Blame the board, not the manager

"Anybody who is a real football fan or a real Arsenal fan will know it is David Dein who made the modern team what they are and it is he who brought us to the point we are at now. Arsene Wenger was merely, commercially appropriate."

- the blogger at Arsenal Muse

There was an interesting comment made by Arsenal Muse a couple of days ago. He said that managers and players win competitions and garner accolades, but it's the club which is ultimately responsible for success. Which, I suppose, means that it's the board that sets the agenda for the manager, the board that signs off on transfer funding and wages, the board which pressures the manager into either striving for trophies or playing within their finances.

No prizes for guessing where our board's priorities lie.

I think the reason for most gooners' exasperation at the board stems from lack of clarity at our goals. Either we're a club with the finances to legitimately challenge for the league, or we're not. Either we have the resources to buy the three players we need to complete the squad, or we don't. Either we make a full-bloodied challenge for the Premier League, or we dick around with a youth policy that's confusing and contradictory. It's irritating when we're constantly told one thing, but all evidence points to the other.

A lot of malcontents blame Wenger for everything. It's Wenger's fault that: we've got a squad filled with injury-prone players; we've tactically inept; we field shit goalkeepers; we have indulgent, spoilt young players who can't deal with pressure. While Wenger can be blamed for some of these things (tactics and player motivation are managerial issues) I think the lack of pressure from the board also creates a certain indulgent environment at the Arsenal. Wenger know he can do whatever he wants as long as he maintains Champions League football. He's allowed to neglect defensive drills, persist with his favourites, and not be mean to his players, because he's good enough to achieve targets on a tight budget.

The question is whether this is Wenger's fault. He been given a brief to achieve Champions League football on a budget. He achieves it every year. If you look around Europe, there aren't a lot of managers who could've done what Wenger's done.

However, to retain Champions League status, Wenger's had to do something strange. He's had to over-pay his youngsters to lure them from top clubs. He's had to continue to over-pay them to stop them leaving, and often he's paying wages based on potential, not ability. So he's got a bunch of players who are over-paid and who probably can't be offloaded until their contracts have been run down. Which means that it's often more cost-effective to persist with players that aren't great at the moment, but who may be great in the future, and who are still good enough to maintain 4th.

So we're treading water to see if our young players can amount to something. It's the commercial expedient thing to do. We achieve the board's primary goal every year. We continue our "interesting experiment". And if these players suddenly to click together and get it right, we've got team that's worthy of a premiership challenge. And that's happened twice in five years, so it kind of works.

And yes, we're still indulgent on our players. And we're stupid tactically. And we don't defend set pieces. And we have a bad medical team. But these are the consequences of a complacent regime. These are the 5% that hurt our team's premiership prospects, but which don't matter much in terms of finishing in the Top 4. Think about it from Wenger's point of view - why bother with this 5% if we're going to be another 10% short for being a Premier League contender anyway? It's just not worth it.

So, my contention is that the board sets the agenda. If we're unhappy with the way the club's been run (and I am unhappy), we've got to look at the board, not the manager.

So on the 356th last day of my 20s, I had an in-depth discussion with my mate and his wife about the girl of my dreams. It turns out that I have no chance; she likes committed Christians and pretty boys, and sadly, I am neither. But my mind is being slowly torn apart with strain. I have two choices: ask her out now with the certainty of failure but with this burden lifted; or turning myself around, and asking her in about 200 days' time, but under this stress for the whole time. My mate, who's worried about my sanity, recommends the former. My mate's wife, who's not so worried about my sanity, thinks I should do the latter.

I'm leaning towards waiting and changing, and allowing my mind to get stretched like taffy in the meanwhile. She's worth the risk to my sanity. She's worth a lot of things. And I hate failure. Although, as my mate suggested, I could do both - ask her out, get rejected, work on myself, get rejected in 200 days' time...

I bought Dookie on the way home. It's a funny album. Listening to Jeff Buckley (Je N'en Connais Pas La Fin) at the moment. I love the melody - it's wistful and dreamy, and it leaves me wishing that I can still remember my high school French.

From the AGM

"We haven’t got $500 billion to put into the club, but I suspect that we will be challenging — but I don’t consider Tottenham and Aston Villa rivals. I am very confident and any worries about Champions League income are unlikely to be the case.”

- Peter Hill-Wood, who isn't worried about threats to 4th place

It was AGM night in England last night. And of the many splendored things that Peter Hill-Wood said that night, that quote was the one that really pisses me off. It's such a snobbish, stupid, smug, self-absorbed, self-satisfied thing to say.

I don't understand why Peter Hill-Wood is sneering at Tottenham and Aston Villa for spending money in order to improve the quality of their teams. That's what football clubs do, Peter. Just because Arsenal sell their players for large amounts of money and don't reinvest the funds, it doesn't mean other clubs do the same. For ambitious clubs, they seek to add players to their squad every year in order to improve it.

I don't understand why Hill-Wood thinks he's got a right to be superior. In case he hasn't noticed, we have finished 4th or 3rd for the past four years. We haven't won in five years. We've stagnated. What's worse is that there hasn't been any sign of ambition from the Club to achieve more than 4th place and a Champions League place. For a club the size of Arsenal, that's pathetic.

And finally, I don't understand how Peter Hill-Wood got it in his head that 4th place is some sort of "prize" that we should be celebrating. For a club of our size, 4th place and CL qualification is the minimum. Celebrating that is madness, like jumping for joy when you get out of the bathtub because you managed not to drown yourself. I had a look at the club's profile on the official site, and nowhere on the list of our Premier League achievements does it list our proud record of 4th, 4th, 3rd, and 4th.

The other significant news from the AGM was that Stan Kroenke was asked about his intentions with the Club and he said.... nothing. Under the rules of the Takeover Panel, all public statements against a future bid must be unambiguous, or he'd be prevented from a formal move for six months. I hope the following prediction is ambiguous enough for Stan's liking - in the next six months, we're going to see a giant bust of Kroenke in the Emirate's forecourt with a motorised mouth which speaks "In Stan We Trust", and flaming eyeballs which shoots flaming eyes at gooners who dare to suggest that 4th place isn't good enough for a Club of our stature, or that certain Wengerish transfers are a bit geriatric.

And Arsene Wenger spoke about his confidence that we're going to win something this year:

“This year I am convinced we will win a trophy. It will come down to how resilient, consistent, intelligent and united we are until the end because there will be tough times. There will be periods when it will be difficult, but we have to show our strengths that have always made this club special. This team is now ready to go for it and I am convinced we will perform throughout the season.”

We've heard this before, Wenger. Why don't we just get through Christmas before we make any rash promises, hey?

PHW's "relaxed" about a takeover

"It does look like he is edging towards a takeover, which I would welcome. I have not asked him if that is what he plans to do, but I am very relaxed about it. If it was to happen, I don't think you can expect any big changes because he seems to like things very much the way they are."

- Peter Hill-Wood, about the prospect of a takeover

A couple of days ago, Kroenke bought another 90 shares at £8,500 per share, taking his overall stake in the Club to 28.9%. He's edging closer to the 30% needed to trigger a mandatory compulsory takeover. As Myles Palmer said "he now needs only 645 more shares to take him to 29.9% . Then Stan will probably stop buying shares till the end of the season."

In light of this news, Peter Hill-Wood is "very relaxed" about the idea of Kroenke buying the Club. He "doesn't think" there will be big changes because Kroenke "seems to like things" the way they are. He's being very nonchalant about the future of the Club. In other words, he's telling us that if it happens, when it happens, how it happens, whatever happens it'll be sort of, maybe, probably okay.... he thinks.

To me, it's not a particularly reassuring statement. It came from a man who, two years ago, famously said that "we don't need his money and we didn't need his sort" at the club. Hill-Wood doesn't mince words when he speaks to the media. He says what he likes, how he likes - even if some of what he says is xenophobic, inane crap.

So why has he changed his stance?

Why is he prevaricating and qualifying his statements?

I think it's because Arsenal is being eaten alive by two very hungry billionaires, and Peter Hill-Wood has woken to the fact that there's sweet FA he can do to prevent a takeover. And the Board's anointed Kroenke as the lesser of two evils. And Hill-Wood's just realised that, after insulting Kroenke in all the major papers two years ago, Kroenke might not be too well-disposed to him when he's in charge. So Hill-Wood's decided to say something like that to curry favor with Kroenke so that he can retain his honorary Chairman of the Board title in the event of a takeover.

All hail our new insect overlord.

Personally, I think it'll be a shame if we were bought outright by one person. I like Kroenke and think his presence on the Board is of great benefit, but I wouldn't like to see him owning the Club outright. I prefer the status quo, with a group of major shareholders (some with a long association with the Club) running the Club. It gives us the assurance that if one person decides to sell, we've still got some continuity at the Board level. If Kroenke buys us outright, then sells us us in five years' time, there's no guarantee that the next owners will be competent custodians of the Club.

But then again, as Peter Hill-Wood has learnt in the past two years, there's sweet FA we can do about it. Kroenke and Usmanov are eyeing the Club, have the money to buy it, and are going to make a bid when they think it's time. All we can do is put on some lippy and a nice dress, cosy up with our new owners, and hope it's not going to be too bad.

Does Anyone Understand Our Financial Report?

With regards to Arsenal's financial reports for the year, Peter Hill-Wood said:

“The Group’s profits have now risen in each of the three years in which Emirates Stadium has been our home. This is excellent news although I should perhaps stress that making and reporting profits is not in itself the primary objective for the directors. First and foremost we are supporters of this great football club and, as such, our main goal will always be the achievement of success for Arsenal on the field. The Group’s profitability is important because it is a by-product of running the Club as a solvent and successful business, which in turn allows us to maximise the level of investment in the playing staff and in the future development of the Club.”

The board say that there is money, but they aren't spending money. They don't pay out dividends. The mortgage on the stadium is kept in check and doesn't require additional payments. So where is the money going?

There's a theory that they're asset stripping to plump up Arsenal's accounts, in order to keep the share price high to stop Usmanov from buying the Club. Kroenke's the preferred owner, and the Board want to delay Usmanov's advance until Kroenke feels like he wants to play. And that might be sooner than we think. Apparently he's on the verge of buying Nina Bracewell-Smith's stake.

There's another theory that they're using that money to hedge their bets with regards to Highbury Square. Gazidis mentioned that the property development and the football finances are fenced off from each other, but I'm not sure about that. I bet there's plenty of "mixed" bills that the footballing surplus could be used to pay off, allowing the freed-up money to go to propping up Highbury Square. Arsenal are a Club of creative accountants (remember their Cayman Island Player Payment Scheme in the early 2000s?) so I'm sure there are enough loopholes to allow the footballing department to finance the Highbury Square project.

There's another theory that Wenger's sitting on 50 million in transfer and wages, but he's got his head so far up his arse that he can't see that he needs to reinforce his squad. But I don't believe this, mostly because Wenger sees this team day after day, and he must surely realise that this team can't win anything for him. After all, Wenger is a pragmatist. He cut Vieira just as he started to decline. He cut Gilberto when Flamini became good. He bought Vermaelen and sold Kolo. He swapped Silvestre for Senderos for the experience, which just highlights how much Wenger knows we need experience. He bought Arshavin. So we know that he'd buy quality IF the price is right. It's just that the price has a ceiling of about 17 million (as Melo found out to our loss).

It leaves me wondering whether our 35 million pound profit is a good thing or a bad thing. It's good from a financial point-of-view. It's always nice to turn a profit. But if Arsenal are about the trophies and not about the money, isn't that 35 million an opportunity lost? 35 million would've got us that 'keeper we need, or that experienced DM we need. What's the point of proclaiming our financial solvency if it turns out that we're at risk of slipping out of the Top 4 this year? Not to mention that it does nothing for our attempts to establish ourselves as title contenders.

So what's happening with the Club? What are our priorities? I don't know. Who does? Maybe it's time to admit that it's way to difficult trying to second-guess the Club and just go along for the ride. Maybe it's time I learned to stop worrying and just love the Bomb.

2-0 win against Olympiakos this morning. Theo played for 60 minutes. Well done boys.

Usmanov: Our New Insect Overlord!

"Usmanov, who turns 56 tomorrow, is in pole position to buy Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith's 15.9 per cent share in the club, a transaction that would take Usmanov well in excess of 30 per cent and would precipitate a formal takeover bid for the club, in agreement with the City's financial rules."

- The First Post

So it turns out that Usmanov is going to buy Nina Bracewell-Smith's 15.9% stake, thereby triggering the mandatory buy-out clause and setting up a clash with Stan "The Man" Kroenke for world domination and ownership of the Arsenal. On a slow news week, when the only significant stories were Djourou's injury and Sagna's hair, it's something worth looking into.

When Usmanov first started taking an interesting in the Arsenal, gooners were quite angry. He had a shady past. He's a foreigner. He looks like a cross between a very fat badger and a demustachioed walrus. And he's not a cigar-smoking, old-money, Etonian toff like the other significant owners of Arsenal Inc.

I'm not saying all these points were valid reasons to dismiss Usmanov's bid, but they were defended quite vigorously, if I recall.

However, two years down the track, and people seem resigned to the fact that Usmanov will play a significant role in Arsenal's future. Why is that? What happened to the protests, the burning effigies, the cancelled memberships and Highbury riots that were supposed to occur? Where is the opposition to a man who, given the questions about his past, seems to be unfit to own an organisation as awesome as the Arsenal?

Maybe we've admitted to ourselves that there's nothing we can do about it.

I must confess my allegiances at this point. I'm wary of Usmanov, and I'm wary of Kroenke, but I'm incredibly weary of Danny Fiszman, Peter Hill-Wood, Nina Bracewell-Smith and all the other old-money English owners of the club. I didn't like the way they kicked up a fuss when Stan Kroenke started buying shares. I found Peter Hill-Wood's xenophobic "we don't want his sort" rants disgusting. And I don't like the current cloak-and-daggers boardroom manoeuvres. It reeks of bad taste.

At this point in time, I don't really care who takes over the club. Usmanov and Kroenke want it because it's a big club which turns a profit, with untapped global potential. Hopefully they'll invest money into the club, build up the squad and promote it around the world. I've always felt that the Arsenal could have as big a presence as Man Utd or Real Madrid, and I hope our new owners feel the same way. But they might not. It's well within their power to do a Liverpool or a Man Utd, leverage the shit out of our club, sit on it until the value of increases, and then flog it off to a football-obsessed Gulf State sheik.

That's profoundly depressing.

In an ideal world, the Arsenal would be a non-profit organisation run by its members. Of course, given that the Arsenal is worth £1.2 billion at the moment, it'll take a bit of thinking to find the funds. I don't think it'll be as easy as pooling up our money, trotting over to the bank and asking for a £1.2 billion loan, with nice, easy repayments over 50 years. I think we'd need a billionaire to help us out.

So here's the deal. We need Alisher Usmanov and his untold riches. We could make a deal with him. Say, if he's willing to buy out the club, set it up as a member-owned and member-run organistion, and then divest all ownership to the members, then we're willing to accept him as Arsenal's sugar daddy. We'll put banners around the stadium proclaiming our love for him. We'll remove the cannons from outside the stadium and we'll erect a six-foot copy of Usmanov's head on the steps.

And as a measure of good faith, we should stop calling him a fat, walrus-like Uzbeki hitman. It's only fair.

All Hail Alisher Usmanov, our new Overlord!

Edelman's gone

"Please follow this story elsewhere. It's big news and good news. It's the first of many changes we will soon be seeing."

- Myles Palmer, ANR, 01/05/08

Myles' right - the sacking of Keith Edelman is BIG news. I'm struggling to figure out what it means for the club. I don't live in the country, so it's a bit of a mystery. I'm going to muddle through this post, so please bear with me.

This is the information I'm getting:

1. Keith Edelman was a good managing director when the club needed finance for the stadium. He ran the club like a business. No one else in football could've managed it.

2. Keith Edelman was sacked because he's no longer useful. Now that the stadium finance is stitched up, we needed a more "football-minded" MD. We need someone with the nous to compete in transfers and contract negotiations, and Edelman can't offer that. In fact, we're still looking for a replacement for David Dein.

3. If we get that new, football-orientated MD, we're going to be spending big.

4. Danny Fiszman is the absolute ruler of Arsenal.

5. Usmanov is the major shareholder.

These are the speculations:

1. Wenger's transfer policy was dictated by Edelman, not Wenger. Wenger always knew he needed to spend big to genuinely compete, but understood the necessity of austerity. However, he's cracked the shits after this season, as evidenced by his comments over the past few days regarding Hleb, Flamini, economic "doping" and the stadium finance.

2. With a new MD who is willing to provide greater funding, Wenger will be in a position to buy established stars. Please, Wenger, a goalkeeper!

3. Fiszman sacked Edelman to shore up support against the inevitable Usmanov takeover. He knows the fans are getting pissed off about the transfer policy, and he knows that if we don't win something soon, we're going to clamour for greater involvement from Kroenke and Usmanov. I don't know how much influence fans wield in a PLC club, but it must be pretty significant for things to come to this.

Whatever the case, the new MD will have a major effect on the transfer policy specifically, and the direction of the club as a whole. If anyone has any insight on these developments, I'd love to hear them. I'm pretty clueless at the moment.

I've just got one other question: what the fuck does Peter Hill-Wood do?