By Tony Attwood
“Arsenal have announced the surprise departure of vice-chairman Tim Lewis following a major reshuffle of the club’s board.”
So says the Guardian, although we might ponder the word “surprise” here. It means that their reporter was taken by surprise, and that there was no leak. It doesn’t mean, because it can’t mean (because they don’t have the inside information) that it suddenly happened, as with the chairman or someone else on the board suddenly saying, “that’s it, I’ve had enough of you, you’re out”.
And this is the problem with football journalism. It is a mode of writing that endlessly suggests that the journalists know all that is going on, and indeed, often making out that if only the journalist was running the show, then everything would be much better, because the journalist really does know what is going on.
But the reality is, companies change personnel at the top quite often, not least to bring in some new perspectives and some new ideas. Plus, senior people like to get more responsibility and so go looking for new jobs just like the rest of us do.
Now “Lewis” as the Guardian calls him (not Mr Lewis, not Tim Lewis, but just Lewis), has advised Kroenke Sports, who have owned the club since 2007) since joined the board in 2020 and was seemingly quite involved in the big transfer deals of this summer.
But people at this level often move on, seeking ever more influential positions, and seeking ways to use the knowledge that they have gained in their existing position, just as the rest of us often change jobs from time to time to get more money, or work in a slightly different field.
There can of course, also be some big reason for leaving on occasion, where one board member has proposed a particular route forward for the club, but others on the board have opposed him. Such differences of opinion don’t have to be resigning or sacking matters, although this is how the media generally likes to portray them. There could even be the issue of how many times the Arsenal directors need to attend group meetings in the USA in person. (I’ve no idea if that is an issue – I use it just as an example.)
Richard Garlick, who is managing director of the company owning Arsenal, now takes up the role of chief executive officer. Meanwhile, two new non-executive directors have joined the board, and of course, it is always possible that the resigning director didn’t like that move, or the general direction the club was moving along.
There were of couorse all the usual thanks from those staying for the director who is leaving – that is always how it goes, and such is the warmth of them on this occasiion in relation to, “his continued dedication and commitment to Arsenal in a period of transformational change for the club,” that the leaving director might well have been able to suggest to another club he could transform them as well. And certainly plenty of clubs out there could do with a big dollop of transformation – although not all of those will be brave enough to recognise it.
The Arsenal statement says,
“In keeping with our desire to always move forward, we will strengthen our board with some exciting additions who will bring vast experience to the club across a wide range of professions.
“The group know and love Arsenal, and will bring a different skillset and expertise while injecting fresh thinking and energy to support us all to achieve our ambitions. We are delighted to promote Rich [Richard Garlick] to CEO after an incredibly successful period as managing director of Arsenal. Rich has made an enormous impact on all fronts as we continue to strive to win major trophies, be financially sustainable and put our supporters at the heart of everything.”
So is it just one person seeking to extend his career elsewhere, or a boardroom dispute? It primarily looks like the former.
And indeed it is difficult to see what a boardroom dispute at this stage could be about. Arsenal came second three seasons running in 1998/9 and the following season did the double.
These days, of course, matters are different because of the vast expenditure of some clubs in buying in new players and the enduring uncertainty over Manchester City’s 115 alleged crimes againsts football, over which we still don’t have any answers.
And maybe we never will.
