Nigerian Billionaire interested in Arsenal Takeover?

[USMartin]

And does that not confirm excatly what Davey is sayiong beyond any argument - that if you look hard enough and long enough you'll find plenty to question about ANY of these people?


First off who questioned anything but the diamond industry?

You did, above.

Unless you mean you were questioning ALL diamond industry workers, but it certainly did not read as such.

Not all diamonds are blood diamonds, so flinging muck at Fiszman is pointless unless you have evidence.

Fiszman was believed to be the main player on the board from late 90's when move to the new stadium was planned, and Dein was not in favour of building new one until later in the 21st century. Fiszman got involved early 90's but upped his stake to be majority shareholder in late 90's.

V you seem to assume that because Mr. Fiszman is a Board member his actions are beyond reproach. All I'm saying is we don't know. My point is to all those who question the characters and motives of people involved in this you should be ready and willing to question everyone - not just the people you don't want to believe are up to scratch.

Indeed your reading of history is exactly my point - he is the main player in all this turmoil including I suspect the decision not to sell Highbury but to re-develop it, the single worst decision for Arsenel Football Club since well maybe England entered World War Two really.

I don't begrudge anyone at Arsenal Football Club looking out for themsleves or even making some profit from their investment. But what Mr. Fiszman is pretty clearly doing now is not for the good of Arsenal Football Club but for Dan Fiszman and that is unnacceptable and inexcusable from any Board member at Arsenal. We certainly don't need HIS sort . Trouble is we've already got him.

[VforVictory]

V you seem to assume that because Mr. Fiszman is a Board member his actions are beyond reproach.

Not at all.

But in any circumstance, casting aspertions about someone without evidence is a risky business.

The thing is, I take your point about redveloping Highbury instead of selling it for a lump sum.

It was not right. It was not wrong.

It was a gamble.

If the property market had not crashed, it could have paid very well, even sooner.

It has paid financialy long term, but as you have said, meant the club has been penny pinching since 2005.

No way is Fiszman in it for the short term, the guy has had serious money tied up in shares since early 90's, when the ambition was to build a new North Bank at Highbury. That is not short term investment.

The investment is in his time, because as has been pointed out, no director actually puts their own money into the club, but does actually tie up money in shares. Which is legal.

For every argument that the penny pinching may be to drive up share prices ahead of sales, there is one that FrankButcher said that the club had to bail out the withdrawal of the major investor of the Highbury flats, and one that says the club are being super prudent in an era of billionaire owners who are not a guarantee to success (Chelsea have done well, Portsmouth have crashed), and who's influence Platini is trying to massively curb.

[Champagne Charlie]

...might be a good idea to find out a bit more about him don't you think...Fear always springs from ignorance

Yes, fear always springs from ignorance.....but you'd have to be very ignorant not to be just a tad fearful of a "business from Nigeria". The Nigerian Student Fraud was renamed plain Student Fraud to avoid sounding racist. But the fact is that it did start in Nigeria as did most of the scams.

Ok, so I'm not surprised that others have now adopted the same approach. But that doesn't mean we should be that much more believing....

I think its quite right to be highly suspicious of a Nigerian Businessman trying to buy the club.... It's his job then to prove that he should be trusted!!!

Come on dude, are you for real???
Don't you think Blackstone and their Legal advisers would be checking, finecombing credentials if he's one of the names on the shortlist?
He's not trying to buy the club. He wants to buy shares in the club.

And not all Nigerians are fraudulent.

[USMartin]

V you seem to assume that because Mr. Fiszman is a Board member his actions are beyond reproach.

Not at all.

But in any circumstance, casting aspertions about someone without evidence is a risky business.

You again misread my point which is actually quite similar to your own actually - which is that we should not simply trust anyone nor simply assume the worst of anyone because of preconceptions about nationality or background or even the business they work in. We could if we looked closely enough probably call into question anyone we wanted to.

Where we differ is I sense you do not see that we should take that same view of those already running the club regardless of their actions and their consequences for the club. I believe that since we view our Board as being of higher quality character and support of our club that they should be held to those standards at all times and not simply be given a free pass when their actions do not meet those standards.

The thing is, I take your point about redveloping Highbury instead of selling it for a lump sum.

It was not right. It was not wrong.

It was a gamble.

If the property market had not crashed, it could have paid very well, even sooner.

It has paid financialy long term, but as you have said, meant the club has been penny pinching since 2005.

The property market's crash had nothing to do with the damage done to the football team because it had nothing to do with the penny pinching. Much of the damage to the football team was well and truly done by the end of 2007 still 2-3 years before any expected profits form the project.

That's beacuse the plan required borrowing an additional 110 on top of the 260 million already borrowed and forfieted at least in the short term the 65-70 million that would have been available immediately to pay down the 260 million pound loan already on the books.

But it was NEVER a gamble - indeed even now after the housing crisis and the rumors surrounding the failed purchases Frank Butcher refers to the club has made a profit of app 100 million pounds - or 30-35 million more than by selling Highbury. The question here is was it worth it to Arsenal Football club? And the amswer is so far at least absolutely not.

Was it worth it to Arsenal Holdings is another question, and since the one table they particopate is the the one at Plus Markets Group its pretty clear that it was. The share price had yet to reach 5000 when they decided to undertake this project even with the new stadium all but completed - now its on the verge of 10000. So I'd have to believe gutting the team to help protect against The Board borrowing on top of borrowing to invest in re-developing Highbury is an unqualified success to shareholders like Dan Fiszman

No way is Fiszman in it for the short term, the guy has had serious money tied up in shares since early 90's, when the ambition was to build a new North Bank at Highbury. That is not short term investment.

The investment is in his time, because as has been pointed out, no director actually puts their own money into the club, but does actually tie up money in shares. Which is legal.

For every argument that the penny pinching may be to drive up share prices ahead of sales, there is one that FrankButcher said that the club had to bail out the withdrawal of the major investor of the Highbury flats, and one that says the club are being super prudent in an era of billionaire owners who are not a guarantee to success (Chelsea have done well, Portsmouth have crashed), and who's influence Platini is trying to massively curb.

Who is to say the first two stories cannot both be true as one does not rule out the other - after all if they didn't bail out this fellow's withdrawl if that happened would that not negatively affect the project's profitability and thus the club's share price - after all its things like that that make a company more or less attractive to potential buyers on the stock exchange.

You can even shoe-horn the third argument in in that the Board clearly was worried about financially over-extending the club - just not worried enough to pass up the opportunity to increse the price of their shares by borrowing additional money to generate additional profits. No they were worried enough to gut the funding fopr the football team because well our supporters have perspective - giving up contending to win and with style will be fine with them because well you can't win every year or every five years - once every ten or twenty is more than enough even when paying extortionate rates for tickets.

But this Fiszman is in it for the long haul is dubious at best, even before his recent health difficulties he already had begun selling to Stan Kroenke as far back as 07. BTW that only raises further questions (since I didn't respond to your reply on this) - if Stan Kroenke was unwilling to buy from David Dein in 07 why was he willing to buy from Dan Fiszman in 2009 when he probably could have paid Mr. Dein then less than he has Mr. Fiszman nrecently? Curious Indeed.

I suspect we will know more at some point and I suspect it will show that Dan Fiszman is the one who put his intersts ahead of Arsenal's and setb all this in motion.

[USMartin]

BTW nobody has questioned his investment. Indeed had we simply operated with the same finances as we didi prior to the Highbury re-development no one would likely be questioning anything.

What has been questioned is his and the Board's choice to re-develop Highbury simply because it was more profitable than selling the property because we would have to borrow to pay for re-developing the property ourselves when we had already taken on a rather large debt we were barely able to manage under our business model and that was with selling Highbury.

And since we had already invested over 100 million pounds of the club's own money into the new stadium, and the Board does not invest its Directors personal funds into any Club projects, that meant that money to pay down the original stadium loan would have to come from other club sources of revenue including the profits form turnover usually put aside for investment in the football team, even as our highest paid players who could attract decent fees were sold, and those who were higher paid but could not attract fees allowed to leave for free (can you name ONE other club who has let as many top players go for free as we have since 2005?).

And this was all done in the name of a project that regardless of how successful,it was would benefit Arsenal shareholders more than it ever did the the football club and certainly the football team. This is all the more outrageous if Frank is correct because it will mean in effect that Arsenal paid for the profit on Highbury that drove its share price up and did so again by weakening the manager's ability to improve the football team by reducing the amount he could invest in it and his ability to invest what he could.

At the very least we should all want the truth about what is going on and why and we shouldn;'t have had to wait this long even.

[VforVictory]

Fiszman has been involved with the club on a significant level since 1992.
That is long term.

The redevelopment projects benefit the shareholders, of course, we agree on that. I sat rightly so, as the major shareholders worked hard to get the development done.

But how can this benefit be compared to the benefit to the club/fans?

It is too soon to say.

Highbury redevelopment had to be a gamble. No certainties in property.


Nothing curious about Kroenke buying off Fiszman rather than Dein.

Dein is not on the board, is actually an "Enemy" of some on the board, but Fiszman is on the board.
If Dein wanted to team up with Kroenke to conduct a hostile takeover whilst Dein was still a board member (as has been widely speculated but of course never proven), it would have been a big gamble by Kroenke.
Especially considering that his Colorado club was in negotiations with Arsenal at that time over a development agreement.

Kroenke has yet to find out where he stands with his NFL club, whether he can put it in the family's name or not. He is waiting to see what happens to his money.

If he is not sure now with an NFL enquiry having started, he would have been unsure back in 2007 prior to that enquiry.

[Its Up 4 Grabs Now]

My girlfriend’s family are Nigerian & their response (half-jokingly) was pretty similar to quite a few on here re: Nigerian scammers etc.

Cant see any problem with people making jokes about it (as long as there’s no malice & they’re equally willing to see the funny side of taking the piss out of everyone else, including themselves) & I can see why people would be sceptical too given Nigerians’ reputation. I’d be sceptical myself! But completely passing judgment on anyone & ruling them out purely cos of their nationality, without knowing the first thing about them individually, is a form of racism pure & simple. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

That’s not me being PC, for one I don’t even hold it against anyone (just wish people would have the courage of their convictions to admit it is what it is), and for another I’d say the same if we were talking about someone from Italy, or if it was a Nigerian talking about someone from the UK - and they probably do considering how much money Britain’s made out of them (a lot of it immorally) one way or another. Maybe we should ban Brits from the board too? I’d all but guarantee he’s made his money with more than a bit of help from British corporations somewhere along the way.

As others have said nobody becomes a billionaire without being a bit of a bastard and involved in some kind of shady shenanigans. Where someone’s from has fuck all to do with it in the grand scheme of things.

Brazil has a reputation for producing amazing footballers. Denilson is shite.

By the way - if any of you want to PM me your email addresses & bank account details my girlfriend’s dad has recently come into a lot of money & would like to share it with me & all my friends!

[USMartin]

Fiszman has been involved with the club on a significant level since 1992.
That is long term.

But its meaningless in stating what his intentions are now - the jury is very much out there - after all even before anyone in England had heard of Stan Kroenke - rumors abounded of Dan Fiszman discussing selling out to a Russian investor. I ndeed I have heard on two different occasions supporters tell me that they were told Mr. Fiszman was selling out, though the person(he actually reported this twice to be accurate)later claimed he found out that was not the case.

But I'd say we have 30 million reasons already to suspect that is the case now with up to 60 million more awaiting him.

The redevelopment projects benefit the shareholders, of course, we agree on that. I sat rightly so, as the major shareholders worked hard to get the development done.

But how can this benefit be compared to the benefit to the club/fans?

It is too soon to say.

I would suggest we already know it has harmed the football team and therefore caused deep hurt to supporters to now and there is no guratee at all that that won't continue to be the case. And its not too soon to say that as well the last five years have already happened and we have a reasonable expectation that unless major changes happen and fast the next five will likely be - at best - no better at all.

Highbury redevelopment had to be a gamble. No certainties in property.

No a gamble would be if the directors had sunk their own money in the project instead of the bank's and then the club's(to pay off the stadium loan in the interim). Basically it was akin to me borrowing fifty pounds from you spending it all on lottery tickets and winning ten million pounds then handing you back your fifty pounds and saying thanks mate - even though you loaning me that fifty pounds screwed up your whole week and all your plans already - and before you can say anything I'm off to buy my own island

Same principle.

The Board gambled nothing they would actually lose. They could only win or break even, and they won as it turned out. Indeed if Frank's report is true they even used more of the club's money rather than their own to insure the project's proftability and prevent any impact on their shareholdings value. Like if I borrowed another fifty so I could take a limo down to the Lottery offices to pick up my ten million. So I earned ten million off your hundred and gave you back - that hundred. Bet you wouldn't appreciate that very much. So why should you appreciate what the Board has done?

Nothing curious about Kroenke buying off Fiszman rather than Dein.

Nothing to see here at all people - everyone who was shot and stabbed on this corner was done so accidebtally. Nothing sinister happened here at all......

Dein is not on the board, is actually an "Enemy" of some on the board, but Fiszman is on the board.
If Dein wanted to team up with Kroenke to conduct a hostile takeover whilst Dein was still a board member (as has been widely speculated but of course never proven), it would have been a big gamble by Kroenke.
Especially considering that his Colorado club was in negotiations with Arsenal at that time over a development agreement.

Thing is Mr. Dein WAS on the Board at that time - indeed he had been sent to Colorado by the Board as its representative to finalize the commercial agreement between the clubs- and that deal was basically finalized when the events in question occurred. And Mr. Dein was not to anyone's knowledge publically or that I have seen privately considered an enemy of anyone on the Board.

This interpretation you offer seems to ingore those critical facts. My own belief is that Mr. Dein was concerned by the decision not sell Highbury some time back and that spurred his advocacy of moving to Wembley that arose while the NIMBYs pursued their final appeal against the project at Ashburton Grove.

I suspect he knew that the redevelopment of Highbury would lead to investment in the football team being cut drastically even as top playing resources were sold off as well, and that is was that and the Board's refusal to agree to pat Ashley Cole 60,000 a week that told him the current Board would undermine the football team.(read the Premier League Report - the Board refused to pay 60,000 and the agent's fees seem a red herring at best)

Now why Stan Kroenke got involved here and what his agenda was is far less clear especially now.

Kroenke has yet to find out where he stands with his NFL club, whether he can put it in the family's name or not. He is waiting to see what happens to his money.

If he is not sure now with an NFL enquiry having started, he would have been unsure back in 2007 prior to that enquiry.

Actually the whole issue here hinges on whether he would have to sell his NBA and NHL franchises in Denver if he became sole owner of the Rams in St Louis. NFL bylaws state that he would have to do so. That is why he is attempting this manouver so he can buy full ownership of the Rams without selling the Avalanche or the Nuggets.

what happens next then in theory is both fascinating - and for Gooners more than a bit disturbing

Two motivations are suggested for Mr. Kroenke pursuing full ownership of the Rams.

The first is that he wants to buy full ownership of his favorite sports franchise from his youth Major League baseball's St Louis Cardinals valued at a about half a million US or 350 tmillion pounds, and owning the St Louis Rams would give any effort to purchase the Cardinals instant credibility.

The second possibility is not better at all. That is that Mr. Kroenke may movbe the Rams out of St Louis and back into Los Angeles where they used to play and where there hasn't been pro football for nearly two decades and he would be able not omnly to cash in on that but on developing new media networks in the largest metroplitan media market in America.

Neither scenario would leave much money for Arsenal unless he wants to borrow to buy us, and conceivably that puts on the same position as Man United but with far fewer resources on-hand to help us manage the debt that would end up on our books. We'd much more likely end up likel Liverpool has than Man United has to now.

Can't see how that would benefit anyone at Arsenal except the shareholders like Dan Fiszman really who make 60-90 million before taxes - oh wait Mr. Fiszman's already a tax exile. Jolly good show that!

[VforVictory]

Fiszman has been involved with the club on a significant level since 1992.
That is long term.

But its meaningless in stating what his intentions are now - the jury is very much out there - after all even before anyone in England had heard of Stan Kroenke - rumors abounded of Dan Fiszman discussing selling out to a Russian investor. I ndeed I have heard on two different occasions supporters tell me that they were told Mr. Fiszman was selling out, though the person(he actually reported this twice to be accurate)later claimed he found out that was not the case.


vforvictorysays:

You said Fiszman was short term. I have shown he is long term.
Why bother mentioning that stuff about a Russian investor when you then go on to say it was not true? How does that help you argument?

But I'd say we have 30 million reasons already to suspect that is the case now with up to 60 million more awaiting him.

The redevelopment projects benefit the shareholders, of course, we agree on that. I sat rightly so, as the major shareholders worked hard to get the development done.

But how can this benefit be compared to the benefit to the club/fans?

It is too soon to say.

I would suggest we already know it has harmed the football team and therefore caused deep hurt to supporters to now and there is no guratee at all that that won't continue to be the case. And its not too soon to say that as well the last five years have already happened and we have a reasonable expectation that unless major changes happen and fast the next five will likely be - at best - no better at all.

vforvictorysays:

This is about the 50 years from 2006, not the five years.

Highbury redevelopment had to be a gamble. No certainties in property.

No a gamble would be if the directors had sunk their own money in the project instead of the bank's and then the club's(to pay off the stadium loan in the interim). Basically it was akin to me borrowing fifty pounds from you spending it all on lottery tickets and winning ten million pounds then handing you back your fifty pounds and saying thanks mate - even though you loaning me that fifty pounds screwed up your whole week and all your plans already - and before you can say anything I'm off to buy my own island

Same principle.



The Board gambled nothing they would actually lose. They could only win or break even, and they won as it turned out.


Indeed if Frank's report is true they even used more of the club's money rather than their own to insure the project's proftability and prevent any impact on their shareholdings value. Like if I borrowed another fifty so I could take a limo down to the Lottery offices to pick up my ten million. So I earned ten million off your hundred and gave you back - that hundred. Bet you wouldn't appreciate that very much. So why should you appreciate what the Board has done?


vforvictorysays:

No certainties in property. By your own logic, if the deal on Highbury or the stadium messed up, it would harm the directors money. Because you are the one saying they are just in it to raise the share price, and the if the deals went bad then the share price would fall.

Nothing curious about Kroenke buying off Fiszman rather than Dein.

Nothing to see here at all people - everyone who was shot and stabbed on this corner was done so accidebtally. Nothing sinister happened here at all......

Dein is not on the board, is actually an "Enemy" of some on the board, but Fiszman is on the board.
If Dein wanted to team up with Kroenke to conduct a hostile takeover whilst Dein was still a board member (as has been widely speculated but of course never proven), it would have been a big gamble by Kroenke.
Especially considering that his Colorado club was in negotiations with Arsenal at that time over a development agreement.

Thing is Mr. Dein WAS on the Board at that time


vforvictorysays:


Yes, as I said in my post.

- indeed he had been sent to Colorado by the Board as its representative to finalize the commercial agreement between the clubs- and that deal was basically finalized when the events in question occurred. And Mr. Dein was not to anyone's knowledge publically or that I have seen privately considered an enemy of anyone on the Board.


vforvictorysays:


Dein had disagreed with other board members from 1999 onwards over the decision to build a new stadium. He wanted to rent Wembley.
Dein leaving the board was a culmination of tension built up over the years.

This interpretation you offer seems to ingore those critical facts.

vforvictorysays:

They are not facts, as I have shown above.

My own belief is that Mr. Dein was concerned by the decision not sell Highbury some time back and that spurred his advocacy of moving to Wembley that arose while the NIMBYs pursued their final appeal against the project at Ashburton Grove.

I suspect he knew that the redevelopment of Highbury would lead to investment in the football team being cut drastically even as top playing resources were sold off as well, and that is was that and the Board's refusal to agree to pat Ashley Cole 60,000 a week that told him the current Board would undermine the football team.(read the Premier League Report - the Board refused to pay 60,000 and the agent's fees seem a red herring at best)


vforvictorysays:

Dein was concerned with less money for players, as you say. It was £55,000 per week, not £60,000, that Cole wanted.

Now why Stan Kroenke got involved here and what his agenda was is far less clear especially now.

Kroenke has yet to find out where he stands with his NFL club, whether he can put it in the family's name or not. He is waiting to see what happens to his money.

If he is not sure now with an NFL enquiry having started, he would have been unsure back in 2007 prior to that enquiry.

Actually the whole issue here hinges on whether he would have to sell his NBA and NHL franchises in Denver if he became sole owner of the Rams in St Louis. NFL bylaws state that he would have to do so. That is why he is attempting this manouver so he can buy full ownership of the Rams without selling the Avalanche or the Nuggets.

what happens next then in theory is both fascinating - and for Gooners more than a bit disturbing

Two motivations are suggested for Mr. Kroenke pursuing full ownership of the Rams.

The first is that he wants to buy full ownership of his favorite sports franchise from his youth Major League baseball's St Louis Cardinals valued at a about half a million US or 350 tmillion pounds, and owning the St Louis Rams would give any effort to purchase the Cardinals instant credibility.

The second possibility is not better at all. That is that Mr. Kroenke may movbe the Rams out of St Louis and back into Los Angeles where they used to play and where there hasn't been pro football for nearly two decades and he would be able not omnly to cash in on that but on developing new media networks in the largest metroplitan media market in America.

Neither scenario would leave much money for Arsenal unless he wants to borrow to buy us, and conceivably that puts on the same position as Man United but with far fewer resources on-hand to help us manage the debt that would end up on our books. We'd much more likely end up likel Liverpool has than Man United has to now.

vforvictory:

It all depends if Kroenke wants to own any more Arsenal shares. We can only wait and see. If status quo, then he calls the shots without needing to own all the Arsenal shares.

Can't see how that would benefit anyone at Arsenal except the shareholders like Dan Fiszman really who make 60-90 million before taxes - oh wait Mr. Fiszman's already a tax exile. Jolly good show that!

vforvictory:

Why single out Fiszman? There are many smaller shareholders, who despite wanting good money for their shares, do not want a leveraged takeover. Do you know Fiszman wants such a takeover?

Oh, and what is that £60-90M you mention? Fiszman is reported as being retired, unless you have other information on him?

As for tax exile. With 50% tax rates, I would consider it if I was rich.

[VforVictory]

By the way - if any of you want to PM me your email addresses & bank account details my girlfriend’s dad has recently come into a lot of money & would like to share it with me & all my friends!

BIG CASH MONIES!!!!!

[mrgnu1958]

[merse_10]

wow what an insightful reposte,yet more duplicated emoticons soon to be followed by a knob gag

personally i think too many are picking up on the nationality aspect as usual,it doesnt matter to me if he's from nigeria,uzbekistan,colorado or essex.i'd still wanna ask the same q's and get some info from the guy.stop turning it into a race issue like everything always is

[VforVictory]

wow what an insightful reposte,yet more duplicated emoticons soon to be followed by a knob gag

Quit it Merse.

**** makes some of the funniest threads here and he's a mate.

If you wanna have a pop at racists there are those on here, have a go at them instead.

[merse_10]

thanks for the advise but i'll form my own opinion thx.

[greatgooner]

wow what an insightful reposte,yet more duplicated emoticons soon to be followed by a knob gag

personally i think too many are picking up on the nationality aspect as usual,it doesnt matter to me if he's from nigeria,uzbekistan,colorado or essex.i'd still wanna ask the same q's and get some info from the guy.stop turning it into a race issue like everything always is

I'm afraid to say fella that is very unlikely to happen because like me you are a nothing in the grand scale of things.