Board Sells - Kroenke Takes Control Of Club!!

[USMartin]

I dont get all the David Dein love in

I dont deny he did an excellent job in the past, and could do in the future...

But he didnt waste any time making millions from his shares when the time was right did he?

Thta's a valid point - but it's not like anybody in the end fought to hold onto their shares except perhaps to maximize their personal profits. After all he made 8500 a share and everyone selling now is making 11700 a share. But a valid point nonetheless.

But I think you answer your own question - he did an excellent job in the past and could do so in the future. I think there is a belief that is fully justified that Mr Dein's departure whatever the reasons behind it made the situation worse in terms of the football teeam, although I believe that ship had sailed already and the damage was done by that time, and Mr. Dein was forced for pointing that out and trying to fix it at that time.

I also do not think he was simply pro-Wembley as some state. I think he was pro-new stadium until the decision not to sell Highbury was taken. I think he saw and was proven correct that the club could not homor its commitment to the football team and the self-sustaining business model while borrowing the additional 120 million pounds(whioch had to be paid in full by 2010) on top of the 300 million borrowed for building the stadium and eliminating forty-eighty million pounds of revenue to pay for the stadium loan for five years.

[Arsenal 1991]

Can we get a broken record emoticon?

Dein had a lot, lot less to so with the footballing side of things than people like to believe. Also had he left in 2007 or 2002 I don't think people would be making such a strong connection.

I rather have him than the *word censored* hill wood though.

[USMartin]

Can we get a broken record emoticon?

Dein had a lot, lot less to so with the footballing side of things than people like to believe. Also had he left in 2007 or 2002 I don't think people would be making such a strong connection.

I rather have him than the c**t hill wood though.

You keep saying that but who says its true?

For the record I don't think he picked players or anything but if you don't think he had anything to do with negotiation of deals then why did the spending change even more sharply after his departure?

And if you believe his departure had nothing to do with that why didn't the Board notice the change in spending or say or do anything about it?

And if you want to complain about what I post why not acknowledge that my post was in response to question asked by another poster whom I quoted in my reply so you can't say you didn't know that. Whynis it okay for certain views to be expressed constantly and views you find upsetting shouldn't be?

And why call Peter Hill-Wood a "*word censored*"? Does that help anything? Yes he has been a lousy chairman at times and yes he hurts the club quite often and yes his comments to the AST still are dead wrong.

But there is still no need to call anyone that when they cannot answer for themselves. Call him greedy or irresponsible or foolish, fine, there's a case for all that. But there is no need to call anyone in this more obscene and vulgar names. Just my opinion but the right one I think.

[USMartin]

BTW 1991 you keep saying that - maybe you need to check the needle

[barnetgooner]

Can we get a broken record emoticon?

Dein had a lot, lot less to so with the footballing side of things than people like to believe. Also had he left in 2007 or 2002 I don't think people would be making such a strong connection.

I rather have him than the c**t hill wood though.

I obviously didn't agree with him calling us "silly" last week, but why does everyone hate PHW so much? He was a very minor shareholder so had limited power and he was Chairman (not CEO or any other Executive) so was largely just a figurehead who chaired board meetings etc...

Everyone is wanting "custodians" who don't take money out of the club and that's what PHW was in favour of (shown by his "don't need his money and don't need his sort" comment)

[augie]

Can we get a broken record emoticon?

Dein had a lot, lot less to so with the footballing side of things than people like to believe. Also had he left in 2007 or 2002 I don't think people would be making such a strong connection.

I rather have him than the c**t hill wood though.

I obviously didn't agree with him calling us "silly" last week, but why does everyone hate PHW so much? He was a very minor shareholder so had limited power and he was Chairman (not CEO or any other Executive) so was largely just a figurehead who chaired board meetings etc...

Everyone is wanting "custodians" who don't take money out of the club and that's what PHW was in favour of (shown by his "don't need his money and don't need his sort" comment)

When you only actually own 1% of the shares it is easy for hill wood to say that he doesnt want kroenke's money - he never invested his own money in the club (he inherited all his shares ) and has been selling them gradually for a number of years now so what kind of dividends would a person get on 1% of shares ?

Fact is that this senile old *word censored* has opened his mouth too many occasions in recent years to make embarassing fcuking statements inc the disrespecting club legends like Bergkamp, PV4 and Henry

[USMartin]

Can we get a broken record emoticon?

Dein had a lot, lot less to so with the footballing side of things than people like to believe. Also had he left in 2007 or 2002 I don't think people would be making such a strong connection.

I rather have him than the c**t hill wood though.

I obviously didn't agree with him calling us "silly" last week, but why does everyone hate PHW so much? He was a very minor shareholder so had limited power and he was Chairman (not CEO or any other Executive) so was largely just a figurehead who chaired board meetings etc...

Everyone is wanting "custodians" who don't take money out of the club and that's what PHW was in favour of (shown by his "don't need his money and don't need his sort" comment)

When you only actually own 1% of the shares it is easy for hill wood to say that he doesnt want kroenke's money - he never invested his own money in the club (he inherited all his shares ) and has been selling them gradually for a number of years now so what kind of dividends would a person get on 1% of shares ?

Excellent point here. Quartz said the other day that being rich is not crime, and that is correct. Greed however is a sin, and that is what we are seeing here. Greed. Peter Hill-Wood still would have made 3 million pounds had he sold for 6K a ahre, Lady Nina still sould have made about 50-60 million and dan Fiszman still would make another 40-50 million had they sold at 6K . Inmstaed they backed policies that ultimately doubled the value of their shares but devlaued the performance of the football team that was supposedly at the heart of everything they decided to do.

And like you say Mr Hill-Wood nver paid a penny for his shares. Lady Nina never paid a penny for hers. The Carr family which made millions(I have seen reports stating as much as 23 million) didn't pay a penny for theirs which were bought decades ago, like the shares held by Mr. Hill-Wood and Lady Nina. Ken Friar paid a pittance on his shares - almost certainly less than 1K each. Dan Fiszman never paid more than 2K each.

So why was 6K not high enough? Why was 6500K not high enough for them? They are millionaires even without that money. There can only be one answer - greed..


No one begrudges our Board being wealthy. No one begrudges them making a profit on their investment. But 12K when none of them paid more than 2K, nearly all of them paid less, and many of them never paid at all? Especially when to do that they backed policies that probably cost the football team silverware and turned one of the most beautiful periods in our histopory into something that gets increasingly ugly unless you are one of the shareholders cashing in for millions and even in a couple of cases hundreds of millions. Would a smaller profit and more silverware have been so bad? Apparently so.

[Arsenal 1991]

Can we get a broken record emoticon?

Dein had a lot, lot less to so with the footballing side of things than people like to believe. Also had he left in 2007 or 2002 I don't think people would be making such a strong connection.

I rather have him than the c**t hill wood though.

I obviously didn't agree with him calling us "silly" last week, but why does everyone hate PHW so much? He was a very minor shareholder so had limited power and he was Chairman (not CEO or any other Executive) so was largely just a figurehead who chaired board meetings etc...

Everyone is wanting "custodians" who don't take money out of the club and that's what PHW was in favour of (shown by his "don't need his money and don't need his sort" comment)

When you only actually own 1% of the shares it is easy for hill wood to say that he doesnt want kroenke's money - he never invested his own money in the club (he inherited all his shares ) and has been selling them gradually for a number of years now so what kind of dividends would a person get on 1% of shares ?

Excellent point here. Quartz said the other day that being rich is not crime, and that is correct. Greed however is a sin, and that is what we are seeing here. Greed. Peter Hill-Wood still would have made 3 million pounds had he sold for 6K a ahre, Lady Nina still sould have made about 50-60 million and dan Fiszman still would make another 40-50 million had they sold at 6K . Inmstaed they backed policies that ultimately doubled the value of their shares but devlaued the performance of the football team that was supposedly at the heart of everything they decided to do.

And like you say Mr Hill-Wood nver paid a penny for his shares. Lady Nina never paid a penny for hers. The Carr family which made millions(I have seen reports stating as much as 23 million) didn't pay a penny for theirs which were bought decades ago, like the shares held by Mr. Hill-Wood and Lady Nina. Ken Friar paid a pittance on his shares - almost certainly less than 1K each. Dan Fiszman never paid more than 2K each.

So why was 6K not high enough? Why was 6500K not high enough for them? They are millionaires even without that money. There can only be one answer - greed..


No one begrudges our Board being wealthy. No one begrudges them making a profit on their investment. But 12K when none of them paid more than 2K, nearly all of them paid less, and many of them never paid at all? Especially when to do that they backed policies that probably cost the football team silverware and turned one of the most beautiful periods in our histopory into something that gets increasingly ugly unless you are one of the shareholders cashing in for millions and even in a couple of cases hundreds of millions. Would a smaller profit and more silverware have been so bad? Apparently so.

Ok, let's say that's truly what happened what do you propose now?

What exactly is it you want.?

[augie]

Personally I want an owner that is going to shake the club up a bit and not just meander down the same road as we have been on for the last few seasons. Too many employee's (manager, coaching staff, medical staff and players) have been on easy street and not been made accountable for their performances and that needs to change if this club is to progress. I cannot understand how any owner/investor worth his salt couldnt see how a team that is not winning trophies will affect the commercial value of his investment - yes for the previous board all they wanted was a short term rise in value price but for kroenke or whoever will be negotiating commercial and sponsorship deals going forward they must know that no trophies equals lower market price

If kroenke isnt the man to shake things up then I hope he sells out to usmanov cos I have a feeling that he understands the value of success and finishing in the top 4 alone isnt it and should not be the height of our ambition/expectations

[QuartzGooner]

USMartin

At the risk of going round in circles...

Share prices rose because of Kroenke and Usmanov's interest in the club.

Wenger has not spent money that we have.

You cannot say that the board prevented player purchases in order to raise share price.

Belt tightening and prudence the season when the new stadium was opened, yes indeed.
But now, the past three seasons?

It is not provable, and it is not certainly the case, it is just your conjecture.
Not when we are supposed to have bid large amounts for Melo and Reina.

[augie]

USMartin

At the risk of going round in circles...

Share prices rose because of Kroenke and Usmanov's interest in the club.

Wenger has not spent money that we have.

You cannot say that the board prevented player purchases in order to raise share price.
Belt tightening and prudence the season when the new stadium was opened, yes indeed.
But now, the past three seasons?

It is not provable, and it is not certainly the case, it is just your conjecture.
Not when we are supposed to have bid large amounts for Melo and Reina.

Quartz I agree totally that the board did not stop wenger spending the money that was available BUT they also stood back when wenger continued down a road that everybody bar wenger could see wasnt going to work out and THEY DID NOTHING In any business or club management are responsible for the performance of the staff working below them and just as wenger is culpable for his players shitiness so too are the board for wenger's mis-management
Of course by allowing wenger to continue down that non spending route it allowed the balance sheet to look good thus increasing their share prices so they personally were on a winner then

[USMartin]

USMartin

At the risk of going round in circles...

Share prices rose because of Kroenke and Usmanov's interest in the club.

Wenger has not spent money that we have.

You cannot say that the board prevented player purchases in order to raise share price.

Belt tightening and prudence the season when the new stadium was opened, yes indeed.
But now, the past three seasons?

It is not provable, and it is not certainly the case, it is just your conjecture.
Not when we are supposed to have bid large amounts for Melo and Reina.

Wait it is not provable and certainly not the case are two very different things aren't tehy?

After all I would suggest it's not provable that more money isd actually being made available to spend on the team is it? And you yourself are unwilling - or maybe that's just unable - to prove that it is.

If you have any courage behind your convictions they should be made to stand to same evidentiary standards you hold mine too if they have any objectivity to them no?

After all the only real evidence you have that the additional money is being made available to spend is that the money is on the accounts. Again show me just the one piece of evidence beyond that.

My sense is you have not one real piece of varifiable evidence supporting your contentrion other than your desire to believe it.

Does that make you wrong? No. But does it prove you right? No. Just as you would say of my views which frankly have far more varifiable evidence supporting them. Indeed you are already at the point of condemning them for lacking a smoking gun when your beliefs don't even have a whiff of smoke to point to.

It would dangerous and foolish to rule out any possibility at this point, I sincerely hope you realize that as much as I do. I guaratee that if the same exact things were happening the same excat way at s***s that when were finished laughing you would come to see what I see is far more likely than you are willing to admit now.

[Arsenal Till I Die]

Is Kroenke our owner now? Like 100% kooshdy?

[USMartin]

Quartz seriously you're view seems to the following since there is not sufficient evidence to supportm my contention that is proof that it simply is not happening.

But while you offer no proof at all to support yourcontention you want to believe it and therfore it must be happening.

Just show me something that makes the above wrong.. If you do not I think it''s only fair to say you cannot produce any evidence to support what you believe because there is none, and you say my view isn't provavble enough which isn't lacking any proof whatsoever like your theory apparently is.

[USMartin]

USMartin

At the risk of going round in circles...

Share prices rose because of Kroenke and Usmanov's interest in the club.

Wenger has not spent money that we have.

You cannot say that the board prevented player purchases in order to raise share price.
Belt tightening and prudence the season when the new stadium was opened, yes indeed.
But now, the past three seasons?

It is not provable, and it is not certainly the case, it is just your conjecture.
Not when we are supposed to have bid large amounts for Melo and Reina.

Quartz I agree totally that the board did not stop wenger spending the money that was available BUT they also stood back when wenger continued down a road that everybody bar wenger could see wasnt going to work out and THEY DID NOTHING In any business or club management are responsible for the performance of the staff working below them and just as wenger is culpable for his players shitiness so too are the board for wenger's mis-management
Of course by allowing wenger to continue down that non spending route it allowed the balance sheet to look good thus increasing their share prices so they personally were on a winner then

I diosagree with your premise to an extent but it is certainly more viable than the coincidence theory on offer from too many.