Kroenke/Gazidis/Wenger out!: Page 196 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Kroenke/Gazidis/Wenger out!

Captain

It was because Hill-wood was out of the game for so long and a dinosaur that Keswick was appointed to the board in the first place.

goon

Maybe Asa, but regardless of whether or not he'd be your choice you still can't really argue with his credentials.

Irish gunner wrote:
Klaus wrote:
Like fuck it does.

He's our second largest shareholder, he should have a place on the board. Regardless of what anyone thinks of him.

That's not how these things work, you don't appoint board members based on who owns the most shares, you appoint board members based upon their ability to help the company meet it's objectives. Of course, if he owned a bit more, he'd be entitled to it by law, but that's not the case so the current board have no reason to put him there anyway.

asajoseph

otfgoon wrote:
Maybe Asa, but regardless of whether or not he'd be your choice you still can't really argue with his credentials.

I'm pointing out why most Arsenal fans, and Tony Adams don't and shouldn't take him seriously.

Captain

Because they're stupid?

JazzG

asajoseph wrote:
So did Hill-Wood, and the guy's regarded as a cunt by pretty much every Arsenal fan out there. It's a case of assuming guilt by association - probably unfair, but understandable.

Find someone with the same CV who's not Peter Hill-Wood's bezzie mate, and it's a different story, but nobody wanted another 5 years of Hill-Wood, and this seems like the next worst option.

Like you said your self you are assuming guilt here, just because they are mates it doesn't mean he is like Hill-Wood. You have to give a guy a chance before writing him off. If he is going to play more of a role then being well linked up in the business world is good for us as far as getting new sponsorship deals done.

asajoseph

Doubt it'll make any difference to sponsorship - after all, Hambros didn't sponsor us when we had PHW!

And yes, being Hill-Wood's mate & part of his backward-board suggests to me we shouldn't be looking to this guy for anything particularly innovative or dynamic.

Burnwinter

Irish gunner wrote:
He's our second largest shareholder, he should have a place on the board. Regardless of what anyone thinks of him.

How does this concept of "class" of which you speak gel with Usmanov's regular attempts to destabilise Kroenke?

Usmanov and Kroenke have a hostile relationship. Diversity of views is one thing. Inviting someone you're feuding with to council is a bit different.

Burnwinter

otfgoon wrote:
Has plenty of experience outside the club.

Sure—as a director of banks. It's a lot less relevant than Adams' experience for mine (NB: this is not an argument that Adams should be chairman, just an observation), and also it's a type of experience quite well represented on our board already.

And I'd guess that since the GFC all of those banks have probably been hit as hard as any club Adams ever managed …

Keswick is a conservative appointment. His ancestor established the company he owes his wealth to in 1889, he didn't. He's just a well-connected old man, experienced in business, who won't shake the boat. I guess you can be positive about that easily enough if you please.

At least he's been around the board a while and is a fan.

goon

Burnwinter wrote:
otfgoon wrote:
Has plenty of experience outside the club.

Sure—as a director of banks. It's a lot less relevant than Adams' experience for mine (NB: this is not an argument that Adams should be chairman, just an observation), and also it's a type of experience quite well represented on our board already.

And I'd guess that since the GFC all of those banks have probably been hit as hard as any club Adams ever managed …

How is being really good at defending (or anything else he's done in football for that matter) more relevant experience than knowing about how to run a company, about strategy, finance and all the other things that come along with the role?

The reality is you need to know far more about business than football, the latter is just a bonus. The CEO and other executives are the ones that need to have more of a clue, though even then it's more about how the business side of the game works rather than the playing side. Would you suggest Adams has more relevant experience than Douglas Flint?

Timbob

Couldn't give a monkeys tbh.

Biggus

I guess the discussion is in this thread because being pro Keswick means pro ancien regime.

Meanwhile, as I dared to hope Sandy says this may be the last season we suffer under Wenger.

Burnwinter

otfgoon wrote:
How is being really good at defending (or anything else he's done in football for that matter) more relevant experience than knowing about how to run a company, about strategy, finance and all the other things that come along with the role?

The reality is you need to know far more about business than football, the latter is just a bonus.

Firmly disagree. Football is the product—deep knowledge about it is much harder to come by than a bit of top table business exposure, of which there is already plenty on the board.

Don't kid yourself that the lesser grandson of a business kingpin who's held a few comfortable sinecures before being knighted is some kind of statesmanlike font of acumen. We have accountants, financial analysts and commercial executives at our disposal who do the legwork and report to the board.

Since Dein left, Wenger's monopolised our football side completely and the results have been solid but not spectacular. The club has been in need of a catalyst on the football side for some time, I'm not saying it's the appointment of Tony Adams to the board, it could be a player, it could be a coach, it could be a DoF or a different board appointment.

Captain

It's not going to be the chairman though. Not in any reality.

Cannon

Enjoy our Arsenal while it lasts folks. AW is what is keeping this club together. Once he goes Stan and Usmanov are gonna be at it like cats and dogs, and we are gonna end up either like pool/villa or Chelsea.

Biggus

Captain wrote:
It's not going to be the chairman though. Not in any reality.

But you do see the need for a football voice on the board to temper Wenger's- shall I say- natural proclivity towards bean counting?

Captain

Your question presupposes that I agree Wenger has a "proclivity towards bean counting". I don't.

Burnwinter

Just forget that bit and answer the substance of the question, which is: do you see the need for a football voice on the board to temper Wenger's approach?

Not saying it's the biggest factor, but: all of Wenger's trophy wins at Arsenal came when Dein, who had a firmer hand in football matters alongside Wenger than anyone else has since, was still at the club.

Captain

Burnwinter wrote:
Just forget that bit and answer the substance of the question, which is: do you see the need for a football voice on the board to temper Wenger's approach?

No, I see no need to bring Wenger and his supposed approach into the discussion at all.

If you are asking whether we should bring someone with more intimate and particular knowledge/experience of football business (agent friendly, contacts throughout europe and the world etc.) into an executive role underneath Gazidis, then yes, we should. There is no reason not to add such value to our club's management team.

Burnwinter

"his supposed approach"

You can't get away with saying Wenger doesn't have an approach when you praise it in ever other post, you know. Love him or hate him, he's nothing if not methodical.

Biggus

Captain wrote:
Your question presupposes that I agree Wenger has a "proclivity towards bean counting". I don't.

Okay, so you deny Wenger has an aversion to spending money on transfers and you deny that his will should be tempered in any way.

So Wenger should have all the power yet none of the responsibility

« Previous Page Next Page »