It's time for Usmanov

Can you please stop wasting everyone's time and admit you have no evidence to support the 3 year claim or that they've even decided what they're doing? You're backtracking now because what you said was pure BS.

Whatever - IIRC the reports came out about the time that CFC failed in their bid re the power station site.
The increased gate was a priority but that was before they had to put together a new management structure.
Once they start expanding at Anfield it will not take 3 years before they improve their gate revenues.

You can't make ridiculous claims like that and then not show a shred of evidence to support it. "I left the links at work" is up there with "the dog ate my homework". Surely you have internet access.

Comparing us to Valencia's financial situation is like comparing apples to oranges. UEFA's own pre FFP report said that other than the 2 Giants no Spanish clubs would meet FFP, and that the average club debt runs at 80% of revenues being spent on wages.
Valencia needed their improved stadium gate because of their debt issues.

There's not actually a more similar club to us who has attempted to build a stadium in the last 10 years. If there's a precedent for a club with some recent success building a new stadium, while remaining in the top echelon of their league consistently, please show me. Oh I forgot you don't do evidence.

That said I have no interest in debating this any further with you.

Fair enough. No doubt running out of excuses for your misplaced reports.

Fair enough. No doubt running out of excuses for your misplaced reports.

Nope - because you're full of it.

THIS board had NOTHING to do with the decision to build the stadium = that was down to Dein & Fizman. IIRC PHW is the only remaining board member from that time & he's got NO ambition.

That is so factual incorrect it is laughable!


http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2009/08/21/1453139/peter-hill-wood-reveals-arsenal-considered-wembley-move

Former vice chairmain David Dein put forth a proposal that would have seen them compete at Wembley's 90,000 capacity ground.
Such a notion was quashed by the remainder of the board, Hill-Wood stated, as they believed "his judgement was wrong", and believed the long-term financial benefits of building their own home would be the preferential option.

http://arsenalarsenal.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/david-dein-judas-or-guru/

He helped his friend Danny Fiszman to get onto the Board. Fiszman subsequently became the main driving force behind the move to Ashburton Grove,although it is widely reported that Dein was against the project.

I have to say, you often post 'facts' that I have never read anywhere before, but after reading the above comment, I really have to question your memory, or the alternative reasons behind rewriting history!

Fair enough. No doubt running out of excuses for your misplaced reports.

Nope - because you're full of it.

Well you're the one crediting Dein for the Emirates.

Dein brought Fiszman and Arsène Wenger to the club probably the most important moves the club made in the modern era. He may have been against ashburton grove move but we have yet to see if it was shrewd move or not, I am happy that arsenal still play in N5 but neither Dein nor Fiszman have been proved right yet.

PHW has been behind the times with football his whole life while Dein realised it was becoming a global entertainment industry and got names and numbers on shirts, got arsenal in the G14 and has been involved with the FA. The best thing Kroenke could do to appease fans as to his plans for the club would be to bring Dein back as chairman and force PHW into some honourary role where he can't make anymore decisions regarding the running of the club.

Fair enough. No doubt running out of excuses for your misplaced reports.

Nope - because you're full of it.

Well you're the one crediting Dein for the Emirates.

Yep that didn't come out right at all - d'oh.


The debate was regarding the ambition or lack thereof,
& I was trying to say that the Board had nothing to do with the IDEA for the move & that it was originally Dein's concept of growth to take us to the next level as a club.

PHW is about the last man standing from that Board to this.

As for the decision to build or renovate = I can't find the exact article that was posted at work,
but here is a similar article from 1st June that indicates that Stanley Park is no longer in consideration and that the Council has come on board regarding the relocation of residents and teh demolition of residential properties to enable the expansion to go ahead.

No time frames given or indicated but the principle is renovation of Anfield rather than building.

http://live4liverpool.com/2012/06/lfc-n ... ew-anfield

As for the decision to build or renovate = I can't find the exact article that was posted at work,
but here is a similar article from 1st June that indicates that Stanley Park is no longer in consideration and that the Council has come on board regarding the relocation of residents and teh demolition of residential properties to enable the expansion to go ahead.

No time frames given or indicated but the principle is renovation of Anfield rather than building.

http://live4liverpool.com/2012/06/lfc-n ... ew-anfield" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know you're not debating me anymore but that article is June 4th and is an online fanzine.

On July 3rd Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson said this to the Liverpool Echo.

"We are in regular meetings with Liverpool FC and we are working with the club.

"It's frustrating for the local residents and they are my main concern.

"We are pushing for a speedy resolution to the issue of whether the club stays at Anfield or goes to Stanley Park but we are encouraged by the discussions."

Erm Anzac is right to a point about Dein - he was the one most keen to move from Highbury - he was the most vocal that we couldn't compete financially if we stayed there.

When the board agreed on the move (and it was agreed unanimously), Dein differed in that he wanted to move to Wembley rather than build a new stadium. As a match-going fan I would have hated that, and its scary to think how close such a move was in coming to fruition (the board made a bid for Wembley before the FA did).

Dein was against building our own stadium (although he later came around to the idea) but it was not due to a lack of ambition. It was because he (correctly) believed that the financial costs would seriously hamper the footballing side of the club and thus he wanted an alternative solution.

I still believe we made the right choice moving to the stadium, however given how much we've struggled on the field as of late - you really can appreciate both sides of the argument. I don't believe we'll ever really know who was 'right' for another 10-15 years.

As for the decision to build or renovate = I can't find the exact article that was posted at work,
but here is a similar article from 1st June that indicates that Stanley Park is no longer in consideration and that the Council has come on board regarding the relocation of residents and teh demolition of residential properties to enable the expansion to go ahead.

No time frames given or indicated but the principle is renovation of Anfield rather than building.

http://live4liverpool.com/2012/06/lfc-n ... ew-anfield" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know you're not debating me anymore but that article is June 4th and is an online fanzine.

On July 3rd Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson said this to the Liverpool Echo.

"We are in regular meetings with Liverpool FC and we are working with the club.

"It's frustrating for the local residents and they are my main concern.

"We are pushing for a speedy resolution to the issue of whether the club stays at Anfield or goes to Stanley Park but we are encouraged by the discussions."

I've said that it's NOT the same article I saw at work but that the content is much the same.
I already said that it was from about the time CFC failed in their bid so it was from before Dalglish getting the sack, but I can't find anything prior to Rodger's appointment.
One article had pictures of the Shankley Gates and the statue & was talking about a number of 'issues' & FSG & the stadium was not THE main focus of the article.

As for it being a fanzine I didn't claim as to the bona fides of the source - just the content of the article & reports from a number of different sources as opposed to being word of mouth / general chat.

The only reason I remembered it is that we had been talking about the failed CFC bid & the issues we had with Council as have Spuds re their efforts, and that LFC Council were now working WITH the club unlike our own prior experience.

Everything I've seen from their lot at work has said from the club's / FSG's perspective that construction of a new stadium or sharing with Everton were no longer on the table & that expansion at Anfield was the ONLY option going ahead.
That the local council had even talked of changing local bylaws regarding residential zoning to allow for the council to purchase the surrounding housing & relocate the residents to allow construction to go ahead.

Erm Anzac is right to a point about Dein - he was the one most keen to move from Highbury - he was the most vocal that we couldn't compete financially if we stayed there.

When the board agreed on the move (and it was agreed unanimously), Dein differed in that he wanted to move to Wembley rather than build a new stadium. As a match-going fan I would have hated that, and its scary to think how close such a move was in coming to fruition (the board made a bid for Wembley before the FA did).

Dein was against building our own stadium (although he later came around to the idea) but it was not due to a lack of ambition. It was because he (correctly) believed that the financial costs would seriously hamper the footballing side of the club and thus he wanted an alternative solution.

I still believe we made the right choice moving to the stadium, however given how much we've struggled on the field as of late - you really can appreciate both sides of the argument. I don't believe we'll ever really know who was 'right' for another 10-15 years.

IIRC a major part of the debate was regards the Self Funding Busines model, servicing the debt, the potential lack of financial flexibility, and still being able to remain competitive on the pitch without further investment or improvements to our commerical revenues.

The Ajax scenario was referred in a lot of discussions & AW was against any proposal that didn't protect the football team. IIRC he initially agreed with Dein's idea to rent Wembley (prior to the offer to buy),
and then agreed to building the stadium when given assurances that the team budgets would not drop below current Highbury levels during the construction,
and that the restrictions would be lifted after the move.

Again I don't have the sources for this - I read it in an article in an online magazine regarding Dein's fall from grace & his departure prior to our move.
Likewise regarding my comments about the football club reportedly being 'ring fenced' from the apartment construction, the 30% reserves, the 70% reinvestment & the penalty criteria attached to the bonds and sponsorship deals.

As for anything being the 'right' decision - IMO in 10-15 years when the stadium bonds are paid off no one will give a damn either way as to what happened NOW or why, primarily because we will be getting those improved revenues in any event. As such the ends justify the means.

My contention is that by buying Wembley we'd saved money on construction;
wouldn't need to pay for additional infrastructure re transportation; have greater match gate capacity (80k = more than OT & 20k more than current capacity); preserve a historic site (not aware that it NEEDED to be torn down); and most of all that we'd have been able to generate those improved revenues 3-5 years before we even started to build.

That said it's all irrelevant now in any event,
but I'm curious as to why we preferred this course of action.
I'd only recently become aware that we'd looked at buying Wembley & had only thought that we'd looked to rent, and that had been the main reason to build so as to retain ownership & as we would not have exclusive use of Wembley re other events.

Dein was against building our own stadium (although he later came around to the idea) but it was not due to a lack of ambition. It was because he (correctly) believed that the financial costs would seriously hamper the footballing side of the club and thus he wanted an alternative solution.

What interest did Dein stay loyal to while seeking an alternative solution? Did he act in the best interest of the club (long term: 50-100 years) or the best interest of his own career (short term: 10-20 years)?

I still believe we made the right choice moving to the stadium, however given how much we've struggled on the field as of late - you really can appreciate both sides of the argument. I don't believe we'll ever really know who was 'right' for another 10-15 years.

That is an extremely short-sighted perspective. It is way too early to say who was right on the effects of building a new stadium after only 20 years. Why would you only judge the stadium on the time period where we had a debt to pay off?

I would say that we have the complete picture in 50-60 years.

Dein was against building our own stadium (although he later came around to the idea) but it was not due to a lack of ambition. It was because he (correctly) believed that the financial costs would seriously hamper the footballing side of the club and thus he wanted an alternative solution.

What interest did Dein stay loyal to while seeking an alternative solution? Did he act in the best interest of the club (long term: 50-100 years) or the best interest of his own career (short term: 10-20 years)?

I still believe we made the right choice moving to the stadium, however given how much we've struggled on the field as of late - you really can appreciate both sides of the argument. I don't believe we'll ever really know who was 'right' for another 10-15 years.

That is an extremely short-sighted perspective. It is way too early to say who was right on the effects of building a new stadium after only 20 years. Why would you only judge the stadium on the time period where we had a debt to pay off?

I would say that we have the complete picture in 50-60 years.

Sorry but thinking in 50-60 years time is retarded, could anyone plan the rise of the internet in 1980s let alone the 1940s? Or how situations will need to be adapted to if you want to fix a plan for that time you will always lose unless you are flexible and change to the dynamics of the current enviroment to prosper.

And talking about Dein protecting his career, ahye? He could have taken ANY other senior job in football after being sacked but has said he ONLY wants to work for arsenal. He is interested in teh long, medium and short term future of the club. Assuming that giving up the present for future success isn't strictly true, there is evidence of defensive plans backfiring as oppostions strengthens above and beyond what can be dealt with when you return to a strong position. Again its all about reading how plans made in the past fit with the reality of the present, if they aren't congruent then a change is needed to meet new issues.

Thats the problem, we don't react to changes in the football enviroment and still think its 2002 and we can get by playing around with peanuts it just not the case anymore. We need a sea change in the running of the club, I'm thinking that baring in mind how set in their ways the board are that is where we need to start at the very minimum. I would hope they would be open ideas but I can't see it happening its an old boys club with their own rules that won't change till PHW and Chips keswick are out (I think Ken Friar should be kept on his hoenst service of the club).

Dein was against building our own stadium (although he later came around to the idea) but it was not due to a lack of ambition. It was because he (correctly) believed that the financial costs would seriously hamper the footballing side of the club and thus he wanted an alternative solution.

What interest did Dein stay loyal to while seeking an alternative solution? Did he act in the best interest of the club or the best interest of his own career?

I think he tried to maintain his vision for the club so as not to get bogged down with servicing debt re teh self funding model - remembering that the stadium was not meant to be the ends to the growth but a means to it.
Ultimately it cost him his carrer.

I still believe we made the right choice moving to the stadium, however given how much we've struggled on the field as of late - you really can appreciate both sides of the argument. I don't believe we'll ever really know who was 'right' for another 10-15 years.

That is an extremely short-sighted perspective. It is way too early to say who was right on the effects of building a new stadium after only 20 years. Why would you only judge the stadium on the time period where we had a debt to pay off?

I would say that we have the complete picture in 50-60 years.

Why would it take that timeframe?
We are not struggling to service the debt which is at a fixed rate of payment,
and we have fixed timeframes regarding both the debt and for the receipt of improved revenues.
IIRC we were told that we'd start to reap the benefits of the move almost immediately & certainly within 5 years of the start of the project from construction.

My contention is that by buying Wembley we'd saved money on construction;
wouldn't need to pay for additional infrastructure re transportation; have greater match gate capacity (80k = more than OT & 20k more than current capacity); preserve a historic site (not aware that it NEEDED to be torn down); and most of all that we'd have been able to generate those improved revenues 3-5 years before we even started to build.

That said it's all irrelevant now in any event,
but I'm curious as to why we preferred this course of action.
I'd only recently become aware that we'd looked at buying Wembley & had only thought that we'd looked to rent, and that had been the main reason to build so as to retain ownership & as we would not have exclusive use of Wembley re other events.

Yeah financially Wembley would only have made sense if we had bought it outright (as we attempted to do). Having to pay ever increasing rent for a stadium was a terrible idea, as the board correctly pointed out to Dein. Whatever the solution, we had to own our own stadium.

Personally I'm hugely glad we went with Fiszman down the Emirates route rather than with Wembley. Arsenal belong in North London, and I think it's nothing short of a miracle that we managed to get the Emirates so close to Highbury.

Dein was against building our own stadium (although he later came around to the idea) but it was not due to a lack of ambition. It was because he (correctly) believed that the financial costs would seriously hamper the footballing side of the club and thus he wanted an alternative solution.

What interest did Dein stay loyal to while seeking an alternative solution? Did he act in the best interest of the club (long term: 50-100 years) or the best interest of his own career (short term: 10-20 years)?

Only Dein can answer that for you but my inclination is that he was acting in the short term interests of the club. He was the most vocal that we needed a new stadium for the best interest of the club, his contention was that building our own would seriously hamper our ability to compete financially in the short term (which given the explosive financial growth of football is actually hugely relevent to the long term). You'd have to say he was right, building the emirates has had a dramatic effect on our football success to the extent that despite our initial revenue spurt we are now further behind the very top teams than we were before we built the emirates. Again, I still believe Dein was wrong and that we made the right choice moving to the emirates - it's just very easy to see both sides of the argument.
I do think it's a bit overly simplistic just to say 'X was acting in self-interest rather than the best interests of the club' simply because they had a different opinion.

I still believe we made the right choice moving to the stadium, however given how much we've struggled on the field as of late - you really can appreciate both sides of the argument. I don't believe we'll ever really know who was 'right' for another 10-15 years.

That is an extremely short-sighted perspective. It is way too early to say who was right on the effects of building a new stadium after only 20 years. Why would you only judge the stadium on the time period where we had a debt to pay off?

I would say that we have the complete picture in 50-60 years.

Well yeah, 15, 20, 50, 50 - my point was simply that it was a move with the long-term interests of the club at mind and that we won't truly know who was 'right' for a while. A lot can change in football. But yeah, in 50-60 years we'll have an even better idea.

Sorry but thinking in 50-60 years time is retarded, could anyone plan the rise of the internet in 1980s let alone the 1940s? Or how situations will need to be adapted to if you want to fix a plan for that time you will always lose unless you are flexible and change to the dynamics of the current enviroment to prosper.

And talking about Dein protecting his career, ahye? He could have taken ANY other senior job in football after being sacked but has said he ONLY wants to work for arsenal. He is interested in teh long, medium and short term future of the club. Assuming that giving up the present for future success isn't strictly true, there is evidence of defensive plans backfiring as oppostions strengthens above and beyond what can be dealt with when you return to a strong position. Again its all about reading how plans made in the past fit with the reality of the present, if they aren't congruent then a change is needed to meet new issues.

Thats the problem, we don't react to changes in the football enviroment and still think its 2002 and we can get by playing around with peanuts it just not the case anymore. We need a sea change in the running of the club, I'm thinking that baring in mind how set in their ways the board are that is where we need to start at the very minimum. I would hope they would be open ideas but I can't see it happening its an old boys club with their own rules that won't change till PHW and Chips keswick are out (I think Ken Friar should be kept on his hoenst service of the club).

There was talk that FSG wanted Dein as their new CEO with their new management team but he turned them down.

Agreed that our business model & response has been inflexible,
and that the Baord are entrenched in their thinking and strategies - hence my concerns re LFC (regardless of 3 years, 5 years or 10), whilst that status quo remains.

Agreed that our business model & response has been inflexible,
and that the Baord are entrenched in their thinking and strategies - hence my concerns re LFC (regardless of 3 years, 5 years or 10), whilst that status quo remains.

Unless its a debt free enterprise then I can't see it happening in that timeframe, even with the FFP rules for capital infrastructure it will still take them a while to catch up. However we have to change away from this debt and self-sustaining model as it won't put us into the teir of clubs that can compete for the premier league and champions league.

My contention is that by buying Wembley we'd saved money on construction;
wouldn't need to pay for additional infrastructure re transportation; have greater match gate capacity (80k = more than OT & 20k more than current capacity); preserve a historic site (not aware that it NEEDED to be torn down); and most of all that we'd have been able to generate those improved revenues 3-5 years before we even started to build.

That said it's all irrelevant now in any event,
but I'm curious as to why we preferred this course of action.
I'd only recently become aware that we'd looked at buying Wembley & had only thought that we'd looked to rent, and that had been the main reason to build so as to retain ownership & as we would not have exclusive use of Wembley re other events.

Yeah financially Wembley would only have made sense if we had bought it outright (as we attempted to do). Having to pay ever increasing rent for a stadium was a terrible idea, as the board correctly pointed out to Dein. Whatever the solution, we had to own our own stadium.

Personally I'm hugely glad we went with Fiszman down the Emirates route rather than with Wembley. Arsenal belong in North London, and I think it's nothing short of a miracle that we managed to get the Emirates so close to Highbury.

It may be as a result of me not being a local,
but I had no issues regarding a move to Wembley as we'd already done so from Sth,
which was more significant IMO than moving to another part of Nth London.

Agreed that we'd have ultimately gotten screwed renting.

evoh_1: It is not retarded to think in 50-60 years time. A lot of things can happen, but it does not hurt to lay a solid foundation (the new stadium).

I am convinced that it was the right decision to build the new stadium. I do not defend the way the club has operated since movng to the new stadium. That is two completely different things. I will expand this point and answer the other users that have quoted me the next time I log in.

Agreed that our business model & response has been inflexible,
and that the Baord are entrenched in their thinking and strategies - hence my concerns re LFC (regardless of 3 years, 5 years or 10), whilst that status quo remains.

Unless its a debt free enterprise then I can't see it happening in that timeframe, even with the FFP rules for capital infrastructure it will still take them a while to catch up. However we have to change away from this debt and self-sustaining model as it won't put us into the teir of clubs that can compete for the premier league and champions league.

I see that the increased stadium is vital & the missing link to their equation, particularly if they are able to proceed down the expansion path rather than build (it only took us 3 years to build Emirates).
Once they have that their commercial revenues off set our gate revenue advantage meaning that CL revenues are the only major difference.

Unlike us LFC will spend to invest in the starting XI AND they will use the stadium debt to offset FFP whilst doing so.
Bearing in mind that as a result of the FSG takeover LFC now have LESS debt than us to begin with,
and they already have greater commercial revenues with improved deals for the big ticket items.

I also note that both ManU & LFC have signed long term deals with Chrysler this past week,
and that as of 2014 Chrysler will be the shirt sponsors for ManU in a 5 year deal.
Puts more pressure on our deal as we're leaving Nike.

Future heroes,

Agreed wholeheartedly, Arsenal should be in islington thats the way it is and I'm happy that the stadium is what it is where it is, maybe thats because I'm local but ripping the club out of north london would be like getting rid of far too much history for me. However it should have been funded by bringing in investors who were willing to make sure the club was not in debt to teh tune of 20 mil a year for many years, I think he should have got either owner(s) or investors who invested to make sure we could maintain our place domestically. When we were doign well enough I expectthey could see some of that investment back slowly over the long long term in a way that didn't effect the football side of the club.

Anzac,

Again if they have to service debt to expand then they will encounter problems as well, debt and interest payments kill the ability of the clubs to compete so they would need to have the owners pumping in the cash for any developments. Also again if we are to continue to ONLY self-sustain it won't really matter as we won't progress from where we are now relative to the other clubs in the league no matter how large these new sponsorship deals are. Direct investment is needed now to get us back in the hunt domestically which can be taken out long term in a more sustainable way than financing debt.

Future heroes,

Agreed wholeheartedly, Arsenal should be in islington thats the way it is and I'm happy that the stadium is what it is where it is, maybe thats because I'm local but ripping the club out of north london would be like getting rid of far too much history for me. However it should have been funded by bringing in investors who were willing to make sure the club was not in debt to teh tune of 20 mil a year for many years, I think he should have got either owner(s) or investors who invested to make sure we could maintain our place domestically. When we were doign well enough I expectthey could see some of that investment back slowly over the long long term in a way that didn't effect the football side of the club.

Anzac,

Again if they have to service debt to expand then they will encounter problems as well, debt and interest payments kill the ability of the clubs to compete so they would need to have the owners pumping in the cash for any developments. Also again if we are to continue to ONLY self-sustain it won't really matter as we won't progress from where we are now relative to the other clubs in the league no matter how large these new sponsorship deals are. Direct investment is needed now to get us back in the hunt domestically which can be taken out long term in a more sustainable way than financing debt.

I think that's what he was trying to do re Fizman, then Kroenke when it became apparent that Fizman was happy to let self funding carry the load, and then Usmanov when PHW & Co made 'those' comments about Kroenke & not wanting his kind.

Re LFC - the new TV revenues post 2014 should be more than adequate to service their debt re the expansion,
let alone should they replace us in the top4 & gain CL revenues.

Obviously your trust is very easily gained, given your support for Usmanov. I don't doubt a lot of people dislike the board but fans are fickle, especially our fans and there is no more fickle species than the online Arsenal supporter. We boo individual players, then spit blood if a player who we want to keep leaves and criticize their loyalty. We hated Wenger at the start of the season and now we don't. Really and truly we're spoilt brats who think we have a right to guaranteed trophies, which we certainly don't. Yet despite this we've made all the right moves to establish ourselves as a massive club in 2 years, and people are still moaning that we didn't win for 7 years. Maybe you should have a good read through Arsenal's history.

This post remind me of what George W Bush Jr. famous quote
"If you aren't with me, you are against me"

anyway, the bold part : Quite sure you are wrong, just because I am against PHW way of controlling this football club it doesn't mean I have given my support to Usmanov.

and the rest of your post above are 100% assumptions of what you think about me.

A wise word :
It's because one love someone one scold and reprimand them as a showing of love,
If one who don't love someone, one simply don't care.

Fair point about the Gazidis deal. The fact that our commmercial revenue is so basic actually enthuses me massively as I know it means we still have much more room for growth and makes Anzac's Liverpool scaremongering look even more unfounded. It would be a concern if we had maxed out and the current state was as good as it gets. If that was the case we would really need a change.

Which is why I posted we need to show ambitions instead just wait for 2014 and everything will be sorted.
To achieve greater commercial sponsorship we need to improve our position on the field, as simple as that.
What is less simple than this statement?

Sponsors love winners.

Listen I look at it in reality, there's only 2 major trophies per season that only one team can win, and you're angry that in the last 8 years we've not done this, but this is an incredibly short-sighted approach to take. I'm proud to be an Arsenal supporter and delighted that I was brought up in the Arsenal tradition and that means having a club that is run by a sensible board. I would hate Arsenal to have a sugar daddy owner more so when we don't even need him. I hope none of you guys have ever criticized Man City or Chelsea's owners as you're in dangerous territory.

I look at the reality, Arsenal has been in decline in the football pitch and its' getting worry some as none of the board seems to know (or care) as long as Arsenal remains in short term profit position.

But why would you want to resurrect Fiszman?

I choose my leader based on example, and Fiszman has shown his work.

What makes you think things would be any different, surely he agreed that Arsenal should scale back spending until increased revenue was secured?

You are assuming again...

Listen I look at it in reality, there's only 2 major trophies per season that only one team can win, and you're angry that in the last 8 years we've not done this, but this is an incredibly short-sighted approach to take. I'm proud to be an Arsenal supporter and delighted that I was brought up in the Arsenal tradition and that means having a club that is run by a sensible board. I would hate Arsenal to have a sugar daddy owner more so when we don't even need him. I hope none of you guys have ever criticized Man City or Chelsea's owners as you're in dangerous territory.

Missed this earlier - this whole paragraph is just sooooo wrong.

Only 2 major trophies = WTF!!!
Are you AW in disguise???
So does this mean PL & CL only???
Why bother even turning up for the domestic Cups then?
The development players were meant to be used in the CCup but now they've become part of the 25 man squad FFS = no wonder we can't compete.

There are 4 trophies available per season x 8 seasons = 32 trophies not won despite the rhetoric.
In 2009 Aw said we were close to winning EVERYTHING - we're still waiting to win SOMETHING / ANYTHING.

The Arsenal tradition = do you know our history???
Are you aware that we are the original bought team & title?
Had we stayed with 'tradition' & a 'sensible board' we'd still be in Woolwhich,
and there'd be no Highbury, no Chapman era with our first titles, The Treble & the 'WM'.

You must be joking about Liverpool Anzac. Its not like they have huge amounts of money to spend now if they take on stadium debt they will be stuck in mediocrity for a long time without an Arsène Wenger to push them into 4th. You say their additional TV revenues are going to pay for their stadium where is ours going to go? LFC are struggling now they will be even worse off in future when everyone else is using that additional TV revenue to fuel wage inflation that they cannot match.

Meanwhile Manchester United announce a £25 million per season shirt deal with Chevrolet, starting in 2014. 400% more each season than we get from Camel Airlines. Not surprising when United get more to have their training kit sponsored.

What struck me was the date. 2014 is when our deals expire. The size of the United deal underlines what a burden Emirates and Nike are on our club. Most fans are aware of this fact. I wonder when we'll finally announce our new deals.

You really need to wonder if Gazidis commercial boys even cover their own salaries.

A few points about the Dein Wembley myth. The entire board, includng Dein initially wanted to expand Highbury. Lets not forget Dein was the man behind the redeveloped Clock End and the new North Bank.

.

Dein and co looked into all options for the expansion of Highbury. The ultimate problem was the council. At that point in time DD was the driving force behind stadium expansion. The main problem was our location in an area governed by a left wing council and inhabited by a NIMBY population who by and large arrived in the area long after the club did.

One of the main reasons why the relationship between Dein and the rest of the board soured was because Fiszman entrusted Edelman with the stadium project. The catastrophic Emirates deal is a result of that.

I know the above because Dein told me so in person. I mention this because it shows how he sought dialogue with fans. He was the complete opposite to the rest of the board in that respect.

In hindsight I wish we had looked at an amended Wembley option whereby Highbury would have remained our home and Wembley would have been used for selected big matches.

That would have killed several birds with one stone. Revenues would have been increased, albeit it not to current levels. The debt mountain would never have been accumulated. The property side of things would not have drained money out of the playing side for years. The Emirates and Nike fiascos would never have happened. You could even argue the Kroenke/Usmanov situation would never have arisen.

You must be joking about Liverpool Anzac. Its not like they have huge amounts of money to spend now if they take on stadium debt they will be stuck in mediocrity for a long time without an Arsène Wenger to push them into 4th. You say their additional TV revenues are going to pay for their stadium where is ours going to go? LFC are struggling now they will be even worse off in future when everyone else is using that additional TV revenue to fuel wage inflation that they cannot match.

LFC have less debt than us after the takeover by FSG - they are virtually debt free & they are no longer struggling financially. The money they've spent since the takeover is based upon their improved revenues with their new big ticket sponsorships plus a one off kitty. They have better cash flow & better commercial revenues than us.
They earned about 70m less than us last year which is attributable to CL revenues and our higher gate takings. Yet we don't spend that much more than them, meaning that we do not flex our financial might/capability.

The primary difference will be the approach of the respective boards and management towards spending.
Ours makes a big song & dance about financial ethics etc,
whereas LFC have the primary aim to win titles.
They have ambitious goals and are putting together a management infrastructure to achieve and sustain this. We have become complacent based upon the incredible cash cow that is the stadium.
They will spend their revenues AND claim their infrastructure against FFP to offset increased wages.

Then there are the questions regarding AW's willingness to spend at the potential cost to his developing players.

They don't need an Arsène Wenger to push them into top4,
and for that matter neither do we,
other than to maintain the status quo for the Board.

A few points about the Dein Wembley myth. The entire board, includng Dein initially wanted to expand Highbury. Lets not forget Dein was the man behind the redeveloped Clock End and the new North Bank.

Dein and co looked into all options for the expansion of Highbury. The ultimate problem was the council. At that point in time DD was the driving force behind stadium expansion. The main problem was our location in an area governed by a left wing council and inhabited by a NIMBY population who by and large arrived in the area long after the club did.

One of the main reasons why the relationship between Dein and the rest of the board soured was because Fiszman entrusted Edelman with the stadium project. The catastrophic Emirates deal is a result of that.

I know the above because Dein told me so in person. I mention this because it shows how he sought dialogue with fans. He was the complete opposite to the rest of the board in that respect.

In hindsight I wish we had looked at an amended Wembley option whereby Highbury would have remained our home and Wembley would have been used for selected big matches.

That would have killed several birds with one stone. Revenues would have been increased, albeit it not to current levels. The debt mountain would never have been accumulated. The property side of things would not have drained money out of the playing side for years. The Emirates and Nike fiascos would never have happened. You could even argue the Kroenke/Usmanov situation would never have arisen.

Didn't it ultimately cost Endelman his job???

And IIRC the expansion capability was lost as soon as part of the stadium became heritage listed???

I know the above because Dein told me so in person. I mention this because it shows how he sought dialogue with fans. He was the complete opposite to the rest of the board in that respect.

I see. So you know something involving Dein and some others because Dein told you. Nothing like a chat in confidence, eh. Or was this alleged conversation supposed to be for public consumption? Ah well, at any rate it explains a lot.

And by the way, that Wembley sharing idea is one of the most ridiculous 'solutions' imaginable.