Tony Adams praises Danny Fiszman

[USMartin]

If you’re right what is the point of going on about it? What are you hoping to achieve here? If we all end up agreeing with you, then what?.....

As for the second question. Look no further than what has happened at United. Sir Alex Ferguson did not make them give him more money. Indeed the sentiment around Old Trafford from 2002-2005 was very similar to the sentiment and many United supporters feared or were convicned Sir Alex Ferguson had lost the plot, and the glazers could have gotten away with sacking him if they had does so immediately. It would have been tough and risky but had they done it then there was enough of the same sentiment seen on here that they could have pulled it off.

The problem was that they could not have gotten away with appointing some puppet manager to parrot their desired (and maybe even necessary because of the debt-leveraging they took over the club with) cost-cutting at that point. They had already seen a significant segment of supporters defect and more were threatening to defect.

The one thing they could do at that point to stop the defections and hold onto the remaining supporting base was to invest in success on the pitch. So they did that and United went from badly beaten third three out of ofur years up to 2005 to four time Pemiership Champioships and three Cahmpions League Finalists since 2006. United may be at gretare risk than Arsenal long-term though even that risk is more abstract than irealistic but they have won back the bulk of supporters. Yes there is still the Newton Heath Crowd but any real takeover movements will only succeed if and when the Glazers wnat to sell and the public momentum behind them diminishes with each trophy the Glazers give to those *word censored*.

Point being that if simply put the Board under some sort of pressure to account for our decline that might spur them to act to correct that decline more than our fawning silence and unquestioning faith and trust ever has since 2005 or will moving forward.. So long as we reluctant to even contemplate simply considering just raising questions about some of these spending policies actually benefit the football club and make the football team better than it had been or would be moving forward they have no reason or incentive to change anything so long as these policies benefit their personal interests. This would apply no matter whether indeed as I believe they have worked to limit investment in the football team themselves or as you believe Arsene Wenger has simply refused to honor their wishes – so long as they are under no pressure to correct these problems they will not correct them.

[flash gunner]

I cant work out if you answered me or not

[USMartin]

I cant work out if you answered me or not

Sure you can - I'm just not sure you genuinely want an answer...

Part I - Ignoring this will only let it get worse befire it ever get better

Part II - Only real pressure on the Board will lead to any change in these policies no matter who you happen to believe ste them or why. That pressure will only come through mass expression If they feel no pressure for the supporter base they have no incentive to change anything no matter what - or who - in fact that change needs to be.

[flash gunner]

I cant work out if you answered me or not

Sure you can - I'm just not sure you genuinely want an answer...

Part I - Ignoring this will only let it get worse befire it ever get better

Part II - Only real pressure on the Board will lead to any change in these policies no matter who you happen to believe ste them or why. That pressure will only come through mass expression If they feel no pressure for the supporter base they have no incentive to change anything no matter what - or who - in fact that change needs to be.

So where do we go from here?

[Herd]

So where do we go from here? Well im off to bangkok

[flash gunner]

So where do we go from here? Well im off to bangkok

Gonna be a long journey on a Double Decker

Have a good one Herd

[stg]

I dont belive you can compare arsenal and Man u in this matter both clubs are run at opposite end of the spectrum. Due to the amount of debt man u carry they need to keep winning at any cost, what would happen if they have a few seasons of not winning anything or happen to drop out of the CL places would they be able to continue as they are? Are you suggesting Arsenal go down this line?

I know what your reply is going to be something along the lines of not doing a Leeds or a Portsmouth(maybe Birmingham!!) as that is there just to scare us but sensible investment etc etc etc.

As has been said before if you want support for your theory's then go out in to the wide world and do something about it. It must be obvious to a articulate man like yourself that you are not going to get it on this forum which maybe a problem as this is out of the many Arsenal forums probably the most the one you would of got backing from( I don't mean that in a bad way fellow gooners but this is probably the most negative towards Arsenal at the moment rightly or wrongly but does lead to good debate).

If I was you I would join the AST, start a Facebook page posting my theory's which I could up date and stay on here posting when needed and in appropriate threads about what you think of the board etc.

How many years have you been posting your theory's on here and how many minds do you think you have changed

[flash gunner]

How many years have you been posting your theory's on here and how many minds do you think you have changed

Not sure if Martin will admit it but the answers are

one and none

Yet we are the deluded fools

Martin i think its a good thing if you started your own blog, facebook page, twitter account and get your message to like minded people. Like it or not its just a load of hot air on here

[biglunn]

So we have two theses -

1) that The Board held back investment in the football team to use that money to increase the value of their shareholdings before selling the club

or

2) that the manager driven by some egotistical desire to prove his superiority refused to spend additional money made available to him by the manager

It makes me laugh when you come out with...

I can see at least 50 to 100 MILLION more reasons the former may be true.

50 to 100 million? Thats enough to certify you as insane!

Now, you have broken it down to those 2 points above. And its obvious you are hellbent on believing the first option - the board is to blame.

My point is....

I BELIEVE YOU. I ACCEPT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. SO SHUT THE F*CK UP!

Now, for this to work, the board have to have Wenger onside. Wenger (in addition to previous Arsenal managers) has had a track record of winning titles spending less than other teams, and all Wenger has done is shift the target from winning to finishing 4th. He absolutely went along with it pulling his arse cheeks wide apart taking his £6m a year, and for this reason, I cannot forgive him. I cannot see ANY top class manager stooping to the level to Weasel Wenger, but he did it. I bet you that Alex Ferguson would never stoop to this level.

If Wenger refused to compromise his winning ethos, one of two things would have happened.

+ The board would have had to go down the route of taking a gamble and invest in a winning team - raising the share prices this way, or...

+ Sack Wenger, get a less capable manager in, finishing outside the top 4 leading to a decline in share prices.

Either option would have been better than what we have now where the team is in need of major rebuilding & restructuring.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. Kroenke has paid top dollar (£) for his majority ownership of Arsenal, and he may well be looking at the way the Glaziers are running ManUtd - better commercial deals, manager who earns based on success on the pitch, manager that doesnt tolerate underperformers, believing in success making money etc. Kroenke doesnt want the club to go downhill as it is - its HIS money, HIS shares that would suffer. Im hoping he kicks Wenger far far away from London.

[USMartin]

I dont belive you can compare arsenal and Man u in this matter both clubs are run at opposite end of the spectrum. Due to the amount of debt man u carry they need to keep winning at any cost, what would happen if they have a few seasons of not winning anything or happen to drop out of the CL places would they be able to continue as they are? Are you suggesting Arsenal go down this line?

No. But apparently you are happy to see Arsenal lose to enrich its millionaires because apparently that is more proper business somehow. OR am I mis-reading this somehow?

I know what your reply is going to be something along the lines of not doing a Leeds or a Portsmouth(maybe Birmingham!!) as that is there just to scare us but sensible investment etc etc etc.

So if again I am reading this correctly you are saying we have no choice whatsoever between doing exactly what we are doiing now or ending like Leeds and Portsmouth? And if in fact we do (as i think is pretty clear) actually have several very real and better choices but the Board has delibeartely mis-led supporters in that regard and benefitted personally from doing so you have no problem at all with that?

As has been said before if you want support for your theory's then go out in to the wide world and do something about it. It must be obvious to a articulate man like yourself that you are not going to get it on this forum which maybe a problem as this is out of the many Arsenal forums probably the most the one you would of got backing from( I don't mean that in a bad way fellow gooners but this is probably the most negative towards Arsenal at the moment rightly or wrongly but does lead to good debate).

Leave us to invent our own reasions for what's wriong right or worng and to blame and condemn who we want right or wrong , or when the problem continues just do the same thing again and again...

How many years have you been posting your theory's on here and how many minds do you think you have changed

Who knows...I know this that if every one who set out to change minds gave up because it wasn't weasy this would would probably be an even worse place than it is. That you wish to be willfully ignorant because you don't want to even consider looking to see hard truths that simply might appear if you look, doesn't excuse me doing so anymore than it excuses you doing so.

[USMartin]

BL, Let's start with you're psychoanalysis of me. Dan Fiszman made in excess of 130 million pounds, Ladry Bracewell-Smith made almost 120 million pounds, The Carr family made over 20 million pounds I believe 23 million, and Peter Hill Wood about 6 million pounds. That's what 279 million pounds right threre and given that only Dan Fiszman invested about 15-25 million pounds of his own money (we'll leave aside the whole financing the team story for now as it seems dubious because of the Club and Board's offical opposition to investing its own monry into the team and dedictaion to the principle of the self-sustaining business model)

So yes I guess saying there 50 to 100 million more reasons is kind of insane mathematically given that there closer to 300 million more reasons So I'll give you that insanity point

But I really must ask because I am genuinely curious why so many people adhere to the argument that because Arsene Wenger did not raise any sort of protets apprently and did copperate all along in this that some how he is just as guilty or even more guilty than the Board can or could be? Can you simply explain intellectually how those who commit the original sin or crime (metaphotically speaking) are less guilty than those who do not refuse to copperirate or turn them in or are periperhally involved.

I just down't understand how deliberately choosing to knowingly assign blame to the wrong party by choose is intellectually sound. I don't tsee the moral eithical or even deterrent vlalue in doing that if it leaves the oparty at fault free to continue bahaving that way. Can you please enlighten me in this regard

[mcdowell42]

Fuck off marty to some other forums that might swallow your crap you havent the balls to do anything on a wider scale.Your brainwashing isnt working on here everybody sees through you.

[Peeman]

BL, Let's start with you're psychoanalysis of me. Dan Fiszman made in excess of 130 million pounds, Ladry Bracewell-Smith made almost 120 million pounds, The Carr family made over 20 million pounds I believe 23 million, and Peter Hill Wood about 6 million pounds. That's what 279 million pounds right threre and given that only Dan Fiszman invested about 15-25 million pounds of his own money (we'll leave aside the whole financing the team story for now as it seems dubious because of the Club and Board's offical opposition to investing its own monry into the team and dedictaion to the principle of the self-sustaining business model)

So yes I guess saying there 50 to 100 million more reasons is kind of insane mathematically given that there closer to 300 million more reasons So I'll give you that insanity point

But I really must ask because I am genuinely curious why so many people adhere to the argument that because Arsene Wenger did not raise any sort of protets apprently and did copperate all along in this that some how he is just as guilty or even more guilty than the Board can or could be? Can you simply explain intellectually how those who commit the original sin or crime (metaphotically speaking) are less guilty than those who do not refuse to copperirate or turn them in or are periperhally involved.

I just down't understand how deliberately choosing to knowingly assign blame to the wrong party by choose is intellectually sound. I don't tsee the moral eithical or even deterrent vlalue in doing that if it leaves the oparty at fault free to continue bahaving that way. Can you please enlighten me in this regard

+1

[Henry Norris 1913]

I just down't understand how deliberately choosing to knowingly assign blame to the wrong party

give us proof that the board are definitely responsible or stop hijacking and manipulating and waffling

[USMartin]

BL, as to your thoeries about how we simply must invest more int he football team for protecting the share price the simply are not borne out by the history of the share price itself.

Again from 2002-2005 probably our most financially ambitous period interms aof investing in the football team and its moset successful; period competitively the share price dropped by 100 GBP a share. This is indisputable fact.

By the same token from 2005-2001 while the club shifted its investment focus to property development and management followed by opening new non-footballing global revenue streams (by non-footballing I mean by non-competitve football) that our share price rose by over 7000 GBP even though we didn't win one single trophy .

So you're Mr. Kroenke and you are already financially ove-rextended in making this purchase right after buying full control of the St Louis Rams less than a year earlier and not selling one share of your holdings in any other sports team you fully or majority own - and still have to repay the creditors you borrowed the money to buy Arsenal from. Which option will you choose from the two above to advance your holding any further?

Especially if you want to take a dividend so you can pay off the money lenders for the teakeover.