Was losing Dein the problem?

[IBK]

This has been discussed before, but I wonder whether the issue has more force now that most people seem to accept that Wenger has lost what once made him great.

I am trying to decide whether it is being revisionist to blame our current decline on David Dein's departure? At the time, the club's desire not to become an oligarch's plaything seemed to make sense. There seemed to be purpose in the club being run along sensible commercial lines, and it was reasonable to assume that once Highbury Square was finished we would not be short of funds.

But when we look at things now:

The club's failure to hold onto our best players; allowing contracts to run down and failing to shift our dross

Gazidis' utter ineffectiveness

Wenger's monomania

The failure of the Emirates to make any difference to our relative spending power

The arrogance of Hill Wood and co

The sad demise of Danny Fizman - a Gooner through and through

and...the oligarch's plaything, Chelsea FC now showing a profit!

Would much of this have been avoided if DD had stuck around? Was DD Peter Taylor to Wenger's Brian Clough?

[dazthegooner]

Hard to tell, Dein didnt want us to build Ashburton grove he prefered Wembley (and we all know how that worked for us in the champions league) but in a nutshell yes I think he would have reconcidered Wembley given his love for Arsenal.

[Marc Overmars]

When Dein left, Wenger apparently asked him if he should hand in his resignation, that's how tight they were. Dein wasn't without his faults and was rightly pulled up on wanting to move to Wembley, but he identified long before anyone that Arsenal was going to need external investment to compete. From what I've read about Wenger and Dein, they obviously had a very strong working and personal relationship, most importantly I think Wenger listened to Dein, I doubt Wenger takes many 2nd opinions on board from people at the club anymore. Dein was also a very powerful guy and I think that always helped when it came to negotiations, it made life easy for Wenger and allowed him to focus on footballing matters.

We all agree the board are part of the problem, Dein was different to them and that's why he was kicked out. While it's impossible to say how different things could have been, it's not beyond the realms of all doubt to think there is a small correlation between our decline and his departure.

[GP]

and...the oligarch's plaything, Chelsea FC now showing a profit!

Don't believe a word of it. That financial report didn't include their summer spending.

[Ollie the Optimist]

Don't believe a word of it. That financial report didn't include their summer spending.

this, plus the fact they have spent 1 billion over ten years for a profit of 1.4 million. hardly amazing stuff.

though i read somwhere that they are in fact 800 million in debt, but abrovmich has written it off as equity or something. dont understand the economics of it, but its something along those lines

[Olivier's xmas twist]

This has been discussed before, but I wonder whether the issue has more force now that most people seem to accept that Wenger has lost what once made him great.

I am trying to decide whether it is being revisionist to blame our current decline on David Dein's departure? At the time, the club's desire not to become an oligarch's plaything seemed to make sense. There seemed to be purpose in the club being run along sensible commercial lines, and it was reasonable to assume that once Highbury Square was finished we would not be short of funds.

But when we look at things now:

The club's failure to hold onto our best players; allowing contracts to run down and failing to shift our dross

Gazidis' utter ineffectiveness

Wenger's monomania

The failure of the Emirates to make any difference to our relative spending power

The arrogance of Hill Wood and co

The sad demise of Danny Fizman - a Gooner through and through

and...the oligarch's plaything, Chelsea FC now showing a profit!

Would much of this have been avoided if DD had stuck around? Was DD Peter Taylor to Wenger's Brian Clough?

Its a hard one, i mean most people think Dein being here would have changed things. Maybe it would, maybe it would not. One thing i know if Dein never brought Stan to the club things would have been diffrent.

As much as he did for the club and the bond he had with Wumger, he was happy to sell out to the Russian quick. So there, i feel he was looking out for himself more then the club.

He wanted to become Chairman so desperately. Maybe that may not have been a bad thing and he may have given wumger that push he needed. Just think he is as bad as those in charge now.

[Marc Overmars]

As much as he did for the club and the bond he had with Wumger, he was happy to sell out to the Russian quick. So their i feel he was looking out for himself more then the club.

He only sold to Usmanov so he could chair Red & White holdings, he saw that as his route back into the club. It didn't work out because PHW and co flat out didn't want to work with him anymore, so it didn't make sense for Usmanov to keep him on.

[LDG]

He only sold to Usmanov so he could chair Red & White holdings, he saw that as his route back into the club. It didn't work out because PHW and co flat out didn't want to work with him anymore, so it didn't make sense for Usmanov to keep him on.

Probably still will be in a few years time

[Kano]

no. he ended up being just as greedy and selfish as the current board are - it didn't take long for him to cash in.

in fact, it is because of dein that we now have both kroenke and usmanov sitting waiting to bleed us dry. yeah cheers for that mate. best interests of the club at heart no doubt.

god knows what kind of due diligence he undertook when talking with kroenke and assessing whether he was 'right' for the club or not.

admin is admin and the club should have been able to find someone good enough to deal with contracts, transfers etc since his departure. dein alone is not god like figure who operates far and above everyone else. the clubs lack of reorganisation has damaged us far more than any one director leaving us. directors leave companies all the time and do not suffer as we have.

he done some good things for us but in the end he made the most of his shares, just like every other greedy fucker.

[Fist of Lehmann]

Dunno. Let me think it through.

The schism between Dein and PHW/Fiszmann (hereafter PhiszWood) was down to the direction of the club. Although both parties agreed on the need to increase gates, they disagreed on how. The Phwisz felt we needed to own our own stadium, taking a tradionalist's view that Arsenal Football Club needed it's own place. Dein, being a fan first and foremost, felt we needed to win, and that building our own stadium would impact too heavily on funds for the team, hence the plan to rent Wembley.

When Dein approached Kroenke with a view to securing that investment, behind the backs of the board, it eventually led to his demise. More than likely Dein saw Kroenke as a means of eventually ousting PHW, the speed and brutality of his sacking suggests PHW saw this too.

The only scenario in which Dein stays is if PHW gets dethroned. By the time he was sacked in 2007, it would have already been too late for his Wembley rental plan, and we would have already have been well into our front-loaded but ultimately sapping commercial deals.

Materially we would have been in a similar position to now, except with a different chairman, and no Usmanov.

Where I think Dein would have differed is threefold.

1) He would have retained the relationship with the manager, I think his influence in this regard may be overstated, however sometimes even small things can have a large effect. He would at least be some kind of sounding board, if not a full-blown check and balance.
2) He was a schmoozer, he had a presence in UEFA, the FA, the G14 and his business nous in transfer negotiations was a major asset to the club.
3) He would have persued funding for the team far more aggressively than the current incumbent. The team, is after all, all Dein really cared about. It's here though, that his judgement has to be in question, his schmoozing may well have brought him into less savoury company. His association with Usmanov may have been born of desparation, but by bringing someone of such highly questionable morals into the club, he may ultimately have done more harm than good.

To sum up:
Old Guard, Old Money, Conservative, Risk Averse, Self-Sufficient.
VS
New Money, Risk Heavy, Winning.