Yes, Arsenal need cash, but Dein is no great loss (20/4)
-
gooner.ed
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3458
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 3:05 pm
- Location: Scotland Yard's 10 Most Wanted List
Yes, Arsenal need cash, but Dein is no great loss (20/4)
usual thread starter... david dein was not mr popular in 1992 as i recall. in truth he has ridden into the hearts of the fans a bit on the back of his relationship with arsene. still, i am not sure it was a good move to push him off the board in such dramatic style. does anyone think he walked?
I dont know - I think David Dein has been very VERy good for Arsenal. Think about it - he came in 1983 and since he settled in we have won quite a few trophies.
I think some of the other Arsenal board members such as PHW still like to run Arsenal as if it was the Herbert Chapman 1930's era. For me, it seems David Dein was the man behind the curtain who pushed Arsenal forward.
I think some of the other Arsenal board members such as PHW still like to run Arsenal as if it was the Herbert Chapman 1930's era. For me, it seems David Dein was the man behind the curtain who pushed Arsenal forward.
-
James Reiff
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:58 pm
Yes, Arsenal need cash, but Dein is no great loss
"In my view, if there was anyone who is solely interested in making money out of us on the board, it was him. He is immensely unpopular with the staff who work at the ground, and is not liked by his peers in other teams. He is credited with bringing Wenger here, but that could have gone tits up - then what would be on his CV? Cole salary fiasco? Graham bung? The all white North Bank mural? Wembley move? Rioch dismissal handling?"
Dear me, what a load of rubbish. Dein invested what was, in 1983, a signifcant sum of money in a club and "industry" which was going nowhere. His interest was never in solely making money, if he was then he could easily have invested his £300,000 somewhere else and made more money far more quickly.
On what authority do you have it that he was immensley unpopular with staff at the ground? A couple of half-wit stewards? The catering staff?
Bringing Wenger was a genius decision, of course it could have gone wrong. The Cole "fisaco" was entirely of Ashley Cole and Johnathan Barnett's making.
The Wembley move and North Bank Mural? Are these serious complaints? I prefer the move to our new stadium, but one cannot deny that it would have made financial sense to move there.
And as for Rioch's dismissal, you imply that it was all down to Dein and the Board had no say in the matter. And so what? Rioch was a lovely chap but not good enough for Arsenal.
Dein is first and foremost and Arsenal fan (has been since he was a toddler) but naturally, as any sensible and intelligent person would, has also applied his brain to the running of the club since he joined the board. He hasn't allowed his heart to rule him.
Now I don't agree at all that a new owner will mean additional money. A new owner will still need to buy all the shares and have to contend with servicing the stadium debt. Are we expecting a new owner to then pump another £20-30m per season into the club on top of all that? That'll only happen if his aim is to NOT make money from it (a la Abramovich).
Dear me, what a load of rubbish. Dein invested what was, in 1983, a signifcant sum of money in a club and "industry" which was going nowhere. His interest was never in solely making money, if he was then he could easily have invested his £300,000 somewhere else and made more money far more quickly.
On what authority do you have it that he was immensley unpopular with staff at the ground? A couple of half-wit stewards? The catering staff?
Bringing Wenger was a genius decision, of course it could have gone wrong. The Cole "fisaco" was entirely of Ashley Cole and Johnathan Barnett's making.
The Wembley move and North Bank Mural? Are these serious complaints? I prefer the move to our new stadium, but one cannot deny that it would have made financial sense to move there.
And as for Rioch's dismissal, you imply that it was all down to Dein and the Board had no say in the matter. And so what? Rioch was a lovely chap but not good enough for Arsenal.
Dein is first and foremost and Arsenal fan (has been since he was a toddler) but naturally, as any sensible and intelligent person would, has also applied his brain to the running of the club since he joined the board. He hasn't allowed his heart to rule him.
Now I don't agree at all that a new owner will mean additional money. A new owner will still need to buy all the shares and have to contend with servicing the stadium debt. Are we expecting a new owner to then pump another £20-30m per season into the club on top of all that? That'll only happen if his aim is to NOT make money from it (a la Abramovich).
