Evening Standard, Lady Bracewell-Smith: Sack all the Arsenal

[USMartin]

Like Mr. Hill-Wood earned that 5.7 million he cashed in for with his family's heritage you mean? When he cashed in the same time as Lady bracewell-Smith did? But let's not ask him about that, eh?

I agree with you Martin, but then you know that I don't really hold the Board in the highest regard either.

They all got an earner out of it, and while I guess that is their right to do so now, and what I expected them to do, it is quite amazing how things have changed.

In 1983, when Hill-Wood found a mug to buy 16% of Arsenal for £292,000, he famously said...

"I think he's crazy. To all intents and purposes, it's dead money."

Of course at that time buying shares in a football club was not intended to be something you did to earn money from - it was much more a commitment to look after the Club, acting as a custodian for the future.

Quite incredible though that 16% of The Arsenal had a value of £292,000 in 1983, and that Nina BS's 15.9% now had a value of £123m.

Dead money indeed.

Indeed

I agree it's their right to do that but then they also bear the responsibility for the consequences, which is why they have mis-led the supporters as they have, they didn't want the blame for what they had to know would happen inevitably.

See I tried to tell everyoner all along that if you made them feel badly about what they were doing and how that could impact things positively but too many Gooners still drank the kool-aid (and many still do) all those years. Too many still seem to believe because the Board won't say that what appears to be happening is what is happening it isn't what's happening even though every other possibility they offer can be easily dismissed within 3-4 questions. Even now you hear them say there's no smoking gun which is hardly proof of innocence as much as an attempt at evidentiary nullification.

But like I say I think we now know who the smoking gun will be...Mr. Peter Hill-Wood. He won't do it purposely or out of some sense of duty or honor but as the finger-pointing increases and the questions start he will out of self-preservation, I suspect ,say one sentence too many even many here can't ignore any more.

[Babu]

Dead money indeed.

Indeed

I agree it's their right to do that but then they also bear the responsibility for the consequences,

I'll just reply to the first bit for now Martin, as I am really quite wasted.

It was actually not the case that it was their right to do so in the 'good old days', as the FA had rules in place preventing directors being paid salaries or shareholders being paid huge dividends. Of course it's different now, with the advent of the Premier League, but at the time DD bought his first shares I believe that he wouldn't have been able to make a huge profit on them in any way, and was really just buying them so that he could have a say in HIS CLUB.

Of course he might have been speculating that the Laws would change, and of course he also worked with the FA, etc, and was a major player in the formation of the Premier League, so who knows.

Anyway, the next big thing is going to be Usmanov getting to 30%, and then there will hopefully be huge revelations about our Club and the accounts - or not.

Will have to wait and see.

[olgitgooner]

Sorry but I happen to think that she has a point in relation to the board. She should be applauded for what she has said, even if it is part of her own agenda.

They have no dynamism and change to some of the personnel is long overdue. Peter Hill Wood continues to be somewhat of an embarrasment with his silly comments.

I think Lady Nina has as much right to speak on all matters Arenal as anyone else has and the difference between her and all of us is that she has been in the inner circle and her views come from personal experience. I would rather hear her view about things she actually knows about than the conjecture of your average poster, like me and everyone else on this forum, who has little fact to base opinion.

Totally agree with the bit I've highlighted. And with very good reason.

But she hasn't come across with any facts (that sounds strangely familiar). And she has totally backtracked on what she said about David Dein. She also seems to be massaging her ego with all this stuff on twitter. She should have had a pop at the board when she still had the shares her husband gave her. We don't know if she had a productive and dynamic presence on the board or not. I tend to think not, based on her recent performances on twitter.

Why would she come across wth facts? Like Keith Edelman she is trying to protect her reputation now as things make their way to the surface that call the Board's conduct of recent years into serious question, as they call her own personal conduct into question too as she was on that Board.

She wants to protect her image and she like Mr. Edelman can only say or do so much to do so, becuase if they spill everything they will expose their own bad behavior as well as that of others on the Board and they don't want that.

What would you expect her to say - "Yes I decided to go along with Mr. Fiszman and the rest of the Board to cash in at the highest possible personal profit, because if she spoke up she would have to acknowledge that. I made no effort to stop them going forward or to warn of what thery were doing because I knew I would make a hige personal profit as well? And that mattered to me more than whther it was best for the football club to procede in this manner..."

I mean that is about all she can say really beyond what she is saying.

But what is happening in all the finger-pointing underway is someone will say too much. History tells us to bet on Mr. Hill-Wood who already came dangerously close here with this latest set of comments. Would have been most interesting to see if he had been asked how he earned that 5.7 million he made cashing in at 12 K a share when Lady Nina did. My guess is if Mr. Fiszman were still with us Mr. Hill-Wood would have gottten one hell of a bollocking about shutting the fuck up.

TBH marty, I don't give a flying fuck about public comments from any members of the board. Past or present.

It's all based on bitterness/ego/in-fighting and contains no concrete facts.

We are on the outside, looking in, through obscured triple glazing.

Get used to it. And get your life back.

[USMartin]

Dead money indeed.

Indeed

I agree it's their right to do that but then they also bear the responsibility for the consequences,

I'll just reply to the first bit for now Martin, as I am really quite wasted..

I am shocked...shocked, I say, at this revelation

It was actually not the case that it was their right to do so in the 'good old days', as the FA had rules in place preventing directors being paid salaries or shareholders being paid huge dividends. Of course it's different now, with the advent of the Premier League, but at the time DD bought his first shares I believe that he wouldn't have been able to make a huge profit on them in any way, and was really just buying them so that he could have a say in HIS CLUB.

Of course he might have been speculating that the Laws would change, and of course he also worked with the FA, etc, and was a major player in the formation of the Premier League, so who knows.

Anyway, the next big thing is going to be Usmanov getting to 30%, and then there will hopefully be huge revelations about our Club and the accounts - or not.

Will have to wait and see.

Will be interesting if it happens. I'm not sure what to expect really...

On your historuical info....good stuff. Shame about the laws changing really. The thing is there was room to make money and still put a top team on the pitch really especially given how little any of the usual suspects actually spent.

I wouldn't begrudge them making money - good money even , for what they gave us from 1998-2005 alone. But this was just plain naked greed taking hold. How bad would making say 40-50 million have been, even 20-30 million given that you already were very wealthy and hadn't spent more than a few million pounds investing in the club.

That's the outrage. Everybody could have done really well here but some people just had to do that much better for themselves alone. in 2004 our share price was 1600 GBP a share. In 2005 it was 4000 in 2007 it was 7150 . No one on our NBoard now or during that period paid more than 2000 GBP a share how bad would 4000 or 6000 a share be for them evenn let alone those who inherited their shares?

[olgitgooner]

Marty......you are waffling again.

You are wasting far too much time enjoying yourself on this thread. You are supposed to be busy composing your "proof" package.



I'm looking forward to you proving that the board lied to us. And that they are to blame for underinvesting in the playing staff rather than our manager.

Alternatively you could own up. And admit that you've promised something that you can't deliver.

[1989]

This club is a total fucking mess.