阿森纳董事会缺乏带领俱乐部跨上新台阶的干劲与眼光。
最大股东丹尼·费兹曼长年居住在日内瓦湖边的一座村庄，看比赛要坐飞机。他本可以买下ITV 电视台9.9%的股份，只是他拒绝这样做。相反，他卖了他在 Hampstead 的豪宅，转让了他1%的股票，也没有参加上周那次大卫·邓恩被逐出阿森纳的董事会会议。
为什么主席希尔伍德说他们在一年内不会考虑出售股份？他这样说也许是一个财政上的原因。是不是因为他们到那时将会从海布里广场公寓那里敛集到大笔钱呢？抑或是因为丹尼·费兹曼尚未取得一个(为了避免缴交税款而避居低税率国家的)税款流亡人的资格？
要了解这帮阿森纳贵族上上下下的态度，你必须得了解阿森纳真实的历史，而不是所谓的官方历史。
在五六十年代来自热衷板球运动之城的拥有这家俱乐部的这群绅士曾经任凭阿森纳停滞不前长达17年之久，在这期间象乔·贝克（Joe Baker）和乔治·依斯顿（George Eastham）这样的优秀球员一直未能在一支有能力夺取荣誉的球队征战。
他们本可以签下象丹尼·布兰施弗洛维（Danny Blanchflower）、克里夫·琼斯（ Cliff Jones）和丹尼斯·劳（Denis Law）等心甘情愿希望为阿森纳效力的伟大球员，但是董事会缺乏引进大牌球星的雄心和抱负，所以俱乐部一直处于停滞状态，直到贝蒂·米(Bertie Mee)带领自己青训出品的球队英雄们在1970年夺得博览会杯。但是董事会太早让1971年那支夺得双冠王的队伍分崩解体，他们没有在里亚姆·布拉迪(Liam Brady)、大卫·奥莱利（David O’Leary）和弗兰克·斯塔普斯勒顿（Frank Stapleton）的基础上引进一些所需的有经验球员，他们倒是长期留任了主教练特里·尼尔（Terry Neill），只因为他们喜欢他的阿诺奉承。
后来，大卫·邓恩在1983年来到阿森纳填补了董事会行政真空，但却开始了与小心谨慎的Ken Friar之间的冲突。
从1986年起，凭借大卫·邓恩、乔治·格拉汉姆和阿塞罗·温格的非凡工作，俱乐部的董事们享有了长达20年的幸福日子，期间球队获得13项主要奖杯，四次进入欧洲赛场决赛，并且在2004年完成了一个难以逾越的以不败战绩夺冠的赛季。
他们拥有的这支球队在最近10年踢着阿森纳style的足球，改变了阿森纳传统烙印，让他们享尽无比荣誉和光荣。-
因为大卫·邓恩被逐出董事会，当前的形势显得混乱而危险。
从现年71岁，长久以来在社交场所屡有失态表现的希尔伍德最近的言论来看，让人觉得他本不应该是阿森纳主席。
你怎可以在二月份刚宣布与斯坦·科伦克的科罗拉多快速队建立商业伙伴关系，然后在四月份又发表另一套言论，“我们不需要他的加入。”
森纳董事会的所为已让他们自己看起来过于专横和势利。他们有责任倾听他们的股东改进他们业务的提议。你必须得探究可能的投资者的提议，如同上周五《金融时报》所指出的那样。上周三，我们读到希尔伍德代表董事会的发言，“ 这些人都热爱阿森纳，他们不需要钱，他们也无意卖掉股份。俱乐部所做的一切都是为了球迷、工作人员和球员的利益，股东们愿意继续保持控制，而不愿卖给一个陌生人，因为这些年来他们从来没支持过俱乐部。”
他的评论口气优越感十足，他说：“他们都很有钱，他们不需要这笔钱。出售的话无非就是在他们的银行户口上多出额外的几百万英镑而已，我们都是阿森纳的一份子，我们不会在资本市场内进进出出。我们都害怕看到俱乐部落入大西洋那边的控制。”
彼得，你看不到你所说的完全不对劲吗？重点并不在于你们肯不肯卖，也不在于你、丹尼或者尼娜·布莱斯威尔·史密斯女士可不可以使用这额外的几百万小钱。
重要的是要让阿森纳成为拥有一支为广大枪迷获取荣誉的球队的一家更加强盛的俱乐部，这些支持者可都是支付着世界足坛最高票价来支持球队的。
超级联赛现在是一个全球化的生意并且极具竞争力，阿森纳再也经受不起被这些拥有复姓名字的董事们的贵族幻想拖住后腿。
最近两次股东大会可以看到有10到12名董事坐在主席台上。董事会需要精简了。象来自 Peckham 的地毯大亨 Lord Harris，还有Chips Keswick 爵士等，他们都做了什么？他们做过什么贡献？他们真的懂得很关心足球吗？
每个足球俱乐部都需要有一个良好的架构和一个作为每个人的驱动力，并且让所有人明确自己干什么的决策人。在冠军联赛这一层次赛事，正如欧足联(UEFA)行政总裁奥尔森（Lars-Christer Olsson）在卫报 Amy Lawrence 的观察家访谈中所指出的那样，你需要一个有冲劲有魄力的首席执行官。 这个瑞典人说：“这应该是象大卫·吉尔或彼得·肯杨那样的人。首席执行官是豪门俱乐部的未来，特别是当你拥有一个强硬的主教练的时候。你必须要有一个有能力处理问题的首席执行官。一个首席执行官不能用一般普通公司对待职员同样的方式去对待一个教练和一支球队的问题，特别是牵涉进所有情感，媒体的报道以及来自球迷的压力。”
基本上，这也是对丹尼·费兹曼的呼吁，因此我给丹尼的讯息是：不要寻求别的买家，不要寻求又一个老派保守，思想守旧的施主。别再等多一年了，这样你会看到阿森纳滑落到积分榜中游。告诉董事会是时候所有成员放下身段，别让这次收购变得不愉快，别让它变得难堪，别让媒体有闹烘烘的散播流言蜚语的机会。如果你们所有人是真的关心阿森纳俱乐部的未来的话，就接受收购吧，你们的使命已经结束了。
而以下也是我给丹尼的讯息：赶快行动吧，不要再墨守不放。请带着一丝风度离开。卖掉你的股份，拿着这些钱向为你们带来这数千万收入的邓恩、格拉汉姆和温格说声感谢，现在给了你们一个离开的好时机，走吧。海布里已经逝去，二十世纪也已经流逝。将俱乐部交给那些知道如何应付时代潮流竞争，能够带领俱乐部进入新台阶的人手上。否则，阿森纳很可能将沦落为世界足球的笑柄。
在观察家商业部分头版故事中说到，将会有更多亿万身家的美国佬来收购英超俱乐部，到2007年底估计会有一半俱乐部被美资所用。我认识的一些持有季票30年之久的阿森纳球迷都倾向于接受收购。他们的同伴，一些终身球迷和股东全都希望被那个人收购。所有人都认为球队需要投入，所有人都认为现任董事会应该走人。
在周日电讯报标题为“阿森纳董事会‘自私自利 ’”的文章中，阿森纳股东Mark Choueke 公开了阿森纳球迷基金会已经指责了阿森纳董事会拒绝会见斯坦·科伦克的不负责任的行为。
阿森纳球迷基金会拥有350名会员，差不多持有俱乐部2%的股份，而其他的一些小投资者共持有12%，而包括Lansdowne Partners这家对冲基金公司在内的机构共拥有另外12%的阿森纳股份。其中Lansdowne对冲基金持有3%。
最近两年所展现在我们面前的是，生活在佛罗里达的马尔科姆·格雷泽从来没有看过曼联的比赛。这不要紧，俱乐部有为荣誉而战的弗格森爵士，有天才横溢的C罗纳尔多和鲁尼正在竞逐着曾被丹尼斯·劳、乔治·贝斯特、马克·休斯、莱恩·吉格斯、罗伊·基恩以及别的伟大球星赢取过的冠军荣誉。
曼联老板马尔科姆·格雷泽是一个总是头戴棒球帽的怪老头，但是我们从来没有看到过他，也从来不去想他。只见大卫·吉尔飞往佛罗里达向他汇报曼联的现况以及他们将要做什么。这很好，工作很有成效。阿森纳也应该这样做，现在是二十一世纪，世界在改变，是谁拥有足球俱乐部并不紧要。
坦白说，收购是不可避免的事。在周日的每日邮报上博比·罗布森爵士很想知道阿森纳董事会是否只是在拖延这个不可避免的事。
我敢肯定马克图姆（Maktoums）收购利物浦没有遇到象这次科伦克这样的激烈状况，枪手高层不想把俱乐部转让给其他任何国籍的强盗。
因此，来收购的必须是一名品行良好的美国人。而斯坦·科伦克的过往绩已经证明了他是一个很不错的美国佬。所以为什么要搞得如此混乱和复杂呢？为什么要熬过这令人生厌的最后14个月才出售俱乐部呢？为什么不现在就行动给俱乐部一个机会竞逐2007-2008赛季呢？为什么不坦然接受这场不可避免的收购，然后完美的从董事会位子上退下来去享受生活呢？
我跟男友谈起现在的阿森纳因为收购问题戴恩离家出走而乱成一团，目前的阿森纳俱乐部董事会反对外资收购的目的是想保持阿森纳俱乐部的传统英国足球的纯洁性，我男朋友说我“什么是英国性？ 什么是纯粹的英国产？劳斯莱斯宾利卖给了德国人，美洲豹卖给了美国人（注：都是原来英国著名的高档车品牌），还有什么是真正的英国货？英国人的商业运作上可以说是惨败。再者说，目前的阿森纳俱乐部本身就是小球会思想。老板懂不懂足球没什么关系, 他只要懂市场就行了, 传说中的克伦克是个远比其他美国收购人更热情的一个体育爱好者, 也有良好的商业运作史, 这也算是阿森纳的运气。”[em11]
英文原文：
Why the Arsenal board must sell out gracefully
The Arsenal board lack the energy and vision to take the club to the next level.
The biggest shareholder, Danny Fiszman, lives in a village on Lake Geneva and flies in for games. He could have bought ITV's 9.9 % but declined to do so. Instead, he sold his Hampstead house, flogged off 1% of his shares, and didn't attend last week's board meeting at which David Dein was kicked out of Arsenal.
Why did chairman Peter Hill-Wood say they will not consider selling for a year? There has to be a financial reason for him saying that. Is it because they will have raked in the profits from the apartments at Highbury Square by then? Or is it because Danny Fiszman has not yet qualified as a tax exile?
To understand the Upstairs, Downstairs attitude of the Arsenal aristocrats you have to know the real history of Arsenal rather than the sanitised official history
The cricket-loving City gentlemen who owned the club allowed Arsenal to stagnate for seventeen years, during which great players like Joe Baker and George Eastham never played in a side capable of winning honours.
They could have signed great players like Danny Blanchflower, Cliff Jones and Denis Law, who all wanted to play for Arsenal, but the board lacked the ambition to sign great players, so the club stagnated until Bertie Mee's home-produced heroes won the Fairs Cup in 1970.The board allowed the 1971 Double team to break up too quickly, they didn't build on Liam Brady, David O'Leary and Frank Stapleton by buying the experienced players that were needed, and they kept manager Terry Neill far too long because they enjoyed his blarney.
Then David Dein arrived in 1983 and filled the executive vacuum and came into conflict with cautious Ken Friar.
Since 1986, off the back of phenomenal work by David Dein, George Graham and Arsene Wenger, the club's directors have enjoyed 20 happy years with thirteen major trophies, four European finals, and an unbeaten season by the Invincibles in 2004.
They've enjoyed the glory and kudos of owning a team that has, in the last ten years, won games with style and transformed the Arsenal brand.
The current situation, with David Dein kicked off the board, is messy and dangerous.
The latest comments from Hill-Wood, who is 71 and has made a few verbal gaffes over the years, suggest that he should not be Arsenal chairman.
You cannot announce a marketing partnership with Stan Kroenke's Colorado Rapids in February and then say in April that, "We don't want his sort over here."
The Arsenal board have made themsleves look far too high-handed and snobbish. They have a duty to their shareholders to listen to offers which will improve their business. You have to explore the offers of possible investors, as the Financial Times pointed out last Friday.
Last Wednesday, April 18, we read that Hill-Wood had said, of the board, " These people love Arsenal, they don't need the money and they have no interest in selling. The club has been run for the benefit of supporters, staff and players, and the shareholders would prefer to stay in control than sell out to some stranger without the years of support they have."
The tone of his comment was far too superior. He said, "They are independently wealthy and do not need the money. Having a few extra million pounds in the bank is of no interest to them. We're here for Arsenal Football Club, not to make a few bob. We would be horrified to see it go across the Atlantic."
Peter, can't you see it's not about that? It's not about whether they can afford not to sell. It's not about whether you or Danny or Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith could use a few extra million.
Its about making Arsenal into a better club with a winning team for the supporters, who are paying the highest ticket prices in world football.
The Premiership is a global business now and it's very competitive and Arsenal cannot afford to be held back any longer by the patrician fantasies of directors with double-barrelled names.
The last two AGMs have seen ten or eleven directors on the stage.The board needs to be streamlined. Lord Harris of Peckham, the carpet mogul, and Sir Chips Keswick. What do they do? What do they contribute? What do they know or care about football?
Every football club needs a good structure and an executive who is a driving force and make sure everyone else does their jobs. At Champions League level, as Lars-Christer Olsson points out in Amy Lawrence's Observer piece, you need a dynamic chief executive.
The Swede said, "It should be someone like David Gill or Peter Kenyon. Chief executives are the future for big clubs, especially when you have a strong coach. You have to have a chief executive who can handle that. A chief executive can't deal with a coach and the team in the same way that you deal with the staff of a normal company, especially with all the emotion involved, media coverage and pressure from the fans."
Basically, it's still Danny Fiszman's call, so my message to Danny is : Don't look for another buyer. Don't look for another benefactor who is more acceptable to the old guard and the old Etonians. Don't wait another year and see Arsenal slide into mid-table. Tell the board that it's time for all of them to bow out gracefully. Don't let this takeover get nasty, don't let it get ugly, don't let the media have a field day with the gossip and spite of a hostile takeover. If you all really care for the future of Arsenal FC, accept that this part of your life is over.
That should be Danny's message : move on, don't cling on. Leave with a bit of style, please. Sell your shares, take the money, say thanks to Dein, Graham and Wenger for making multi-millions for you and giving you such a good time, and move on. Highbury has gone, the twentieth century has gone. Hand the club over to people who know what do to do with it, people who can take it to the next level. Otherwise Arsenal could become the laughing stock of world football.
A front page story in the The Observer business section said that more Yank billionaires will buy Premiership clubs and that half will be American-owned by the end of 2007. The Arsenal fans I know have had season tickets for 30 years and they all favour a takeover. Their friends, lifelong fans and shareholders, all want a takeover, to a man. Everybody thinks the team needs investment and everybody thinks the current board should go.
In The Sunday Telegraph, under the headline Arsenal board 'self-interested', say shareholders, Mark Choueke reported that the Arsenal Supporters Trust had accused the board of acting irresponsibly in refusing to meet Stan Kroenke.
The AST has 350 members who own almost 2% of the club, while other small investors own 12%, and institutions, including Lansdowne Partners, own another 12%. Lansdowne, a hedge fund, has about 3%.
What the last two years have shown us that is that Malcolm Glazer lives in Florida and never sees Manchester United play. That doesn't matter. The club is about Sir Alex, the games, the battle for trophies, the flair of Ronaldo and Rooney competing for the same trophies that were won by Denis Law, George Best, Mark Hughes, Ryan Giggs, Roy Keane and other great players.
United's owner Malcolm Glazer is a geezer who wears a baseball cap but we never see Glazer and never think about him. MD David Gill goes over to Florida and tells him what Man United are doing and what they want to do. That's fine. It works. Arsenal should do the same. This is the twentieth first century and the world has changed and it doesn't matter who owns football clubs.
Frankly, a takeover is inevitable. Sir Bobby Robson wondered in The Mail on Sunday whether the Arsenal directors were just delaying the inevitable.
I'm sure the Maktoums would not touch a situation as acrimonious as this and most Gooners would not want to see their club sold to an oligarch of any nationality.
So it has to be a good American. And Stan Kroenke has proved he is a good American. So why make it messy and complicated ? Why make the sale of the club last fourteen ugly months? Why not go now and give the club a chance to be competitive in 2007-2008 ? Why not accept the inevitable and retire gracefully with seats in the directors' box for life ?
Apr 22, 2007
