The Gooner Forum

Babu wrote:When the Board tell the World and his dog that The Arsenal have money to spend in the transfer window - do you then think they go and see Wenger and tell him that he is not allowed to spend that money, and he'd better not say anything, otherwise he'll get a chinese burn?

I dont know why, but this made me LOL! Just picturing the board calling Wenger in and 'threatening' him!

Marty may well believe that Wenger was blackmaled, but even if it wasnt Wengers wish, I believe he is even worse in my eyes. A man that so easily sets aside his passion for football to line his own pockets. Whichever way you look at it, Wenger makes it happen, and he is the root cause that needs to be dealt with.

Sometime football boards love football... sometimes they are in it for the money. Im prettty certain that the Glaziers are in it for the money... the difference there is that Rednose isnt a pushover and he has integrity.

Wenger needs to be kicked hard. And we need a manager with integrity

mcdowell42 wrote:Great post babu.He isnt going to agree with you even though you have hit the nail on the head.

Well, I've hit my nail on the head.

USM is probably not going to agree with me, of that I'm sure, but I hope he tries to answer it.

When I first 'met' USM he certainly opened my eyes to the 'evils' of the Board, and he was proved right that the Board would sell up and pocket an awful lot of money. He was 100% right, and I really do remember him mentioning the Board looooong before anyone else was particularly bothered.

At that time I at least did think of them as 'custodians' of my Club. Rich, upper class arseholes, but at least doing the right thing, or at the very least doing it 'The Arsenal Way', whatever that was.

Problem is that I haven't seen with my own eyes what really is happening at Board level, but I just can't see that Wenger didn't know and accept the restrictions that now seem to be in place with regards to spending, etc.

Babu wrote:

mcdowell42 wrote:Great post babu.He isnt going to agree with you even though you have hit the nail on the head.

Well, I've hit my nail on the head.

USM is probably not going to agree with me, of that I'm sure, but I hope he tries to answer it.

When I first 'met' USM he certainly opened my eyes to the 'evils' of the Board, and he was proved right that the Board would sell up and pocket an awful lot of money. He was 100% right, and I really do remember him mentioning the Board looooong before anyone else was particularly bothered.

At that time I at least did think of them as 'custodians' of my Club. Rich, upper class arseholes, but at least doing the right thing, or at the very least doing it 'The Arsenal Way', whatever that was.

Problem is that I haven't seen with my own eyes what really is happening at Board level, but I just can't see that Wenger didn't know and accept the restrictions that now seem to be in place with regards to spending, etc.

The thing with USMartin is that you are either with him 100% or you are a stooge of the board. When he first arrived on this forum he got some quite positive responses but it quickly became apparent that hes an obsessive incapable or unwilling to view a situation in anything more then the 1 dimension which suits his narrative.

TeeCee wrote: There is absolutely no logical reason why Arsene Wenger should put his worldwide reputation on the line to protect a board of directors, no logical reason at all and yet you Martin, believe that is the case? Please answer that question:

Why would Wenger lie publicly to cover the board and risk his own reputation in doing so?

Holy cow TeeCee you have really topped yourself here once and for all, or should I say bottomed yourself in this case

You seriously believe that it is not logical for Arsene Wenger to protect employers paying him more than Sir Alex to achieve far less, but that it is logical for him to choose on his own to undermine his and the his team and the his employer's' clubs ability to win just to stoke his won ego and prove some point? You believe he hasn't risked his reputation, his career and his and his family's fimnancial security if he's done that? Not to mention that winning is more enjoyable than not winning to most who like to compete in sport.

So let;'s see which is more logical - he protects his employers or he would rather lose his jon and have his family living on the street to stroke his ego?

THIS IS THE SO CALLED EVIDENCE WE'VE WAITED FOR? there is no evidence here at all. yes there are fact that imply the board wanted to raise share prices but nothing that justifies the fact you called people who didn't agree with you as fools. Babu is right. This issue isn't black or white and I never said it was.

Babu wrote:I just don't get this at all.

The Board wanted to make money. They wanted to make a lot of money, because they realised that they could. They were 'custodians' only when there was no way of making money from the shares, as soon as the Premier League exploded they saw their chance. New Stadium, more tickets sold, share price rises, etc., etc, sell up.

Because as you have said before and are saying now the policy originated with their decision to put their financial self-interest ahead of protecting the Club's best interests as a football club.

In other words unless you can prove that Arsene Wenger would have instituted this very same policy the very same way on his own even if there had no been cash-flow problems which forced the policy to be inititated, than you can only conclude that the Board is primarily and ultimately responsible.

Babu wrote: They did it. FACT. The Board has gone. They made their money.

They have? Well maybe you should remind them because they seem a bit, well.....confused about this. According to the Club's Website the very same Board that was running the club in late 2008 is running the club with of course one obvious and unfortuate exception. "All change at Arsenal" is more like "no change at all" looking at the current Board as it is comprised, and that's a huge part of the problem I suspect.

Henry Norris 1913 wrote:THIS IS THE SO CALLED EVIDENCE WE'VE WAITED FOR? there is no evidence here at all. yes there are fact that imply the board wanted to raise share prices but nothing that justifies the fact you called people who didn't agree with you as fools. Babu is right. This issue isn't black or white and I never said it was.

Most evidence is in fact, well facts not imaginary conversations with imaginary quotes quoted from them, and you yourself acknowledge these facts.

These facts and others are in fact the evidence that we should demand more infor matuion from the Board about what it is doing and why and be more concerned about the impact it is and can have on our Club and football team. And no one is a fool for disagreeing with me, anyone who chooses to ingores those facts and to wait until its too late to say or don anything to react is in fact a fool.

I will just add that the funny thing is I agree it's not black and white. The problem is that too many Gooners want to see some absolute piece of incontrovertible evidence that they are 100% guilty before they will say anything, and they suppose that without that information they are 100% innocant.

Quarts told another poster here that there was no hard evidence of this sort to support the allegation that the Board was trying to withhold spending to increase the share roice then said "this certainly isn't happening". He basically said because there was no smoking gun mo one could challenge or refute this cannot be happening, and this is what too many posters fall back on to defend the Board. If they aren't clearly and undeniably Snideley Whiplash they must be Dudley DoRight.

The point is the facts not speculation or supposition supported by other facts that show how these things could be achieved - again not specualiton or supposition or imagined discussions and quiotes - point to seriosu questions that we must ask as responsible football supporters now and not later. If we had asked these questions five or three years ago even would we be at the precipice we are now?

And where will we be if we ait even longer simply because we are uncomfortable that we do not have a CCTV tape of the Board laughing as it counted its money?

I want to stab myself repeatedly in the face.

USM

If this is your "Evidence" thread then it has not convinced me a jot.

Shares are only worth what people are prepared to pay for them.

No one forced the board members to sell, and their selling shares does not mean they "Sold Out".

If Danny Fiszman was not diagnosed with cancer can you say for sure he would have sold his shares?

The grey haired "custodian family" board members were not getting any younger, and if their kids (though it says on Wikipedia that Richard Carr has none) were not prepared to become board members, or not business minded, then perhaps the "custodians" did the right thing in selling to people who know about international corporate business?

Dein had no way back to the board, so makes sense why he sold.

Same with Lady Nina, though we are still to be told exactly why she was kicked off the board.

Money and shares changed hands, and the club has become more corporate.

Whilst there is plenty of evidence that Wenger chose not to spend because the building projects reduced cashflow, there is not one single shred of evidence that the board ordered Wenger to not spend, in order to deliberately drive up share price.
It might have happened, but you cannot prove it.

In fact there is plenty of reason to believe Wenger took the reduced cashflow as an opportunity to try out his "youth project".

USMartin wrote:

Babu wrote:I just don't get this at all.

The Board wanted to make money. They wanted to make a lot of money, because they realised that they could. They were 'custodians' only when there was no way of making money from the shares, as soon as the Premier League exploded they saw their chance. New Stadium, more tickets sold, share price rises, etc., etc, sell up.

Because as you have said before and are saying now the policy originated with their decision to put their financial self-interest ahead of protecting the Club's best interests as a football club.

In other words unless you can prove that Arsene Wenger would have instituted this very same policy the very same way on his own even if there had no been cash-flow problems which forced the policy to be inititated, than you can only conclude that the Board is primarily and ultimately responsible.

Why?

Look Martin, OK, let's say 'the Board' came up with the policy independent of Wenger, even though even this I don't believe.

Then 'the Board' came to Wenger and suggested it, Wenger said 'yes', and here we are.

Or do you think that 'the Board' had this plan, didn't tell Wenger, and tricked him all this time, and Wenger is too stupid to realise what's happening? Even now?

Or that 'the Board' came up with the project, Wenger was opposed to it, but 'the Board' paid him off?!? And still are doing so now?

This is getting too familiar, and I don't fancy your chances with the outcome, mate.

My last post on the subject until the 'Facts and Proof' thread is finally opened.

So Wenger is lying to protect the board so that he can protect his job because he and his family would end up on the street? You have surpassed yourself with that stupid comment Martin. Not only is Wenger a multi millionaire many times over, there are a number of extremely well paid jobs he would walk into from working in the media, to managing or being director of football.
You have confirmed what everyone already knew, you are an obsessive, myopic man from the land of paranoia. I don't mean that offensively, I think you genuinely have an issue with Arsenal Football Club.

Jesus Christ. This is the worst fucking thread I've yet had to plough through.

IT IS THE SAME BORING FUCKING SHIT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I really don't give a flying fuck if I am labelled a Board apologist or whateverthefuck, I am just sick to my back teeth of reading about the Goddamned fucking board.

WE GET IT LADS. The Board aren't all wonderful people. Doh!

This isn't just about the board DB10, it's dispelling USM's myth that AW is a teflon don.

Am I peculiar for enjoying the thread?

Some good posts Babu

Babu wrote: Why?

Look Martin, OK, let's say 'the Board' came up with the policy independent of Wenger, even though even this I don't believe.

Then 'the Board' came to Wenger and suggested it, Wenger said 'yes', and here we are.

Or do you think that 'the Board' had this plan, didn't tell Wenger, and tricked him all this time, and Wenger is too stupid to realise what's happening? Even now?

Or that 'the Board' came up with the project, Wenger was opposed to it, but 'the Board' paid him off?!? And still are doing so now?

This is getting too familiar, and I don't fancy your chances with the outcome, mate.

My last post on the subject until the 'Facts and Proof' thread is finally opened.

I think you mis-read this.

Let's say you need a new tv because yours is shot, and a mate shows up with a brand new tv he happens not to need and gives it to you for helping him avoidung taking a kicking after a match.

And a month later the police show up at the door, and it turns out the TV he gave you was one he took from somebody's house he broke into , and you had no idea that he had done this.

Now he stole this property and you agreed to take it from him - were happy to do so in fact, even would have paid him for it if you had to. Are you also guilty of burglary?

My point is simply that the policy originated with the Board and that makes all the difference, especially since while the Board can sack the manager only the Board can in effect sack the Board,

This means getting rid of the manager cannot guarantee any sort of hoped-for change if we are not willing to stand up and push for that change to happen and demand that it does. As long as we ignore we can remain bent over and expect it again and again.

Cockerill's chin wrote:This isn't just about the board DB10, it's dispelling USM's myth that AW is a teflon don.

Am I peculiar for enjoying the thread?

Some good posts Babu

Excuse me but where have I said anything like that or that can even be manipulated to suggest that

Arsene Wenger is not untouchable to use your term. the problem is laying this solely at his feet and being satisfied with his dismissal alone does not gurantee any of the sorts of changes we feel need to happen will happen and so long as people persist in the false belief they will allow the Board or if you prefer Stan Kroenke to continue mis-leading us about their intentions and motives no matter who our manager is going forward.