FISZMAN'S SHARES- WHAT IF .......

[D Gaffer]

Sorry to go off track abit but the thing with the PHW comments about Gallas I think are true he is asking to much money. He is 33 in Aug and wants a 2 year contract worth £80K per week.

If he wanted to stay at Arsenal so much why has he let his contract run down to the last min? As Arseblog said he let his contract run down thinking there would be lots of offers but there hasnt been and now he is trying to put the blame on the Arsenal board for not offering him what he wants

As soon as I read the bit about Arseblog I know we were gonna be good friends. Using Arseblog an as objective source of information gave that away

usmartin you obviously have a major problem even dislike of everything to do with the Arsenal board.

Not true actually. I DO obviously dislike what they have done in recent years and its impact upon the club, and I simply want the Board to live up to its promise of behaving first and last as custodians of the club and protecting the club’s best interests as they have in our past, and believe they have failed to do so since really 2005 or a bit earlier even. I also want them to live up to the standard of conduct that previous generations of Boards have that genuinely earned the faith and trust of supporters over the years and I would say even this generation had lived up to really until 2005 or so.

We should never forget that this is basically the same Board that provided the financial support to Arsene Wenger from 1998-2005 during the single most competitvely successful period in the club’s disappointing. This is why what they have done since 2005 was so frustrating then disappointing is now beyond frustrating and disappointing to genuinely worrying given the shift in power in the Premiership now even.

Personally given my own personality I might very well like all the Board members if I actually knew them well enough to like or dislike, even Mr. Hill-Wood as he certainly seems a lively and entertaining sort if nothing else

I would say that PHW has very little to do with the day to day running of Arsenal Football club. Mr Kronenke has invested a lot of time effort and money into Arsenal football club and as a buisnessman I would suspect that he is able to look after the intrests of more than one buisness deal at one time. I would also suspect that he has close contact with Mr Gazidis (maybe Mr Wenger) over the running of the football club.

Normally I would agree – but these are not normal times, obviously, and the summer transfer window is the worst such time for these circumstances to come together. To have ZERO major shareholders inn London focused on helping the manager dealing with transfer business is very very worrying. As I said earlier Mr. Hill-Wood (who DOES KNOW the people he is expressing his views about) seems to genuinely dislike football players and the idea of paying modern competitive wages really. I might actually agree in some individual cases about this with his assessment as with Gallas.

The problem is this is always his assessment or so it seems no matter who the player is. And its not just the money. It’s the tone in his comments. Its really very insulting and condescending even flatly hostile and arrogant and cannot help the club or especially the manager when dealing with trying to keep or obtain key players here.

And given all that if you say believe our lack of spending is down to our “stubborn spendthriftâ€

[flash gunner]

Bloody hell The post above must be the longest in history, I've worn my mouse out just scrolling down it...

The posts on here are far too intelligent for you Frank stick to the music threads

[franksav63]

Bloody hell The post above must be the longest in history, I've worn my mouse out just scrolling down it...

The posts on here are far too intelligent for you Frank stick to the music threads

I know they are, hence my post on it. (Don't worry, I'll stick to what I know) (I just wanted a post accredited to this thread, so I can tell my grand kids about it...)

[flash gunner]

Bloody hell The post above must be the longest in history, I've worn my mouse out just scrolling down it...

The posts on here are far too intelligent for you Frank stick to the music threads

I know they are, hence my post on it. (Don't worry, I'll stick to what I know) (I just wanted a post accredited to this thread, so I can tell my grand kids about it...)

Im sure its quite interesting.... If only i understood half of the words used

[stg]

[quote] There is nothing wrong legally or otherwise with the Board making a healthy profit for themselves now or any time – that is what businesses do and businessmen and women do.
The issue is that the Board are not portrayed in this manner by the supporters and do not portray themselves this way either, and it should not be acceptable for them to mis-lead supporters about their intentions and motivations at any time but especially now given the great sacrifice asked and expected of supporters to be there for Arsenal every single match.[quote]

Sorry but when have the board mis-lead supporters about their intentions?

As I understand it they are shareholders in a business and as such wish in the end to make money out of thier investment. The only way they portray themselves to me is as business people who want to make the most out of the club to enhance thier share price. The boards motivation must be for the club to do well with a sound financial package behind it so that in the end when they decide the time is right they will maximise the profit on their shares

[USMartin]

The board thats put us in a postion to probably be the must finacially secure club across European football all this while moving to a newly bulit stadium that 3/4's repaid already....doesnt sound too bad to me....can i ask you a question?

I was gonna say no you can’t ask me but it occurred to me…

If your assessment is correct than surely you must agree we can afford to invest more in the football team and thus should have no reason not to want to know why we have not at this point.

As of last year we were sitting on over 100 million pounds of cash reserves and by the next release of our Accounts it could be as high as 150 million. Surely you can see that we have the financial resources in place to invest a fair bit more in the football team then we are and that the REAL choice is not between the lack of investment we have seen recently and going bankrupt.

The claim that we only have two choices in terms of investment in the football team as implied often by Mr. Hiill-Wood and other Board members is disingenuous and factually incorrect or untrue. It is quite frankly a scare tactic and a successful one as supporters like yourself show to discourage questions about how much we should be investing in the team.

There is a middle ground and a rather expansive middle ground at that between what the Board is doing and what they could be doing and we believe they should venture to that middle ground which sold serve the short and long-term interest of both the football club and the holding company as a whole which should be the goal of our Board.

What do you feel the board should have done differently since 2005?

Sold Highbury instead of re-developing the property themselves.

The re-development of Highbury and the financing of that project by borrowing an additional 110 million pounds after borrowing 280 million to complete the new stadium had clear and undeniably negative impact on the football club’s financial stability and football team’s competitive success. It left Arsenal owing several years of stadium loan payments that would have been covered with proceeds from selling Highbury with no resource with which to pay them other than funds from the self-sustaining business model – basically at that point the football budget for the manager.

I think its reasonable to believe that had we sold Highbury – as originally planned – the football club would have been more stable financially and football team would have had more funds available to retain its best players or to replace them with players further along in their development and achievement and smooth the transtition to the next team from the 2002-2005 team to the next great Arsenal team.

Heres a challenge for you....reply in under 10 million words will you?

…***I’ve got blisters on my fingers***…

Just because you puts loads in your response doesnt make anybody think you know what you're on about!!

Just because you don’t doesn’t either

[USMartin]

There is nothing wrong legally or otherwise with the Board making a healthy profit for themselves now or any time – that is what businesses do and businessmen and women do.
The issue is that the Board are not portrayed in this manner by the supporters and do not portray themselves this way either, and it should not be acceptable for them to mis-lead supporters about their intentions and motivations at any time but especially now given the great sacrifice asked and expected of supporters to be there for Arsenal every single match.

Sorry but when have the board mis-lead supporters about their intentions?

As I understand it they are shareholders in a business and as such wish in the end to make money out of thier investment. The only way they portray themselves to me is as business people who want to make the most out of the club to enhance thier share price. The boards motivation must be for the club to do well with a sound financial package behind it so that in the end when they decide the time is right they will maximise the profit on their shares

So you agree the Board placed making more money for themselves ahead of the team winning more silver, yes?

And your disagreement is based on the your belief that the Board have never at any point portarayed their priority as the success fo the football club, yes?

[stg]

So you agree the Board placed making more money for themselves ahead of the team winning more silver, yes?

No I am saying that they are buisness people who are making the best out of thier buisness oppertunitys. If the team is more sucssesful the share price will rise so making the club more sucssesful would be part of the business plan

Sold Highbury instead of re-developing the property themselves.

Hindsight is a wonderfull thing if the worldwide crash had not happened then evrybodywould be saying it was a great idea as Arsenal would of been making more money

[Champagne Charlie]

Selling Highbury instead of redeveloping - must be the first time I've agreed with Martin

Even at the time some folks were saying we should've just sold the land and used the dosh for team investment.

However, one must remember PHW comes from a banking background, Hambros if i'm correct, so he'll probably know a whole lot more about the world of Finance than we're ever likely to know.

[Champagne Charlie]

Add to that former board member Sir Roger Gibbs is high up in the Wellcome Trust.

[northbankbren]

What is needed more than anything else from our board is transparency. When we hear opposing views of what our financial situation really is, this is what insults us as fans.

This is where the board must change in order for us fans to know what is really going on at our club.

I like many am not happy with the situation, but I believe we have been lied to by the club over the last few years. They were stupid to announce the stadium would have no affect on our transfer kitties, I really do not believe we are sitting on £100mill of surplus cash, I do not believe we have £40-£50million to spend on players, and I don’t believe that our board have any intentions of letting us know the truth anytime soon.
But what I do believe is that the club are being tight with finances, and agree 100% with them doing so considering the new stadium. This is where the frustration is born, as we were told this news stadium wouldn’t affect us.

As for PHW he has no real power. He is a figure head at the club due to his family’s history. He is from the old school of football club chairman, and as far as I can remember has been outspoken and controversial (he’s the prince phillip of Arsenal), high position no real power.

[USMartin]

No I am saying that they are buisness people who are making the best out of thier buisness oppertunitys.

Actually that qualifies as a yes to me - but again there is nothing wrong with that so long as ones recognizes that is the reality

If the team is more sucssesful the share price will rise so making the club more sucssesful would be part of the business plan

I would strongly agree with that philosophy as you express it. That would certainly be my approach were I in that postion. I just would suggest the Board have not in the past several years, or at least have not actually put that approach into practice over that time.

Hindsight is a wonderfull thing if the worldwide crash had not happened then evrybodywould be saying it was a great idea as Arsenal would of been making more money

With all due respect this is dead wrong. Putting aside the hindsight comment for now – the project HAS made money and from what I understand just about as much as the Board originally projected it would already as I understand it – 30-35 million pounds than they anticipated making from selling the property and buildings. So the housing crisis did not harm the project or its success truly at all.

Also the real damage to the football team was done well before the worldwide crash really so I think the whole worldwide crash argument is truly and really correct or accurate by any stretch of the imagination. It’s a neat story because it covers up a lot of unsettling questions but if you really look at the details its not true.

As to hind sight there were a FEW Gooners who doubted borrowing 100 million to undertake this project in conjunction with borrowing 280 million pounds to build a new stadium given the continued commitment to funding the team entirely through the self-sustaining business model – I know a few anyway - - so while far more Gooners shared your view at that time not all of us did.

The reason it matters is because past is prologue or can be. That is if the Board has changed its focus and not been entirely candid about it since 2005 who is to say that is not continuing now or will continue in the future if we do not question it?

[USMartin]

What is needed more than anything else from our board is transparency. When we hear opposing views of what our financial situation really is, this is what insults us as fans.

This is where the board must change in order for us fans to know what is really going on at our club.

I like many am not happy with the situation, but I believe we have been lied to by the club over the last few years. They were stupid to announce the stadium would have no affect on our transfer kitties, I really do not believe we are sitting on £100mill of surplus cash, I do not believe we have £40-£50million to spend on players, and I don’t believe that our board have any intentions of letting us know the truth anytime soon.
But what I do believe is that the club are being tight with finances, and agree 100% with them doing so considering the new stadium. This is where the frustration is born, as we were told this news stadium wouldn’t affect us.

As for PHW he has no real power. He is a figure head at the club due to his family’s history. He is from the old school of football club chairman, and as far as I can remember has been outspoken and controversial (he’s the prince phillip of Arsenal), high position no real power.

First off GREAT sig - just great

As for what we are sitting on I have a good friend who's a Gooner down Under and has worked in accounting and has analyzed much of the accounts figures bang-on till now and I trust his analysis, so I think that is the case.

I agree wholehartedly with your call fro greater transparency at this point. We should have had this frankly from before 2005 in fact so that at the very least we would have been spared a lot of confusion frusttration anger and disappointment.

I see your point and do think you're right about the Board tightening spending. But again I think this is a consequence of the re-development of Highbury rather than the new stadium. Look at the numbers

If we sold Highbury

260 million owed to banks app 100 million by 2010 and 65-80 million to use to pay them over that time

If we redeveloped Highbury

370 million owed to banks app 210 million by 2010 and ZERO to use to pay them over that time


As I said once this was a financial six-pointer we lost and comprehensively in terms of the football team.

But you are rught we were assured the new stadium would have no effect on the financing of the football team.The thing is - and its hardly surprising - the7 never mentioned whether the re-development would. It was a stealth re-development really almost especially as its impact became more visible.

I agree on Mr. Hill-Wood except that agin no Fiszman, No Kroenke , no Dein, No Usmanov, No Bracewell-Smith, and no Edelman. I think almost by default Mr. Hill-Wood has reclaimed some power in these matters - and no I don't think that's a good thing - just in case you were wiondering

[stg]

stg wrote:
No I am saying that they are buisness people who are making the best out of thier buisness oppertunitys.


Actually that qualifies as a yes to me - but again there is nothing wrong with that so long as ones recognizes that is the reality

stg wrote:
If the team is more sucssesful the share price will rise so making the club more sucssesful would be part of the business plan


I would strongly agree with that philosophy as you express it. That would certainly be my approach were I in that postion. I just would suggest the Board have not in the past several years, or at least have not actually put that approach into practice over that time.

So in your opinion are the board trying to make money and their share prices increase or not then? Why would a board full of business and banking people not want to make the club they are involved in sucsesfull? If you were in their position would you then not worry about your share value

[Reg Niseth]

Fiszman will not get any better, he is seriously ill. Harsh truth. Now I don't see any reason why he'd sell his shares. Like any of his business investments i'd guess they would be left to family or friends on his premature passing.

I don't think Kroenke or Usmanov want control of the club or they'd have bought LNBS shares. Kroenke only needs 10 shares to reach the 30% required for an offical takeover . . . a measly £85,000. However, if he got these he'd have to offer the maximum he'd paid for a share to every shareholder.

But what do I know?