COPS in Highbury (BADDD BOYS! Whatcha Gon' DO?)

[USMartin]

I almost feel bad about that you better pray bit - my point again was you will have trouble escaping your own judgment of your actions then just to be clear

[mcdowell42]

This is, always has been, and always will be a FUCK OFF US MARTY Movement and nothing more or less

[frankbutcher]

Marty,

Wrong again.

Kroenke now owns a majority of the Club, so he now calls the shots. He couldn't do that when he was simply a fellow Director. He could sack Wenger tomorrow if he wanted to.

He can't debt leverage the Club. He needs 75% of the shares to do so. Usmanov has a blocking stake. Votes of Directors is irrelevant, it's a Shareholder vote to allow a capital re--structure.

Come on pal. Get it right.

[QuartzGooner]

USMARTIN

If you are worried about the b**rd do something about your concerns instead of writing about them on here for 14 months and then chastising others for not being clones of you.

No more discussion, I have made that clear.

Just take action.

No one is stopping you.

And I tell you what.
Even though there are many on here who disagree with you, there will be many here who will respect you if you do take action outside of this Forum.

[mcdowell42]

14 months seems like only yesterday

[USMartin]

Can you not see that a Club that fails on the pitch, eventually fails off of it? Fans stop going, and sponsors stop sponsoring. If you drop out of the Champions League, disaster...... .

I'm also saying that whether he spend it or not would not have affected the share price, as there were two willing buyers of the shares, driving the price up.

Frank those two arguments clearly contradict one another. One says that not spending money will drive share prices down - the other speaks for itself really but it states not spending money did not drive share rpices down at that time. I would say that is a textbook contradiction. You say one thing one moment than acknowldge a different conclusion the mext (or in this case within two posts).

That you didn't intend to contradict yourself and I believe you did not doesn't mean you did not contradict yourself anymore than it would if I were the one contradicting himself in this instance.

The problem is these comtradictions do and should raise doubts about the thesis you conclude based on these flawed arguments, and should give you similar pause as well I would think and hope, Frank.

[mcdowell42]

Jesus im feeling leepy

[frankbutcher]

Can you not see that a Club that fails on the pitch, eventually fails off of it? Fans stop going, and sponsors stop sponsoring. If you drop out of the Champions League, disaster...... .

I'm also saying that whether he spend it or not would not have affected the share price, as there were two willing buyers of the shares, driving the price up.

Frank those two arguments clearly contradict one another. One says that not spending money will drive share prices down - the other speaks for itself really but it states not spending money did not drive share rpices down at that time. I would say that is a textbook contradiction. You say one thing one moment than acknowldge a different conclusion the mext (or in this case within two posts).

That you didn't intend to contradict yourself and I believe you did not doesn't mean you did not contradict yourself anymore than it would if I were the one contradicting himself in this instance.

The problem is these comtradictions do and should raise doubts about the thesis you conclude based on these flawed arguments, and should give you similar pause as well I would think and hope, Frank.

You fool! There is no contradiction. The Directors were offering money to be spent, as this boosts the value of the Club long-term. However the shares went up regardless owing to the fact two buyers wanted the Club. What were the Directors going to do? Sack Wenger for not spending? Not when the share price was going up regardless. They didn't withhold money to drive up the share price. People aren't buying the Club because we sell players year on year and finish fourth. Kroenke buys the Club because he thinks he can earn millions by boosting the commercial side of the Club. Usmanov is interested to boost his own ego.

[USMartin]

Marty,

Wrong again.

Kroenke now owns a majority of the Club, so he now calls the shots. He couldn't do that when he was simply a fellow Director. He could sack Wenger tomorrow if he wanted to.

He can't debt leverage the Club. He needs 75% of the shares to do so. Usmanov has a blocking stake. Votes of Directors is irrelevant, it's a Shareholder vote to allow a capital re--structure.

Come on pal. Get it right.

Excuse me Frank

Now we could say now that the club has been sold that is irrelevant except it really is anything but that because if the Board sold by choice to an owner who could not afford to purchase the club out of the pocket(and the fact that the purchase was in fact financed by German Bank raises the issue) who may then push for the awarding of shareholder dividends in order to use that money to pay for the financing of his takeover. In other words Arsenal Would actually be paying for its own purchase - indirectly yes but that would be the case.

This would be what happened at Liverpool under Hicks and Gillette - divdend leveraging the club rather than debt-leveraging it, and while Mr. Kroneke would have to spend millions more before he could debt leverage his takeover, he only needs a majority vote on the Arsenal Board now to divend leverage his takeover. And Given the Board members recieved in some cases as high as 5 million GBP from Stan Kroenke in this takeover do you they would refuse him this? I won't even go into the other serious questions this raises or would raise excpet to say that I think this negates the whole this is history forget about it now argument. This is very current events. Let's hope we don't have to find out just how current.

I did get it right. You jusst didn't read it or ignored it

or maybe you just didn't see it

This would be what happened at Liverpool under Hicks and Gillette - divdend leveraging the club rather than debt-leveraging it, and while Mr. Kroneke would have to spend millions more before he could debt leverage his takeover, he only needs a majority vote on the Arsenal Board now to divend leverage his takeover.

See it now, Franky

Good. Now the blocking share issue is an interesting one but I don't know that we know just what specifically Mr. Usmanov can block on his own given the coroporate by-laws of the Club and Holding Company, and its hard to hold a lot in the blocking stake since Mr. Usmanov will receive a rather large dividend himself then you do realize, don't you, about half of whatever Mr,. Kreonke would get, so a blocking vote if he would have one may not suit him if there's no hope of buying Mr. Kroenke out you know.If stan Kroke received a 6*% percent dividiend - app 48 million GBP Alisher Usmanov would aslo receive a 3% - app 24 million GBP dividend. Those are numbers I was shown by a mate explaining this. Make what you will of the numbers but if Stan Kroenke is simply unwilling to sell to Mr. Usmanov any incentive to block such dividend leverage would almost certainly evaporate.

[stg]

USM I don't think you want a definitive answer about the board. Whatever we say you will twist and turn like a twisty turnny thing and come out with some long paragraph that is so long that we lose track of your actual point.

Yes the old board members made money out of selling their shares.
Yes perhaps in hindsight it wasn't such a good idea to rebuild highbury themselves.
Yes perhaps the board did withhold monies from Wenger

But

They had every right to sell out when they wanted.
They have made a profit from the property side of the company
Wenger must be a willing partner in this.

When push comes to shove and you look at it from a basic level what have the board done wrong. Failed to ensure that Wenger and his team have the right equipment(players etc) to win a trophy, that is what it cones down too. As far as I see it you can look at that two ways sheer stupidity in not investing in the short term sucsess of the team or investing in the long term sucsess of the club.

At the moment Arsenal have a manageable debt. Future revenue increases from shirt deals. A manager who seems happy to work with the board within it plans. If and I know it's a big if back in 1997ish when they first started thinking of moving, they knew of the change in the financial structure of clubs in the PL would they have moved? I think not If DF had not become so ill would he of sold his shares? I think not but these things happend. If we had won the PL in the past 6 years would you be making such a fuss about the board? I think not

I've an idea for you take a step back and look at the last 15 years as if you were a major shareholder. Try to forget all your misgivings about the board. Forget you are an Arsenal supporter but see yourself Arsenal business supporter and think of how you could do best for the club and your share price. How would you deal with the money from Chelsea and now man city. How would you deal with the tax on your players wages. How would you make it possible for more fans to see the Arsenal play. How would you deal with the falling outs of other share holders. How would you deal with an ever increasing intrest of all matters in the boardroom from the media and people on forums.

You make it sound oh so simple Arsenal should of done this the board should of done that. All with a great big chunk of let me look back pick up quotes, statements, figures and facts and use them to make my point and ignoring anything else

[USMartin]

USMARTIN

If you are worried about the b**rd do something about your concerns instead of writing about them on here for 14 months and then chastising others for not being clones of you.

No more discussion, I have made that clear.

Just take action.

No one is stopping you.

And I tell you what.
Even though there are many on here who disagree with you, there will be many here who will respect you if you do take action outside of this Forum.

Quartz you'll have to forgive if I don't appreciate your disingenuousness now and lack of conviction and your refuasal to even state and stand by what you actually believe or to even show genuine interest in the truth about thow Arsenal is or may be being run, especially you seem capable of conducting youreself far more reasonably oand objectively if you wish to.

The problem is not that you disagree the problem is I can believe you actually may agree with me but simply be incapable of acknowledging as much puublicly since you seem unwilling to state what you actually believe or why you believe it and seem afraid to acknowledge that in fact you have inconsistent standards for truth and burdens of proof depend on what we discussing the tiuth about or what the proof is required for.

My sense is that you cannot bring yourself to question or criticize the Board no matter what, nbut that intellectaully you don't believe the Board has acted in good faith and now are covering against being questioned for not acting on your own judgment. Basically not wanting to question the Board but not wanting to have even question yourself about why you did not if things get worse. That's the only way I can understand your position atb this point. You still don't want to go against the Board but don't want to be at fault if your judgment not to was shown to ve wrong.

Or maybe to paraphrase something you suggested of me over a year ago maybe you are just a stooge for the Board . I just know that for all my vices and virtues there is no one here who doesn't know what I think or why. I sense you are the only person who actually knows what you really think. I like you Quartz. I want to respect you. But its hard when you seem unwilling to stand simply for what you believe in. But you seem alright otherwise and I do like you. It's just hard to see you behave in this way.

[Deise Gooner]

Holy b'jesus marty you just keep on coming out with more waffle

[frankbutcher]

Why would the Board back a dividend when they no longer own any shares?

As a thank you to Kroenke? Don't think so. They've just fucked him over by withholding transfer funds for years, which has lead to us becoming uncompetitive. If they've fucked him over once, wouldn't they do so again?

[QuartzGooner]

USMARTIN

For the last time:

I have no proof of how the board have acted, I only have my opinions.

I do not believe I could gain any proof unless I kidnap ex and current board members, and inject them with truth serum, then interrogate them.
I do not wish to risk prison for doing such a thing.

You have no proof on how the board have acted, you only have your opinions.

But what you do have is a very strong urge to repeat your convictions on this Forum.

If you really feel the board have done you wrong, then do something about it.

Repeating your convictions on this Forum is only a tiny part, and an increasingly ineffective part, of doing something about your convictions.

A Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, MySpace, DotCom and LinkedIn campaign would help you spread your message, and it would not cost very much, perhaps $20 per year to register a Dotcom.

I have nothing left to say to you about The Board unless some extraordinary revelation occurs.

[USMartin]

USMARTIN

For the last time:

I have no proof of how the board have acted, I only have my opinions.

I do not believe I could gain any proof unless I kidnap ex and current board members, and inject them with truth serum, then interrogate them.
I do not wish to risk prison for doing such a thing.

You have no proof on how the board have acted, you only have your opinions.

But what you do have is a very strong urge to repeat your convictions on this Forum.

If you really feel the board have done you wrong, then do something about it.

Repeating your convictions on this Forum is only a tiny part, and an increasingly ineffective part, of doing something about your convictions.

A Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, MySpace, DotCom and LinkedIn campaign would help you spread your message, and it would not cost very much, perhaps $20 per year to register a Dotcom.

I have nothing left to say to you about The Board unless some extraordinary revelation occurs.

You have nothing to say on the Board no matter what exceot to defend them then to defend yourself if you're wrong. You know it and so do I. Do not patronize with with your phony claims of interest if something happens. You'll excuse and rationalize that as well so that you can excuse your lack of real concern. We both know it so let's leave it there thank you. It's your choice to be that way now stand behind it.

We are what we choose to and what we show ourselves to be, nothing will change what you appear to be unless you choose to change it,Quartz. I won't pretend you aren't what you appear to be because it upsets that you appear to be what you are

You don't want to continue discussing this fine then don't. Nobody is forcing you to say or do anythng. Indeed you have hidden behind that convienient fact sometime now. So if you don't want to discuss the Board don't but shame on you trying to tell anyone else what to discuss and not discuss.