 |
| RVP: On His Way Out (independent.co.uk) |
Two weeks ago Robin Van Persie announced he will not be
renewing his contract at Arsenal, a decision met with dismay by the Arsenal
faithful, as once more they were going to lose their star player. Since then, a
clear divide has been made public from within the heart of the Arsenal boardroom;
a divide centred on the financial policy that Arsenal is renowned for:
Self-Sustenance.
It seems this issue has divided Arsenal right to its core.
Robin Van Persie
declared he would not be renewing his contract following talks with Ivan
Gazidis (Arsenal CEO) and Arsene Wenger, where they disagreed on how the club
should move forward. Robin Van Persie has made it very clear in the past that he
wants to win trophies again, and this disagreement on how to progress the club
implies he disagrees with the way the club is run in order to achieve this.
So how is Arsenal run? Arsenal is currently run by a method
of self-sustaining, controlling its cash flow in order to meet its annual
costs, in particular its long term debt for the construction of the Emirates
Stadium. In regards to transfers however, the board look to Wenger to build the
team, emphasising the importance of the academy rather than splashing out in an
“inflated transfer market” as Ivan Gazidis put it last year.
Van Persie’s disagreements with this method triggered a
seismic reaction from shareholder Alisher Usmanov.
He sent a stinging letter to
the Arsenal board declaring his disgust at the lack of investment in the team
and their failure to hold onto their “true marquee player”, whilst criticising
the way the club is run. He said “The real conflict seems to be between the
supporters' expectations and your vision for the Club and at the heart of this
is the policy of so-called self-financing”.
 |
| Alisher Usmanov (angryislington.com) |
Alisher Usmanov, an Uzbek Oligarchic billionaire, who through
his Red and White Holdings Investment Vehicle owns a 29.11% stake in the club,
wants the board to invest more in the team itself, keeping star names such as
Robin Van Persie, rather than selling them to contribute to financial self-sustenance.
Usmanov offered last year to underwrite funds for the club in order to help pay
off its debt, however this was turned down by the board in order to maintain
its “self-sustaining” financial ideology, which it sees as more than capable of
paying off the debt in the long term.
Also in the letter Usmanov blamed the board and in particular
Ivan Gazidis for creating an impression to the supporters trust that the board
was in a ‘bitter-standoff’ with Red and White (Usmanov’s investment vehicle),
implying the board was insinuating that Red and White were looking to ‘destabilise’
the club in order to win a seat inside the boardroom. Ironically, by saying this,
the impression now is that the board is divided; a divide between Usmanov and
the rest of the board, and the conflict of financial ideals.
This divide however is not a recent occurrence.
In 2011 Arsenal’s majority shareholder Stan Kroenke
attempted to take over the club, a move that excited the Arsenal fans due to
his billionaire status. However, Kroenke is a huge advocate for the
self-sustaining policy at Arsenal, which could explain why he was able to
secure the shares of many of Arsenal’s shareholders, as he was able to create
good relationships with Ivan Gazidis and Chairman Peter Hill-Wood. The takeover
hit a stumbling block as Usmanov refused to sell his shares, almost outlawing
himself then and there. It can be argued that Usmanov did this for his own
selfish interests to take over the club himself, a very plausible idea. But on
the other hand it can be argued he was attempting to stop a takeover that would
prevent any alteration from the philosophy of self-sustaining.
As a matter of fact, the divide goes back further to the departure
of David Dein in 2007. David Dein, arguably one of the most important and
influential figures in Arsenal’s history, left after disagreements with the
board, once again, over how the club is run. David Dein was pivotal in the
appointment of Arsene Wenger as manager in 1996, persuading the board second
time of asking to appoint the unknown Frenchman; who is now one of the greatest
managers of all time. He also played significant roles in the signings of
Dennis Bergkamp, Ian Wright, Robert Pires, Cesc Fabregas and Robin Van Persie.
The fact he left showed just how far against the policy of self-sustaining he
was, but it can also be implied that he was ousted by the board, by simply being
outnumbered and ignored.
 |
| David Dein (left) with Arsene Wenger (right) (dailmail.co.uk) |
In my opinion, Usmanov, who took over David Dein’s shares,
is carrying on the fight against the self-sustaining policy at Arsenal. Without
doubt, the publishing of his letter to the board was a ploy to get the fans on
his side. Though it can be argued that his motives are of self interest, it is
clear that he wants Arsenal to compete in the transfer market in the same
manner as other top four clubs, otherwise running the risk of falling by the
wayside.
Ultimately, it comes down to what the fans want. The supporters
pay the highest season ticket prices in the Premier League, a statistic that is
widely publicised, yet they do not see their money being reinvested in the
squad they turn up to see each week. In addition, the continual loss of their star
players to other teams that they aim to compete against in the league and in
Europe does not bode well for the club’s ambitions, or the trophy cabinet.
For me, the board are testing the patience of the Arsenal
fans to the very limit. The insistence on a good financial model, as admirable
as it maybe, is neither bringing the success the fans crave nor the reassurance
that they can remain a top four club. I am not saying they should abandon the policy
altogether, especially with the new Financial Fair Play Rules coming into
force. However, the board have to accept that in order to compete you have to
spend big, and fundamentally; keep your best players.
(article idea: Kieran Tobin)
Comments
Post a Comment