The Black Scarf Mmovement - Where has our Arsenal gone

[USMartin]

I have to say that I find this whole argument that we couldnt have remained a top side if we had of stayed at highbury absolutely laughable. For starters it is highly highly debatable that we can be classed as a top side anymore given the speed at which we are losing our top players and inability to replace them I would think our record in both the league and the champs lge was far more impressive in the seasons before we left than the 4 seasons since we left.

Moving the the grove has opened up channels for fans like me to obtain tickets that had previously been unavailable to me but club comes before individual imo and I would rather see a strong team and squad than 20k extra fans attending matches. Like it or not we the fans were sold a vision that was absolute bullshit and what really pisses me off is that the board are still spouting the same bullshit like they have lived up to their promise to the fans when they told us that moving homes was a good thing. Do they really think that we are that stupid or do they even give a shit that we know they are lying through their teeth ?

As I have said on numerous occasions I want an Arsenal Supporters Group that really represents the feelings of fans that are well and truely pissed off at where we as a club are going. I dont want any of this softly softly "we want a working relationship with the board" bullshit cos that is getting us precisely nowhere and it is about time we the fans send a message that we are no longer going to tolerated their bullshit. At the very least it will put the spotlight on the workings of the club and the people running it and that can only be a good thing as far as I am concerned

So much of this is so true. I do believe the new stadium is a good thing - or can be a good thing.

But it will be as disastrous as the re-developmebnt of Highbury in the end if the Board is using all this to take themselves to the next level and leaving Arsenal behind when we were promised this would take Arsenal there. Which it could do if the Board were more focused on Arsenal Football Club than as appears certain Arsenal's share price.

[franksav63]

Perhaps the club see the ''Arsenalisation'' as some sort of way of placating the fans.

My question with regards to the ''Arsenalisation'' is why did it take so long?

[USMartin]

Perhaps the club see the ''Arsenalisation'' as some sort of way of placating the fans.

My question with regards to the ''Arsenalisation'' is why did it take so long?

oh they absolutely do - they think that's all it takes like were a bunch of little kids. "oh we sold your beloved stuffed doggie for a packet on Cash In The Attic last month for the hell of it, but here's a car magazine that we found up there so you're alright for now, eh?"

[franksav63]

Perhaps the club see the ''Arsenalisation'' as some sort of way of placating the fans.

My question with regards to the ''Arsenalisation'' is why did it take so long?

oh they absolutely do - they think that's all it takes like were a bunch of little kids. "oh we sold your beloved stuffed doggie for a packet on Casuh In The Attic last month for the hell of it, but here's a car magazine that we found up there so you're alright for now, eh?"

You mean Car Booty really...

[USMartin]

Perhaps the club see the ''Arsenalisation'' as some sort of way of placating the fans.

My question with regards to the ''Arsenalisation'' is why did it take so long?

oh they absolutely do - they think that's all it takes like were a bunch of little kids. "oh we sold your beloved stuffed doggie for a packet on Cash In The Attic last month for the hell of it, but here's a car magazine that we found up there so you're alright for now, eh?"

[georgeknows89]

I THINK MANY ARE NAIVE TO THINK THAT THE CLUB DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT THE FANS THINK AND SAY,AND I AM SURE THAT THEY HAVE SLEEPERS ON EVERY BLOG AND EVERY SITE TRAWLING FOR FAN FEEDBACK AND TO HAVE A PULSE CHECK ON WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

I HAVE SAT ON THE ARSENAL FANS FORUM IN MEETINGS WITH ALL THE DIRECTORS INCLUDING GAZIDIS AND I'M PLEASED TO SAY OR SORRY TO DISAPPOINT SOME BUT HE DOES CARE AND THE CLUB DO CARE AS MUCH ABOUT ARSENAL FOOTBALL CLUB ON THE PITCH AS ARSENAL PLC OFF THE PITCH.

LIKE IT OR NOT THEY FEED OFF EACH OTHER AND HOWEVER BAD SOME MIGHT THINK THINGS ARE, IF WE WOULD HAVE PLAYED THE LAST 4 YEARS IN FRONT OF 38,200 AT HIGHBURY WE WOULD BE IN A FAR WORSE POSITION THAN WE ARE NOW.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS OUT OF GAZIDIS AND HIS NEW TEAMS CONTROL- OWNERSHIP- UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED AND SOMEONE EITHER BUYS OUT EVERYONE ( LIKE HAPPENED WITH JP MAGNUS STAKE AT MAN UTD ) OR USMANOV OR KROENKE MAKE A BID THEN WE ARE STUCK IN AN AWKWARD SITUATION

WHAT WOULD VIRGIN OR SUGARS BUSINESS BE LIKE FOR STRATEGY AND PLANNING IF IT HAD 2 OWNERS WITH NEARLY 30% EACH PLUS A DISENFRANCHISED LOOSE CANNON ( GREAT PHRASE) LIKE NINA WITH 15.9% PLUS A SERIOUSLY ILL DANNY F TO CONTEND WITH

THE GREEN AND YELLOW MIGHT HAVE WON OFF THE PITCH IN MANCHESTER BUT ON THE PITCH THEY LOST THE LEAGUE .

I SYMPATHISE WITH ALL BUT RED AND WHITE REMAINS MY SCARF

[USMartin]

georgeknows make an interesting point about the ownership issue, but what's missing is that that shows the current Board's lack of desireto remain in control but their lack of candor about this is the real problem.

I think that is a huge part of the Problem. As I say someone decided this project could be used as a vehicle behind which a HUGE amount of money could be made - who excatly is uncertain though its safe to say that if this is the case Dan Fiszman was among the leading advcates of such a strategic shift by the Board.

But because of the relationship between the Board and the supporters at Arsenal and the historical legacy of the Board and its unique role at our club the last thing they could do is sell immedaiately because that would be hugely damaging to this Board's reputation and legacy really.

So dragging these proceedings out to where for a long time they weren't so obvious to many(remmeber the image of David Dein immediaetly after the take-over fiasco, of how the Board publicly stated they didn't want Stan Kroenke's 'sort" at the club- all an elaborate pantomime by the looks of it now designed to maintain the Board's image as Custodians of the Club forst foremost and always even as the laid the groundwork to hand the club to new ownership at an almost unseemly profit to themselves(at least the bigger shareholders and everyone would pocket a million or two).

The problem is while this strategy really disguised some very suspect actions very nicely, it appears to have backfired anow , as Stan Kropenke no longer seems to have ownership of Arsenal as his prime goal or ambition and unless his effort to Buy the entire St Louis Rams
franchise collapses its likely that bhe could only follow through on buying Arsenal through a debt-leveraged take-over which could be far more catastrophic to Arsenal than either ManU or Liverpool as we are already paying down hundredsof millions in new stadium debt.

So now the Board seem frozen unsure of the next move as the one buyer - at least the one buyer they were ready to sell to - may neither be ready or able to buy the club without real risk of devastation to Arsenal and again this Board's legacy. So if that is no longer an option what do they do now? Do they just settle in and take dividends? Do they seek out another buyer and hold back spending until they find one? Do they do the untinkable as they see it and turn the club over to Usmanov (if he can afford it)? Or do the do the really unthinkable and leave the club to the whims of new debt-leveraged ownership?

[xDAVEYx]

georgeknows make an interesting point about the ownership issue, but what's missing is that that shows the current Board's lack of desireto remain in control but their lack of candor about this is the real problem.

I think that is a huge part of the Problem. As I say someone decided this project could be used as a vehicle behind which a HUGE amount of money could be made - who excatly is uncertain though its safe to say that if this is the case Dan Fiszman was among the leading advcates of such a strategic shift by the Board.

But because of the relationship between the Board and the supporters at Arsenal and the historical legacy of the Board and its unique role at our club the last thing they could do is sell immedaiately because that would be hugely damaging to this Board's reputation and legacy really.

So dragging these proceedings out to where for a long time they weren't so obvious to many(remmeber the image of David Dein immediaetly after the take-over fiasco, of how the Board publicly stated they didn't want Stan Kroenke's 'sort" at the club- all an elaborate pantomime by the looks of it now designed to maintain the Board's image as Custodians of the Club forst foremost and always even as the laid the groundwork to hand the club to new ownership at an almost unseemly profit to themselves(at least the bigger shareholders and everyone would pocket a million or two).

The problem is while this strategy really disguised some very suspect actions very nicely, it appears to have backfired anow , as Stan Kropenke no longer seems to have ownership of Arsenal as his prime goal or ambition and unless his effort to Buy the entire St Louis Rams
franchise collapses its likely that bhe could only follow through on buying Arsenal through a debt-leveraged take-over which could be far more catastrophic to Arsenal than either ManU or Liverpool as we are already paying down hundredsof millions in new stadium debt.

So now the Board seem frozen unsure of the next move as the one buyer - at least the one buyer they were ready to sell to - may neither be ready or able to buy the club without real risk of devastation to Arsenal and again this Board's legacy. So if that is no longer an option what do they do now? Do they just settle in and take dividends? Do they seek out another buyer and hold back spending until they find one? Do they do the untinkable as they see it and turn the club over to Usmanov (if he can afford it)? Or do the do the really unthinkable and leave the club to the whims of new debt-leveraged ownership?

[SammyDroppedHisShorts]

Like the big pic xDaveyx

[USMartin]

Its a broken record yes - just like the last five years at Arsenal have been I suppose

[augie]

I THINK MANY ARE NAIVE TO THINK THAT THE CLUB DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT THE FANS THINK AND SAY,AND I AM SURE THAT THEY HAVE SLEEPERS ON EVERY BLOG AND EVERY SITE TRAWLING FOR FAN FEEDBACK AND TO HAVE A PULSE CHECK ON WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

I HAVE SAT ON THE ARSENAL FANS FORUM IN MEETINGS WITH ALL THE DIRECTORS INCLUDING GAZIDIS AND I'M PLEASED TO SAY OR SORRY TO DISAPPOINT SOME BUT HE DOES CARE AND THE CLUB DO CARE AS MUCH ABOUT ARSENAL FOOTBALL CLUB ON THE PITCH AS ARSENAL PLC OFF THE PITCH.

LIKE IT OR NOT THEY FEED OFF EACH OTHER AND HOWEVER BAD SOME MIGHT THINK THINGS ARE, IF WE WOULD HAVE PLAYED THE LAST 4 YEARS IN FRONT OF 38,200 AT HIGHBURY WE WOULD BE IN A FAR WORSE POSITION THAN WE ARE NOW.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS OUT OF GAZIDIS AND HIS NEW TEAMS CONTROL- OWNERSHIP- UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED AND SOMEONE EITHER BUYS OUT EVERYONE ( LIKE HAPPENED WITH JP MAGNUS STAKE AT MAN UTD ) OR USMANOV OR KROENKE MAKE A BID THEN WE ARE STUCK IN AN AWKWARD SITUATION

WHAT WOULD VIRGIN OR SUGARS BUSINESS BE LIKE FOR STRATEGY AND PLANNING IF IT HAD 2 OWNERS WITH NEARLY 30% EACH PLUS A DISENFRANCHISED LOOSE CANNON ( GREAT PHRASE) LIKE NINA WITH 15.9% PLUS A SERIOUSLY ILL DANNY F TO CONTEND WITH

THE GREEN AND YELLOW MIGHT HAVE WON OFF THE PITCH IN MANCHESTER BUT ON THE PITCH THEY LOST THE LEAGUE .

I SYMPATHISE WITH ALL BUT RED AND WHITE REMAINS MY SCARF

George I think that if you ask phw what a blog is he might think that it is a thing a chinaman shits in (no racism intended )

Anyway can you answer me where, why and how you can make a statement saying that we would be far worse off now if we were still playing in front of 38,000 at highbury ? At best that is pure supposition and it worst it is a bullshit statement that cannot be backed up with any hard facts. I would actuallly go so far as to say that it is a typical bullshit pr statement that continually comes from the club

Your use of the ownership issue is also typical board speak - are you telling me that as far as making plans and decisions for the present and future the board is in limbo until somebody buys out the club ? These *word censored* are in positions to supposedly run our club until they are informed otherwise so sitting on their arses doing sweet fcuk all as season after season slips by without problems being adressed is not or should not be part of their mandate
By the way who created this ownership issue to begin with ? Did fizsman not start this ball rolling by selling his shares some years back and then get personal and sack one of the larger shareholders in the club ? Has he not added to the problem by continuing to sell his shares since right up to a few months ago ? Did he also not complicate things even further by "disenfranchising" lady nina bracewell smith thus making her a "loose cannon"

If you want to attribute blame mate you could start by looking at fizsman who has treated our club like it is his own personal plaything and used it to settle scores with people who dont agree with him regardless of the consequences for our club I despise this *word censored* with a passion and look forward to the day that he is fcuked out of our club for good

[USMartin]

I THINK MANY ARE NAIVE TO THINK THAT THE CLUB DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT THE FANS THINK AND SAY,AND I AM SURE THAT THEY HAVE SLEEPERS ON EVERY BLOG AND EVERY SITE TRAWLING FOR FAN FEEDBACK AND TO HAVE A PULSE CHECK ON WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

I HAVE SAT ON THE ARSENAL FANS FORUM IN MEETINGS WITH ALL THE DIRECTORS INCLUDING GAZIDIS AND I'M PLEASED TO SAY OR SORRY TO DISAPPOINT SOME BUT HE DOES CARE AND THE CLUB DO CARE AS MUCH ABOUT ARSENAL FOOTBALL CLUB ON THE PITCH AS ARSENAL PLC OFF THE PITCH.

LIKE IT OR NOT THEY FEED OFF EACH OTHER AND HOWEVER BAD SOME MIGHT THINK THINGS ARE, IF WE WOULD HAVE PLAYED THE LAST 4 YEARS IN FRONT OF 38,200 AT HIGHBURY WE WOULD BE IN A FAR WORSE POSITION THAN WE ARE NOW.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS OUT OF GAZIDIS AND HIS NEW TEAMS CONTROL- OWNERSHIP- UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED AND SOMEONE EITHER BUYS OUT EVERYONE ( LIKE HAPPENED WITH JP MAGNUS STAKE AT MAN UTD ) OR USMANOV OR KROENKE MAKE A BID THEN WE ARE STUCK IN AN AWKWARD SITUATION

WHAT WOULD VIRGIN OR SUGARS BUSINESS BE LIKE FOR STRATEGY AND PLANNING IF IT HAD 2 OWNERS WITH NEARLY 30% EACH PLUS A DISENFRANCHISED LOOSE CANNON ( GREAT PHRASE) LIKE NINA WITH 15.9% PLUS A SERIOUSLY ILL DANNY F TO CONTEND WITH

THE GREEN AND YELLOW MIGHT HAVE WON OFF THE PITCH IN MANCHESTER BUT ON THE PITCH THEY LOST THE LEAGUE .

I SYMPATHISE WITH ALL BUT RED AND WHITE REMAINS MY SCARF

George I think that if you ask phw what a blog is he might think that it is a thing a chinaman shits in (no racism intended )

Anyway can you answer me where, why and how you can make a statement saying that we would be far worse off now if we were still playing in front of 38,000 at highbury ? At best that is pure supposition and it worst it is a bullshit statement that cannot be backed up with any hard facts. I would actuallly go so far as to say that it is a typical bullshit pr statement that continually comes from the club

Your use of the ownership issue is also typical board speak - are you telling me that as far as making plans and decisions for the present and future the board is in limbo until somebody buys out the club ? These c**ts are in positions to supposedly run our club until they are informed otherwise so sitting on their arses doing sweet fcuk all as season after season slips by without problems being adressed is not or should not be part of their mandate
By the way who created this ownership issue to begin with ? Did fizsman not start this ball rolling by selling his shares some years back and then get personal and sack one of the larger shareholders in the club ? Has he not added to the problem by continuing to sell his shares since right up to a few months ago ? Did he also not complicate things even further by "disenfranchising" lady nina bracewell smith thus making her a "loose cannon"

If you want to attribute blame mate you could start by looking at fizsman who has treated our club like it is his own personal plaything and used it to settle scores with people who dont agree with him regardless of the consequences for our club I despise this c**t with a passion and look forward to the day that he is fcuked out of our club for good

Another really good post Augs

The Lady Nina part is fascinating since reports suggest that when Davoid Dein and Stan Kroenke launched their abortive "take-over' it was suggested that Lady Nina was resposible for inforing the Board of them approaching her and offering to buy her shares.

And later reports suggest at the time of her forced departure form the Board that she was angry because she had missed out on selling her shares for 10 grand apiece because reportedly Dan Fiszman had promised her he could get a better price for her than Alisher Usmanov gave David Dein, but that two years had passed and she hadn't gotten to cash in.

Now this may or may not be true but its curious to consider that if she had stcuk it out she would be looking at a higher share price than she would have gotten then or from Mr. Usmanov - just like Mr. Fiszman suggested.Curious isn't it?

But that's in line with your point about Dan Fiszman basically opening Pandora's Box when he made the first sale of shares to Stan Kroenke - though to be fair one could say Peter Hill-Wood did that 20 years ago when David Dein came calling. Any way you look at it the genie is out and its not going to be easy to get it back in the bottle if it can be done at all at this point.