Ho hum, let's just wait and see". I really don't want to be saying in a few years "We told you so" - we've got something really fantastic, why would we sit back and allow it to be ruined?

[Redbull]

Thanks for the response to my typically overlong post, Redbull. A few comments back to you:


My point as far as Arsenal is concerned is to ask whether we the fans, who really are the club, are happy to run the risk of some of the allegations being true.

To my knowledge however I can't recall anyone that actually stopped doing so.

So?

What you and others have to understand is that the majority of supporters are not interested in the goings on at board level on morality issues, sad, but true! And you yourself admit this.

You may be right in predicting how most Arsenal fans feel on this one, and you may be wrong, neither of us know.

I would certainly agree that I'm more political than most, and that I probably take the moral dimensions of this issue more seriously than many, but a lot of fans are against the idea of Usmanov taking over because they have different concerns (many of which I also share): destabilising the club, making the club subject to the whims of one person (see the experiences of Hearts under Romanov and recently Chelsea for examples), perhaps undermining the club's finances (dividends, loading up with debt etc), driving out Wenger and many of our brilliant young players etc. Even if the moral aspects don't matter, these are all real threats to the future of our club.

I respect your right to have an opinion different from mine of course, but what worries me is the complacency you show. I just don't think it's good enough to so "Ho hum, let's just wait and see". I really don't want to be saying in a few years "We told you so" - we've got something really fantastic, why would we sit back and allow it to be ruined?

My point is that the vast majority of Arsenal AND other supporters ,are not interested in moral issues , which are based anyway on dubious sources, regarding who owns AFC. Only a minority of Arsenal supporters post on the Internet, that is a fact. If there were the overwhelming opposition to Usmanuv that you claim then I would expect to see thousands of supporters at the Emirates showing it in someway. I have not seen - or heard any such thing .
Wenger was himself the victim of a smear campaign when first coming to Highbury, of a sexual nature. I personally abhor such tactics that Murray is using, and say again that if he's got the evidence against Usmanuv then he should produce it . All of this blustering from him about Usmanov facing him in a court of law is just more hot air from this self-publicity seeking scoundrel.
I go by the UK governments decisions on Usmanuv, not some vigilante type of smear campaign orchestrated by people who are basing their case on unsubstantiated innuendo. In a democracy that is the way that things are done.
How do you know that the present boards policies will not one day end in tears anyway? They have sailed close to the wind in recent times, and only averted disaster at the last moment last summer when holding on to Wenger and Fabregas. I take each season as it comes, I have no crystal ball to foretell what will happen in the future, and apply that also to any take overs at the club. There is no way that I can tell if a take over will benefit the club in the long term anymore than if the present board were to remain for another decade will . However, I will say this, Wenger is more important than Fiszman and co to our prospects over the next few years.
And Dein knows that better than anyone, after all he was the one who brought him to Highbury. Hallelujah!

[26may1989]

And Dein knows that better than anyone, after all he was the one who brought him to Highbury. Hallelujah!

I think we've found Dein's online identity - come on, David, admit it, you must be Redbull! No-one else would come out with this stuff!

[Redbull]

And Dein knows that better than anyone, after all he was the one who brought him to Highbury. Hallelujah!

I think we've found Dein's online identity - come on, David, admit it, you must be Redbull! No-one else would come out with this stuff!

Nope, I am not DD in disguise, but was merely pointing out his contribution to the common cause in bringing AW to AFC. Whether or not he himself will ever return in some capacity is a matter for conjecture though.

Your problem is that no one is really that bothered about the Usmanuv issue, if indeed there is one outside of a handful of Mr Angry types on the Internet blathering on in self righteous indignation about it.

My concern is that you will, if keeping on about Usmanov in the way that you have adopted, courtesy of Craig Murray, provide our opponents with a stick to gleefully beat us with , and thus do our club more harm than good.

The near hysterical moralistic type of arguments and threats of not renewing season tickets, blah, blah, blah, will be music to our enemies ears.

Lets keep it clean, and legal, and leave the political posturing to Murray and co.

[26may1989]

Lets keep it clean, and legal, and leave the political posturing to Murray and co.

I'm pretty sure I've kept the right side of the law (I better have, I'm a lawyer, after all), so don't worry about that one.

Yes, Dein did a lot of good, but he also did plenty that was questionable (just think of his plans to sell Highbury so we could become tenants at Wembley - genius!). He was pivotal in bringing Wenger in, and that should always be acknowledged. But in selling his shares for the highest possible price, regardless of the buyer, he put his own personal interests ahead of the club's interests, and destroyed any faith people could have in him. Even the most pro-Dein contributors to this Forum don't stop short of criticising his choice of buyer. Are you the exception??

You may be right that only a few Arsenal fans are bothered about Usmanov taking control, in which case why are you worried about what this supposedly tiny minority do? Surely we'll be swept away by the hoards delighted to see Usmanov take over, and we'll just look like a small band of whingers who misjudged the titan that is Alisher Usmanov.

Are you trying to tell us to shut up? That would be an interesting position to take, given your earlier protestations about others dictating what you should or should not think.

One last thing, Redbull, I do find the tone of your posts (both in response to my posts and those of others) pretty annoying. Could you try to avoid being patronising and snide, and perhaps even know when to have a laugh about things?

[Redbull]

Lets keep it clean, and legal, and leave the political posturing to Murray and co.

I'm pretty sure I've kept the right side of the law (I better have, I'm a lawyer, after all), so don't worry about that one.

Yes, Dein did a lot of good, but he also did plenty that was questionable (just think of his plans to sell Highbury so we could become tenants at Wembley - genius!). He was pivotal in bringing Wenger in, and that should always be acknowledged. But in selling his shares for the highest possible price, regardless of the buyer, he put his own personal interests ahead of the club's interests, and destroyed any faith people could have in him. Even the most pro-Dein contributors to this Forum don't stop short of criticising his choice of buyer. Are you the exception??

You may be right that only a few Arsenal fans are bothered about Usmanov taking control, in which case why are you worried about what this supposedly tiny minority do? Surely we'll be swept away by the hoards delighted to see Usmanov take over, and we'll just look like a small band of whingers who misjudged the titan that is Alisher Usmanov.

Are you trying to tell us to shut up? That would be an interesting position to take, given your earlier protestations about others dictating what you should or should not think.

One last thing, Redbull, I do find the tone of your posts (both in response to my posts and those of others) pretty annoying. Could you try to avoid being patronising and snide, and perhaps even know when to have a laugh about things?

I am not trying to be patronising or snide in my comments to anyone.
But have merely pointed out that your arguments regarding Usmanuv,who incidentally I do not hold any brief for,or Dein either ,who I believe shot himself in the foot by selling his shares to the Russian, but I am concerned that a campaign based on rhetoric and personal abuse,could distract our club in the coming months .

[Galasso]

but I am concerned that a campaign based on rhetoric and personal abuse,could distract our club in the coming months .

Is that the potential takeover or the protest against the potential takeover you are referring to??

And if nobody much cares then it shouldn't be too much of a distraction to anyone. I think Usmanov flying the British media out to Moscow to make his case and get it into the media his wish for a takeover is distracting enough - what do you think?

Still, if we can just stay quiet long enough the Usmanov can take over and do what the hell he likes - with no oversight. I wonder if there are any examples that we can think of?? If we can't tell what's definitely going to happen, we can at least use the examples from history. And not only Hearts and Chelsea. Wherever you get a sole owner or overbearing chairman, then things start to fall down.That will be nice!

And Murray was only the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, with access to various contacts, plenty of information and behind the scenes dealings. We shouldn't trust a word that he says!

Whether you believe anything he says or not, very few others have had access as he has had. Maybe he doesn't have everything to carry a case in law - and maybe he can't produce mountains of documents to back up his information. But I doubt it is all useless, and I doubt he can name all of his sources for verification.

[Redbull]

but I am concerned that a campaign based on rhetoric and personal abuse,could distract our club in the coming months .

Is that the potential takeover or the protest against the potential takeover you are referring to??

And if nobody much cares then it shouldn't be too much of a distraction to anyone. Hearts and Chelsea. Wherever you get a sole owner or overbearing chairman, then things start to fall down.That will be nice!


Whether you believe anything he says or not, very few others have had access as he has had. Maybe he doesn't have everything to carry a case in law - and maybe he can't produce mountains of documents to back up his information. But I doubt it is all useless, and I doubt he can name all of his sources for verification.

If you read my comments properly you will see that I refer to our opponents using the campaign that you and a few others are pursuing to cause problems for us. Personally I believe that if there were in the dark past genuine murky things that could be dug up about Usmanuv then Harry Harris and co would be on his case big-time using JCB's to unearth them!
You have a valid point regarding the dictatorial powers of a one owner of a club. The problem here is that Gordon Brown and his henchmen/women or henchpeople, in New Labour speak, have no interest in who owns our football clubs.
I would rather see a campaign myself involving supporters from other clubs also in trying to have the way that our football clubs are owned and run regulated properly . Laws to prevent the Leeds United,Man United type of scenario's should be brought in, at the moment the laws are retrospective in their punishments, as in Bates/Leeds case.
Although Ridsdale and O' Leary caused the problems there originally.
Many people would support such a campaign, to regulate football club ownerships - but this smear one against the pudgy Russian based on Craig Murray's colourful allegations is a no brainer .
The other alternative is to keep pressing tax-exile Danny to keep Stan and co on his side and even better for them to buy some of the floating shares that Dein is hoovering up on Usmanov's behalf to try and prevent him from a take-over.
Personally I believe that Fiszman is only interested in protecting his shares price - and when they hit 11 he will sell up.
That could be awhile off yet though.

[Galasso]

If you read my comments properly you will see that I refer to our opponents using the campaign that you and a few others are pursuing to cause problems for us.

My mistake, I should have added a to indicate that I believe it is not the poeople who are against this who causing problems for the club - it is the takeover itself. A point I made several time which you have overlooked. I read your posts intently.

Personally I believe that if there were in the dark past genuine murky things that could be dug up about Usmanuv then Harry Harris and co would be on his case big-time using JCB's to unearth them!

Harry Harris?? Methinks it's a little bit above his pay level!! Maybe you meant a serious journalist. Maybe these things are being dug up and, well, solicitors injunctions, removal of information..I think you know where I'm going.

You have a valid point regarding the dictatorial powers of a one owner of a club. The problem here is that Gordon Brown and his henchmen/women or henchpeople, in New Labour speak, have no interest in who owns our football clubs.
I would rather see a campaign myself involving supporters from other clubs also in trying to have the way that our football clubs are owned and run regulated properly . Laws to prevent the Leeds United,Man United type of scenario's should be brought in,

What regulations do you propose.? If the guy buys the business, he owns the business - If he then wants to sell the ground, he can sell the ground (Sam Hamman). No oversight.

at the moment the laws are retrospective in their punishments, as in Bates/Leeds case. Although Ridsdale and O' Leary caused the problems there originally.

Bates knew what he was getting into and the potential to put Leeds into admin and buy it back at a pittance was too good to give up. Bates left a St.John's Ambulance bill unpaid!

Many people would support such a campaign, to regulate football club ownerships - but this smear one against the pudgy Russian based on Craig Murray's colourful allegations is a no brainer .

Were you Ambassador to Uzbekistan? I think it's at the very least better to be suspicious bacause of the potential harm to our club than to treat these allegations as nonsense - I think that is the more sensible approach

The other alternative is to keep pressing tax-exile Danny to keep Stan and co on his side and even better for them to buy some of the floating shares that Dein is hoovering up on Usmanov's behalf to try and prevent him from a take-over.

I think this probably what they are doing at the moment

Personally I believe that Fiszman is only interested in protecting his shares price - and when they hit 11 he will sell up.
That could be awhile off yet though.

Maybe you're right - and I don't defend him now or in the future. I just don't know.

Trying to suggest it's a few nutters who are disrupting the club with this rubbish (I am paraphrasing here) is nonsense. It is the talk and preparation for a takeover itself which is doing that!

[Redbull]

If you read my comments properly you will see that I refer to our opponents using the campaign that you and a few others are pursuing to cause problems for us.

My mistake, I should have added a to indicate that I believe it is not the poeople who are against this who causing problems for the club - it is the takeover itself. A point I made several time which you have overlooked. I read your posts intently.

well, solicitors injunctions, removal of information..I think you know where I'm going.

You have a valid point regarding the dictatorial powers of a one owner of a club. The problem here is that Gordon Brown and his henchmen/women or henchpeople, in New Labour speak, have no interest in who owns our football clubs.
I would rather see a campaign myself involving supporters from other clubs also in trying to have the way that our football clubs are owned and run regulated properly . Laws to prevent the Leeds United,Man United type of scenario's should be brought in,

What regulations do you propose.? If the guy buys the business, he owns the business - If he then wants to sell the ground, he can sell the ground (Sam Hamman). No oversight.

Many people would support such a campaign, to regulate football club ownerships - but this smear one against the pudgy Russian based on Craig Murray's colourful allegations is a no brainer .

Were you Ambassador to Uzbekistan? I think it's at the very least better to be suspicious bacause of the potential harm to our club than to treat these allegations as nonsense - I think that is the more sensible approach

The other alternative is to keep pressing tax-exile Danny to keep Stan and co on his side and even better for them to buy some of the floating shares that Dein is hoovering up on Usmanov's behalf to try and prevent him from a take-over.

I think this probably what they are doing at the moment

Personally I believe that Fiszman is only interested in protecting his shares price - and when they hit 11 he will sell up.
That could be awhile off yet though.

Maybe you're right - and I don't defend him now or in the future. I just don't know.

Trying to suggest it's a few nutters who are disrupting the club with this rubbish (I am paraphrasing here) is nonsense. It is the talk and preparation for a takeover itself which is doing that!

The situation with ownership of football clubs is not an easy one to deal with. My own view is that the cart follows the horse here. Regulations on making clubs declare a budget and operating within it - with a watchdog appointee on the club board or attached to ensure that the club is not being improperly run, is a possibility. Capping of wages and transfer fee's another, protection of historical heritage such as changing the names of clubs to fit in a sponsors ( it will not be long before we have the KFC Tottenham Hotspurs! ) should be looked at also. And where stadiums have traditional names such as Old Trafford sponsors not allowed to change them. I would rather our stadium was not named after a foreign Air Line ,especially after Chelsea had the logo on their shirts before us! But we needed the money at the time , and beggars cant be choosers. Lets hope we can in the future bring in an Arsenal related name in it's place.
10 years down the road no doubt everything will look very different, it's always easier with hindsight to see things clearly.
Campaigns like the red action one at United always attract nutters to them and any such one involving demo's or actions against Usmanov of a public nature will likewise do so with us. United don't have a monopoly on idiots.. . though it's also true to say that they have more than their fair share!

[Galasso]

Redbull

Have you heard of the EU? If you have, then most of your suggestions can be thrown in the bin. As for naming rights, I think your kicking at an open door but it's got nothing to do with regulating football clubs - it's just something you don't like. It's got nothing to do with a potential takeover. And what's your point about 10 years down the line?

As for nutters joining demos, are these Arsenal nutters or just general nutters you refer to?

As for manu - I think it's something in the water!

[Redbull]

Redbull

Have you heard of the EU? If you have, then most of your suggestions can be thrown in the bin. As for naming rights, I think your kicking at an open door but it's got nothing to do with regulating football clubs - it's just something you don't like. It's got nothing to do with a potential takeover. And what's your point about 10 years down the line?

As for nutters joining demos, are these Arsenal nutters or just general nutters you refer to?

As for manu - I think it's something in the water!

My point basically is that the ownership of clubs and their regulation needs to be done across the board,rather than by trying to deal with a specific case, such as Usmanuv in our one.

Precedents, unfortunately, have already been set regarding foreign and home grown owners of football clubs. So I can't see any hope of success in preventing a so called Red And White take over of AFC based purely on moral objections.

And for me the silly smear campaign launched by that paragon of virtues Craig Murray against the pudgy Russian is a no brainer - then again seeing where it originated from that's hardly a surprise !

The ten years down the line comment is self explanatory if everything is coming up roses in the garden at Drayton Park then I doubt that anyone will really care who the board members or owners are at the club. That's football. And which is not really a sport where it pays to try and be too moralistic anyway.

[Galasso]

It's like going round and round in circles - I'm getting quite dizzy!

My point basically is that the ownership of clubs and their regulation needs to be done across the board,rather than by trying to deal with a specific case, such as Usmanuv in our one.

Again, what would you do - other than the suggestions you made which are against EU law. It ok to say "across the board" - But what?

Precedents, unfortunately, have already been set regarding foreign and home grown owners of football clubs. So I can't see any hope of success in preventing a so called Red And White take over of AFC based purely on moral objections.

The guy who wrote the piece was only talking about himself. You have expanded the conversation to have a go at Arsenal fans who want to take issue with what's happening - some of whom (Arsenal Supporters Trust) are basing their protest on the sole ownership aspect. Are they nutters?

And for me the silly smear campaign launched by that paragon of virtues Craig Murray against the pudgy Russian is a no brainer - then again seeing where it originated from that's hardly a surprise !

Why do you keep saying "no-brainer"? It's healthy to debate the information provided by a man - again, I repeat - who has somewhat unique inside knowledge on contacts. It is good to question his motives but to ignore it completely?? On what basis? Don't keep on saying no-brainer without some sort of back-up or I will think the no-brainer is you!

And the "pudgy Russian"?? ?? The guy might have you in court for that one.

The ten years down the line comment is self explanatory if everything is coming up roses in the garden at Drayton Park then I doubt that anyone will really care who the board members or owners are at the club. That's football. And which is not really a sport where it pays to try and be too moralistic anyway.

So you would just ignore anyone or anything that happened in the boardroom. Ridiculous - it affects Arsene Wenger, which affects the football, which affects US! Just sit back and think about it.


In conclusion, I understand the original poster, I don't know if I could give up going to Arsenal for moral reasons - and I do take an interest at what happens at board level when someone of questionable background tries to take over the club at a time when the Management is stable.

For you to have a go at Arsenal fans for kicking up a fuss when the real disruption is being caused by Usmanov and Dein, is for me contemptable.