Chairman: Peter Hill-Wood CEO: Ivan Gazidis Director: Ken Friar Director: Sir Chips Keswick Director: Lord Harris of Peckham Director: Stan Kronke There is some suggestion that over the next 12 to 18 months the old guard may step down and allow a new board to be formed. It's believed that both Kronke and Gazidis are not opposed to Usmanov being brought onto the board (he is after all a majority shareholder) and using some of his money to invest into the squad. There is also the suggestion that David Dein may also be given a role again on the board after Hill-Wood has gone. Dein's relationship with Wenger is key and his negotiation skills in the transfer market are well renowned. So with the potential of more money available for transfers, with both Dein and Wenger's skills in talent scounting and negotiating, would we be happy to see Usmanov embraced by the club ? A future board could look something like this: Chairman: Stan Kronke Vice Chairman: David Dein CEO: Ivan Gazidis Director: Alisher Usmanov Commercial Director: Tom Fox http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/engla...lisher-usmanov-david-dein-could-be-approached
I would be happy to see change and something like progression. We have stood still for so long that we have forgotten what it feels like to move forward as a club. For this reason the current board of directors needs to leave and be replaced by someone more in touch with reality.
I think Kronke and Gazidis are here to stay. Gazidis actually does a very good job at CEO. His role is to develop and promote the club along with commercial director Tom Fox. Kronke is committed to the self sustaining model, but it's rumoured that he (and Gazidis) are not opposed to bringing Usmanov on board and using some of his money to invest in the squad. The key player for me though is David Dein. He should never have been ousted by Hill Wood in the first place. Remember it was over Dein bringing Kronke to the club, who Hill Wood then later embraced, once he realised that 'their sort' could actually help us develop a club and stadium for the 21st century. Dein's contribution to Arsenal cannot be underestimated, it was him who brought Wenger to the club, it was Dein who brought Bergkamp to the club and it was Dein who helped Arsenal secure the services of the players Wenger wanted and enabled him to build two double winning squads. Dein is Arsenal to the core. Once the old guard do eventually go (they are all in their mid 70's now) we will need an Arsenal man on the board, Dein is the obvious choice.
'Kronke is committed to the self sustaining model' which means he takes income - but never puts his hand in his pocket. What a surprise!
I've heard that Usmanov has tried many times to meet up with Kroenke but the American has always blanked him, what makes you think that Kroenke has warmed to him all of a sudden.
When Kroenke appeared at the AGM and spoke for the first time he said he didn't know why anyone wanted him to speak. He may even have said he didn't know what to say but I need to look that up. He said his family loved London but nothing about why he holds the largest proportion of shares in the club nor what he intends to do with it or any investment he is likely to make. Something to hide Mr Kroenke?
I'd get rid of the lot of them. Usmanov needs to be brought on board, he can bankroll some top transfers, and we BADLY need David Dein. The man was a transfer guru, we have to somehow get him involved with the club again.
David Dein coming back would do wonders for us. Only he has ever been able to rein in Arsene. He would also sharpen up the transfer negotiations as well, something which Gazidis and Dick Law have royally messed up. Talk about deadwood.
Not my thoughts really, but those in the report. Apparently Kronke and Gazidis have no objection to Usmanov. That would suggest that the resistance comes from Hill-Wood, probably because after he ousted Dein (over Kronke) Dein then aligned himself with Usmanov - who was then tarred with the same brush as Dein. The obvious points here are that Hill Wood showed that he made a mistake over Dein as he embraced Kronke - and that Kronke and Dein are clearly able to work together as Dein courted Kronke and brought him to the fold in the first place. I think Dein is itching to get back into the club, my thoughts are that we badly need him - Wenger more so, Dein is his right hand man. Once Hill Wood goes, I think Dein will return.
Kroenke has nothing to hide. He's a business man, and he generally concentrates his efforts on promoting the clubs he owns and increasing their marketability. With Arsenal, the British market is saturated, but the foreign markets aren't. Hence the tour to Malaysia and the upcomming one to Nigeria. If the club makes 100m a year before he arrives, and after he arrives he takes 20m, leaving the club with only 80m, i wouldn't be happy. However, his style is more to come in with the club making 100m, increase that to 150m, then take 20m for himself - something which i don't object to at all. if he markets the club well with better, bigger sponsors for more aspects of the club, more partners, then takes his share of the increase, i have no problem with that. he's a good, smart business man who brings stability and a long-term plan. i'd be delighted to have him as a chairman, and to have Usmanov & Dein on board. I wouldn't want Usmanov to invest heavily however as I want the club to remain self-sufficient and on the right side of the Financial Fair Play regulations.
Appreciate the analysis Bon Thanks for that. What's your view on our underperforming CEO? I refer to the transfer policy and procedure or lack of.....
When Gazidis first came in he was built up very highly based on his previous success. His links to the MLS meant he was championed. However, subsequently, the MLS has improved since he left - mainly based on his ability to get Beckham to the MLS and improve it as a brand, popularising "Soccer" in America. When he arrived the fans seemed very pleased as he quickly settled down and signed up many youngsters to long-term deals. He was expected to take over Dein's role in negotiations, something which I've no idea if as Deputy Commissioner of the MLS he had much experience in? To me, he seemed better suited to a Marketing position for expanding the brand of Arsenal overseas. Negotiations have been slow and protracted since he took over, but there is a team of people involved at every club. It may be that the legal team has been holding things up and isn't up to scratch. Ultimately though, if he's responsible for signings (and we're not sure he is), then someone should be held accountable when things don't go well. In essence, he started very well, and he talks good talk. But there is an issue somewhere, and ultimately, he will be held to blame as it's his department to get players to sign on the dotted line. It could be that Wenger dallies over what and who he really wants, and Gazidis does a sterling job as soon as he's given the name and a price to go up to, but something is definitely amiss somewhere.
Bonstar - I see your point but think it's the wrong one to take for Arsenal. What we need is someone who will allow the club to up their profits to £200m and they take £20m. In fact, in this case we need to speculate to accumulate, any business does this. If we simply hope to spend what we earn we won't get very far, we are doing that now and going backwards. We need to take that step forward, it won't cripple us, we are too big a club with far bigger revenue streams now than we ever had. Can you imagine the buzz around the Emirates if we had a couple of marquee signings ?? Sold out stadium for home games and new followers abroad. We need marquee names to be able to fulfil that objective, a bunch of has-beens and home grown talent will not suffice.
This whole thing depends on our ambitions. Man U speculated on a few £30m players and it served them well and kept them ahead of everyone else. The money they spent on Ferdinand and Rooney was absurd at the time, but key to their future success.
Thanks again Bon and indeed Mr Head That's a good point about Utd. Getting it right on the field makes the difference and one that is more meaningful given we are a football club. In respect of transfers I would say that I had listened to a discussion following the summer window that the negotiating team of Dick Law n Gazidis were not as sharp as David Dein and to add to our misery, Arsene himself takes a long time in arriving at decisions. If it's all three of them then for me, their continuance is no promise of progress for us.....
The simplest way to increase income is to sign up with more commercial partners. Man Utd have their training kit sponsored - the flippin training kit!! Arsenal should be on it like sonic. Get as many commercial partners as humanly possible - each bringing income into the club with minimal effort. In addition, looking at the FFP rules, you are allowed to invest in certain things outside of the club - like the youth academy etc. It would be useful therefore to use Usmanov's billions for these running costs etc, freeing up cash to be used on the team. It's not against the rules, just circumvents them a little. And I agree completely that a marquee signing would be good for business. I really thought Benzema would arrive in summer as a statement of intent from the board - to give the fans a buzz and get everyone talking about the club straight after Kroenke took over, immediately increasing the marketability of the team. I'm very very surprised this didn't happen, it's the first thing I would have done.
Two phrases spring to mind when I see suggestions like this: Be careful what you wish for, and better the devil you know. I'm not blind to think there aren't issues with our club but a period without a trophy isn't a disaster, disappointing maybe, but not a disaster. A season without CL football would be extremely disappointing, but not a disaster. Wholesale changes, like those who want us to add another half dozen players in January to the nine we signed in August, aren't going to happen, and if they did there would be mistakes made that have the potential to take the club backwards and do long lasting damage. Everyone knows that David Dein is a fan, but much like Thierry Henrys comeback it could be the hype ends up being misfounded, he could take one look at the books and say that the current strategy is right for the club and can't be improved. If some of you want a billionaire to walk through the door and pump hundreds of millions into the club and turn us into the next Chelsea or Man City, then it's not going to happen, and if there was a danger it could then the club will be changed forever.
The thing Grizzly is that if we lose out on a CL place, it may not be for a year. It would mean getting back a Top 4 place and that could be having to do it without RvP. Being out of the CL would also impact of our ability to bring in someone with a goal scoring rate that would help us achieve our aim. We could of course have a team as we once did where a number of players could score well throughout the year but right now there is no evidence this is possible with the current team. Failure to get into the CL would entail being marooned in no man's land for a number of years. All that for a stadium we may not be able to fill, a selection of bricks and mortar to sell in a flat ( pun not intended ) market and a bunch of young players whose potential is questionable. When a sporting entity loses it's sporting focus what do you have then?
Grizzly, the affect a marquee signing or 2 would have on the club would be immense, it would give everyone a lift and should put us back where we need to be. We don't need a billionaire owner to be able to do that, we have the cash, we have the income. We are a big enough club to be able to absorb a hit like that without going under .. like Leeds. The fans would come back in droves, the extra merchandise at home and abroad would part finance the moves, we can sell off a few players to recoup some funds. It is a win/win situation but it involves being ambitious. The club are not ambitious in my view so they will make every excuse in the world not to do it. Wenger will argue that it will hamper Denilson's progress .. or it means Diaby won't get games
RVB - I totally get all that, very much agree, but my point was based on failure to qualify this season only. Calls to sack the manager, sack the board, cub in crisis etc will be way too premature in May even if we do not make the CL. If we go out and bring in a couple of big players for 12/13 and become a force and qualify for CL as a minimum then the one season out of the CL will not have been a disaster, and it would have shown that teh club react to the unacceptable position of being out the CL. I do however understand that failure to play amongst Europes elite will affect our ability to retain our best players and attract players to improve the squad. But my point remains, a failure (CL qualification) is not life and death for the club, it's how we react to it (if it becomes reality) that will be crucial....
