VforVictory wrote: 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?
No you showed he'd been here a long time. That isn't showing that he'll be here a long time at all, and that's the real issue.
As to your second point I said the rumors were never confirmed not that they were disproven or untrue, and when you add that to two separarte accounts in 2007 and 08 or 09 from a supporter who had spoken to a club insiders whoo indicated he was seriously considering selling out, I'd suggest I said rather opposite or that there was reason to believe he was seeking to sell out.
VforVictory wrote: This is about the 50 years from 2006, not the five years.
If you are referring to the Emirates Stadium I can agree, but not the Highbury Re-development. At most it has made less than two years of repayments on the stadium loan available. Given that we could still have 30 million pounds of profits or more a year after paying off the annual stadium re-payment, it was hardly essential to the new stadium or paying it off.
Saying the Highbury Redevelopment is about fifty years from now is Like President Bush Saying History will prove his decision to invade Iraq for no clear reason was correct. It gives him comfort because he knows he can't defend it now based on what we know. You know there was no real benefit to Arsenal Football Club and none is forthcoming any time soon if at all, so let's not discuss that till well after were all dead. That'll work
That's just ridiculous to suggest the redevelopment will benefit the club in any noticable way at least it really looks like that's the case
VforVictory wrote: 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.
One problem with your reading of that logic. Sincve the share price for most of these shareholders was no more 2000 pounds and was already up at 5000 as the project began and up to 7000 a year later and of course after Mr. Dein's departure rose above 8000 its not like it was ever going back to to say 2000 or 3000 so worst case would have been around 2005 lwevels of 4500 and up so more than double their investment.
The only way where that becomes more than paper value is if your plan is to SELL YOUR SHARES and CASH IN at the even higher price. Other wise your just holding on to less valuable but still highly profitable shares.
Again they used the BANK'S money to pay for the re-development itself, and the CLUB'S money to pay back the initial stadium loan to to complete a project that that saw their shares AT LEAST QUINTUPLE in value, and if hadn't worked they have merely at least doubled in value. How unfortunate
That's some gamble.
VforVictory wrote: Yes, as I said in my post.
I guess this is what they mean by being separated by the same language because I couuld swear you said Mr. Dein was no longer on the Board and contrasted that with Mr Fiszman being on the Board. Oh wait you actually DID say that:
VforVictory wrote:Dein is not on the board, is actually an "Enemy" of some on the board, but Fiszman is on the board.
So I must hiave missed your point here.
VforVictory wrote: 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.
David Dein was from all accounts a bit arrogant and tricky to deal with. Having said that honestly disagreeing on a project doesn't make you an enemy in a healthy normal world if that's what you meant so I don't know what that says.
As to Wembley the Club actually was considering Wembley and that was why we played a couple of seasons worth of Champions League Matches there. Indeed at PlusMarketsGroup the announcement that we actually put in a bid to buy Wembley at that time can still be read. It was withdrawn though why is unclear.
VforVictory wrote: Dein was concerned with less money for players, as you say. It was £55,000 per week, not £60,000, that Cole wanted.
Dead wrong on the money as documented in the Premier League Report Ashley Cole was asking for 60,000 a week and the Board would not go beyond 55,000.
I suspect this was where the fears Mr. Dein had expressed during the NIMBYs final appeal (when he did publcally advocate tenancy at Wembley (driven by fears I suspect of the financial consequences of the Highbury Redevelopment on in=vestment in the team)were confirmed in his mind and this might have led to the whole Stan Kroenke fiasco.
VforVictory wrote: 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.
Preety spot-on. I'd only add that the developments being discussed here and elsewhere could really shape this as well.
VforVictory wrote: 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?
VforVictory wrote: Oh, and what is that £60-90M you mention? Fiszman is reported as being retired, unless you have other information on him?
Because he is the Board member with the most to gain financially form all of this including the additonal 30-60 million he could gain if he sells his remaining shares now. As for whether he wants such a takeover I don't know and niether do you and that should concern us both equally because of what such a takeover could mean to Arsenal. We ought need to and deserve to know what any and every Board member's intentions for Arsenal are and should have known this some time ago frankly. I don't wish to put words in your mouth or think for you but I would think you would agree heartily with that much at least.
) there is nothing racist at all on it. It is fair comment to be concerned about the nationality of someone rummered to be interested in your club, as nationality can include multiple races. It is particularly fair comment if the individual is from a country that is world renowned for corruption on a massive scale.) there is nothing racist at all on it. It is fair comment to be concerned about the nationality of someone rummered to be interested in your club, as nationality can include multiple races. It is particularly fair comment if the individual is from a country that is world renowned for corruption on a massive scale.
