Quote:
Q: Should Alisher Usmanov be granted a seat on the board?
A: The Uzbek billionaire owns a little under 30% of the shares through his Red & White Holdings vehicle but he is something of an outsider. He has sought to ingratiate himself with the fans by proposing a £100m cash injection via a share issue, for spending on new players, and also positioning himself against the concept of the self-sustaining business model. Hence the calls for him to be appointed as a director. But they have been rejected and they continue to be met with resistance, with Hill-Wood speaking of being "comfortable with the constitution of the board" and having no wish to change it. The chairman talked of every director "caring deeply about the long-term future of the club" and wanting "the very best" for it. The suggestion was that Usmanov does not.
And:
Quote:
Q: Can Arsenal enjoy the success that their supporters crave with the self‑sustaining business model?
A: This question underpins almost every discussion in relation to the club. The fans have long wished to see a greater degree of speculation – on the transfer market – in order to accumulate and they have been concerned at how the Manchester clubs, Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur have demonstrated their financial clout. There was the call here for an equity injection up to 2014, when Arsenal will be able to renegotiate their major commercial deals, in the hope that it would help to attract some high‑quality players. Yet the members of the board are utterly resolute, believing that living within the club's means is the only way forward. They refuse to mortgage the club's future by spending vast sums on new signings and have placed great faith in the incoming financial fair play rules. The club are working instead to develop revenue streams, with the pre-season tour to east Asia being advanced as one success. They will not consider a short-term injection of capital.
You see how this board operates? It makes £22mill profit in the transfer window and then rejects a cash injection on the grounds of sustainability whilst, at the same time, professing their love for the club. How is it not sustainable to reinvest funds raised from transfers? It's not like they have to pull money from elsewhere or, God forbid, their own pockets. What exactly is it they are sustaining? Not results on the pitch, not the trophy count, not the quality in the team. One thing has been sustained very well indeed though - the share price. The previous shareholders have taken the money that should have been invested in the team and they have put it in their own pockets. It's crystal clear, just look at the events and the numbers.