Posted April 18, 200718 yr This is just-breaking news. I don't know much more yet, except that apparently there were: "irreconcilable differences between Mr Dean and the rest of the board"
April 18, 200718 yr This is just-breaking news. I don't know much more yet, except that apparently there were:"irreconcilable differences between Mr Dean and the rest of the board" He is no use to them anymore now that he can't bend the FA's ear every day.
April 18, 200718 yr Author This is just-breaking news. I don't know much more yet, except that apparently there were:"irreconcilable differences between Mr Dean and the rest of the board" He is no use to them anymore now that he can't bend the FA's ear every day. Silly of me - that would do it
April 18, 200718 yr the bloke is a c*nt end of. Hope it all comes out about his double dealings , kick back?s and corruption he was a major part of . Never forget he tried to destroy us . He can rot in hell in my book or better still get done for fraud and get banged up for 3 years sharing a cell with Anal Rob the 18st Gay Rapist who will take great pleasure widening his circle of frineds as he sell?s his Highbury Bitch
April 18, 200718 yr Could this be a sign of an imminent takeover after all some billionaire has just purchased a numbewr of their shares?
April 18, 200718 yr Author I thought Dein was the one who wanted to sell. Or is it the other way around? David Dean is such a canute he can't even spell his own bleedin' name right.
April 19, 200718 yr I thought Dein was the one who wanted to sell. Or is it the other way around? indeed that's why he left as the rest of the board disagrees with him.
April 19, 200718 yr If you wanted any more proof the press are exacerbating the Chelsea board situation this is it- nary a word prior to the event.
April 19, 200718 yr It?s impossible to feel any sympathy for David Dein in his current situation if you are a Chelsea fan, but I?m going to have a go and if it turns into a gloat almost immediately it will be proof positive that the man is truly insufferable, even when you try to be generous towards him and his twenty three years of one club loyalty? I?m guessing that this mover and shaker has been between a rock and a ?60m hard place for most of the season and his business instincts, let alone his many contacts both here and within G14, tell him that the Gunners are going nowhere under the Hill-Wood old school philosophy, despite what close friend Arsene has recently said on the subject of ownership. Let?s face it, Wenger?s liking for British ownership of British clubs is fine when that club is winning and the trophy cabinet is full, but, when it ain?t happening on the park, you can?t expect someone called Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith to be best pleased when asked politely to stump up the reddies for a new ?30m striker - it?s just not on, don?t you know. To my mind the fiercely ambitious David Dein only ever wanted one thing at Arsenal - complete control of the running of the club - and the pieces kept falling into place right up until the moment Roman came along for us and Chelsea started spoiling things big time. Who can blame him for feeling, in the words of Lady B-S, a touch miffed? Worse followed when, albeit against his better judgement and after years basking in the glory of marble-halled tradition, the decision was made to saddle themselves with new stadium debt rather than take his preferred option of an alliance with the new Wembley. Further undermined by the England manager fiasco, Dein?s power base starts looking decidedly shaky in every direction except G14 where he gets given greater influence and some solace. Feeling any sympathy for him yet? No, well I didn?t either until it dawned on me that the prospect of him making millions from an association with Stan Kroenke brooks comparison with the vast amount of dosh that came Roman?s way many moons ago. Except, of course, the amount, though large in itself, is infinitely smaller and in Dein?s situation, he will become a Faustian character to many if, after selling his shares, he is installed as Kroenke?s man on the Arsenal board. For Chelsea, Roman simply became our Saviour and we?ve all seen and enjoyed what has happened since. There will be no guarantees of success for David Dein should he return via the back door. No legacy, no total control and probably no Wenger either, if the remaining shareholders stick to their gunners and keep hold of their shares for a year. Peter Hill-Wood, Lady B-S et al are from good British stock and they won?t let the side down (?) They went through this sort of thing in the War Years, you know, and appreciate a stiff upper lip when they see one. Feeling any sympathy for him yet? Nah, I suppose your right, the lounge lizard had it coming and no mistake.
April 20, 200718 yr Here's a picture of the fella who wants to buy the Gooners: Is he actually Wenger with a fake moustache?
April 20, 200718 yr Hey quick! someone stick a ponytail on him then tell me who it reminds you of ?? Is it someone with a name similar to this?
April 21, 200718 yr Author But, Roman Abramovich at Chelsea aside, Wenger does not believe that overseas cash injections guarantee success and he would be loath to compromise what he sees as the club's long-term financial strategy. So does that mean Wenger believes that Roman's money guaranteed success? Or is that Sky having a go yet a-bloody-gain. I'm not going to bother justifying this garbage. But isn't it amazing how often these toerags manage to get their little digs in.
April 21, 200718 yr Well, they couldn't play the "Jose's getting sacked" -card so soon after Kenyon's comments on Chelsea TV, and since we look like we're threatening Manc's success again, they had to start reminding everyone again that we're buying the league.
April 21, 200718 yr But, Roman Abramovich at Chelsea aside, Wenger does not believe that overseas cash injections guarantee success and he would be loath to compromise what he sees as the club's long-term financial strategy. So does that mean Wenger believes that Roman's money guaranteed success? Or is that Sky having a go yet a-bloody-gain. I'm not going to bother justifying this garbage. But isn't it amazing how often these toerags manage to get their little digs in. Personally I think they're actually paying us a backhanded compliment without even realising they are doing so. Let me explain what I mean. Roman's money has not guaranteed success however it has definitely been a major contributory factor. Newcastle and Leeds tried it but both failed spectacularly which proves money does not guarantee success. Have we bought the league? Personally I'm of the belief that every premiership title ever won has been bought in some form or other, the only difference is the cost factor and over what time period the money was spent. The Mancs would not have had the early Premiership successes without buying Cantona; Blackburn would not have won the title without Uncle Jack; Arsenal would not have won titles without buying Henry, Anelka, Petit, Vieira etc; we would not have won the title without Roman. But these people were only part of the equation. Yes money counts however having the right person to manage/coach the team is the ultimate guarantee of success. Ferguson, Wenger, Dalglish and Jose are/were all top notch managers who tasted success with other clubs as managers prior to joining their eventual Premiership winning teams. To me the true guarantee of success is a mixture of money and a great coach. Taking that comment into consideration you could actually say Wenger has been complimentary to Jose in admitting Jose is a great coach without actually saying so.
April 22, 200718 yr From BYOBBC: Wenger told the News of the World: "I'm not against foreign ownership of clubs, how could I?"I'm a foreign manager and there are many foreign players at Arsenal and in the Premiership. "But it has to be done in the right way. If it happens at Arsenal it would not mean I'd quit the club." Funny that...I could've sworn it was Wenger who said about a year ago that English clubs need to have English ownership.
