As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
mcdowell42 wrote:The board have the best interests of the club at heart so its only right they earn a few bob out of it.Everything is being run prudently we have lots of money to spend thats a fact i have proof
I see no proof you have presented actually.
But I agree with your first point fully. No one is saying they shouldn't earn something or even something pretty significant for their service to the Club even now. They are investors and deserve return on their investment because of its success, and their direct role in that success.
But again why 100 million instead of 60 million or 30 million? Is 30 million insufficient for these already multi-millionaires to survive on? Why not be happy to invest more in the team and see the share price peak at 6500 or 7000 instead of 11000? Especially given that no one on the Board pre-2006 paid a penny over 2000 a share and some didn't pay a penny at all for theirs.
mcdowell42 wrote:The board have the best interests of the club at heart so its only right they earn a few bob out of it.Everything is being run prudently we have lots of money to spend thats a fact i have proof
I see no proof you have presented actually.
But I agree with your first point fully. No one is saying they shouldn't earn something or even something pretty significant for their service to the Club even now. They are investors and deserve return on their investment because of its success, and their direct role in that success.
But again why 100 million instead of 60 million or 30 million? Is 30 million insufficient for these already multi-millionaires to survive on? Why not be happy to invest more in the team and see the share price peak at 6500 or 7000 instead of 11000? Especially given that no one on the Board pre-2006 paid a penny over 2000 a share and some didn't pay a penny at all for theirs.
In practical terms, the money will mean little in the short run. Arsene Wenger is not one to spend rashly, no matter what the amount of money available to him and he’s a creator, not a builder or a jigsaw puzzle artist. His vision for Arsenal is stubborn and it does not involve shelling out 25-30m for Samuel Eto’o, not when he sees Adebayor and Robin van Persie growing season upon season.
In the long run the money has benefits but not without potential problems. one hand, it means that Arsenal’s debt will be wiped out with ease and the club will always have money to reinvest. On the other hand it will only attract more billionaires (some like Usmanov, others like Kroenke) who will want the whole pie to themselves. It’s not something restricted to Arsenal but considering that Arsenal are the richest club in England that haven’t been taken over AND are playing in the ‘richest league’ in the world, the financial numbers are the strategic equivalent of painting a bright bulls-eye on Arsenal’s heart.
Usmanov’s faux pas (or that of his lawyers) has generated a lot of ill-will against him amongst Arsenal supporters and I doubt that he will be able to complete a hostile takeover, especially since the Arsenal board will be far more resilient to any takeover attempts as compared to the Manchester United board. The recent changes at Chelsea will also serve as a reminder for fans that rich owners do not always contribute to club harmony. The possibility that Wenger could be dismissed by the board is something the fans will not accept and as a result Arsenal’s chances of being taken over are quite low.
In that light then, the press release is a statement of intent for the current Arsenal board, their move to show the supporters that they are responsible for bringing good results (financially) to the club. But while this protects their current position it doesn’t do much for the future. Their next step should be a bold plan to secure more Arsenal shares under ‘friendly’ control – and if that means dealing with Kroenke, so be it. I’m sure that with the money being generated, the board can consider investing further into the club and offer to buy out Kroenke.
You can bet your house that Usmanov will do so, if he hasn’t already. Best for the board to move first and eliminate the possible threats to Arsenal instead of dealing with them later down the road.
USMartin wrote:By the way do you think making a 100 million pound profit in part by limiting investment in the football team is merely reaping rewards? Why not invest more in the football team and reap a 30 million pound profit?
Would that be so wrong?
I have never claimed the Board have no right to enjoy a reward for the work they do and have done. I have simply asserteed that we should wonder why these already wealthy people should want to make so much more money this way when they could make good money still after investing more in the football team.
Can you explain why they should want to make 100 million pounds as Mr. Fiszman or his family likely will and Lady Bracewell-Smith likely will instead of making only 30-50 million pounds? After Dan Fiszman never paid above two thousands pound for a share he purchased and Lady Nina never actually paid a penny herself. After all our Board are supporters not purely profit-driven businessmen and women right?
Can you explain why we should not be concerned that they chose to increase our debt obligations from 2005-2010 by up to 210 million pounds while eliminating a source or=f revenue to pay down that debt in those years yet seem to have no problem with cashing in for the highest possible profit as a result?
Bracewell-Smith is not on the board anymore!
No, but she was on the Board when all the major policy decisions were made and almost certainly supported them without exception.
The are rumoors - just rumours - that suggest her dismissal from the Board was purely down to her impatience about selling her holdings because she was told by Dan Fiszman he could get her top dollar for them if she waited.
Whether those rumors are anything more than that is not relevant though because as I say she was on the Board that that approved all the decisions prior to 2006 and supported every policy in place to her departure or dismissal from that Board.
In all my years of being a loyal and faithful through thick and thin supporter of my beloved,never question and always supported the intentions of Hill wood an Co,But now what i have to say Is get rid of these narrow minded imbeciles that is running the club to the brink of ridicule,i mean we have potentially 2 investors with their combine wealth will compete with man city,and putting in David Dein as Chairman who with his love for the club will compete with man utd for the highest honours ever,here is a man with passion and drive to make Arsenal the Greatest club in the world and you know what is stopping all this from happening...the board of directors that they are,we have the 1 of the best stadium in the world at least the best in this country in the best city in the world by rights we should have the Best team which we not,i have never ever seen any demonstrations from the fans against the board or i can't recall even against our managers,we tolerate it not like some fans of other clubs who are not happy,We too should have a go at the directors and not the management.What say we start a revolution
This is not my work but from other arsenal fans who are alike of mind as us i cant tell you where i got this as i will put their lives at risk shush they are everywhere
mcdowell42 wrote:In the long run the money has benefits but not without potential problems. one hand, it means that Arsenal’s debt will be wiped out with ease and the club will always have money to reinvest. On the other hand it will only attract more billionaires (some like Usmanov, others like Kroenke) who will want the whole pie to themselves. It’s not something restricted to Arsenal but considering that Arsenal are the richest club in England that haven’t been taken over AND are playing in the ‘richest league’ in the world, the financial numbers are the strategic equivalent of painting a bright bulls-eye on Arsenal’s heart.
In the long run the money has benefits but not without potential problems. one hand, it means that Arsenal’s debt will be wiped out with ease and the club will always have money to reinvest. On the other hand it will only attract more billionaires (some like Usmanov, others like Kroenke) who will want the whole pie to themselves. It’s not something restricted to Arsenal but considering that Arsenal are the richest club in England that haven’t been taken over AND are playing in the ‘richest league’ in the world, the financial numbers are the strategic equivalent of painting a bright bulls-eye on Arsenal’s heart.
Huh??????????
Wouldn't the easiest way to avoid being taken over by anyone be not to sell shares to anyone? As to Manchester United the fact is they successfully truned away one hostile takeover already by the Coolmore Mafia. So the idea that United is automatically more vulnerible to any takeover than we are is pure rubbish.
Any takeover hostile or otherwise succedding hinges entirely on whether ot not the shareholders are willing to sell to the takeover group. I mean I couild offer you a million pounds for your favorite record album, but if you don't want to sell it I can't buy it at any price can I ?
Same holds true here. The Board could instead take dividends anually which would represent terrific return on their investment , and since many made no actuial investm,ent themselves would in effect be free money for them, just less free money than some are looking to make this way. If Dan Fiszman or his family and Lady Bracewell-Smith made 30 million from dividends each say the next ten years how bad would that be for them or Arsenal? Especially if their real concern - or certainly Mr. Fiszman's is preventing certainly people from taking over?
If the concerns of these individuals were purely to nobly protect the Arsenal why look to sell out at all? Why not just take a reasonable dividend annually while remaining in control and in charge? They won't go poor or lose their homes or anything doing that will they? They are all multi-millionaires with or without what they make from Arsenal. So why sell for more when they could protect Arsenal for less and still make out quite well?
Last edited by USMartin on Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
mcdowell42 wrote:In the long run the money has benefits but not without potential problems. one hand, it means that Arsenal’s debt will be wiped out with ease and the club will always have money to reinvest. On the other hand it will only attract more billionaires (some like Usmanov, others like Kroenke) who will want the whole pie to themselves. It’s not something restricted to Arsenal but considering that Arsenal are the richest club in England that haven’t been taken over AND are playing in the ‘richest league’ in the world, the financial numbers are the strategic equivalent of painting a bright bulls-eye on Arsenal’s heart.
Huh??????????
Wouldn't the easiest way to avoid being taken over by anyone be not to sell shares to anyone? As to Manchester United the fact is they successfully truned away one hostile takeover already by the Coolmore Mafia. So the idea that United is automatically more vulnerible to any takeover than we are is pure rubbish.
Any takeover hostile or otherwise succedding hinges entirely on whether ot not the shareholders are willing to sell to the takeover group. I mean I couild offer you a million pounds for your favorite record album, but if you don't want to sell it I can't buy it at any price can I ?
Same holds true here. The Board could instead take dividends anually which would represent terrific return on their investment , and since many made no actuial investm,ent themselves would in effect be free money for them, just less free money than some are looking to make this way. If Dan Fiszman or his family and Lady Bracewell-Smith made 30 million from dividends each say the next ten years how bad would that be for them or Arsenal? Especially if their real concern - or certainly Mr. Fiszman's is preventing certainly people from taking over?
If the concerns of these individuals were purely to nobly protect the Arsenal why look to sell out at all? Why not just take a reasonable dividend annually while remaining in control and in charge? They won't go poor or lose their homes or anything doing that will they? They are all multi-millionaires with or without what they make from Arsenal. So why sell for more when they could protect Arsenal for less and still make out quite well?
Fuck that shit, what do you reckon on the Hot Dog scam?
mcdowell42 wrote:In the long run the money has benefits but not without potential problems. one hand, it means that Arsenal’s debt will be wiped out with ease and the club will always have money to reinvest. On the other hand it will only attract more billionaires (some like Usmanov, others like Kroenke) who will want the whole pie to themselves. It’s not something restricted to Arsenal but considering that Arsenal are the richest club in England that haven’t been taken over AND are playing in the ‘richest league’ in the world, the financial numbers are the strategic equivalent of painting a bright bulls-eye on Arsenal’s heart.
Huh??????????
Wouldn't the easiest way to avoid being taken over by anyone be not to sell shares to anyone? As to Manchester United the fact is they successfully truned away one hostile takeover already by the Coolmore Mafia. So the idea that United is automatically more vulnerible to any takeover than we are is pure rubbish.
Any takeover hostile or otherwise succedding hinges entirely on whether ot not the shareholders are willing to sell to the takeover group. I mean I couild offer you a million pounds for your favorite record album, but if you don't want to sell it I can't buy it at any price can I ?
Same holds true here. The Board could instead take dividends anually which would represent terrific return on their investment , and since many made no actuial investm,ent themselves would in effect be free money for them, just less free money than some are looking to make this way. If Dan Fiszman or his family and Lady Bracewell-Smith made 30 million from dividends each say the next ten years how bad would that be for them or Arsenal? Especially if their real concern - or certainly Mr. Fiszman's is preventing certainly people from taking over?
If the concerns of these individuals were purely to nobly protect the Arsenal why look to sell out at all? Why not just take a reasonable dividend annually while remaining in control and in charge? They won't go poor or lose their homes or anything doing that will they? They are all multi-millionaires with or without what they make from Arsenal. So why sell for more when they could protect Arsenal for less and still make out quite well?
Fuck that shit, what do you reckon on the Hot Dog scam?
Fucking board sold us down the river with the hotgog metrication scam. *word censored*!
