The US Martin BORED Thread

[augie]

Boomer I am against the board for a few reasons -

David Dein - From what I read there are 2 blackish marks against DD one of which was the sharing wembley idea and the other was the selling of his shares to usmanov. The usmanov thing I can understand (even if I dont agree with this sentiment) why people were outraged but that was after the man had left the club. While DD served our club he did trojan work for the club and yet that seems to be forgotten about because he supported the idea of renting a new ground ahead of building from scratch. We can all argue (in light of the downturn in our team performances) whether building the new stadium was good or bad but to ignore previous contributions (inc the hiring of wenger) to the success over this issue is just wrong. Some people have suggested that fizsman put shares up for sale in a bid to flush DD out as going behind his back but if that is the case then why has he continued to sell shares since ? Put simply, in my opinion fizsman sacked DD cos he was somebody who was willing to fight against him within the club and in doing so put his own agenda ahead of what is best for the club and that is unacceptable imo

2. I keep hearing shit about how committed this board are to our club and how they see themselves as custodians but what evidence is there of that ? Show me one of those board members who hasnt been cashing in on the increase in share prices by flogging some of their shares and that move hardly suggests commitment does it ? I hear constant comments about how not taking dividends from the club is so brilliant by the people concerned but that is just a face value shallow view and totally ignores the fact that by not taking dividends the club balance sheets look better which in turn raises the value of the shares and club.

3. Finally the performance of the board - is there a board in any other business that would tolerate the constant under-performance and mis-management that we have witnessed in recent years ? In every walk of life a boss is there to make sure that all employees under him are performing to the max and the fact that no such demands are being placed on wenger and every other staff member is unacceptable to me You dont have to be a footballing genius to know that our goalkeeping situation has been a farce for a few seasons now and yet it has been allowed to continue with embarassing consequences We have been told every single season that we have money to spend and about the profits the club is making so why are we not investing it where needed and why are they not pushing wenger in this area ? Is it because it suits them not to spend the money cos they have an eye on the share prices/balance sheets ? First and foremost we are meant to be a fcuking football club and while nobody wants the club run recklessly there is a world of difference between running your club a la dirty leeds and what we should be doing but sadly it seems that this board have neither the hunger nor nor the inclination to lift this club back up to where it should be

Jeez this is a long post....dont confuse me with martin please

[DB10GOONER]

Boomer I am against the board for a few reasons -

David Dein - From what I read there are 2 blackish marks against DD one of which was the sharing wembley idea and the other was the selling of his shares to usmanov. The usmanov thing I can understand (even if I dont agree with this sentiment) why people were outraged but that was after the man had left the club. While DD served our club he did trojan work for the club and yet that seems to be forgotten about because he supported the idea of renting a new ground ahead of building from scratch. We can all argue (in light of the downturn in our team performances) whether building the new stadium was good or bad but to ignore previous contributions (inc the hiring of wenger) to the success over this issue is just wrong. Some people have suggested that fizsman put shares up for sale in a bid to flush DD out as going behind his back but if that is the case then why has he continued to sell shares since ? Put simply, in my opinion fizsman sacked DD cos he was somebody who was willing to fight against him within the club and in doing so put his own agenda ahead of what is best for the club and that is unacceptable imo

2. I keep hearing shit about how committed this board are to our club and how they see themselves as custodians but what evidence is there of that ? Show me one of those board members who hasnt been cashing in on the increase in share prices by flogging some of their shares and that move hardly suggests commitment does it ? I hear constant comments about how not taking dividends from the club is so brilliant by the people concerned but that is just a face value shallow view and totally ignores the fact that by not taking dividends the club balance sheets look better which in turn raises the value of the shares and club.

3. Finally the performance of the board - is there a board in any other business that would tolerate the constant under-performance and mis-management that we have witnessed in recent years ? In every walk of life a boss is there to make sure that all employees under him are performing to the max and the fact that no such demands are being placed on wenger and every other staff member is unacceptable to me You dont have to be a footballing genius to know that our goalkeeping situation has been a farce for a few seasons now and yet it has been allowed to continue with embarassing consequences We have been told every single season that we have money to spend and about the profits the club is making so why are we not investing it where needed and why are they not pushing wenger in this area ? Is it because it suits them not to spend the money cos they have an eye on the share prices/balance sheets ? First and foremost we are meant to be a fcuking football club and while nobody wants the club run recklessly there is a world of difference between running your club a la dirty leeds and what we should be doing but sadly it seems that this board have neither the hunger nor nor the inclination to lift this club back up to where it should be

Jeez this is a long post....dont confuse me with martin please

You. Are. Now. USMartin.

[augie]

Fcuk. You. Midget

[DB10GOONER]

Fcuk. You. Midget

No. You. Cannot. You. Bald. Bastard.

[Boomer]

I really wish I hadn't asked!
All I wanted was a one sentance reply.

Right, better now read the post........don't wait up for me!

[DB10GOONER]

Right, better now read the post........

I wouldn't, mate.

[augie]

Right, better now read the post........

I wouldn't, mate.

:finger:

[DB10GOONER]

Right, better now read the post........

I wouldn't, mate.

:finger:

[HashKads]

I actually think the board are doing a grand old job and Mr Wenger is the ideal manager for our club.

[Iceman29]

I actually think the board are doing a grand old job and Mr Wenger is the ideal manager for our club.

I concur

[USMartin]

Boomer I am against the board for a few reasons -

David Dein - From what I read there are 2 blackish marks against DD one of which was the sharing wembley idea and the other was the selling of his shares to usmanov. The usmanov thing I can understand (even if I dont agree with this sentiment) why people were outraged but that was after the man had left the club. While DD served our club he did trojan work for the club and yet that seems to be forgotten about because he supported the idea of renting a new ground ahead of building from scratch. We can all argue (in light of the downturn in our team performances) whether building the new stadium was good or bad but to ignore previous contributions (inc the hiring of wenger) to the success over this issue is just wrong. Some people have suggested that fizsman put shares up for sale in a bid to flush DD out as going behind his back but if that is the case then why has he continued to sell shares since ? Put simply, in my opinion fizsman sacked DD cos he was somebody who was willing to fight against him within the club and in doing so put his own agenda ahead of what is best for the club and that is unacceptable imo

I think you make a very solid point here on David Dein’s departure from the club. The fact is and it has never once been denied nor satisfactorily cleared up that David Dein’s seat on the Arsenal Board is kept warm by the man who was the financial muscle behind Mr. Dein’s takeover attempt - his co-conspirator - his accomplice. How on earth does that happen? Would a bank replace an employee guilty of embezzling funds from it with someone who assisted him in the crime? That is no different than the circumstances here though no crime was committed. This set of events raises a myriad of questions frankly, but without pursuing them even simply looks really bad and hardly reassuring about the Board’s focus on the club’s best interests

[Arsenal 1991]

I actually think the board are doing a grand old job and Mr Wenger is the ideal manager for our club.

I concur

By far the greatest board the world has ever seen.

[USMartin]

Boomer I am against the board for a few reasons -


2. I keep hearing shit about how committed this board are to our club and how they see themselves as custodians but what evidence is there of that ? Show me one of those board members who hasnt been cashing in on the increase in share prices by flogging some of their shares and that move hardly suggests commitment does it ? I hear constant comments about how not taking dividends from the club is so brilliant by the people concerned but that is just a face value shallow view and totally ignores the fact that by not taking dividends the club balance sheets look better which in turn raises the value of the shares and club.

Now this again is a great point. I can’t understand this defence of the Board at this point honestly. In this case the reason being that they are taking far more money out of the club itself this way. As you note in your final paragraph it is very possible that they financial prudence does not Have the club’s long-term survival behind it. I find it very disconcerting how much our Board sound like the right-wing politicians who preach cutting debt and deficit by decreasing spending on public programs which help all sectors but stare at you like someone stuck thumb up their arse without asking when you talk about increasing taxes to the wealthy.

All this talk about ending up like Leeds if we invest any more in the team while they go out and pocket a few million here a few million there, another 30 million in Mr. Fiszman’s case, and if its up to her, another 100 million when some buys Lady Bracewell-Smith’s shares, sounds a bit less than genuine to be honest. At this point I would rather they did opt to go down the dividends road and sold Highbury which together would have had far less negative impact on the football club and allowed them to be rewarded for their stewardship of the club and a deserved return on their investment(at least for those who actually did invest as opposed to inheriting their shares). It would just be a smaller profit. But since these individual hardly have to worry about money compared to us who aren’t millionaires, would that be so unacceptable for them?

[Arsenal 1991]

Boomer I am against the board for a few reasons -


2. I keep hearing shit about how committed this board are to our club and how they see themselves as custodians but what evidence is there of that ? Show me one of those board members who hasnt been cashing in on the increase in share prices by flogging some of their shares and that move hardly suggests commitment does it ? I hear constant comments about how not taking dividends from the club is so brilliant by the people concerned but that is just a face value shallow view and totally ignores the fact that by not taking dividends the club balance sheets look better which in turn raises the value of the shares and club.

Now this again is a great point. I can’t understand this defence of the Board at this point honestly. In this case the reason being that they are taking far more money out of the club itself this way. As you note in your final paragraph it is very possible that they financial prudence does not Have the club’s long-term survival behind it. I find it very disconcerting how much our Board sound like the right-wing politicians who preach cutting debt and deficit by decreasing spending on public programs which help all sectors but stare at you like someone stuck thumb up their arse without asking when you talk about increasing taxes to the wealthy.

All this talk about ending up like Leeds if we invest any more in the team while they go out and pocket a few million here a few million there, another 30 million in Mr. Fiszman’s case, and if its up to her, another 100 million when some buys Lady Bracewell-Smith’s shares, sounds a bit less than genuine to be honest. At this point I would rather they did opt to go down the dividends road and sold Highbury which together would have had far less negative impact on the football club and allowed them to be rewarded for their stewardship of the club and a deserved return on their investment(at least for those who actually did invest as opposed to inheriting their shares). It would just be a smaller profit. But since these individual hardly have to worry about money compared to us who aren’t millionaires, would that be so unacceptable for them?

Just out of interest, if you take out the yank how many shares do the board own?

[USMartin]

Boomer I am against the board for a few reasons -

3. Finally the performance of the board - is there a board in any other business that would tolerate the constant under-performance and mis-management that we have witnessed in recent years ? In every walk of life a boss is there to make sure that all employees under him are performing to the max and the fact that no such demands are being placed on wenger and every other staff member is unacceptable to me You dont have to be a footballing genius to know that our goalkeeping situation has been a farce for a few seasons now and yet it has been allowed to continue with embarassing consequences We have been told every single season that we have money to spend and about the profits the club is making so why are we not investing it where needed and why are they not pushing wenger in this area ? Is it because it suits them not to spend the money cos they have an eye on the share prices/balance sheets ? First and foremost we are meant to be a fcuking football club and while nobody wants the club run recklessly there is a world of difference between running your club a la dirty leeds and what we should be doing but sadly it seems that this board have neither the hunger nor nor the inclination to lift this club back up to where it should be

Again very terrific points, and while we cannot at this point say for sure what their reasoning what you state her at the very least should raise very valid questions about what the motives are behind the current policies in place. Again people note that selling shares isn’t taking a penny out of the club. But if decisions taken solely to raise the share price and the attractiveness of the club to potential ownership, and these decisions led to decreased investment in the football team that is no different and certainly not any better than actually taking money out of the club, especially given that there were other courses that could have been followed that still could have served the shareholders’s interests without disregarding Arsenal’s interests as a football club.

Why weren’t these other courses followed? Why if that was solely the manager’s choice and he disregarded the Board’s views hasn’t he been reeled in and instructed to try one of those other courses? Why have the Board tried to confuse us about just which course they are on and who is directing us on it? Why do so few people seem that concerned about this?