Discussion in 'Arsenal Talk' started by 23AndreyArshavin, Oct 14, 2011.
All I know is if this Mislintat/Sanllehi thing doesn't work out...
I'll take a Bond villain if he will show ambition. Innocent until proven guilty.
I'll take him even if he's proven guilty.
if we're stuck with Old Kronky, and it seems we are, we can only hope son Josh turns out to be a different sort of owner when he takes over
There are always options, but I will wait for Mislintat/Sanllehi/Wenger to see how they work together first.
I genuinely fear something like that happening in the future. I think you can pretty much trace a lot of the clubs modern misfortunes to when after Dein left and this buyout happened. The whole ethos of the club changed from that point. It was a terrible decision - poor Danny Fiszman, in his feud with Dein made a choice that probably sealed the fate of the club he loved for generations to come.
What do you think would have been our destiny had the take-over not happened, and we remained under the former ownership structure? I know if David Dein had stayed he would have been able to lead the football direction of the club like the past, but I often wonder, had we had not been taken over by anyone, would we have had more finances/less finances, would we be better off or worse?
It's hard to say. I think there was a fallout as Dein wanted us to move to a site by Kings Cross, it was a cheaper option and would have meant the club wouldn't have been saddled with as bad a debt.
The one thing I would say about Dein was I think his primary objective was to keep us competitive as a sporting entity. I think when the board at the time decided to move the club it was done with the best intentions, and with a genuine agenda to lead us to be one of Europe's elite clubs.
Unfortunately, I believe changed when the club was sold.
Yeah I know Dein wanted investment from a new owner or owners to keep the club competitive and he was quoted as saying he feared without this we'd not be able to stay at the top. I know a lot of hate goes to Kroenke, but as far I know he doesn't put any money it, but doesn't necessarily take any significant amount out, but I could be wrong. I just wondered if without him and with the old shareholders, we'd still be in the same position for good or bad.
Kroenke withdrew a few million not so long ago as "consultancy fees" or some rubbish. Don't be fooled. He is all for money.
I think we would have been in a better position because we would have Dein instead of someone inexperienced like Gazidis handling transfer and contract negotiations for the club. Dein might have found a way to get us Xabi Alonso when we were in for him. Dein might have convinced one or both Cesc and Nasri to stay or at the very least he would've gotten top dollar for them. This would've put us in a better position to replace them. Imagine Hazard and Gotze coming in instead of Arteta and Park Chu Young. Dein is basically like the anti-Gazidis.
Edit: Thats why I am so pleased by the hiring of Mislintat/Sanllehi. We are finally behaving like a big club again. We don't get bullied in transfers and only budge on our terms.
David Dein should have a statue outside the emirates. He's a legend in his own right. He stole our greatest rivals best player. On a free. The man was extremely open-minded and I honestly believe he and Wenger complimented each others flaws. He was a visionary. Way ahead of his time, and we lost a lot the days we forced him out.
For those of you who like to keep track of Kroenke's American sports teams, the Rams won their division this season, the Nuggets are over .500 and the Avalanche has won 10 straight games. So maybe things will be looking up for Arsenal as well.
True but Lady Bracewell Smith sold her shares (16% I think) and chose Kroenke rather than Usmanov so she's also to blame for our non spending uninterested Owner. She has admitted her mistake since. Usmanov with 46% would have helped his cause no end.
Lets see if any of his teams can win anything and if he keeps the team together and builds on that.
None of it has any relation to Arsenal anyway since the structure of American sports leagues is a whole different universe.
Do you think Wenger’s youth project is a result of his own philosophy or the restrictions caused by building Emirates Stadium?
The restrictions were placed on him when the stadium was being built. He did so well with these restrictions that he felt even when they were lifted that he could continue with the same policy, forgetting that Chelsea were a competitor and there was now an even more competition in terms of Manchester City, while Manchester United were there all along. Someone needed to challenge him in the summer of 2008 and say: ‘You must buy Xabi Alonso. Saying it will kill Denilson is not acceptable.’
In your book you say that Arsenal were only a couple of million short of Liverpool’s asking price for Alonso. Does the failure to buy the Spaniard and others like him highlight how much David Dein has been missed?
Many people misinterpret the role of Dein. Although he wouldn’t challenge Wenger by saying ‘for goodness sake Arséne, we need a defensive coach’, he would say, ‘Arséne, if you want Xabi Alonso, forget about the money’. They were close friends and worked together as a partnership. Wenger says himself that ‘David did my dirty work for me’. Wenger didn’t have the time or inclination to sit down with agents but Dein did. He was a tough negotiator and enjoyed the cut and thrust of negotiations. Unlike Chelsea and Manchester City, Arsenal no longer sit down so often with the mega agents like Pini Zahavi or Jorge Mendes, but if Dein was around there would be more contact.
Richard Law has taken on Dein’s role of transfer and contract negotiator. What do you make of him?
He is a lawyer and not a football man in the way that Dein is and not an Arsenal man in the way that Dein is. Although Dein could have done more in terms of challenging his friend [Wenger], his absence shows how badly he is missed.
Should the board regret ousting Dein?
They acted the way they did because the stadium was the priority. Dein acted unilaterally. He believed while the stadium was being built that money should be found for the team. That was the point of difference, even though his friend, the manager, promised the board he could make do and mend. Dein went against the board policy which was supported by Wenger.
So you agree that with Mislintat/Sanellhi performing the Dein role we would be back?
As someone who works in wealth management, the issue with being ultra high net worth is it becomes very tough to spread your money out and protect it from inflation while not exposing yourself to unnecessary risk.
Sure , he could sell arsenal and make a nice profit , but then he has to go through the hassle of finding a new place for his money. If someone wants to buy arsenal they can't just offer him a fair value, they need to really make it worth all the extra time and hassle for him.
On another note, I think we should rename our mascot to bantersaurus
Sadly it feels like the past 10 years were vital to establishment as a top team. We missed several opportunities to do it
Old saying “spend money to make money” I feel really applies to the few years before the TV money really took off in this country