Tony Adams praises Danny Fiszman

[stg]

If I have time today I will try and find the quotes from Bob Wilson and Tony Adams(not the one Quartz posted as he has stated these facts before) about DF as I think these were from a few years ago when DF was very much alive.

So please, post nothing that cannot be proved and nothing that could be considered libellous or defamatory...

Thats the thing DB10 I do not think there is anything that can be proved, it's all just stories, word of mouth etc as I said unless they knew the man or had dealings with him regarding his involvment at Arsenal alll you can go on is what the people who did have dealings with him have said about him and what he did for The Arsenal and then you have to look at the motives behind those statements

So did he sell out after spouting bullshit about his long term commitment to the club and its multi ownership policy ? Please dont tell me that those comments were made pre his diagnosis because quartz will confirm to you that was not the case as we had read them on this forum prior to many of his bullshit commitment statements.
Also did he allow a sustained period of under investment in the playing squad ? During that time did he also oversee a huge increase in the value of his shareholding ? Even if you conclude (innocently I would suggest) that these two facts are not related then it still does not disguise his inability to take wenger to task over his mismanagement and for that he too is culpable

I think it has become impossible for a club like The Arsenal to be run by a multi-ownership policy with the money that Chelsea, man city, Man u, Barcalona and Real Madrid throw around. I think that Arsenal got themselves caught between the devil and the deep blue seas back in the late 90's early 00's and the board/manager had to make some u-turns on what they thought was best for the club.
So DF is being held to task because he helped Arsenal become a rich club, a club able to attract 60000 fans every other week to it's new state of the art stadium. A club able to qualify for the CL season after season how many other clubs would like to be in Arsenals position right now. There is a club down the Seven Sisters who would sell their granny to be in the position that The Arsenal are in right now and a part of that has to do with DF, yes I am sure he had his faults but to dismiss his contribution to The Arsenal and to dismiss an obviously xenophobic Bob Wilson and the drunk Tony Adams comments is just trying to push your points too far

[Herd]

Is there anybody who has anything to do with the Arsenal you do like?

Yes I like Steve Bould,Liam Brady,Jill Smith and Paul Johnson
er that's about it !

For reasons that DB10 has mentioned I will not go into it more but if you wish to think well of Fizbang please do I'm not stopping you.
Opinions are what they are ,yours and mine !

[Cockerill's chin]

Herd, I agree with a lot of what you have said on this thread but I don't know what caused the meltdown of the relationship between Dein and DF. All I have read is that DF was envious of DD's status within the game and reflected glory from AW.

What went on between the two?

[augie]

Stg I am not disagreeing with your views on multi ownership but you did not answer my question.......did df spout bullshit opposing single ownership and his absolute denial that the club would be sold ? The answer is there to be seen now so at the very least it shows up the man for the liar he was

Personally I will always admit that my dislike for the man started with his personal vendetta against DD who imo is as big as loss as any player from our club in recent years

[QuartzGooner]

Whilst the board did publically commit to multi-ownership policy, and then subsequently we have Kroenke as owner, they were playing a high stakes game and I cannot blame them for throwing out disinformation.

There is also a big difference between us, and between City and Chelsea.

Their owners walk away and they either find a new rich owner or suffer badly.

Our owner walks away and we have the new stadium, the training grounds, and the players paid realistic wages that do not broke the club.

Going forward, the key issues for me now are:

1 - How our wages are spent; on mediocrity like Denilson and Squillachi or on better more physically capable players?

2 - Using our cash reserves; we all know there is money in the bank and flaws in the squad, so Wenger must spend to keep us competitive.

3 - As for Usmanov getting to 30% share ownership and seeing the books, I would love for that to happen.

[augie]

Whilst the board did publically commit to multi-ownership policy, and then subsequently we have Kroenke as owner, they were playing a high stakes game and I cannot blame them for throwing out disinformation.

There is also a big difference between us, and between City and Chelsea.

Their owners walk away and they either find a new rich owner or suffer badly.

Our owner walks away and we have the new stadium, the training grounds, and the players paid realistic wages that do not broke the club.

Going forward, the key issues for me now are:

1 - How our wages are spent; on mediocrity like Denilson and Squillachi or on better more physically capable players?

2 - Using our cash reserves; we all know there is money in the bank and flaws in the squad, so Wenger must spend to keep us competitive.

3 - As for Usmanov getting to 30% share ownership and seeing the books, I would love for that to happen.

Question for you quartz.......do you think that real truth was communicated to the ast and all other small shareholders or was that disinformation relayed to them as well ? You can bet your bloody life it was the latter and is yet another example of how these guys were running off their own agenda whilst asking all the smaller shareholders not to sell up I fcuking dispise all those *word censored* on the board more and more everyday and it pisses me off that they are even still on the board (so much for the rumour that kroenke would shift them over the summer )

[stg]

I did answer the question I said that the board had to make some u-turns on what they thought best for the club.

[QuartzGooner]

Augie

This is my guess:

I think the board was set in their ways with multi-ownership until at some point around 2007/2008 they realised just how significant the impact of the Oligarchs and Arabs on our game was going to be.

Dein knew straight away, the rest thought they could either fend off the new wave of owners, then changed their minds.
Or they sat tight and wanted to see how things panned out, whilst publically declaring things would carry on as they always had.
Quite possibly Danny Fiszman's illness sped things up?

So the truth was not communicated from a certain point onwards, because the directors just wanted to do their deals with as little scrutiny as possible.

To an extent the board can still argue that we have multi-ownership, because Kroenke owns roughly 66%, and many others own the rest.

It is Kroenke's show from now on, but with the significant differences between us and Chelsea/City that I mentioned before about us having a solid infrastructure.

It is not the current ownership that is of concern, provided Kroenke does not mess around with dividend leveraging, which USMartin is right to be worried about.

It would also be fascinating to know to what extent Wenger was involved with the board's decision to sell to Kroenke and not Usmanov.
My guess is he was fairly involved, especially with his economic background.
It is also significant he remains friendly with Dein, and I think that fact alone shows Wenger's power inside the club.


But to a large extent my concern is with Wenger, and who he buys and sells.

[Sutch]

Danny Fizsman he used to stand on the clock-end and supported Arsenal all his life.

Don't know where you got that from, thought everyone knew he was a ****

[USMartin]

I have never disagreed with usmartins criticisms of the board but what gets on my nerves is his constant constant defending of all things wenger despite evidence
It kills me to actually post anything that even fractionally opens the door for him to continue his incessant musings but I can only say what I see and if kroenke continues down that same route and refuses to challenge wenger for his continual mismanagement then I will slate him in the same way

Augie I have one simple question...do you believe that if the Board had conducted itself and its financial policies the same way sas they had from 1998-2005 that the manager would have mnade the very same decisions regarding the breakup of the Incivncibles and the makeup the team in the wake of that? Do you think nothing would have happened any differently even if the Board had made the same kind investment in the team after 2005 as before 2005?


In this case a simple yes or no will in fact do.

[Henry Norris 1913]

no I don't .

next question *word censored* pussy

[USMartin]

Augie

This is my guess:

I think the board was set in their ways with multi-ownership until at some point around 2007/2008 they realised just how significant the impact of the Oligarchs and Arabs on our game was going to be.

Dein knew straight away, the rest thought they could either fend off the new wave of owners, then changed their minds.
Or they sat tight and wanted to see how things panned out, whilst publically declaring things would carry on as they always had.
Quite possibly Danny Fiszman's illness sped things up?

So the truth was not communicated from a certain point onwards, because the directors just wanted to do their deals with as little scrutiny as possible.

To an extent the board can still argue that we have multi-ownership, because Kroenke owns roughly 66%, and many others own the rest.

It is Kroenke's show from now on, but with the significant differences between us and Chelsea/City that I mentioned before about us having a solid infrastructure.

It is not the current ownership that is of concern, provided Kroenke does not mess around with dividend leveraging, which USMartin is right to be worried about.

It would also be fascinating to know to what extent Wenger was involved with the board's decision to sell to Kroenke and not Usmanov.
My guess is he was fairly involved, especially with his economic background.
It is also significant he remains friendly with Dein, and I think that fact alone shows Wenger's power inside the club.


But to a large extent my concern is with Wenger, and who he buys and sells.

The problem with your effort to just sweep this under the table as just all some circumstance is it ighnores the very public position that selling the club was something no one had any interest in because they were supporters like us, and their intest in the club was personal and not financial.

Another thing you miss is that as some have pointed out with the sale to Stan Kroenke for less money, the Board did not have to work to push then share price this high and could have sold for even less and still made very healthy persional profits.

This will make protecting the value of the investment that much more important for Stan Kroenke particularly because of the size of the investment being made and the amount of money now at risk. The only way in which that would not be the case is ironically had we sold to an Abramovich-type of mega-billionaire with no clear interest in making personal profit from the club ofr any sort.

As to the whole dividend leveraging issue the sole reason that could even be a worry is the Board's decidion to mis-lead supporters and to sell and again to push the share price as high as possible while still being reasonably affordable to Mr. Kroenke(a price he could obtain finanicjn to purchase at).

But remember this is the dividend leveraging occurs it will prove conclucively that the Board chopse to sell to an owner they knew could not afford the club out of pocket and that they would have to choose to put us in the smae position Liveropool was put in under Hicks and Gillette and didn't care in fact about the club's long-term interest to choose a better or maybe even a less personally profitbale alternative.

There will be no way to conclude anything else at that point. If they do not sell the club that does not happen. If they sell the club for half of what they did that does not happen and they still make some good money. If they sell to Usmanov that does not likely happen (and if it does he probably does it the Glazers way and we suffer a lot less disappointment) and they make even more money even if it their egos are sore.

I mean if the Board hadn't chosen to sell to someone borrowing money to buy the club would we have to worry the possibility of that happening even. And simply worrying until it does happen is no different than simply waiting to see what the Board doing in the first place. We shouldn't make that same mistake twice just because some of are still to stubborn to admit we made it it once.

[Babu]

Question for you quartz.......do you think that real truth was communicated to the ast and all other small shareholders or was that disinformation relayed to them as well ? You can bet your bloody life it was the latter and is yet another example of how these guys were running off their own agenda whilst asking all the smaller shareholders not to sell up I fcuking dispise all those c**ts on the board more and more everyday and it pisses me off that they are even still on the board (so much for the rumour that kroenke would shift them over the summer )

I know a few shareholders, I mean very small-time shareholders, just one or two shares each, and they were 100% definitely never told anything.

They are invited to Arsenal's Annual General Meeting. They also get a vote in passing the resolutions, so they in effect decide on re-electing the Directors, and other 'official' stuff, but the Board never communicated anything to them - or certainly not anything of a 'secret' nature, of that I am sure.

They were also invited to the Arsenal Shareholders Question and Answer evening, , and were allowed to ask ( I believe one ) question(s), if it was submitted before-hand, but I think that also may be a thing of the past. Can't see this going on for ever.

As for the 'rumour' about shifting the Board - well, I think he's done that already, as they all sold their shares to him, and now not one of them owns anything AFC related, and I really believe that they are just 'tokens' now, with nothing to say.

And I mean nothing to say. Not even if they wanted to.

[Babu]

Do you think nothing would have happened any differently even if the Board had made the same kind investment in the team after 2005 as before 2005?


In this case a simple yes or no will in fact do.

Yes.



Yes, I think nothing would have been done differently.

The transfers in and out have been Wenger's invention, his great plan. There has always been money available, but Wenger has chosen not to spend it.
It is his little ego trip, and we have to go along with it, whether we like it or not.

We will have the proof end of August, I guess. As of now, it's hard to tell whether our 'transfer dealings' have changed in any way at all from the last few years now that Kroenke is 'in control'. Still looks the same ( all talk - no action ) but who knows. A few weeks to go, and probably some major 'outs' to compensate for. If the transfer policy does not change then surely you will have to see that Wenger is in complete control.

[USMartin]

no I don't .

next question c**t pussy

Wait till you're asked matey. But since you haven't on what factual basis do you come to that conclusion?