Arsenal News
Arsenal News & Transfers
As featured on NewsNow: Arsenal newsArsenal News 24/7

Arsenal News, Only Arsenal, Blogs, Transfer News


October 2016
« Sep    

Is Governance the Problem at Arsenal?

By Vintage Gooner

Who owns Arsenal and how is it governed?

Although many fans would answer that Arsenal belongs to us, the truth is that we fans are just consumers of goods and services from the club we love. We are very important to the club but this gives us no element of ownership. Good governance would normally include ensuring that decision making bodies are representative, decisions are transparent and both bodies and decisions are accountable. It is for you to judge how well Arsenal does in these terms.

Firstly actual ownership of Arsenal is the prerogative of shareholders as a whole. Currently this means that 66% are owned by a company called Kroenke Sports and Entertainments (KSE) which is wholly owned by Stan Kroenke a US billionaire who owns a number of sporting clubs and franchises mostly in the US.

30% is owned by a company called Red & White Holdings (RWH) which is jointly owned by Usmanov and Moshiri. The remaining paltry 4% is owned by a constantly decreasing number of older fans and their families.

The current situation emerged from a volatile and active Board disagreement on the new stadium. This led to a lock-down on share disposal from the Board initially and ultimately on the death of Danny Fiszman to the sale of his shares to Stan Kroenke who then exceeded 30% shareholding and had to make a formal bid to all other shareholders.

This had been pre-agreed with all Board members and other major shareholders. The primary effect was to make Stan Kroenke effective sole owner of Arsenal and as a secondary effect put David Dein who had recently been removed from the Board completely into the wilderness. As a consequence he sold his shares to and briefly led RWH who garnered at that point just under 30% of the remaining shares.

This RWH share position is important because if Kroenke were to obtain a further 9% support then he could change Arsenal to a private company and this could involve all sorts of shenanigans as any Man U supporter will tell you in the light of the Glaziers following exactly this process. So Usmanov currently has an impregnable blocking vote on that.

There is one other aspect of share ownership that must be covered before we move on. Arsenal Supporters Trust (AST) who have as their members a large portion of the small independent share holders, sought to agree with Kroenke at the point of his bid and Ivan Gazidis as CEO that they would set up a Fanshare scheme to enable ordinary fans to have an opportunity to buy shares and so participate in ownership of the club.

It is noteworthy that the nearly half a billion £ Kroenke has paid for his shares has not given a penny into Arsenal coffers- only new shares being issued would do this. In spite of intensive effort and pressure the issue of new shares was never agreed by Kroenke and the Fanshare scheme is going through the long, sad and arduous process of being wound up. So much for real attempts at involving fans meaningfully.

Day to day running of the club is of course the responsibility of the Board which is elected at the AGM by the shareholders (ie Stan Kroenke). The Arsenal board is currently very small, comprising only 6 persons. Two non-executive Directors are Sir Chips Keswick, a banker, and Lord Harris of Peckham a carpet retailer and philanthropist. Neither are shareholders of any significance.

There are two employees namely Ivan Gazidis as CEO and Ken Friar a very long standing employee of the club. Finally there are Stan and his son Josh Kroenke who attend with that 66% majority in their bag. The board meets monthly and all are wined and dined well at each match including away matches with luxury travel with the first team. No mean sinecure.

The only major earners on the board are the two employees. Both Kroenkes and Sir Chips, who is chairman, draw a standard fee of £25k although Lord Harris donates his to charities. Neither agendas nor minutes are public documents so transparency is almost nil.

Real matters of governance concern would be that the board is in no way representative of the fans. It has no women although they are increasingly present at the stadium. It also should be noted that any skills set analysis would find the board very narrow and inadequate. There is good management and business skills but experience at top playing or coaching level is entirely absent.

When talking of the board the elephant not in the room is of course Arsene Wenger. He probably rightly has avoided siren calls to join but has zealously guarded his right to select and train all footballers on staff. He also expects the primary say in transfers in and out of the club although we have no knowledge as to what parameters may be set by the board eg specifically on total cost or value. Arsene in particular seems willing to let the buck stop with him in these areas.

Perhaps the best way to assess Arsenal governance performance is to consider issues and I have chosen three but you may well have your own and it would be interesting to see your cases and views in comments.

  • For two years there has been a strong fan reaction to the news that a wholly Kroenke owned company has been paid £3 million each year for unspecified services commissioned and approved in particular by the two non-executive Directors. Now in principle I am not opposed, depending on the services given and their true value. There are aspects of marketing and match day experience in which the US is a world leader but the problem is we are not told anything useful and so it is zero marks for transparency. Of course if it is just a means to pay Kroenke and avoid paying the nearly half again to RWH that a dividend on shares would entail then there are entirely new issues emerge.
  • For several years local Islington Citizens supported by a number of fan groups and Arsenal blogs have been trying to persuade Arsenal to adopt the London Living Wage for it’s own staff and when the opportunity arises for external  contract staff. This is clearly morally right for a company in Arsenal’s financial position and there are strong arguments that it would positively enhance the match day experience. And all at less cost than the Kroenke company fees. But in spite of being raised at the last three AGMs accountability is so poor that the policy still awaits a final board sign-off. Perhaps Stan Kroenke whose other half is not only better but also richer being a Walmart inheritor, where staff pay is notorious, has an undesirable influence here
  • Arsenal are very rightly proud of the work they do as Arsenal in the Community. But it is extremely difficult to find a way of suggesting innovation. The FA has got itself into all sorts of foolish financial difficulty but there is a singular clear and pressing difficulty in developing youth and grass roots football. Could not Arsenal under the auspices of Arsenal in the Community set aside £5-£10million to train and employ 25-50 new fully qualified coaches which could be offered to local schools and local cubs to build a new approach with the ‘Arsenal way’.

I have to say that for me the questions and principles that were posed in the opening paragraph are sadly evidenced that Governance at Arsenal is a long way from good enough and we as fans have to try to bring all the pressure we can to get improvements.


From the anniversary files

  • 19 November 1886:  The Kentish Mercury published a letter confirming there was a Steamboat crossing from Greenwich to Isle of Dogs, thus allowing us to confirm over 125 years later how the Dial Square players got to their first game.
  • 19 November 1887: First ever game between Arsenal and Tottenham.  Poor light stopped play with Tottenham leading 2-1 and about 15 minutes to go.  It is alleged on some Tottenham sites that the problem was caused by Royal Arsenal players arriving late, but no supporting evidence is provided with these claims.

The Untold Books

Woolwich Arsenal the club that changed football, is now available on Kindle at £9.99.  For more details and to buy a copy please click here or go to Amazon Kindle and search for Woolwich Arsenal.


Editorial note: If you have an article you would like considered for publication please email it to

36 comments to Is Governance the Problem at Arsenal?

  • para

    It would appear they may have to strike a predictive balance between income and outgoings in order to survive in the business arena? We know how fast a club can slip away when a series of “mistakes” happens, causing a downhill slide and taking on a life of its own.

    However, as the money and stability grows we can surely expect them to increase their innovative (as you say) ideas to further improve football to become even better.

    Arsenal is not perfect, but seems to be continually striving to be what they want to become, (one of 🙂 )the BIG club(s) in football.

  • para

    P.S: so funny
    Bellerin the born commentator.

  • nicky

    An impressive critique of the present background governance of our great Club and an intuitive look at the future.
    My worry is that Arsenal may end up as a latter-day Glazer “investment” and there is nothing the “insignificants” on the Board can do to prevent it.
    The £6 million already paid out for “unspecified services” is a typical Glazer-like move. Is this the thin end of the wedge?
    And as Tony rightly points out, apart from buying the shares from other shareholders, Kroenke has not paid a penny into the Arsenal coffers.
    We have been warned.

  • Pete

    I think this critique is harsh. For a very long time the club has been run as a company – which means it is owned and controlled by its shareholders not by members. This is the standard model for football clubs in the UK although some fan trusts are making inroads – generally at lower level clubs where a major problem has occurred in the past, typically financial – although Wimbledon’s problem was somewhat more fundamental.

    Clubs in other countries, certainly in Germany and Spain, are run more as members’ clubs but this is rare in England and non-existent in the top flight.

    Therefore Arsenal has been run like this for at least a century. The issue then is whether the management is astute and benign – or not. I would suggest very strongly that they are. The achievements around the stadium and relatively growing the club while not giving in to debt-fuelled temptation are extremely impressive. The “self sufficient” philosophy is also admirable – with no money going in or out of the club. I acknowledge that the £3mm payments to KSE are a concern but apart from this the club has held true to this policy. I also agree that paying the living wage is a good thing, but who of our competitors do this.

    As someone involved in grassroots football, and fully supportive of the idea that more money should be spent on coaching, I do though question why Arsenal should be doing this. Shouldn’t it be the Premier League as a whole? An extra £10mm a season would increase ticket prices by 10%. Is that really what you want?

    Could the board be broader or have more footballing expertise? I guess it could – but then did it ever have this?

    I think a better question is: should we swap our ownership and direction for any other club in the League? To me, this is very doubtful. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Yes, we’re not perfect, but who is?

    To conclude, I am happy with the quality of the governance at Arsenal.

  • Pete

    Also, the AST only have themselves to blame for the demise of fanshare. Their ill-advised, ill-judged and biased commentaries on playing matters have seriously damaged their credibility amongst (in my opinion the majority of) the fanbase and likely their own members.

  • finsbury

    Exactly Pete!
    Unfortunately this article was disingenuous on the sado-masochistic stupidity and worse of the AST.

    If Fizman desired the AST to play a role, a check, well, they blew it.

    As catalogued by many, no need to go into any of the sado-masochitic vaguely xenophobic detail of those who said they were not critising the Fooball manager but did anything but.

    unfortunately the above is not an opinion but it is a very unflattering record.

  • colario

    As has been pointed out above. Mr Kronke like the Glaziers has taken money out of the club.

    £6 million that he doesn’t need.

  • nutntiddy

    Please get real.So Kronke after investing a fortune takes £3M a year from the Company. Do you suppose he put his money into the club just so he could fly over each week, have a good seat and a meal, see a good match. He is a businessman who one day maybe will sell the club at a profit(that’s not a swear word).
    As for the £3M, this would not buy a tenth rate player. Be thankful that we have a great manager supported by a very good management and as a result we have a good team second in the EPL.
    Yes,the club should pay the living wage.

  • porter

    But has set a precedent for what looks like an annual payment . Quite what R & W think of that is another matter , probably it’s too insignificant for them to get worked up over.Throughout the whole of the Wenger baiting period following the new stadium build I have always felt our problem lay more in the boardroom than the manager’s office , despite the fact that he has outwardly always seemed complicit with their policies. I also feel that there is not enough football awareness on the board and that if as it is portrayed that they rely solely on the manager for that input then I feel they are remiss in that area. Footballers in general are considered to be thick and certainly the punditry we get on television and in the media in general goes a long way to support that theory but we have had our share of intelligent ex players that the club could have incorporated to publicly be seen to have some input Wilson , Keown for two examples..

  • Sammy The Snake

    I think the above assessment is a bit harsh. This is a company, and it has no obligation to disclose the contents of its board of directors discussions. An annual 3Mil payout (even if…) is by no means comparable to what the Glazers did at ManU. Kronke paid good money for his shares, and our self-sustaining model does not require him to put in any more (and even if he did, would RWH match his contribution?). The club is being run in a debt-free and responsible fashion, and the results are mostly pretty good. Not much to complain, IMHO.

  • Gooner S

    Arsenal is a business and is run as such with a board and shareholders. The company (Arsenal) has to govern itself accordingly and be transparent to its shareholders, employees, various regulatory bodies (e.g HMRC) and also but to a lesser extent its customers (us). We, and all football fans, are customers. You pay to watch a game. No more and no less. The sooner that some Arsenal fans understand this and that Kroenke has no responsibility to invest his own money into the club beyond the shareholding he already has the better. Arsenal is being run as a self sustaining company and does not rely on individuals to fund the club. They are doing it pretty well.

    Like Tony I don’t have a problem with Kroenke taking money out of the club for services rendered if those services were real and reflected a true market value.

    In terms of the board, yes I agree a representative that has played the game would be good. There are certainly a number of ex pros that have successful business careers so why not? Perhaps Mr Flamini when he hangs up his boots if recent stories about his business acumen are to be believed.

    The problem is that all of the above gets thrown into a mix along with other issues such as Playing staff/transfers, injuries, results, cost of attending games, slaries of players, salaries of the manager, cash reserves and so forth. All topics that ‘fans’ can and do have a view on, often with much emotion attached. This is where football is different from ordinary commerce in that the there is the concept of the fan and fans all to often don’t equate themselves as consumers or behave as such. In this respect the AST missed an opportunity to have a seat at the table and influence the Arsenal board.

  • Tom


    You are assuming Kronke is just sitting on his investments and watching them grow.

    Perhaps you should read about Kronke’s NFL plans. There’s an article in Bloomberg about him “taking over LA.”

    It’s a fascinating read into some of his business practices in the past as well. I especially liked the bit about screwing over his ex partner and co- investor over $5M in an attempt to ruin him.

  • Tom

    Are you saying you wouldn’t rather Arsenal had an owner who genuinely cares about the club, is passionate about football and doesn’t treat it as an investment vehicle ?

    I know I would 😉

  • Pete

    Tom – yes and no. Peter Ridsdale meets all your criteria with respect to Leeds and that didn’t end well!

    3 of the Board are known long-term Arsenal fans. To be blunt, I would rather have good business acumen and integrity than a passion for Arsenal.

  • Tom

    Kroenke has planty of business acumen to be sure but integrity ? 🙂

    If you know anything about the way big business is done in USA , you might feel hesitant to throw words like integrity into the mix.

    The only reason people like Kroenke don’t break any financial laws is because they lobby( bribe) the politicians to pass laws to make their actions legal.

    Kroenke made his bones on the back of the sweetheart deals with Wallmart’ real estate division, where according to some lawyers who worked on those deals Kroenke charged Walmart double the going rate for his services which were uncontested by other bids of course.

  • Tom

    As for paying the London living wages, let’s not hold our collective breath.

    Walmart , the main reason for Kroenke’s billions, has been one of the most active companies lobbying over the years to keep the minimum wages below or at the poverty line in the US, thus creating a separate class of workers who can only afford to buy at Walmart in order to make it from pay check to pay check.

  • Hisham

    A good debate here. The Board represents the interests of its shareholders, first and foremost. That has been the model all these years. KSE is a business enterprise. It would be in their best interest to ensure that they not only retain the value of their investment, but hope to enhance that value over time.

    It’s good to know that half the Board are true Arsenal fans. I guess you could say that they represent the “interests” of the Arsenal supporters. Any move to dilute this “interests” could easily be shot down in Board deliberations.

    And what a Management team we have at the Arsenal. In the recent history of the game, I believe that no other Manager has a greater “influence” on the running of the Club than Arsene Wenger has done over the last 20 years or so.

    All the above bodes well for a ” balanced governance” of the Club. Astute businessmen, passionate fans and a competent management set up. The records should speak for themselves. Only when things turn out to be otherwise would you then bring into question the govern-arability of the Club.

    PS. I stand corrected, but is it not in the rules of the Arsenal PLC that no dividends are payable to the shareholders? As no money may be put into the Club by the shareholders, they can only profit from their investments by selling their shares at a later date. It would be in their interests than that those shares rise in value, and to get that, the Club must be performing well, starting by results on the pitch.

  • porter

    Always when the subject of whether the board possibly could have taken another route is raised , Leeds United gets thrown into the conversation. It’s not a good example because the club has been a basket case of financial trouble as long as I can remember . Long before Risdale there was Manny Cousins who I believe just staved off bankrupcy in the early sixties amongst rumours of match fixing , they really only had a period of success under Revie when they kicked and bullied their way through a decade of title wins . The rest of the time they have yo-yoed their way through the lower divisions with brief appearances in the first / premier leagues. Ken Bates I recall had the reins twice and there were scares of financial ruin throughout.
    To compare their fate as a forewarning to The Arsenal is like comparing apples and oranges ,our club could easily been a little more liberal and improved our playing position . For whatever the reasons, I suspect ,our established family successor board members chose to sell out to Kroenke and his track record in the States does not show a man that will push the boat out to win titles to the detriment of his financial portfolio.

  • Pete

    Tom – fair comments re Kroenke’s background – although have no information of my own. However, at Arsenal, his only real mis-step has been the 2 x £3mm payments.

    Also, a bit unhappy about the article title. It implies there is a problem at Arsenal… obviously there are lots of small problems (Tony’s coffees…) but that is inevitable. Can’t see any major problems. And I really don’t think the Board have done a lot wrong in recent times. But accept they have been very bad at PR!

  • Norman14

    I don’t have a problem with Stan getting £3 million a year, but I DO have a problem with the Board not telling us what it’s for.

    Also, the obvious move for AST would have been to have climbed in with Red & White – then the fans would have significantly more input.

    Another obvious move would be to get either Usmonov or David Dein a spot on the board.

    As things are, as people have said above, we’re only a short hop away from the situation at Old Trafford – and we don’t want that.

  • GoingGoingGooner

    I have no problems with a critique of the board but surely they have done some good things,too? Building a stadium and staying competitive must give them some credit, no?

  • nicky

    When the Board of 6 includes the majority shareholder, his son and two employees, it doesn’t take long to establish the source of decisions.
    And Usmanov, solely by virtue of his holding, should be a Board member. After all, it’s by his shares that Kroenke is there. 😉

  • Goéland

    I want to say that although I need to do some further reading to form an educated opinion, Vintage Gooner´s summary has a lot of value, since it´s clear and well-organized. Important issues that deserve to be raised on Untold.

  • porter

    Agreed Nicky , it could be argued that Red and White’s presence is in fact keeping the club from deviating from it’s current route.One thing that came from the recent article on Kroenke and the L.A Rams is that he is single minded and enjoys winning his battles with financial rivals no matter how long that might take . Maybe we as Arsenal supporters should instead of treating Usmanov and Moshiri as the devils incarnate consider that they might be keeping Stan from enacting his long game.

  • finsbury

    All of you singing the praises of R&W need to check yourselves before you wreck yourselves. You might as well be ringing out names like Kenyon and Risdale.

    Fizman chose the ‘tasche & toupe for a reason.

    Given Mr.Fizman’s record with AFC, for myself I choose not to disrespect what he would have considered to be one of the most important decisions of his time with the club.

    Indeed I note that no online supporters of R&W ever acknowledge this process that occurred. NEVER. Why would that be?
    How could anyone who declares that they care about the club even begin to ignore that process and the final decision. Made in Fizman’s deathbed. It’s certainly a more exciting story then one you could find in the FT, but there’s nothing but the sound of silence. Perhaps some tumbleweed. What are we all (as in 99% of AFC fans who are aware of this chronology and record), what are we to make of these strange calls & heckles.

    If the AST were designated a role by Fizman, as above they blew it. Kaput.
    It’s gone.

    As for whinges over money: if the Americans helped with the recruitment o the pioneering data analytics at AFC (again: The Sound of Silence) then they’re already covered their costs! Gabriel, Chambers etc. you’d have to say they’ve done quite well (if they did have an input).

  • Notoverthehill

    Arsenal Holdings plc., is a subsidiary of Kroenke Sporys and Entertainment.

    The Arsenal Board of Directors, will be accountable to Mr Jim Martin, who is Chief Executive, President and Director of, – KSE.

    Mr Jim Martin and his support, will be at premium rates!


    Mr Gazidis has disclosed what the Arsenal pay to their employees, which backs-up Ken Friar’s submission to Islington Borough Council. To support the extra concerts.


    The Arsenal, Arsenal Overseas Limited, supported the Arsenal Fanshare over it’s short life, with £275,000.
    That is real support, when it cost £75,000 per annum to run that ill-conceived scheme.

    Well done Finsbury, a knock-out in Round 1!

  • porter

    I would imagine that Fiszman chose his route as he had done for many years to spite David Dein . He knew he had an ally in PHW who felt that Dein had shafted him when he sold the shares to him and harboured ill feeling for being duped. Remember he said at the time of the sale words to the effect that he did not know why Dein wanted them as they were pretty much worthless. Whilst Dein was onside with Kroenke the board wanted nothing to do with the American but when Dein changed sides suddenly the money on offer was too good to refuse.
    You may think that I am an Usmanov sympathiser this is in fact not true . In fact I have little or no time for either him or Kroenke , I wish that things could have panned out without either of them but sadly it is not the case.

  • Rantetta

    Well, I’ve watched this interesting article and debate develop.

    I’ve certainly got my own ideas, and I’ve enjoyed the to and fro between the posters – who I think are quite reasonable.

    I’d like to point out that the £3M taken by our American compares favourably with the £200M p.a. taken by the Glazers over 10 Years. i.e., a mere Billion!

    Despite then chairman P Hill Wood once declaring he didn’t want ‘Stan’s sort round ‘ere’, I presume that D Fizman and the other directors at the time – given their collective knowledge of Danny’s unfortunate, imminent, passing – decided that the best way forward (in terms of keeping the club self sustaining/paying off stadium debt, which we now know was a greater problem than we knew at the time – and what purpose would it have served to let me/us know that Ars PLC were scraping the barrel, cash-wise, esp. given how the meedja have perrenially slagged off everything Arsenal).

    Did not the 30% director appear to partake/add to the aforementioned off-slagging of our beloved club?
    (That’s not even a question. You know the answer damn well). And what was that director’s intentions re the whole self-sustaining thingy?)

    Some say that AST, Piers and Mr 30% may have connived together to move away from said model, and therefore, future intentions about how the club would be run/financed would be ??????

    Some say that the above triumvirate have allowed and encouraged the meedja/FA/PL/Sky to continue bashing Arsenal in every which way, as THEY don’t want an Arsenal, with their honest, sustainable dealings, vs other models! Even ArsFanTV seem tilted towards this group. (They gave Mr Morgan half an hour to declare his love of Arsenal along with his hatred for Mr Wenger, and plenty of airtime for AST’s frontman, too).

    I’m no expert. I could have it all completely wrong. But i must confess, I’m more comfortable with the way things are than with the prospect of an alternative.
    Having said that – I would’ve – with hindsight, preferred the old directors to have stayed, thereby having greater numbers, and at least the solitary woman, (Lady Nina). In my imaginary Arsenal Board-world the directorships would’ve grown in number and diversity (but not Martin Keown, cos he can’t even commentate correctly on what is a foul, right?

    This article is here on UA – a site which has for years been following the various shenanigans of the peeps who run football. So look up the multifarious pieces that’ve been explored here over the years, please.

    And yes, Mr 30% may be a useful counterbalance to the scheme of things, somehow.

    Even people without a clear agenda For Arsenal caution: “Be careful what you wish for”!

    Aargh; other comments have appeared above that cover what I’m trying to say here. Thanks Fins.

    I’d started, so I’ll post..

  • Rantetta

    No, sorry, it’s £100M p.a., innit, that the other Americans take? (on average).

  • Mandy Dodd

    Really interesting article Vintage, and some equally interesting comments. On one hand, Mr Kronke may indulge in perfectly legal, but, perhaps, unpalatable business practices…..for fans and us old school lefties at least. But, as has been mentioned, has some of the knowledge and benefits he has bought to the club from US sport been worth a three million pa payment?A matter for debate…..but we seem to be going in a good direction on and off the field, and Kronke must be part of that.
    Is Wenger a well paid fall guy for an enterprise hoarding money….I have questioned this myself, are we a NAV for other Stan projects? Maybe ….but a lack of evidence, we are told Stan has been very supportive when Wenger wants to spend big.
    Do fans have enough say….the fan share thing would suggest not, but football has clearly changed, a club with fans having a big say might not be able to compete at our level.
    I write as a Stan sceptic, I have wondered if he would sell to God knows who for a fast buck, but that has not happened yet. NAV…maybe, but not enough evidence. An absent passionless owner as some say…..perhaps harsh. If Stan could take us private…..and Usmanov didn’t have his hold, what would Stan do, the fact is, we do not know. Has Wenger been sufficiently supported with funds in the early days of this board, or the last one……we don’t know, but nor do we know what he asked for.
    Healthy scepticism. But for now, it looks to me that Wenger runs the football side, Ivan does his job, and has helped with the infra structure, and Stan has supported wengers wishes, and does not seem to interfere. We seem to get our targets as far as we can tell, and player retention has improved.
    Whatever Stan is, or is not, at the moment , seems ok to me at least, he is not an Abramovich, but nor is he a Glazer bit should he change, we should be vigilant.

  • Vintage Gooner

    A last general comment on my post. I must stress that my post tried to focus on policy at Arsenal whilst increasingly blogs seem to centre on people namely Kroenke and Usmanov. This is a red herring because that issue was finally resolved by the take-over unless there is a total change in Kroenke position and for the foreseeable future this issue is dead.

    In reply to those who claim that Arsenal is well run they may be surprised that I actually agree with them. I think Gazidis and Wenger do an outstanding job at the head of top quality teams and there are very few areas that would not earn the accolade of outstandingly good.

    However the board should be held to delivering the finest principles as I specified; representative, transparent and accountable.

    I am a little disappointed that the discussion has frequently focused on the details of the issues I raised as I meant them to illustrate only the lack of board transparency and accountability. I was hoping others more knowledgeable than me would touch on football strategy, player investment and development and even succession strategy! I know virtually nothing of the board’s contribution in these areas and had hoped others may comment.

    Perhaps the best but most cruel analogy I could make is that Arsenal stand each season poised to efficiently take fourth place for good governance but with neither the focus nor the drive to ever take the first place or even get very close.

  • Mandy Dodd

    Vintage 11.10, think there are a lot of unknowns, agree on Wenger and Gazidis , as for Stan , cannot find anything hugely against him , but watching brief. I agree on the lack on transparency, wish it was different, but that seems where we are with the status quo.
    As a Stan sceptic, I will give him credit on his backing of Wenger.
    Can. The club be run for the better……maybe, depends on who they are compared with. Is Stan the right owner for this club?….He doesn’t invest in players and infrastructure, or at least not directly…..but, revenue has grown on his tenure……as it would have grown if I was running the club.
    The club run on an admirable fiscal model.
    Are we governed properly, at the moment, I would say yes,
    is our governance geared to sustainability, I would say yes,
    are we run to win at all cost, ,I would say no,

  • porter

    Vintage your last paragraph at 11.10. expresses my fears exactly. One day Wenger will leave us and the board will have to appoint a replacement . Will they appoint to win things or just maintain the status quo .

  • finsbury

    AW did not commit to the arsenal for these last twenty years only to do a Sir Slurgusson jump and bail manoeuvre at the end. Imposing some lack who is not a top manager or coach on the club whilst removing all the staff that did the actual coaching etc.

    The Lewin’s. Bould filling Pat Rice’s very big shoes. There’s plenty of evidence for the direction and process’ at this club. Does dysphoria blind people?

  • finsbury

    AW also stayed after Dein got the boot.

    He remained the manager after the last of Dein Jnr.’s influence w removed too,and he’s still there.

    If Dein had had his way the club would be in Wembley. Everything that he touched did not turn to gold. Or gas. Or even blood diamonds.

  • finsbury

    Methane > gas