Nigerian Billionaire interested in Arsenal Takeover?

[DB10GOONER]

Racist? There is nothing racist on this thread. People are expressing their concerns due to his nationality not the colour of his skin!!! If a black British/American/Aboriginal business man was lining up some shares i dont think there would be the same response as in this thread. V you band the term Racist far too easy sometimes mate

You have misunderstood me FlashGunner.

I was not referring to this thread, but to the Forum in general.

Can't agree, mate. We mods stamp out the racist shit as quick as we see it. If you find some we've missed please PM and let us know.

Will do, but it has happened in past.

Mods cannot always do anything about it as some of it comes in PMs.

Id like to think that if you reported offensive pm's to admin they could do something about that, no one should have to put up with that. The only thing i have a problem with is the accusations of racism without any proof what so ever.

Agreed 100%.

[VforVictory]

Looks like nothing doing -

http://football.uk.reuters.com/leagues/ ... hp?rpc=401

LAGOS, May 24 (Reuters) - Nigeria's richest man, billionaire Aliko Dangote, on Monday denied media reports that he was considering buying a 16 percent stake in English Premier League soccer club Arsenal.


Britain's Sunday Times newspaper and other media reported that Dangote had registered his interest in buying a stake being sold by Nina Bracewell-Smith, the club's fourth biggest investor. [ID:nLDE63B1V0]

"I am a longstanding supporter of Arsenal Football Club and have been involved in conversations around investment in the past," Dangote said in a statement.

"However, I can say categorically at this time that I have no intention of investing in the club and will not be acquiring a stake. I wish Arsenal Football Club the best for the future and will continue to follow the team as a fan."

Bracewell-Smith has appointed U.S. private equity firm Blackstone Group <BX.N> to find a buyer. A person familiar with the matter told Reuters earlier this month that 8-12 parties were taking a detailed look at the club.

[marcengels]

Will do, but it has happened in past.

Mods cannot always do anything about it as some of it comes in PMs.

Id like to think that if you reported offensive pm's to admin they could do something about that, no one should have to put up with that. The only thing i have a problem with is the accusations of racism without any proof what so ever.

Agreed 100%.

You have a PM ....you too Flash...and V4V....

[DB10GOONER]

Will do, but it has happened in past.

Mods cannot always do anything about it as some of it comes in PMs.

Id like to think that if you reported offensive pm's to admin they could do something about that, no one should have to put up with that. The only thing i have a problem with is the accusations of racism without any proof what so ever.

Agreed 100%.

You have a PM ....you too Flash...and V4V....

New clique alert!!!

The poof clique...

[xDAVEYx]

HOMOPHOBE!

[flash gunner]

HOMOPHOBE!

[DB10GOONER]

HOMOPHOBE!

I have nothing against Phobes! Retract that before my lawyer is on the case!!

[GunnerDude]

Nigerian billionaire Aliko Dangote has denied rumours linking him with buying a stake in Arsenal.

Reports over the weekend linked Dangote, his country's wealthiest man, with buying a 16 per cent share from Nina Bracewell-Smith, the Gunners' fourth biggest investor.

With Gunners boss Arsene Wenger notoriously frugal with his funds in the transfer market, and with the possible sale of captain and talisman Cesc Fabregas, the prospect of more money in the club's coffers would certainly be one that would appeal to the club.

Bracewell-Smith has appointed a US private equity firm the Blackstone Group to find a buyer for her stake in the Gunners.

Supporter
Dangote however insisted that he has made no connection about buying any stake in the club in recent times, despite being an avid supporter of the team.

"I am a longstanding supporter of Arsenal Football Club and have been involved in conversations around investment in the past," Dangote said in a statement.

"However, I can say categorically at this time that I have no intention of investing in the club and will not be acquiring a stake.

"I wish Arsenal Football Club the best for the future and will continue to follow the team as a fan."

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 23,00.html

Thank you, case closed.

[Step]

If it means a return to the Green Shirts then I am all for it!!!!!

[brazilianGOONER]

If it means a return to the Green Shirts then I am all for it!!!!!

[USMartin]

It was not essential, I agree on that. But it was done, to maximise profit. The short term was one reason for a weakening of the team. But we have to live with that, and that phase should be ending (we hope).

So you agree then that the Board acting solely out of self-interest acted again the best interests of Arsenal Football Club in undertaking this operation?

Because that is basically what happened here. The Board abandoned the notion that club must operate within its means as a football club to pursue a superfluous property development scheme of at best dubious benefit to the football club which is still supposed to be the Board's forst priority what they have said is their first priority and what millions of Gooners have trusted them to mainmtain as their first Priority.

The Board betrayed that trust in violating its own principles in the operating of Arsenal football Club and in doing so that trust placed in them that previous Boards at Arsenal worked hard to earn over decades.

They undermined the operation of the Football Club - the reason Arsenal Football Club even exists - to pursue enriching themselves quite apparently, and used the trust supporters placed in them to get away with doing it.

I do not want to compare the club to the Iraq war, too different. But it is too soon to gauge the impact of the stadium, because in next few years Platini has said he wants to end "Sugar Daddy" owners and debt, so that is when we see the benefits, if there are any. I maintain that 50 years is needed to see the true benefit of the stadium, compared to many other changes in football that will happen.

But no one is debating whether the stadium was worth it really - I am certainly not. The stadium could have been built without redeveloping Highbury - you yourself acknowledge this above - and that is my point. The Board redeveloped Highbury for their own benefit more than any potential ofr possible benefit to Arsenal Football Club. As the new stadium was factually or at the very least theoretically necessary, but the re-development of Highbury by the Club was not the two are irrevlevant and cannot be conflated.

Indeed if you are actually suggesting we wait fifty years before judging the Board' s decision to redevelop Highbury - let me ask - do you work for British Petroleum because they seem to be trying the same sort of arguments.

BTW I am not comparing Arsenal and the war in Iraq - I am comparing your effort not to address the issue here by suggesting we should wait 50 yuears before deciding the merits of their actions, to President Bush suggesting much the same about his own actions.

I believe that Cole wanted 55. Club offered it, but Cole wanted 5 a week more for agent. Club told him to take it out of the 55. Then club reneged and offered 50.

DEAD WRONG - both the math and the premise. Read the Report

http://www.redaction.org.uk/downloads/r ... 062005.pdf

"From an early stage JB indicated that AC and he were looking for £60K per week and that AC would settle for nothing less."

"We have concluded that what probably occurred was that DD said that he
would go back to the Board and that he and Arsene Wenger would
recommend £60K for AC and that the Board would probably approve."

"From this we can safely infer that the Board refused to go as far as £60K
and that DD was given authority to effect a compromise with what was to bea final offer. It is significant that Arsene Wenger was extremely anxious notto lose AC."

"There is no dispute that DD tabled the offer of £55K “commission
on a new contract plus an Executive Box less (figure) %â€

[USMartin]

Some have sold shares, others have not. Matters not a jot to me

Why should they use their own money? Arsenal is a plc, not a sole trader.

I find these quotes particularly distrubing as I can only interpret them as you supporting the Board's right to decieve and mis-lead supporters about their actions and the motivatiions behind him and to use the Football Club's to create the opportunity to increase their persoanl wealth even if the performance of the football team is made to suffer, even as they charge the supporters more than any other club charges its supporters to be able to support their team. In other words you don't care if the Board cheats the supporters to benefit themselves

Am I missing something here, because I want to give you every chance to prve that worng because I know I'd feel rather badly if I had to conclude that about myslef.

I'm sorry but you don't give a jot whether they make money by weakening the football team is what you have siad, because that basically is what happened even as neatly and impersonally as you describe it above.

The Board do not automatically deserve our trust because they are the Board or because they sit where other Boards who EARNED that trust happened to sit. A man's word is his bond as they say. Its not the man before's wrod word is this man's bond.

Too many supporters assume that because there was a Hill-Wood and a Bracewell-Smith on this Board in 2005 they were no different than Samuel Hill-Wood and Sir Bracewell-Smith, and could be trusted without question because they were part of the same heritage, when there was no reason whatsoever to assume that was the case then and certainly not now. Maybe the idea that our Board might not be doing what was in Arsenal's best interest was something you simply could not comprehend or didn't want to consider but that only made it easier for them not to act in the club's best interests you know.

[VforVictory]

It was not essential, I agree on that. But it was done, to maximise profit. The short term was one reason for a weakening of the team. But we have to live with that, and that phase should be ending (we hope).

So you agree then that the Board acting solely out of self-interest acted again the best interests of Arsenal Football Club in undertaking this operation?

vforvictory says:

No.
The board went for more money, but over a longer period of time. I cannot say if it was for the good or bad. If Highbury was sold off then we might have had more or better players, but the board might have used the money to pay ahead on the stadium loan before it was restructured as a bond, and so it would not have affected the playing side.

Because that is basically what happened here. The Board abandoned the notion that club must operate within its means as a football club to pursue a superfluous property development scheme of at best dubious benefit to the football club which is still supposed to be the Board's forst priority what they have said is their first priority and what millions of Gooners have trusted them to mainmtain as their first Priority.

The Board betrayed that trust in violating its own principles in the operating of Arsenal football Club and in doing so that trust placed in them that previous Boards at Arsenal worked hard to earn over decades.

vforvictory says:

The fans have not always got on with the board. Plenty, including me, were unhappy when Don Howe was sacked.



They undermined the operation of the Football Club - the reason Arsenal Football Club even exists - to pursue enriching themselves quite apparently, and used the trust supporters placed in them to get away with doing it.

I do not want to compare the club to the Iraq war, too different. But it is too soon to gauge the impact of the stadium, because in next few years Platini has said he wants to end "Sugar Daddy" owners and debt, so that is when we see the benefits, if there are any. I maintain that 50 years is needed to see the true benefit of the stadium, compared to many other changes in football that will happen.

But no one is debating whether the stadium was worth it really - I am certainly not. The stadium could have been built without redeveloping Highbury - you yourself acknowledge this above - and that is my point. The Board redeveloped Highbury for their own benefit more than any potential ofr possible benefit to Arsenal Football Club.


vforvictory says:

That is a moot point. As I say above, Highbury sold off as a lump sum would have been interesting if the money was put into the team, but maybe Chelsea would have upped the ante again to negate that team investment?


As the new stadium was factually or at the very least theoretically necessary, but the re-development of Highbury by the Club was not the two are irrevlevant and cannot be conflated.

Indeed if you are actually suggesting we wait fifty years before judging the Board' s decision to redevelop Highbury - let me ask - do you work for British Petroleum because they seem to be trying the same sort of arguments.

vforvictory says:

No, I do not work for them.

A major new stadium, plus social housing, can only be judged in the long term, especially in light of future possible legislation Platini wants to implement to make clubs live within their means, and increasing globalisation of the game.


BTW I am not comparing Arsenal and the war in Iraq - I am comparing your effort not to address the issue here by suggesting we should wait 50 yuears before deciding the merits of their actions, to President Bush suggesting much the same about his own actions.

I believe that Cole wanted 55. Club offered it, but Cole wanted 5 a week more for agent. Club told him to take it out of the 55. Then club reneged and offered 50.

DEAD WRONG - both the math and the premise. Read the Report

http://www.redaction.org.uk/downloads/r ... 062005.pdf

"From an early stage JB indicated that AC and he were looking for £60K per week and that AC would settle for nothing less."

"We have concluded that what probably occurred was that DD said that he
would go back to the Board and that he and Arsene Wenger would
recommend £60K for AC and that the Board would probably approve."

"From this we can safely infer that the Board refused to go as far as £60K
and that DD was given authority to effect a compromise with what was to bea final offer. It is significant that Arsene Wenger was extremely anxious notto lose AC."

"There is no dispute that DD tabled the offer of £55K “commission
on a new contract plus an Executive Box less (figure) %â€

[USMartin]

No.
The board went for more money, but over a longer period of time. I cannot say if it was for the good or bad. If Highbury was sold off then we might have had more or better players, but the board might have used the money to pay ahead on the stadium loan before it was restructured as a bond, and so it would not have affected the playing side.

Trouble is you haven't answered the question - you have tried to change it. No one asked about what they MIGHT have done but what they DID IN FACT do. And yes you can say it was for the goosd or bad - yopu presuppose what else they might have done if they hadn't done that so you can suppose the impact of what they did do. Again do you support what they did or not? Was it best for Arsenal Football Club?

The fans have not always got on with the board. Plenty, including me, were unhappy when Don Howe was sacked.

That is not what's meant here and you more than know that. The point is too many Gooners simply trusted as you suggest earlier what the Board decided it wanted to tell us within legal obligations - r=ahter than telling the truth about their plans and the impact of tthose plans on the football team. And too many Gooners were all too happy just tao accept what they said as as another Board apolgist once described it "100% guaranteed fact" because the Board was saying it.

That is a moot point. As I say above, Highbury sold off as a lump sum would have been interesting if the money was put into the team, but maybe Chelsea would have upped the ante again to negate that team investment?

That's just it - its not a moot point at all. If supporters put some real pressure on the Board it might have made some difference and might still now. I know if I lived in England I would never have missed a single meeting over these issues and never stopped pressing them to be clear and transparent about their actions and motives. I regret that I don't live there which each new disappointment this redevelopment leads to.

Its not moot at all - you just lack the will to question a lifetime of trust in how Arsenal operates - in the Arsenal Way and its custodians. I almost suspect questioning them in the first place is more uncomfortable even than the actual answers you might uncover or confirm.


BTW what Chelsea MIGHT have done again is irrelevant. This is about what our Board DID. They put maximizing profit and therefore share price ahead of giving the football team the best possible chance to succeed. Indeed that is NOT the Arsenal Way.

The Arsenal way would be to live within your means and put the best possible team on the pitch you could. The Arsenal Board made that impossible - which is the opposite of what they are supposed to do.


="VforVictory"]A major new stadium, plus social housing, can only be judged in the long term, especially in light of future possible legislation Platini wants to implement to make clubs live within their means, and increasing globalisation of the game. [/quote]

Again irrelevant - we are not debating the merits of Bilding the new stadium but of not selling Highbury to a developer. You are trying to convince others and perhps yourself that we cannot decide the merits of that decision now wehn that simply is untrue. Its clear who benefitted from that decision and how and its equally clear that Arsenal Football Club suffered for it. We do not need five years let alone fifty to come to that conclusion.

OK. Well my point was Cole was offered 55 and told to take it or leave it, that the agent's fees had to come out of that. Cole said no the fees must be on top. I was not aware that Cole wanted 60 with agent's fees on top of that, so if that is the figure I am corrected.

And my point was the premise you continue to maintain in the above quote is as incorrect as your math was.

Agebt's fees had NOTHING to do with the failure to come to an agreement with Ashley Cole - the numbers prove it.

1) if they wanted 60 K plus agents fees where is the total they wanted there has to be such a number be 60,001 k, 65,000 K or 70,000,000K. Where's that number?

2) IF the issue was the Board not paying over 60K why then did they never offer 60K and say we are willing to pay Ashley 60K but not include additional agents fees. If the issue is over whether to pay 60 K or more offering 55K is a funny way to address that to say the least.

Seems to me again you are trying to change the argument to one you feel you can win rather than argue the relevant facts.

[chyren1]

i am absolutly gobsmacked by what i just read...really...

we are all "bad racists" for expressing doubts about that guy...give me a break...
anti racism s the new facism..and i m fed up about all that pc non sense..

have you seen our team for christ sake?
how can you be racist and support the arsenal?
let s be serious a second..

racist branding s the last resort when you lose an arguement..
it s well known

enjoy your evening good sirs...