football
Latest News:
This is the board where Arsenal fans can discuss all things Arsenal, and any other football issues that they feel are of interest to Gunners. Opposition fans are welcome, but remember this board is from an Arsenal point of view. Off Topic Discussion should take place on the Off Topic Forum. Off Topic discussion will be removed. Any topic that is football related, within reason, is not off topic.


What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 03:10
Well, let;'s see.

The source for these figures are a variety of major Newspapers - The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, and The Times.

Additional Sources include the PlusMarketsGroup Website (the Stock Exchange Arsenal Holding PLC is still traded on at this team though that will change imminently), and Arsenal.Com and Official documents (Hello Karsene) from Arsenal Holdings PLC amd Kroneke Sports Enterprises released at the Club's Official Website indicating the number shares being sold and the prices at which they were sold Mr. Kroenke as well as earlier announcements providing similar information about previous transactions at PlusMarketsGroup

Shares Sold By Board Members to Stan Kroenke

Dan Fiszman 11 - 10,025 shares @ 11750GBP/sh 117,793,750GBP

Dan Fiszman 09 - 5000 Shares @ 8500GBP/Share 42,500,000GBP

Dan Fiszman 07 - 659 shares @ app 5975/Share 3.937,525 GBP

164,231,275GBP

N Bracewell-Smith 11 -9893 shares @ 11750/sh 116,242,750GBP

Carr Family 09 - 4839 Shares @ 10500/sh 50,809,500GBP

Other Members 11 - 555 Shares at 11750/sh 6,521,250GBP

Total Sold By Board 337,804,775GBP



Shares Sold By Board Members to Alisher Usmanov
Dein 07 9072 shares at app 8270/Share 75,025,400GBP

Total Sold By Mr. Dein 75,025,400GBP

Total Sold to Mr. Kroenke 412,830,175GBP



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23/05/2012 03:19 by RadioFreeArsenal.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 03:41
A couple of other things should be noted here.

First that the Board members who made these profits did so on a collective investment of approximtaely 10-15 million pounds between them almost all of it by Dan Fiszman and all of it by Dan Fiszman and David Dein alone.

Second that In fact Dan Fiszman was the first and only Board member to sell to Stan Kroenke prior to David Dein being sacked for his association with Mr. Kroenke. What that means is uncertain but it certainly raises real questions about what the Board's actual plans were all along.

Finally it should be noted that those who sold to Stan Kreonke in 2011 made about 5000 GBP per share on the Highbury redevelopment or about 105 million pounds more than would have for themselves had they not redeveloped Highbury. Other shareholders who sold Earlier also received addirional benefits from this project though how much specificallis both variable and indefinite because of the timing of their sales to Mr. Kroenke.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 07:52
Fiszman's a @#$%& for selliing his shares, I hope he can live with himself.(Sm16)



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 08:01
Also most of us folk have no problems with Dein and Nina as they wanted trophies and didn't like the way the club was run.



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 13:50
That was Mr. Dein's stance certainly. And in a remarkable bit of conicdence perhaps david Dein still brought both buyers of the Boards shares to the table and benefitted handsomely from it.

Lady Bracewell-Smith's stance is less clear frankly as certainly she took no real stand over the issue of winning trophies.

Indeed reports at the time of her dismissal form the Board suggested the issue was that she wanted to sell sooner rather than later, and there wsome reeports at the time of David Dein's dismissal than Lady Bracewell-Smith might have accepted Stan Kroenke's offer but was talked back into the fold. The later reposrts were dismissed at that time, however given what happened subsequently and why it has reported in a number of outlets that it did, it is not hard to conclude that there is some real doubt about what really drove her in her actions.

Doubt in anf of itself is not proof. However when you look at her actions on the Board which include 100% support of the Board's plans and not onece publicly expressing andy doubt or concern about them at any point, quite unlike david Dein who at one point out of nowhere really pushed for Arsenal to buy Wembley rather than build a new stadium which I suspect and this is in fact more speculative on my part at this point coincided with the Board's decision not to sell Highbury as originnally planned and and increase an already cash-strapped as noted below club's total debt by nearly 50% through 2031 and by over 100% through 2010 and eliminating a ciritcal short-term revenue stream to offset that spending without impact the famously (perhaps infamously) ring-fenced football tean.

And remember we did put in between 100 and 150 million pounds of the Club's money that normally would have avilable to go back inopt the team into the construction of the new stadium as well as borrowing the 290 million to complete that effort

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 14:13
Well Nina's publicly criticized Wenger that's enough for me, she had no powers over the board so had to leave.

Personally I think going for this lot is stupid, If you can find dirt on Hillwood, Kroenke, Wenger and gazidis go for it. Fiszman has died of cancer FFS, all the money he made off the club he literally didn't spend.



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 14:17
First off, the tragic circumstances Mr. Fiszman faced which all had great sympathy and compassion for do not dismiss his actions or the motives behind no matter how much you would like to think they do or suggest they should.

Secondly if he has simply been more candid and announced his intent to retire without divulging perosnal details he was uncomfortable divulging for absoluyely legitimate reasons and because he had no heir ready or willing to step aboard in his oplace that he had to sell that would have been something I would find no fault with in and of itself. But two concerns overshadow this.

The first is how closely and undeniably coordinated were the final sale of his shares and that of Lady Bracewell-Smith's holdings were. This ais all the more remarakable considering the undeniably acrimonious circumstances as publicly reported in 2009, which would seem to make such fortuitous timing all but impossible, especially given that gagain reports over dismisasal suggested it was over her impatience about selling out and Dan Fiszman's insistence that if she wauted he could get her a better price.

This raises the spectre that her's like other deopartures wasarranged to cover over the fact that these Board members who insisted they had no desire to sell out in fact hasd every desire to sell out but did not want to be portrayed more negatively as they surely would be if still on the Board, Particularly those associated with the Club's founding if you will families. Like the Carrs and Lady Bracewell-Smith. But there is no denying the very strong apperance of coordination in that last sale between the Fiszman people and lady bracewell-Smth's people which seems inconsistent with if not impossible given the recent history between them.

Secondly this does not dimiss the issue of the Highbury re-development the property development project the Board chose to change its original plans on Keith Edelman's advice to pursue.

And which while making the Club's shares considerably more valuable upon its completiton provided a rather small additional return of approximately 40 million pounds over what selling the proerty would have provided five years sooner to Arsenal Holdings and Football Club itself as opposed to in excess of 100 million pounds to Mr Fiszman, Lady Bracewell-Smith.

That in effect comprised nearly half the money made they made in that final purchase from them by Mr. Krooenke while not one penny the Club did make from that project has gone back into the football team or even in the repayment of the stadium loan to free up other cash to go into the team. So the Board has basically gotten all the real reward for a project it altered plans to pursue that the Club assumed all of the financial risk and repsonsibility for. And even a=the actual cash award which we cannot use for god only knows what dubious reasoning isn't nearly what the shareholders received.

No if Dan Fiszman wanted to sell that does not explain every other shareholder on the Board selling and how neatly coordinated these sacking or forced resignations appear to be ultimately and clearly one can argue not only might they have been a smoke screen to cover the real happening inside the Club but a very successful one at that.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 14:22
Of course they say it therefore it's true and their actions to back or to contradict their claims are irrleevant - yet you need an actual document from the Club verifying things were not as you want to believe or any other evidence is automatically false in your eyes.

You'd make a really good corrupt cop who won't arrest his mates even if he has more than enough evidence to see them convicted in court, or better still a DA who is happy to withhold exculpatory evidence to get convictions of innocent people just because you don't like their sort.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 14:30
How is it you can write so much about your suspicions? Everything you said there could be wrong. The fact that the club have always been unwilling to sell to Usmanov who is offering sh*t loads of money to take full control does says something.

What many of us believe is the board want to sell their shares but keep their jobs, so the went out of their way to find an owner that would give them that deal. Not no super plans to bulk up share price to to sell to their new boss, I don't think Kroenke that much of a mug.



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 14:51
I might be - the problem is I can cite a number of pf poieces of real evidence that suggest otherwise and some quite strongly so, whereas the whole of your evidence is essentially "they say this..that's good enough for me" and that is all you have offered even by questioning my own credibility anf the credibility of my contentions by insisting there was none without an official club document that backed what I am saying.

Yet you don't even look to compare the Board's words and their actions to at least establish they in fact are consistent with one another. No their word of honour as proeper English Gentlemen and Women and Arsenal men and women no less is automatically good enough to accept with blind faith and complete trust and without ever questioning it no matter what you actually see happen.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 14:58
BTW your last argument has about as much credibility as the "they never took dividends" argument has now, Who need 5 million a year when you can have 20 50 100 or even 150 miilion in one shot straight away.

Funny how they did make all that extra money though just by wanting to stay on.

And in factit had little to do with holding out to make sure they would not be sacked - the money thay made had a lot to with the re-development of Highbury succeding as it did - though only a fool would conclude it was a success for Arsenal Football Club.

For Arsenal Holdings, absolutely it succeeded. But Arsenal Football Club? Hardly at all. Its effects have been more damaging on than building of the Club and its football team.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 15:04
I don't even like the board but however weak my arguments are you don't realize you have just as weak arguments, and you continually explain it's just your suspicion and your way of looking at it is the right way.

Lady Nina publicly criticized Wenger your not winning trophies and that not good evidence. What is good evidence to you is her backing the board 100% like you where there witnessing it(Sm16) and not saying anything publicly but was soon ask to leave and criticized the manager.

get real.



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 15:43
Oh please you don't even like the Board and are only arguing in their defence because my arguments are poor. Who are you kidding?If my arguments were that poor you wouldn't need or even want to argue against tham at all I should hope.

In the fact that not once in four previous years did she speak in oppostion to the anything the Board was doing or express any concern about winning trophies. It's also worth noting that when David Dein suddenlky championed Highbury precisely because his concrns were that the building a new stadium (and more likely borrowing to redevelop Highbury at the same time) would weaken the Club's ability to compete for better players He was completely alone in this public stand and not supported by another Board member you conclude is more concerned about trophies than anything else. Speaking up well after the fact and suddenly coming to a conclusion that casts you personally in a better light is shaky proof at best.

Actions matter at least as much as words and the fact bthat there were no actions let alone words prior to her dismissal from the Board to support this contention I think suggests very strongly that its not as credible as you are eager to conclude. Combine that with the almost certain coordination of her sale and Dan Fiszman's last sale to Stan Kroenke in spite of all that animosity one would expect there to be between Lady Nina and these parties who kicked her and her family on the curb in very public manner, that is, well, remarkable, to put it nicely.

No I think you are too happy to ignore facts and trust in words without exception or question.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 16:17
1. I've been on this site for 6 years and I think this is the first time I've had any conversations with anyone about the board.

2. If you can say it's a fact that she did not speak in opposition to any board members, back them 100% or did no actions against them without any proof of being there, You don't know the meaning of a fact.



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 17:06
clearly your standard for truth and facts boils dowwn to whether or not you want to believe something and nothign else figures into that judgemnet whatsoever. Frankly I think the truth matters less to you than what you want to believe in all judgments you make if this is any idication of how you judge facts and the truth

Its right there above - If someone you disagree with didn't witness something with tier own eyes or cannot produce an actual document confirming the facts it's all discredited automtically .

How ever if you want to believe someone then who needs to be in the room to witness the actual events who needs documentation to corroborate anything. I want to believe it therefore it is as you say above "Good enough for me".

That apparently is your whole standard for what you believe true or not true and it is wholly based on this sole distinctio -, whether you want to believe something or not, regardless of how much actual factual evidence there is available or if it supports what you want to believe or not. You have not said one thing to suggest otherwise.

Oh and the first point you make - still scratching my head on that one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23/05/2012 17:08 by RadioFreeArsenal.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 17:26
And here's something to consider.

You're an equal partner in a small company and you all sell an interest to some new guy with more money who may offer to buy you all out And you think about it but decide to wait.

In the meantime some large corporation comes around and offers pretty big money to all of you and you decide nahhhh not now.

But then the other partners tow who are really close friends and this new guy decide to force you out because they don't want to work with you anymore but will continue paying you until you sell your interest. They have disrespected you,betrayed you, embarassed you, humiliated you,and even perhaps cut you out of potential additional future revenue, and the new guy went along with their actions completely.

So tell me are you gonna give up say 100,000 pounds to sell back to the guy who let your friends stab you in the back and may have even twisted the knife in your back a time or two himself.

Because that's exactly what Lady Bracewell-Smith did, only she gave up about 15-30 million pounds in her case. Do you seriously think she would have given that money up to sell back to people who publicly humiliated her or stood by and let others do so and may even have supported or participated in that decision?

One clue before you reply if Arsenal was more important to her than the money she wouldn't have sold to anyone.Like Mastercard says some things are priceless. Like the Club you love.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 17:26
you're your own worst enemy.



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 17:33
Quote:
RadioFreeArsenal

One clue before you reply if Arsenal was more important to her than the money she wouldn't have sold to anyone.Like Mastercard says some things are priceless. Like the Club you love.

please, you might want the club to have the right ownership and think you shouldn't sell the club out for a few extra pounds.

For every single shareholder you have given them the worst possible scenario.

Would you personally had them all sell to Usmanov?



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 18:12
I'm not sure. I am skeptical of all such businessmen suddely turning up to tka us to "greater glory"I know a lot of people and more and more as time moves on would prefer that option have been taken including some AST members who were quite pro-Board and Pro-Kroenke in the recent past. I suppose I would support it ultimately if was confident that he would use a speculate to accumulate model for the Club and team.

I certainly would not support and did not support selling to Stan Kroenke though initially I actually did. Over time a lot of things happened that raised red flags about him not the least the Board's act of protesting too much.

My preference was they don't sell at all and we were told a number of times they shared that preference. Guess they all were forced into it eh? You know the poor little darings had no choice because they and their families needed to eat and have a home and all that. Oh yes have pity on them all! How could they live without that extra several million or fifty million or hundred million?

See I would have had no problem with them taking dividends provided the only did so once the football team's needs were first met adequately each year. Why shouldn't they be able to anjoy a reward for all their hard work and the important and essential role they did in fact play in our successes from 1998-2005? They should have wanted and at that time at least certainly deserved such a reward so long as it wasn't paid out to the detriment of the football team's development. Which again is my sole issue with their reward now or its scale.

I always found this defence of them horribly weak. They souldn't take a few million a year but then can hold back even more money from the team every year in order to sell solely for far bigger personal rewards? Excuse me if I don't get that logic then.

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 18:12
O.k mate I think we're done, personally I believe you've been banned from other sites not for your views but for your pathological behavior. You've twice now gone on about my standard of facts and still have not acknowledged your own.

you were already told "Somebody else not being able to prove something doesn't legitimize you not being able to prove something."

If you have not yet seen you are walking talking irony, no one will ever get through to you and you won't get through to others.

You are complaining about the board/member shareholders that are in place making money and have the wrong attitude but only have evidence of money making of the board members that have left who have made money in awkward situations.

You are anti-owners, nothing more or less, they could pay for half the clubs season tickets and you'll still find an agenda.

You don't like the redevelopment of the flats not many do but even if they didn't do it, they would probably still not put money into the club and still live off poor budget because they can.

One person fighting for integrity from a bunch of businessmen who are doing what they are setting out to do well, is fighting a lost cause.

We gone in circles and you have the skills to continue it but I don't have the energy.

P.S True or false we all know the board made 400mil, think you for telling us it.

And you win.

no seriously you win.

you don't have to say anything, I get the message. thank you



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
karsene16 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 18:14
ignore last post I see a reasonable response.



http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e232/karsene/wilshere.jpg?t=1376646952

 
Re: What did the Board actually make Selling Arsenal
RadioFreeArsenal (IP Logged)
23 May, 2012 18:25
Thank you for your analysis Doctor.

Your effort to try and discredit me on the band profoundis of wehat happened on other Board shows how consistently your lack of personal ethics when it comes to protecting your faith in the Arsenal Board really is.

I don't deny having problems at other Boards by the same token you delibrerately misrepresent those problems just like deliberately misreprsent what consitutes proof and facts bercause protecing the lie you want to believ in is more important than standing for the truth quite obviously.

So I don't even see why you wasted your time or even mine with all this since obviously the truth doesn't matter to you unless its what you want to believe and youm will say anything to defend that belief regarldess of how true aor accurate that is.

But that isn't blind fauith at all. Not by a long shot. Oh well, I'll miss this discussion.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?