Quote Originally Posted by McNamara That Ghost... View Post
Well it's not irrelevant because so far as ownership is concerned the two are inextricably linked. If he could see where football was going and 'introduces' the person who is happy with the 'status quo' as you put it, whose fault is that? If he could see where it is going and what is needed to change that, he should've taken the steps to ensure the businessman he is involved with would not be what we have (apparently) got.

He's not a great visionary if he hits the first roadblock.
I don't think we are debating 'fault'. As the article Ach posted makes clear, the rift between DD and the board was that the team should be prioritised rather than the stadium. DD clearly felt that outside investment was necessary on the playing side for us to be able to match Chelsea and Manure. He found Kroenke and it is reasonable to assume that Kroenke gave DD some assurances that he would invest in the playing side.

I said earlier that time moves on. By the time DD left AW's astuteness had ensured that the team maintained top 4 status during the worst of the stadium debt years. By then the board saw Kroenke as the lesser of 2 evils (DD having now perhaps realised that Kroenke wasn't the right man to invest in the team), and Kroenke realised that he could own the club as a self financing business without investing in the playing side.

What is clear, in hindsight, is that the stadium became obsolete as a means of us competing with the richest teams almost as it was being built. It was also the catalyst for the transformation of our team into also-rans, as we became committed to trying to develop young players as a sustainable means of managing the debt. In this light a vice-chairman who was opposed to the stadium and saw investment on the playing side as the necessary route to maintain our success as a team looks rather more far sighted than the rest of the board.