http://www.onlinegooner.com/editorial/index.php?id=71
usual thread starter… One assumes Craig Murray wouldn’t make up this kind of stuff, and if it is true he’s a brave man to have published it. So what do you think about David Dein now? Fool or cynic?
David Dein’s own goal (3/9)
-
WengerKnows
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:08 am
I also"asumed " that the British and United States governments would not fabricate evidence about Iraq possesing stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction but i guess i assumed wrong . Despite the pre-concieved notions i have about Russian Oligarchs i cannot in good conscience assume all the allegations against our tubby would be owner based solely on Craig Murray's blog . More concrete evidence is required in my opinion .
-
into the red
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:01 pm
Wenger knows - easy to sit there and pronounce from your high perch. What evidence would you like? A visit from Usmanov and his thugs? Craig Murray is probably one of the best placed people to know about Usmanov's background, having lived there and been the British Ambassador, as well as writing extensively about the region. He is prepared to go to court to defend his case.And your qualifications are?
Dein has made the most colossal and badly judged blunder of his life. Throwing in his lot with a gangster, a racketeer and fraudster, just so he can get to sit in the chairman's seat is contemptible and would have serious repercussions for Arsenal if he ever got his way. Having sold his shares, what leverage does he now have over the mafia-style boss he connives with? He is now dependent on the largesse of this psycho to keep his job at Red And White. Once he has performed his useful idiot's job of fronting the takeover, what will Usmanov owe him? Nothing. So bye bye Dein and his ill-thought vain and ambitious delusions.
Dein has made the most colossal and badly judged blunder of his life. Throwing in his lot with a gangster, a racketeer and fraudster, just so he can get to sit in the chairman's seat is contemptible and would have serious repercussions for Arsenal if he ever got his way. Having sold his shares, what leverage does he now have over the mafia-style boss he connives with? He is now dependent on the largesse of this psycho to keep his job at Red And White. Once he has performed his useful idiot's job of fronting the takeover, what will Usmanov owe him? Nothing. So bye bye Dein and his ill-thought vain and ambitious delusions.
-
WengerKnows
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:08 am
from wikipedia about Craig Murray
Discipline charges
In July 2003, some of his embassy staff were sacked while he was away on holiday. They were reinstated after he expressed his outrage to his bosses in the FCO. Later, during his holiday, he was recalled to London for disciplinary reasons. On August 21, 2003, he was confronted with 18 charges including "hiring dolly birds [pretty young women] for above the usual rate" for the visa department, though he claims that the department had an all-male staff, and granting UK visas in exchange for sex. He was told that discussing the charges would be a violation of the Official Secrets Act punishable by imprisonment. He was encouraged to resign.[8]
He collapsed during a medical check in Tashkent on September 2, 2003 and was airlifted to St Thomas' Hospital in London. After an investigation by Tony Crombie, Head of the FCO's Overseas Territories Department, all but two of the charges (being drunk at work and misusing the embassy's Range Rover) were dropped. The charges were leaked to the press in October 2003.[11] Immediately upon his return to work in November 2003, he suffered a near-fatal pulmonary embolism and was again flown back to London for medical treatment. In January 2004, the Foreign Office after a four month investigation exonerated him of all 18 charges, but reprimanded him for speaking about the charges.
Now according to this article the charges against Mr Murray were dropped (most of them atleast ) , but then again so were the charges against Usmanov dropped . I am not trying to be high and mighty but you seem to act like Craig Murray's words should be treated like Gospal . All i am saying is that i refuse to make judgement based solely on the words of 1 individual , who is a controversial individual himself to put it mildly .
Discipline charges
In July 2003, some of his embassy staff were sacked while he was away on holiday. They were reinstated after he expressed his outrage to his bosses in the FCO. Later, during his holiday, he was recalled to London for disciplinary reasons. On August 21, 2003, he was confronted with 18 charges including "hiring dolly birds [pretty young women] for above the usual rate" for the visa department, though he claims that the department had an all-male staff, and granting UK visas in exchange for sex. He was told that discussing the charges would be a violation of the Official Secrets Act punishable by imprisonment. He was encouraged to resign.[8]
He collapsed during a medical check in Tashkent on September 2, 2003 and was airlifted to St Thomas' Hospital in London. After an investigation by Tony Crombie, Head of the FCO's Overseas Territories Department, all but two of the charges (being drunk at work and misusing the embassy's Range Rover) were dropped. The charges were leaked to the press in October 2003.[11] Immediately upon his return to work in November 2003, he suffered a near-fatal pulmonary embolism and was again flown back to London for medical treatment. In January 2004, the Foreign Office after a four month investigation exonerated him of all 18 charges, but reprimanded him for speaking about the charges.
Now according to this article the charges against Mr Murray were dropped (most of them atleast ) , but then again so were the charges against Usmanov dropped . I am not trying to be high and mighty but you seem to act like Craig Murray's words should be treated like Gospal . All i am saying is that i refuse to make judgement based solely on the words of 1 individual , who is a controversial individual himself to put it mildly .
-
into the red
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:01 pm
WK: those charges are a joke. Craig Murray was subjected to a propaganda campaign by the British and Americans. His crime? To have questioned the wisdom of British and American policy in conniving in human rights abuses and torture in Uzbekistan. Shortly after he left his post, he gave a number of interviews to the media, speaking out about human rights abuse in Uzbekistan and criticising the decision to withdraw him. The Foreign Office then charged him with gross misconduct on October 21st 2004 because of what he had said to the media. Ten months earlier, the Foreign Office had been forced to withdraw 18 other bogus disciplinary charges. Those charges you relate are bogus and part of a dirty tricks campaign against him:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreigna ... 39,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 80,00.html
Usmanov's charges aren't false or discredited however. He was released only through his gangster connections with Karimov and his daughter.
It should also be noted that Murray is fully prepared to stand up in a British court and defend his account, should Usmanov wish to challenge it.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreigna ... 39,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 80,00.html
Usmanov's charges aren't false or discredited however. He was released only through his gangster connections with Karimov and his daughter.
It should also be noted that Murray is fully prepared to stand up in a British court and defend his account, should Usmanov wish to challenge it.
-
WengerKnows
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:08 am
This is an article written by Craig Murray , published on 17 Augast 2007
What's Really Going On?
The UK Terror Plot
By CRAIG MURRAY
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.
We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.
For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.
We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.
Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.
If everything Mr Murray writes is true then Usmanov owning Arsenal is the least of our worries
What's Really Going On?
The UK Terror Plot
By CRAIG MURRAY
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.
We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.
For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.
We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.
Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.
If everything Mr Murray writes is true then Usmanov owning Arsenal is the least of our worries
-
into the red
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:01 pm
WK: you have completely gone off on a tangent, ignoring the evidence against Usmanov. This article has no relevance to the fitness of a racketeering gangster to take over Arsenal. the only point i can imagine you think you are making is a crude attempt to carry on the smears against Murray. If you are trying to derail the discussion into some sort of political quagmire about Islamists and terrorism etc then carry on wasting your time. But others should ask themselves: why is WK so keen to defend a convicted criminal, fraudster and gangster and see no objection to him running Arsenal? you are solely concerned with shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.
Dein may well have blown it, some fans were crying out for him as the saviour of Arsenal but this one seems to have ended such talk, I'm sure Dein means well and thank him for his service but while I can see the Kronkane move being well meant, I fail to see how this one is.
I would, as I understand it, charges being dropped by a democratic government against an Ambassador for "buying services" and speaking too much is one thing, being jailed for three crimes that our new shareholder has and being released from jail with a pardon by a tyrant who uses torture is another.
I would, as I understand it, charges being dropped by a democratic government against an Ambassador for "buying services" and speaking too much is one thing, being jailed for three crimes that our new shareholder has and being released from jail with a pardon by a tyrant who uses torture is another.
-
bristol411
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:28 pm
We need to look closer at David Dein's motives. He obviously offered his shares to Kronke, but with the caveat that DD still controlled them or became Kronke's front man. Kronke does not need DD so he told him no thanks. Next, DD employed an investment banker to find someone who will buy the shares on his terms. And Usmanov bit, happy to let DD front an investment company and probably try and get a seat on the board. in other words all DD wants is a seat on the board, to stir things up but with nothing to loose financially.
DD had already been sidelined as he wanted to ground share at Wembley rather than develop a new stadium. but that is now where the value is in the club. If we were to try and build to day, land prices are up 30%, construction costs are up at least that much and then it would be near impossible to get the financing in place. What price a stadium right next to the leading finacial center in Europe?
So the shares represent an interesting investment. Cash flow more than covers the financing cost of the debt, which will be reduced once the flats are built and paid for. The stadium is worth more than its cost, so the residual value of the club and brand is not that high ( Market Cap of the shares around £500 million, less the value of the stadium at £350 million leaving £150 million for the club). So a good long term investment. And what price having a manager who does not want to spend squidzillions on players and their salaries?Usmanov must believe all this as he bought the shares from an insider who wants to sell and clearly does not see any future value.
I believe that Usmanov has nothing to loose by waiting to make any major move, especially as his main objective is to raise his profile a la Abramov and make him assassination proof. Wait and see if any sellers emerge next year, no point in being aggressive now. He will get bored by Dein eventually and dump him as he adds no real value, but initially he is worth the publicity value. DD must be pissing Wenger off by repeating his mantra that we won't win anything without buying different players. We will see Mr Dein.
Watch the Birmingham space, as their new owner has been accused by Hong Kong papers of not being able to pay his tax bill and fronting for a well known Triad boss currently in Jail.
DD had already been sidelined as he wanted to ground share at Wembley rather than develop a new stadium. but that is now where the value is in the club. If we were to try and build to day, land prices are up 30%, construction costs are up at least that much and then it would be near impossible to get the financing in place. What price a stadium right next to the leading finacial center in Europe?
So the shares represent an interesting investment. Cash flow more than covers the financing cost of the debt, which will be reduced once the flats are built and paid for. The stadium is worth more than its cost, so the residual value of the club and brand is not that high ( Market Cap of the shares around £500 million, less the value of the stadium at £350 million leaving £150 million for the club). So a good long term investment. And what price having a manager who does not want to spend squidzillions on players and their salaries?Usmanov must believe all this as he bought the shares from an insider who wants to sell and clearly does not see any future value.
I believe that Usmanov has nothing to loose by waiting to make any major move, especially as his main objective is to raise his profile a la Abramov and make him assassination proof. Wait and see if any sellers emerge next year, no point in being aggressive now. He will get bored by Dein eventually and dump him as he adds no real value, but initially he is worth the publicity value. DD must be pissing Wenger off by repeating his mantra that we won't win anything without buying different players. We will see Mr Dein.
Watch the Birmingham space, as their new owner has been accused by Hong Kong papers of not being able to pay his tax bill and fronting for a well known Triad boss currently in Jail.
-
U.F.G Anfield '89
- Posts: 1712
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:26 pm
- Location: Royal Holloway University of London
-
into the red
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:01 pm
Yes, I think this development will have the effect of driving the board into a deal, or partnership, or whatever with Kroenke. I suspect they will take the view that Usmanov's reputation is so horrific that Kroenke will be much preferrable, plus the last thing they want is for Stan to get disillusioned and sell out to the gangster. If they get Stan on board, as long as they stay committed to the vision we expect from Arsenal, the uzbek is out in the cold.
And if Murray should be looking over his shoulder, what price Dein's head if he doesn't fulfill his master's brief to take over?
And if Murray should be looking over his shoulder, what price Dein's head if he doesn't fulfill his master's brief to take over?
-
WengerKnows
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:08 am
into the red wrote:WK: you have completely gone off on a tangent, ignoring the evidence against Usmanov. This article has no relevance to the fitness of a racketeering gangster to take over Arsenal. the only point i can imagine you think you are making is a crude attempt to carry on the smears against Murray. If you are trying to derail the discussion into some sort of political quagmire about Islamists and terrorism etc then carry on wasting your time. But others should ask themselves: why is WK so keen to defend a convicted criminal, fraudster and gangster and see no objection to him running Arsenal? you are solely concerned with shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.
No i am not trying to derail the topic . You are baseing all your opinions on Usmanov on a article by Craig Murray . I merely posted another article also written by Mr Murray to display that he is a sensationlist / conspiricy theorist . In the article i posted your beloved Craig basically calls the British Government liers , the police a political tool and the former Home Secretry a communist thug / enforcer . Common sense tells me that most of these accusations are probably gross exagerations made up to forward whatever agenda Mr Murray has . Thus it also puts into doubt what C. M has to say about Usmanov .
Also how dare you imply that i would have any personal motive to welcome Usmanov or defame Mr Murray . All i have been saying from the very start is that i would like to see more information / evidence before i make judgments . Maybe Usmanov is indeed scum of the earth , in which case i will be just as vocal about my dissaproval , however i sure as hell will not blindly agree with everything Craig Murray has to say without further verification .
-
U.F.G Anfield '89
- Posts: 1712
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:26 pm
- Location: Royal Holloway University of London
-
into the red
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:01 pm
