Nigerian Billionaire interested in Arsenal Takeover?

[yeahbaby]

serious businessman...4 decades...nigeria...

definitly no history of corruption or even just a bit of blood on his hands then

you're right - english businessmen aren't corrupt at all...................

oh wait.

[yeahbaby]

Nigerian Student Fraud.....

Scam emails from Nigeria.....

The Nigerian I used to work with who got sacked for "amending" his exam results....

A country seemingly always teetering on the edge of civil war.....

I know nothing about this guy......but any mention of Nigeria would make me walk away!

rip off tradesmen

political corruption

cash for questions

mp expenses

illegal wars in other countries

oh wait which country are we making ignorant generalisations about again?

[chyren1]

i dont think you get the grasps of african business do you?
but for a businessman to last over 4 decades in africa...
nothing dodgy at all there...
and until i m really stupid,i dont think the african and english businessmen were abiding by the same rules...

[yeahbaby]

After reading all the bollocks on this thread () there is nothing racist at all on it. It is fair comment to be concerned about the nationality of someone rummered to be interested in your club, as nationality can include multiple races. It is particularly fair comment if the individual is from a country that is world renowned for corruption on a massive scale.

Don't be so quick to wave the racist card, lads.

what has their nationality got to do with anything at all?

[yeahbaby]

I got a really good joke but people might take offence to its racism if I was Reg. D. Hunter I could get away with it why cant people realise its just humour I dont mean anything by it make jokes about me back at me and have a laugh its all some fun who wants to hear the joke?

chris rock does a very good routine about this which i understand - basically whoever is the oppressed, the lower, the more disadvantaged can take the mick out of the better off but not the other way around.

so in society it's ok for fat people to take the mick out of thin but not the other way round

ok for poor to take the mick out of rich but not the other way around

ok for disabled to take the mick out of non-disabled but not the other way round

etc

[chyren1]

you re still here?
you got to move on man...

sage

[yeahbaby]

i dont think you get the grasps of african business do you?
but for a businessman to last over 4 decades in africa...
nothing dodgy at all there...
and until i m really stupid,i dont think the african and english businessmen were abiding by the same rules...

lol the rules are simple - money talks
english business is AS corrupt we're just much better at being more subtle about it

[chyren1]

you still dont get it...
but whatever makes you happy on this nice day...

i ll drink to that...
the rest s just mere details we ll never agree on

sage

[VforVictory]

No.
The board went for more money, but over a longer period of time. I cannot say if it was for the good or bad. If Highbury was sold off then we might have had more or better players, but the board might have used the money to pay ahead on the stadium loan before it was restructured as a bond, and so it would not have affected the playing side.

Trouble is you haven't answered the question - you have tried to change it. No one asked about what they MIGHT have done but what they DID IN FACT do. And yes you can say it was for the goosd or bad - yopu presuppose what else they might have done if they hadn't done that so you can suppose the impact of what they did do. Again do you support what they did or not? Was it best for Arsenal Football Club?


vforvictorysays:

It did not allow the team to be at maximum strength 2005 - 2010. But whther a team stronger by the £30M you says was the cost, woudl have won the league 2005 - 2010, is very debatable. This season I think possible but unlikely, 2008 probable, other years no.

The fans have not always got on with the board. Plenty, including me, were unhappy when Don Howe was sacked.

That is not what's meant here and you more than know that. The point is too many Gooners simply trusted as you suggest earlier what the Board decided it wanted to tell us within legal obligations - r=ahter than telling the truth about their plans and the impact of tthose plans on the football team. And too many Gooners were all too happy just tao accept what they said as as another Board apolgist once described it "100% guaranteed fact" because the Board was saying it.

vforvictorysays:

Most Gooners had no idea how things would turn out. Did the board lie to us saying the plans would have no effect on players? Some board members did. But Wenger said he went for youth because of the cost of the property development.

That is a moot point. As I say above, Highbury sold off as a lump sum would have been interesting if the money was put into the team, but maybe Chelsea would have upped the ante again to negate that team investment?

That's just it - its not a moot point at all. If supporters put some real pressure on the Board it might have made some difference and might still now. I know if I lived in England I would never have missed a single meeting over these issues and never stopped pressing them to be clear and transparent about their actions and motives. I regret that I don't live there which each new disappointment this redevelopment leads to.

vforvictory says:

Dein wanted to avoid the property development, but if he as Vice-Chairman could not pursuade other board members to do so, with respect, how could you?

Its not moot at all - you just lack the will to question a lifetime of trust in how Arsenal operates - in the Arsenal Way and its custodians. I almost suspect questioning them in the first place is more uncomfortable even than the actual answers you might uncover or confirm.

vforvictory says:

Not at all. But I do not agree with all that you say, and believe there were other reasons for developing the new stadium other than raising share price.


BTW what Chelsea MIGHT have done again is irrelevant. This is about what our Board DID. They put maximizing profit and therefore share price ahead of giving the football team the best possible chance to succeed. Indeed that is NOT the Arsenal Way.

vforvictory says:

Another view says they knew they could not immediately compete with what was being spent at Chelsea, so "sat out" a few seasons and chose to build infrastructure that would allow us to compete in the longer term.

The Arsenal way would be to live within your means and put the best possible team on the pitch you could. The Arsenal Board made that impossible - which is the opposite of what they are supposed to do.

vforvictory says:

You pick your battles.


="VforVictory"]A major new stadium, plus social housing, can only be judged in the long term, especially in light of future possible legislation Platini wants to implement to make clubs live within their means, and increasing globalisation of the game.

Again irrelevant - we are not debating the merits of Bilding the new stadium but of not selling Highbury to a developer. You are trying to convince others and perhps yourself that we cannot decide the merits of that decision now wehn that simply is untrue. Its clear who benefitted from that decision and how and its equally clear that Arsenal Football Club suffered for it. We do not need five years let alone fifty to come to that conclusion.


vforvictory says:

I disagree with you for reasons previously mentioned.

OK. Well my point was Cole was offered 55 and told to take it or leave it, that the agent's fees had to come out of that. Cole said no the fees must be on top. I was not aware that Cole wanted 60 with agent's fees on top of that, so if that is the figure I am corrected.

And my point was the premise you continue to maintain in the above quote is as incorrect as your math was.

Agebt's fees had NOTHING to do with the failure to come to an agreement with Ashley Cole - the numbers prove it.

1) if they wanted 60 K plus agents fees where is the total they wanted there has to be such a number be 60,001 k, 65,000 K or 70,000,000K. Where's that number?

2) IF the issue was the Board not paying over 60K why then did they never offer 60K and say we are willing to pay Ashley 60K but not include additional agents fees. If the issue is over whether to pay 60 K or more offering 55K is a funny way to address that to say the least.

Seems to me again you are trying to change the argument to one you feel you can win rather than argue the relevant facts.[/quote]

vforvictory says:

So are you saying, that what is written below is incorrect?

From Gunnerblog, September 2006

http://gunnerblog.com/?p=393

His [Cole's] first major error is that in spite of promising to tell us all the “shattering truthâ€

[USMartin]

[quote="VforVictory"] So are you saying, that what is written below is incorrect?

From Gunnerblog, September 2006

http://gunnerblog.com/?p=393

His [Cole's] first major error is that in spite of promising to tell us all the “shattering truthâ€

[USMartin]

It did not allow the team to be at maximum strength 2005 - 2010. But whther a team stronger by the £30M you says was the cost, woudl have won the league 2005 - 2010, is very debatable. This season I think possible but unlikely, 2008 probable, other years no.

No but it would not have been 30 million - but closer to 70 million. Look at numbers pre re-development

-260 M -60M by 2010 and 65-70M from selling Highbury available immed.

and post re-development

-370 M -170 M by 2010 and NOTHING available before 2010 for the loans

JUST A BIT of a difference eh?

Actually its a HUGE difference and a much less financially mangeable situation. But the idea that only an additional 30 million would have been available is just inaccuirate. At least doubel that would have been avaialble.

Most Gooners had no idea how things would turn out. Did the board lie to us saying the plans would have no effect on players? Some board members did. But Wenger said he went for youth because of the cost of the property development.

All you've done is confirm what I have said - that the Highbury re-development forced the manager to be=reak us his team and without the abuility to invest inproper replacements. And who undertook the Highbury re-development - the Arsenal Board. Who recommended Keith Edelman a member of the Arsenal Board. And who so far has experienced benefit from it - the Arsenal Board

And if most Gooners hadn't simply trusted the Board and simply done a BIT of homework on what they were telling us and whether it passed muster they might have seen what some of us began to see five years ago or sooner - that this re-development project wasn't in Arsenal's best interest.

Dein wanted to avoid the property development, but if he as Vice-Chairman could not pursuade other board members to do so, with respect, how could you?

I I don't know if I would have been able to convince them not to do it, but then if all they were thinking was about selling out at huge personal profits I could at act as David Dein did for the club. He failed but to me he did the right thing moreso than the rest of the Board. And history may even tell us that's not the case. With this kind of money involved blind trust and blinder faith should be not be our first instinct period. Money makes people do things you didn't think they could do - and neither did they.

Another view says they knew they could not immediately compete with what was being spent at Chelsea, so "sat out" a few seasons and chose to build infrastructure that would allow us to compete in the longer term.

No offense but you have a lot more credibility when you make one argument, never mind how strategically flawed that philosophy would be if it were even vaguely possible. Seriously, I may be right or wrong, but I stand by what I believe instead of offering new explanations for the same view when the previous one is shot down. To be fair you haven't shot any down yet but as you get to know me you'll see my views remain consistent so long as we have the evidence we do to consider. I have felt pretty much as I do since 2005 and before even. If anything time and the information gathered over that toime has only strengthened my views and the case for them.

You pick your battles.

Ah yes, the gallant failure/ brave attempt theory. Rubbish - They picked this "battle" solely out of because they knew how THEY PERSONALLY could benefit regardless of the impact on the club. Re-developing Highbury ourselves was NEVER in the best interest of Arsenal Football Club in 2005 and has proven not to be every empty disappointing frustrating year since. But if you go to PlusMarketsGroup and review the 5 year chart for the share price you can see the SOLE reason our Board chose to do this.

I disagree with you for reasons previously mentioned.

As yes in 50 to 100 years we'll all see how the re-development benefitted Arsenal Football Club. And if we don't oh well you'll all be dead anyway so what will you care then.

[VforVictory]

[quote="USMartin"][quote="VforVictory"] So are you saying, that what is written below is incorrect?

From Gunnerblog, September 2006

http://gunnerblog.com/?p=393

His [Cole's] first major error is that in spite of promising to tell us all the “shattering truthâ€

[VforVictory]

It did not allow the team to be at maximum strength 2005 - 2010. But whther a team stronger by the £30M you says was the cost, woudl have won the league 2005 - 2010, is very debatable. This season I think possible but unlikely, 2008 probable, other years no.

No but it would not have been 30 million - but closer to 70 million. Look at numbers pre re-development

-260 M -60M by 2010 and 65-70M from selling Highbury available immed.

and post re-development

-370 M -170 M by 2010 and NOTHING available before 2010 for the loans

JUST A BIT of a difference eh?


vforvictory says:

A clear difference, But as you yourself said, the club went for the longer term (hoped for and achieved) profit on developing Highbury rather than selling it.

Actually its a HUGE difference and a much less financially mangeable situation. But the idea that only an additional 30 million would have been available is just inaccuirate. At least doubel that would have been avaialble.

Most Gooners had no idea how things would turn out. Did the board lie to us saying the plans would have no effect on players? Some board members did. But Wenger said he went for youth because of the cost of the property development.

All you've done is confirm what I have said - that the Highbury re-development forced the manager to be=reak us his team and without the abuility to invest inproper replacements. And who undertook the Highbury re-development - the Arsenal Board. Who recommended Keith Edelman a member of the Arsenal Board. And who so far has experienced benefit from it - the Arsenal Board

And if most Gooners hadn't simply trusted the Board and simply done a BIT of homework on what they were telling us and whether it passed muster they might have seen what some of us began to see five years ago or sooner - that this re-development project wasn't in Arsenal's best interest.

Another view says they knew they could not immediately compete with what was being spent at Chelsea, so "sat out" a few seasons and chose to build infrastructure that would allow us to compete in the longer term.

No offense but you have a lot more credibility when you make one argument, never mind how strategically flawed that philosophy would be if it were even vaguely possible. Seriously, I may be right or wrong, but I stand by what I believe instead of offering new explanations for the same view when the previous one is shot down.


vforvictory says:


There are many arguments on this, and points of view from different perspectives to your own.
It is perfectly vaild to discuss them, there is no loss of credibility by examining various angles on this.

To be fair you haven't shot any down yet but as you get to know me you'll see my views remain consistent so long as we have the evidence we do to consider. I have felt pretty much as I do since 2005 and before even. If anything time and the information gathered over that toime has only strengthened my views and the case for them.

You pick your battles.

Ah yes, the gallant failure/ brave attempt theory. Rubbish - They picked this "battle" solely out of because they knew how THEY PERSONALLY could benefit regardless of the impact on the club. Re-developing Highbury ourselves was NEVER in the best interest of Arsenal Football Club in 2005 and has proven not to be every empty disappointing frustrating year since. But if you go to PlusMarketsGroup and review the 5 year chart for the share price you can see the SOLE reason our Board chose to do this.

vforvictory says:

My opinion differs.

I disagree with you for reasons previously mentioned.

As yes in 50 to 100 years we'll all see how the re-development benefitted Arsenal Football Club. And if we don't oh well you'll all be dead anyway so what will you care then.

vforvictory says:

I could well be alive in 50 years.

Even if not, I will care about the club for sake of future generations.

[USMartin]

Well then whatever the truth is is unclear. Two different versions in circulation.

Sure a blog with unsubtatntiated information and an Official Premier League Investigation using tesimony form parties involved including officials of Arsenal F.C . have the same credibility. That's a reach even for this discussion.

Did I say that Wenger decides the budget! No.
Board sets the overall budget, Wenger decides how to spend it.

No the evidence suggests the Board has a huge say in how its spent as they control the wages we pay out. If they won't pay x amount in wages no point in even bidding for certain players. So I'd say Mr. Wenger only decides how to spend within the limits.

But Highbury has yielded a profit. A gamble, but it was profitable.

It was not a gamble - and it was merely slightly more profitable than selling it. But was that 30 million worht the price the club paid for it? I think if we had been told the truth NO Gooner would have been willing to support that particular project - which as you point out was unecessary to the building of the new stadium

A clear difference, But as you yourself said, the club went for the longer term (hoped for and achieved) profit on developing Highbury rather than selling it.

On no - I have NEVER said they went for the long term. I think and have stated their thinking was purely short-term and saying otherwise would be patently dishonest. There is no long term or short term interest Arsenal Football Club had in redveloping Highbury ourselves especially given that we had to borrow 110 million more pounds to do it.

In theory our club made an additional ONE or MAYBE TWO years worth of additional annual stadium loan re-payments which really were unecessary under the term of our loan repayment, and the increased annual profits from the new stadium so again I see no more long-term benefit to the club as yet any more than any of us have seem a hint of any short term benefit.

There are many arguments on this, and points of view from different perspectives to your own.
It is perfectly vaild to discuss them, there is no loss of credibility by examining various angles on this.

No you cannot defend the Board's actions because you at best don't understand them if you are seriously contemplating all these disperate ideas to explain one circumstance.

I could well be alive in 50 years.

Good - you'll buy the first round then

I could well be alive in 50 years.

Even if not, I will care about the club for sake of future generations.

* WIPING TEARS FROM EYES*

Seriously whhile I admire the sentiments you express above you have acknowledged the re-development of Highbury by the club was unecessary to building the new stadium and hence unecessary to the club's long-term survival so your dramatic sentiments while moving are just a bit disingenuous. The re-development of Highbury was not necessary to the completion of the new stadium or the survivbal of Arsenal Football Club.

Indeed if anything the Board chose to risk the club's long-term survival in pursuit of an increased sshort-term profit and the impact that would have on the club's profits and its share price. If anything they disregarded the potential damage to the club that could and some of which did result.

So excuse me if your noble statement is less than genuinely moving given the circumstances.

[VforVictory]

Well then whatever the truth is is unclear. Two different versions in circulation.

Sure a blog with unsubtatntiated information and an Official Premier League Investigation using tesimony form parties involved including officials of Arsenal F.C . have the same credibility. That's a reach even for this discussion.

vforvictory says:

Gunnerblog reflects a widely held view amongst fans and Arsenal "commentators/bloggers". I understand you putting documentary evidence above all else, but there is such a thing as "reading between the lines".

Did I say that Wenger decides the budget! No.
Board sets the overall budget, Wenger decides how to spend it.

No the evidence suggests the Board has a huge say in how its spent as they control the wages we pay out. If they won't pay x amount in wages no point in even bidding for certain players. So I'd say Mr. Wenger only decides how to spend within the limits.

vforvictory says:

This is where things are bizarre, and unclear. Wenger was seemingly told what Cole's wages should be, or rather, what their upper limit should be. Yet Cole had plenty of time left on his contract. Why was it even being negotiated? Why was he agitating for more money? Why are we told Wenger is given a figure each summer for combined wages and transfers. Why do so many people around the club express wonder at Wenger's "control"?

But Highbury has yielded a profit. A gamble, but it was profitable.

It was not a gamble - and it was merely slightly more profitable than selling it. But was that 30 million worht the price the club paid for it? I think if we had been told the truth NO Gooner would have been willing to support that particular project - which as you point out was unecessary to the building of the new stadium

vforvictory says:

Profitable = yes, Neccessary = no. But I never said otherwise.

A clear difference, But as you yourself said, the club went for the longer term (hoped for and achieved) profit on developing Highbury rather than selling it.

On no - I have NEVER said they went for the long term. I think and have stated their thinking was purely short-term and saying otherwise would be patently dishonest. There is no long term or short term interest Arsenal Football Club had in redveloping Highbury ourselves especially given that we had to borrow 110 million more pounds to do it.

In theory our club made an additional ONE or MAYBE TWO years worth of additional annual stadium loan re-payments which really were unecessary under the term of our loan repayment, and the increased annual profits from the new stadium so again I see no more long-term benefit to the club as yet any more than any of us have seem a hint of any short term benefit.


vfovictory says:

I see it as of long term benefit. If you did not say it was, then I accept that, certainly in light of your thinking.

There are many arguments on this, and points of view from different perspectives to your own.
It is perfectly vaild to discuss them, there is no loss of credibility by examining various angles on this.

No you cannot defend the Board's actions because you at best don't understand them if you are seriously contemplating all these disperate ideas to explain one circumstance.

vforvictory says:

You have a fixed idea of events and are pushing your "line" at every opportunity on various threads here.
I do not, and look at different factors and events around the club.

I could well be alive in 50 years.

Good - you'll buy the first round then

I could well be alive in 50 years.

Even if not, I will care about the club for sake of future generations.

* WIPING TEARS FROM EYES*

Seriously whhile I admire the sentiments you express above you have acknowledged the re-development of Highbury by the club was unecessary to building the new stadium and hence unecessary to the club's long-term survival so your dramatic sentiments while moving are just a bit disingenuous. The re-development of Highbury was not necessary to the completion of the new stadium or the survivbal of Arsenal Football Club.

Indeed if anything the Board chose to risk the club's long-term survival in pursuit of an increased sshort-term profit and the impact that would have on the club's profits and its share price. If anything they disregarded the potential damage to the club that could and some of which did result.

vforvictory says:

I do not believe at all the stadium and Highbury development put the club's long term survival at risk. The club is in a healthier financial position that many of it's rivals, and does not depend on sugar daddy, though who knows if one might take over the club?

So excuse me if your noble statement is less than genuinely moving given the circumstances.

vforvictory asks:

What are you going to do about your dislike of the board? Is it any use shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?