More Important Than Football

[gus ceasar is a legend]

Some posts are factual, some posts are opinion and some are just ill-informed shit!

Guess what I think this is!

[thatgooner]

Some posts are factual, some posts are opinion and some are just ill-informed shit!

Guess what I think this is!

factual?

[T.S]

Yeah i do,
fair enough, our board aren't exactly saints, But i dont think that they compare to what kronke and especially usmanov stand for.

And do you know exactly what Stan Kroenke stands for? Because if you do, please enlighten me, because I don't know the man so I couldn't really say. I could look it up on Wikipedia, but then I'd only be getting someone else's opinion and not the facts. I'm sure Stan Kroenke is actually a nice man. Do I want him running my football club? No, but I would not be ignorant enough to read a one sided, completely unbalanced thread on a fanzine's forum and then pretend I know what he 'stands for'.

Gooners on this board dislike the whole Emirates stadium concept, I think that if SK or Usmanov buy us out eveything will be to make money, everything will be sponsered and we would have no control.

Mate, I don't know which team you've been following, but what you've just described there is exactly how it is now...

[thatgooner]

Its not tho, because now there are shareholders, multiple board members and supporters trusts.
But if the takeover happens and he gets a 90% share then he HAS to take the club private and then he can do what he likes...

And your right i dont KNOW anything about SK but for me he stands for making our club into another Man u or Chelsea. And personally i wouldnt like to see that.

[T.S]

That's fair enough. I think we all agree that our Club going down that road would definitely be a bad thing. However, although if I had to guess, I'd say his intentions for the Club would be along the same lines as the Glazers', I couldn't say for sure. After all, this man has a lot of money invested in sports teams. Maybe he has a love for sport and wants to try his hand at 'soccer'. Who knows? I don't really want to find out though, as I'm against the idea of a takeover at this moment in time, anyway.

As for the takeover killing off supporters trusts and multiple board members, this wouldn't necessarily be the case. I don't know the ins and outs of it all, but can't someone be in control of the Club with a 51% stake? Argh, I'm getting in to facts and figures now, of which I know fuck all about, so I'm just going to leave it there. Where's stats when you need him?!

[Belfast Boy]

This thread is a bit of a minefield, but I agree with a bit of what everyone has said, is our board whiter than white? - no.......... there again, is anybody??? particularly amongst, as has already been pointed out, the super rich!
Could our current board be better - absolutely, I even meant to add on a fairly recent thread that when I met PHW at the Opus launch I was under no doubt he was just a figurehead, unfortunately he was straining to see me as I approached him, was wearing hearing aids and only actually stayed for about 20mins before I saw him head into the lift, above all, he looked tired, and is probably only there to project stability for obvious reasons but I don't think he can be far from retiring from professional life completely!
The flip side to all this tho is could things be worse, now I don't think I have to go into the perils of being owned by SK or worse still AU, cos I'm sure everybodys imaginations are runnin riot and not for the better either, but things could be much worse even now, cos even tho our new stadium was built heavily off the back off sponsored dosh, it is still a lovely stadium, unlike the Reebok or worse still The Madejski which is more like a shrine to the owners ego than to the club it's supposed to represent!
Keeping with the uglier side of the modern game for the moment, I think that it's a bit harsh to credit DD with his feel and perhaps more recently, obsession, with big business, bringin the club out of the dark ages as far as merchandising and stuff is concerned but critisizing people like Keith Edelman for changing the crest for copyrighting purposes, but I would like to go firmly on the record as sayin that they've gone too far with the "Gooner" thing, I must say I'm disappointed to say the least!
Concerning the appointment of AW, I doubt even DD could've known just how successful not to mention powerful he would become to the point where he has rendered the man himself obsolete, but I think it was his lust for power which ultimately led to his downfall, but I will still always be eternally grateful for his vision for altho the board deserve a great deal of credit for where we are now eg the daring stadium project and providing the right environment for AW to work his magic it was DD who literally had to browbeat the board for a year into letting AW take over but was initially out-voted as the board went with Rioch, so as has been said if it weren't for DD's vision and subsequent persistence in the face of oppostion from the rest of the board who IMO he kept his distance from as he always had his own designs for the club, then we unquestionably would not be where we are now!

[DB10GOONER]

I say; if you had to choose; The current board (and let's not forget the serious success we've had under them) or another team's board, I would choose our board every time no matter how many faults we find with them (and let's be honest, there are many).

I also think that some of the posters on here are a little bit too quick to write off other people's opinions to the point of being insulting. No post by a Gooner is utter shite or pure rubbish. We all have opinions and every one of us should be able to express our opinions without ridicule on the Gooner Forum - it's what has made this forum so much better than the usual "You're a crunt" - "No you're a crunt" forums.

Yes, it's 2 in the morning and Mr Beer has had me over the counter a couple of times but let's remember; WE ALL LOVE THE ARSENAL. BE NICE KIDS...

AND WE JUST OUT PLAYED AND OUT MUSCLED OUR INFAMOUS "BOGEY TEAM" (c) THE SUN.

[Cus Geezer]

You harp on about economic instability in Russia like you give a fuck,

You accuse me of being disingenuous and then come out with your own faux liberal quote

But the reason that I took such issue with this thread you started is the fact that it seems so xenophobic and bloody narrow minded.

I mean what country on earth has probably the least interest in Football - America, though which sport generates the most profits - Football. And Stan is not a Milan Mandaric figure who's been involved in the game since it's NASL days, his involvement has been very recent. The current board take no dividends, can we be sure that this will continue with Kroenke?

If corporate America couldn't give two shits for abiding by US employment laws in it's treatment of its workers, or its workers in China and Bangladesh (and unlike referring to Peter Hill-Wood's forefathers, this is Kroenke's wife's business), could it really give two shits for North London and its football fans. It's our money, it's our business, if we want to take the profits from here to fund the Detriot Spinners (or whatever franchise he owns over there) we'll fucking do it. You're just the consumers and if you don't like it fuck off elsewhere (knowing full well we will not be funding competitors like Spurs or Chelsea and still give in to the kiddies demands for a new Arsenal kit).

[highburyJD]

gr8 original post

but this argument is getting bogged down
I actually agree with a lot of the political points Cus made
(and to automatically dismiss something cos its on wiki is as silly as automatically believing it)

but imo it comes down to a pretty simple point

'investors' only invest to take profit out
and I'm against that as an Arsenal fan

[26may1989]

Tony, what the fuck are you on about? You talk sense so often and yet your reaction to Cus's post is completely over the top.

Of course his post is one-sided, this is a bloody fans' online forum, not the BBC. And who gives a toss if it's poorly researched?? Better that people express themselves than worry about getting it right (whatever that means).

Cus didn't make you waste any time reading "one sided drivel" - if you don't like it, don't read it. And to call anything anyone posts here "drivel" is pretty shitty, especially from someone who does site admin. Cus makes some perfectly good points - I may not agree with all of them, but plenty of others have agreed with him, which suggests it's anything but drivel.

You ask what the export of billions from Russia has got to do with football. When I see Abramovich having spent almost £1billion acquired from the Russian people when it's government was on its knees on buying and funding Chelsea, I know the answer to that question. Not every football fan cares too much about politics but thank fuck some, like Cus, know that a football club is a poor thing to waste a country's wealth on.

In short Tony, you're way of of line. I look forward to the return of normal service from you.

[T.S]

I don't think I was out of line. I actually encouraged Cus's point of view and reiterated that I had no problem with him. What's more, I even went on to suggest that perhaps I was talking shit, as it wouldn't be the first time.

I merely disagreed with him but was quite passionate about it. I explained why, and that was because it was so narrow minded and possibly a little xenophobic. I didn't get personal with him and did not insult him. I described his post as 'drivel' because I thought that best described it. And you know what? I'm actually allowed to say things like that if that's truly what I think.

Of course his post is one-sided, this is a bloody fans' online forum, not the BBC. And who gives a toss if it's poorly researched?? Better that people express themselves than worry about getting it right (whatever that means).

Sorry, but that's rubbish (hope that wasn't out of line). Who cares if it's well researched?! Well, if we're saying "I think Senderos is a good defender," against "I think Senderos is shit," the level of research isn't too important. However, if you're going to write something as deep as this (which, again, I really encourage), you had better get your facts right, otherwise, there is no point writing it. Things like this are not a matter of opinion. Basically, Cus's post was very aggressive in its stance against Kroenke (and to a lesser extent, Usmanov) and if you're going to be that bold in what you say, it would make sense to ensure that you're correct, or at least aware of BOTH SIDES of the argument concerned.

Cus didn't make you waste any time reading "one sided drivel" - if you don't like it, don't read it.

Well how would I know I wouldn't like it if I didn't read it first?

And to call anything anyone posts here "drivel" is pretty shitty

No it isn't. This, unlike most of Cus's post was a matter of opinion. I wasn't going around telling other people what to think. I was merely expressing how I felt about it. Anyway, I've had my posts called worse things than that a few times, and quite rightly so (I admit it). Again, I would point out that if you're going to write such a serious piece, you should be prepared for negative comments as well as positive. Not everyone is going to like what you wrote, and you know what? They're entitled to think so, too.

You ask what the export of billions from Russia has got to do with football. When I see Abramovich having spent almost £1billion acquired from the Russian people when it's government was on its knees on buying and funding Chelsea, I know the answer to that question. Not every football fan cares too much about politics but thank fuck some, like Cus, know that a football club is a poor thing to waste a country's wealth on.

I didn't ask what exporting billions from Russia had to do with football, I asked what a specific paragraph had to do with Arsenal Football Club. The answer was; nothing. What Abramovich does with his money is completely down to him. He has no obligation to the poverty stricken in Russia. He can do what he likes. I'm not saying that investing billions in a football club is a morally just thing to do, nor am I saying that he obtained that wealth legally, but seriously, what do you want him to do? Say "oh, Russia needs my help...Super Roman to the rescue!!" and then throw shit loads of cash at them? This is what I mean, things are NOT as black and white as this. In actual fact, Cus was talking about economic instability in Russia, to which I said to him, 'where do you think the west's economic stability is coming from?' I got no response. I dig that you guys having a different opinion to mine, I really do, but it just pisses me off when I raise counter arguments and they get ignored, and then someone like you has a go at me for what I said, but won't even address the points I've raised.

In short Tony, you're way of of line. I look forward to the return of normal service from you.

Well I appreciate that you think I talk sense most of the time. I can't help but disagree with you, but whatever you say! For the record, I'm glad Cus didn't get pissed off with my response to him. His response was a good one, and he clearly feels very passionately about this, which is a good thing.

By all means, think that I'm wrong, but don't tell me I was out of line when all I was doing was writing equally as passionately as Cus, just in the opposite direction.

[26may1989]

Very little of what I read on this forum (whether written by people I agree with or not) is well researched or balanced, and bloody good thing too. If I want balance and research, onlinegooner is about the last place I'll look. If I want a relaxed exchange of views, gossip, conspiracy theories, anti-Chelsea insults, trivia and jokes with fellow Arsenal obsessives, this is one place I'll head.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't object to Kroenke going onto the board and breathing some life into it, but Cus raises interesting points about Kroenke, as well as the slug Dein brought in. If Cus is wrong or biased, someone else is pretty sure to pull him up. Of course Cus can look after himself, and probably isn't too worried about your tirade. My objection is to you appearing to dictate how someone else should go about posting their opinions on this forum. I know you wrote several times that you encourage people to make their views known; but you contradict yourself by attacking on the basis of not being balanced etc - i.e., there are criteria to be met for a valid post to be made. Nothing you say would put me off posting anything I like, and the same probably applies to most others, but what if someone took you at face value and thought they had to meet certain criteria before they could post something?

But I've made my points now, that's enough for me.

Looking forward to seeing your next post, on another thread.

[highburyJD]

What Abramovich does with his money is completely down to him. He has no obligation to the poverty stricken in Russia. He can do what he likes. I'm not saying that investing billions in a football club is a morally just thing to do, nor am I saying that he obtained that wealth legally, but seriously, what do you want him to do? Say "oh, Russia needs my help...Super Roman to the rescue!!" and then throw shit loads of cash at them? This is what I mean, things are NOT as black and white as this. In actual fact, Cus was talking about economic instability in Russia, to which I said to him, 'where do you think the west's economic stability is coming from?' I got no response. I dig that you guys having a different opinion to mine, I really do, but it just pisses me off when I raise counter arguments and they get ignored, and then someone like you has a go at me for what I said, but won't even address the points I've raised.

I'll try and address some of the points you've raised
-what abramovitch does with his money is completely down to him
he has no obligation to the poverty stricken

an almost insane point
here's a quick parrallell:
you are trekking across the desert with me
I nick all your water and have more than I can drink whilst you are dying
you ask for some of your water back and I say
'what I do with my water is down to me
I have no obligation to the thirst stricken'

abramovitch's gangsterish 'disaster capitalism' was blatant theft
he has made sure to get all of it out of russia so no future dumas can get it back

to carry on the desert parrallell he poured some water on the sand
which helped make a good sandcastle
now he's pointlessly pouring away gallons more trying to make a moat

but who cares- its not his water, he has more water than he can drink
and he has no obligation to the thirst stricken from whom he stole the water

next instability in russia = stability in the west.
during the cold war the west had zero financial dependency on russia
other than as an excuse to escalate arms spending

there was no need for the plundering of the russian state to bolster our economies

quite the opposite in fact
there looked the possibility in the late 80's that russian glasnost could create a high-spending consumer nation
now only a very small proportion of a huge population can dream about shopping binges

our economy would be more healthy with an unrobbed russia

[T.S]

Are you having a laugh? I mean, honestly?

1) Yeah, me nicking your water in the desert is exactly the same thing

2) You missed the point totally there with the whole "next instability in russia = stability in the west" thing. That is not what I was getting at, at all. I take it as a compliment that this went straight over your head though.

I've spent a lot of time on this thread getting peeved with people who have no idea what they're talking about having a go at me as if they did, so I'm not going to waste my time with this one.

No offence, HighburyJD. I'm sure you're a nice chap and whatnot, but I'm getting the impression that some of what I said here is lost on you.

[highburyJD]

so explain
u mug