Ivan Gazidis on current situation of club

REWB wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:

ernie_schwarz wrote:Arsenal chief executive Ivan Gazidis has told billionaire investor Alisher Usmanov: You’re not joining our board.

Usmanov owns just under 30 per cent of the club and is desperate to increase his stake, claiming he will give boss Arsene Wenger a huge transfer war-chest to improve the squad.

But in a meeting with members of supporters groups, Gazidis hinted the Uzbeki businessman is unlikely ever to be invited on to the Gunners board.

Gazidis said: “When I arrived 3½ years ago there had been a lot of changes on the board and some degree of conflict.

“Since then we have worked hard to ensure the board is unified and has a common purpose.

“In terms of further additions, it is important we don’t disturb that unity and create conflict.

“Ultimately, that is a board decision but that will be the critical issue — are we all aligned and facing the same direction?”

He know if he gets on the board he will get fired, lol your days are numbered Ivan. Ivan knows Usmanov will expose him and the rest of the board.

dude what the hell are you talking about?

Ivan out, David Dein in, whats not to get here?

But this is all wishful thinking, Dein was treated so bad that I dont think he would come back. Wenger needs Dein by his side imo more than Ivan.

There's a lot more to this situation than you might believe.

The reason why Usmanov has not and will not be invited onto the board is because his ideals clash with Kroenke's ideals, and Kroenke's ideals are shared with the majority of the board. By inviting Usmanov onto the board, you are risking creating a lot of discord, which would actually make the situation worst and not better.

David Dein became the chairman of Red and White (Usmanov's group), but has since left. The only reason why Usmanov hired David Dein was to gain favour from the fans. But it didn't work. The vast majority of fans disliked him and the board disliked him. They still do. So he had no more use for Dein.

Furthermore, do you know who initially introduced the board to Kroenke? David Dein. Dein thought that the club needed a wealthy benefactor to stay competitive, so he went and got Kroenke, but he didn't do his research on the man properly. Once the board got to know Kroenke, they happily invited him onto the board. The board were all about stability; they didn't want a takeover, and thought what they were doing was good enough (baring in mind their main aim was to guide the club through a troubling financial period after building a new stadium). Kroenke represented stability and continuity - the safe option. Usmanov represented upheavel and change - the risky option.

GoonerJay29 wrote:There's a lot more to this situation than you might believe.

The reason why Usmanov has not and will not be invited onto the board is because his ideals clash with Kroenke's ideals, and Kroenke's ideals are shared with the majority of the board. By inviting Usmanov onto the board, you are risking creating a lot of discord, which would actually make the situation worst and not better.

David Dein became the chairman of Red and White (Usmanov's group), but has since left. The only reason why Usmanov hired David Dein was to gain favour from the fans. But it didn't work. The vast majority of fans disliked him and the board disliked him. They still do. So he had no more use for Dein.

Furthermore, do you know who initially introduced the board to Kroenke? David Dein. Dein thought that the club needed a wealthy benefactor to stay competitive, so he went and got Kroenke, but he didn't do his research on the man properly. Once the board got to know Kroenke, they happily invited him onto the board. The board were all about stability; they didn't want a takeover, and thought what they were doing was good enough (baring in mind their main aim was to guide the club through a troubling financial period after building a new stadium). Kroenke represented stability and continuity - the safe option. Usmanov represented upheavel and change - the risky option.

Thanks Jay, that was really good post, very good information.

I really should stop reading other sites and posters in regards of Dein, Ivan and the Arsenal owners.

Raptorgunner wrote:

GoonerJay29 wrote:There's a lot more to this situation than you might believe.

The reason why Usmanov has not and will not be invited onto the board is because his ideals clash with Kroenke's ideals, and Kroenke's ideals are shared with the majority of the board. By inviting Usmanov onto the board, you are risking creating a lot of discord, which would actually make the situation worst and not better.

David Dein became the chairman of Red and White (Usmanov's group), but has since left. The only reason why Usmanov hired David Dein was to gain favour from the fans. But it didn't work. The vast majority of fans disliked him and the board disliked him. They still do. So he had no more use for Dein.

Furthermore, do you know who initially introduced the board to Kroenke? David Dein. Dein thought that the club needed a wealthy benefactor to stay competitive, so he went and got Kroenke, but he didn't do his research on the man properly. Once the board got to know Kroenke, they happily invited him onto the board. The board were all about stability; they didn't want a takeover, and thought what they were doing was good enough (baring in mind their main aim was to guide the club through a troubling financial period after building a new stadium). Kroenke represented stability and continuity - the safe option. Usmanov represented upheavel and change - the risky option.

Thanks Jay, that was really good post, very good information.

I really should stop reading other sites and posters in regards of Dein, Ivan and the Arsenal owners.

It is a good post and thanks for clearing some things up.

With this said though. If Usmanov was on the board the only discord that it should create is between him and the other board members and potentially between the fans and the board members. Unless English law is a lot different and all voting needs to be unanimous. One board member really does not have much power. He can always be out voted by the other board members. So from an operational point nothing would necessarily change. He would just have the ability to argue the iner-workings of the board with more accuracy and potentially take their dealings public.

As for Dien bringing in Kronke. It is very early in Stan's rein of the club so a little unfair to be making a judgement about him yet. Just have not seen any changes yet. Nor are we as close or closer to winning anything than we have been in the past. So that wealthy benefactor has not done anything so far.

I actually think that it might be a good thing to have Usamov on the board. Not to make radical changes in the way Arsenal is run. Just hopefully working with Stan to try and make the small tweaks that would start to move us forward. Instead of it "appearing" as though Arsenal is happy with being where we are.

GoonerJay29 wrote:There's a lot more to this situation than you might believe.

The reason why Usmanov has not and will not be invited onto the board is because his ideals clash with Kroenke's ideals, and Kroenke's ideals are shared with the majority of the board. By inviting Usmanov onto the board, you are risking creating a lot of discord, which would actually make the situation worst and not better.

David Dein became the chairman of Red and White (Usmanov's group), but has since left. The only reason why Usmanov hired David Dein was to gain favour from the fans. But it didn't work. The vast majority of fans disliked him and the board disliked him. They still do. So he had no more use for Dein.

Furthermore, do you know who initially introduced the board to Kroenke? David Dein. Dein thought that the club needed a wealthy benefactor to stay competitive, so he went and got Kroenke, but he didn't do his research on the man properly. Once the board got to know Kroenke, they happily invited him onto the board. The board were all about stability; they didn't want a takeover, and thought what they were doing was good enough (baring in mind their main aim was to guide the club through a troubling financial period after building a new stadium). Kroenke represented stability and continuity - the safe option. Usmanov represented upheavel and change - the risky option.

The bold part is not entirely correct, fan opinions on Usmanov & Kroenke are 50/50, look no further than AST. The boards hate him for obvious reasons. We also don't know Usmanov true intention working with Dein or why their partnership ended.

My opinion on Usmanov hasn't changed, he has the money and won't give up on Arsenal ownership easily. Will that be good for Arsenal in long term? I don't know but I know right now he's serving the right role of someone who keeps Stan on his toes.

If Usmanov takes over he wont have to spend money like other big clubs, he will just protect the player and will have the money to buy players with great quality.

No teams would dare to come after Arsenal players with billionaire in charge imo. Everyone I talk to and everywhere I go the fans seem to want Usmanov in charge.

6unner wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:

GoonerJay29 wrote:There's a lot more to this situation than you might believe.

The reason why Usmanov has not and will not be invited onto the board is because his ideals clash with Kroenke's ideals, and Kroenke's ideals are shared with the majority of the board. By inviting Usmanov onto the board, you are risking creating a lot of discord, which would actually make the situation worst and not better.

David Dein became the chairman of Red and White (Usmanov's group), but has since left. The only reason why Usmanov hired David Dein was to gain favour from the fans. But it didn't work. The vast majority of fans disliked him and the board disliked him. They still do. So he had no more use for Dein.

Furthermore, do you know who initially introduced the board to Kroenke? David Dein. Dein thought that the club needed a wealthy benefactor to stay competitive, so he went and got Kroenke, but he didn't do his research on the man properly. Once the board got to know Kroenke, they happily invited him onto the board. The board were all about stability; they didn't want a takeover, and thought what they were doing was good enough (baring in mind their main aim was to guide the club through a troubling financial period after building a new stadium). Kroenke represented stability and continuity - the safe option. Usmanov represented upheavel and change - the risky option.

Thanks Jay, that was really good post, very good information.

I really should stop reading other sites and posters in regards of Dein, Ivan and the Arsenal owners.

It is a good post and thanks for clearing some things up.

With this said though. If Usmanov was on the board the only discord that it should create is between him and the other board members and potentially between the fans and the board members. Unless English law is a lot different and all voting needs to be unanimous. One board member really does not have much power. He can always be out voted by the other board members. So from an operational point nothing would necessarily change. He would just have the ability to argue the iner-workings of the board with more accuracy and potentially take their dealings public.

As for Dien bringing in Kronke. It is very early in Stan's rein of the club so a little unfair to be making a judgement about him yet. Just have not seen any changes yet. Nor are we as close or closer to winning anything than we have been in the past. So that wealthy benefactor has not done anything so far.

I actually think that it might be a good thing to have Usamov on the board. Not to make radical changes in the way Arsenal is run. Just hopefully working with Stan to try and make the small tweaks that would start to move us forward. Instead of it "appearing" as though Arsenal is happy with being where we are.

Usmanov on the board might work in theory but eventually it will create discord sooner and later. He has money, lots of it and influence. Just few more percentage of share, he will overthrow Stan. To persuade board members to sell their share is a lots easier for the inside man than outside. That's why the board members already kicked lady Nina out of the board just because they spot her having dinner together with Usmanov.

I will give Stan 2 more years to see out his vision of stability & continuity. If those means consecutively qualify for CL and nothing more, I'm sure I will not be the only fan backing for change, Usmanov or not.

Putting aside opinions of Kroenke and Usmanov for the moment, I very much agree with Gazidis when he says that wealthy owners of the Usmanov/Abramovich mold are not the way forward; that inevitably they will try to outdo each other and it just wouldn't be sustainable. I don't feel particularly comfortable going down that route, despite it's obvious benefits.

A lot is depending on FFP and we probably won't see what effects that will have on spending immediately. The club are determined to go down this path. It's frustrating because the benefits aren't immediately apparent, but it might be rewarding. I really hope it will be.

I suppose there's a decent contingency plan if things don't work out.

Twoism wrote:

6unner wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:

GoonerJay29 wrote:There's a lot more to this situation than you might believe.

The reason why Usmanov has not and will not be invited onto the board is because his ideals clash with Kroenke's ideals, and Kroenke's ideals are shared with the majority of the board. By inviting Usmanov onto the board, you are risking creating a lot of discord, which would actually make the situation worst and not better.

David Dein became the chairman of Red and White (Usmanov's group), but has since left. The only reason why Usmanov hired David Dein was to gain favour from the fans. But it didn't work. The vast majority of fans disliked him and the board disliked him. They still do. So he had no more use for Dein.

Furthermore, do you know who initially introduced the board to Kroenke? David Dein. Dein thought that the club needed a wealthy benefactor to stay competitive, so he went and got Kroenke, but he didn't do his research on the man properly. Once the board got to know Kroenke, they happily invited him onto the board. The board were all about stability; they didn't want a takeover, and thought what they were doing was good enough (baring in mind their main aim was to guide the club through a troubling financial period after building a new stadium). Kroenke represented stability and continuity - the safe option. Usmanov represented upheavel and change - the risky option.

Thanks Jay, that was really good post, very good information.

I really should stop reading other sites and posters in regards of Dein, Ivan and the Arsenal owners.

It is a good post and thanks for clearing some things up.

With this said though. If Usmanov was on the board the only discord that it should create is between him and the other board members and potentially between the fans and the board members. Unless English law is a lot different and all voting needs to be unanimous. One board member really does not have much power. He can always be out voted by the other board members. So from an operational point nothing would necessarily change. He would just have the ability to argue the iner-workings of the board with more accuracy and potentially take their dealings public.

As for Dien bringing in Kronke. It is very early in Stan's rein of the club so a little unfair to be making a judgement about him yet. Just have not seen any changes yet. Nor are we as close or closer to winning anything than we have been in the past. So that wealthy benefactor has not done anything so far.

I actually think that it might be a good thing to have Usamov on the board. Not to make radical changes in the way Arsenal is run. Just hopefully working with Stan to try and make the small tweaks that would start to move us forward. Instead of it "appearing" as though Arsenal is happy with being where we are.

Usmanov on the board might work in theory but eventually it will create discord sooner and later. He has money, lots of it and influence. Just few more percentage of share, he will overthrow Stan. To persuade board members to sell their share is a lots easier for the inside man than outside. That's why the board members already kicked lady Nina out of the board just because they spot her having dinner together with Usmanov.

I will give Stan 2 more years to see out his vision of stability & continuity. If those means consecutively qualify for CL and nothing more, I'm sure I will not be the only fan backing for change, Usmanov or not.

Usmanov can't overthrow Stan, as Stan is the majority owner and has over 60% while Usmanov is trying to get 30% which only gives him access to club accounts

I dont have problem with Stan but i wish he was more involved than what he is right now. How many times have we seen him during arsenal matches? I havent heared anything from him media about Arsenal. That maybe his style but it is frustrating for fans. "I" feel like if he doesnt give a shit about Arsenal and only cares about his other teams in other sports.

We lost Cashley Cole because he wanted to win trophies, we lost Nasri for the same reason and we might lose RVP. It sometimes feel that Arsenal isnt the same Arsenal it used to be.

djoe26 wrote:I dont have problem with Stan but i wish he was more involved than what he is right now. How many times have we seen him during arsenal matches? I havent heared anything from him media about Arsenal. That maybe his style but it is frustrating for fans. "I" feel like if he doesnt give a shit about Arsenal and only cares about his other teams in other sports.

We lost Cashley Cole because he wanted to win trophies, we lost Nasri for the same reason and we might lose RVP. It sometimes feel that Arsenal isnt the same Arsenal it used to be.

We will keep losing stars if the board dose not show ambition. We need to show our player we will spend to bring it wc players to come and win trophies at Arsenal.

All we eve hear from them is we are looking right players but they keep missing out on the players we need, we should had Mata and many other players.

Its becoming a tradition for Arsenal to sell major players and profit and hope for a top4 and winning trophies is history. We are the biggest team in football that has not won anything years, and us fans have hopes go down the drain before the season start because our best players gets old.

I really think both owners are the richest owners in football and all we ever talk about is we cant spend on this player or that player. Its depressing going from invincibles to a selling club.

I dont think Stan even knows what football is, he only cares about profits.

djoe26 wrote:I dont have problem with Stan but i wish he was more involved than what he is right now. How many times have we seen him during arsenal matches? I havent heared anything from him media about Arsenal. That maybe his style but it is frustrating for fans. "I" feel like if he doesnt give a shit about Arsenal and only cares about his other teams in other sports.

We lost Cashley Cole because he wanted to win trophies, we lost Nasri for the same reason and we might lose RVP. It sometimes feel that Arsenal isnt the same Arsenal it used to be.

Don't think that Stan has won anything with any of his other teams. They mostly sit in mediocrity.

6unner wrote:

djoe26 wrote:I dont have problem with Stan but i wish he was more involved than what he is right now. How many times have we seen him during arsenal matches? I havent heared anything from him media about Arsenal. That maybe his style but it is frustrating for fans. "I" feel like if he doesnt give a shit about Arsenal and only cares about his other teams in other sports.

We lost Cashley Cole because he wanted to win trophies, we lost Nasri for the same reason and we might lose RVP. It sometimes feel that Arsenal isnt the same Arsenal it used to be.

Don't think that Stan has won anything with any of his other teams. They mostly sit in mediocrity.

they have, and the big reason he bought all his teams were to save them from moving, most of his teams are Denver based


btw what do you guys expect him to do??? he has only been the majority owner for a little over a year....

last summer was his first real season as owner and he Trusted Wenger and let him do his stuff, and we all know how that ended.

I think this season he is gonna be a little more involved

Most Denver teams are exactly like ARSENAL. They play pretty, high on revenue, bring up young talent, and win shi tall. Look at the avalanche and nuggets.

Arsenalfaithfull wrote:Most Denver teams are exactly like ARSENAL. They play pretty, high on revenue, bring up young talent, and win shi tall. Look at the avalanche and nuggets.

It is hard to compare any american sport to sports in other countries. How american teams bring in players does not compare in any way. American sports do not have a youth project like in other countries. All american sports rely on public schools and universities to train and bring up players.

Also if you were to say that the nuggets played "pretty" would be at best a stretch. They play more of a scrappy game than pretty one.

One thing that does seem to be similar with the nuggets and the Rams (don't really know much about hockey or any of his other small teams) is that if they end up with "WC or Star" players. Those players usually stick around to the end of their contract and the go somewhere else. There has never been a season since Stan bought any of his teams that anyone actually thought that they would be able to actually win anything. They are always short on talent.
As for the Avalanche he did buy them the year that they won the Stanley cup. Since then nothing.

6unner wrote:

Arsenalfaithfull wrote:Most Denver teams are exactly like ARSENAL. They play pretty, high on revenue, bring up young talent, and win shi tall. Look at the avalanche and nuggets.

It is hard to compare any american sport to sports in other countries. How american teams bring in players does not compare in any way. American sports do not have a youth project like in other countries. All american sports rely on public schools and universities to train and bring up players.

Also if you were to say that the nuggets played "pretty" would be at best a stretch. They play more of a scrappy game than pretty one.

One thing that does seem to be similar with the nuggets and the Rams (don't really know much about hockey or any of his other small teams) is that if they end up with "WC or Star" players. Those players usually stick around to the end of their contract and the go somewhere else. There has never been a season since Stan bought any of his teams that anyone actually thought that they would be able to actually win anything. They are always short on talent.
As for the Avalanche he did buy them the year that they won the Stanley cup. Since then nothing.

Colorado Rapids won MLS last season

Reading this thread makes me want to

So imma gonna ignore this thread henceforth.