Takeover Or No Takeover? That Is The Question

Well unless you’ve been living under a rock you would have heard that David Dein has left the club due to “irreconcilable differences” with the rest of the Arsenal board.

Inevitably, since Dein’s departure there has been speculation over Arsene’s future at the club but Peter Hill-Wood re-assured fans he should be at Arsenal for the remainder of his contract which runs out in 2008 and hopefully beyond that.

There has been talk about a hostile takeover and with what happened yesterday it’s hard not to see that there must be some sort of ‘power struggle’ at the club.

But is it all over?

Whether you like him or hate him David Dein has been influential at Arsenal and is one of Arsene’s closest colleagues after bringing him to Arsenal in 1996. And it is apparently his willingness or support of Stan Kroenke to takeover the club that signalled his exit.

But why would Peter Hill-Wood issue a statement saying that the rest of the board members (one of which is Fiszman) who collectively own 45.45% will not sell their shares for at least another year?

Wasn’t it Danny Fiszman who just sold Stan Kroenke 659 shares for just under £4million?

And correct me if I’m wrong, but by reducing his shares to under 25% (24.11% to be exact) hasn’t he vetoed any say in the future of the clubs statutes?

I’m no expert on his financial situation but why put yourself just under the 25% threshold? I’m assuming he wasn’t desperate for the £4million he made from selling those shares.

And now that Fiszman lives in Geneva that would be the perfect place to receive a big windfall.

But saying that, maybe David Dein saw Fiszman’s situation as an opportunity for American investment but the Arsenal board saw it coming and stopped it before it got any further.

That would explain Dein’s exit and Peter Hill-Woods words in his latest interview:

And why have you stated that the remaining shareholders on board will not sell their shares for only a period of 12 months?

Well I think that personal circumstances can change but I can assure everybody that the principle shareholders who are on the board are committed Arsenal fans and have no intention of selling the shares even after 12 months, but I think a commitment of 12 months should reassure people that we’re not sellers.

Maybe a hostile takeover was on the cards but the Arsenal board opposed it and hence the current situation – Dein out and the board memebers showing a united front.

Or maybe there’s a bigger picture to all this?


5 thoughts on “Takeover Or No Takeover? That Is The Question

  1. Well is he does come back with a joint bid it wont be for another year.
    Fiszman has not vetoed any say. I think what it all boils down to is that David Dein wanted more power, he wants to sell his share to the yank and for the yank to bring him back as chairman of the board.

  2. Isn’t it strange that Kroenke has 11.26% and Dein has 14.6% in Arsenal?

    If those two guys join forces, that will push their combines share to over 25% – and if that’s the case then aren’t they obligated to put an offer in for the club?

  3. they need at least 30% before they are obligated to make an official bid for the club, in which case the current board will have to show that they can maximize share holders benfits compared to Uncles Stan and Dein


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.