Years ago, a huge hole formed in the club and it has never been rectified and probably never will be. Things have never been the same and I worry about how they will be in the coming years as a result.
I'm not talking about Vieira. Or Henry. Or Bergkamp. Or Pires. Or Wright. All of them were huge losses but they pale in comparison. I'm talking about David Dein.
Without Dein, there would be no Wenger. And polarising as he is now, let's not forget what Wenger has done for the club - mostly in the years Dein was here, not coincidentally. And Dein himself oversaw the signing of our marquee foreign import in Bergkamp, which was the start of our new era as a club. He gave Wenger pretty much any transfer he wanted and he managed half of them himself. He cared about the club, knew the players personally, and wanted us to move forward.
Then came crunch time - Dein backed Usmanov in the takeover bid. Backed him to the hilt. But he got shouted down, and he left. Wenger supposedly asked if he should resign out of solidarity, and had he seen how things would progress, he probably would have.
So now Dein is long gone, our Uzbek bankroller was thwarted, Bracewell-Smith and her ilk flogged off their shares, and what do we have left? A silent, miserly, retired Mario Brother lookalike and his small, bald, bean-counting lackey. And Wenger, who, when you think about it, is kind of how Harrison Ford was portrayed in "that" episode of South Park.
We once had some of the best players in the game. Now we're harbouring passengers and clamouring for rejects, past-its and other, better teams' cast-offs (although that is not a dig at Mkhitarian, who I quite like).
If we could all go back in time, what would we stop at to prevent Kroenke from getting his mitts on the club? How invaluable was Dein, now that we can see it from our current point of view? If the board had known he'd walk, do you think they'd have gone with Usmanov instead? If Wenger had gone with him, how might things have turned out for us?
Go back eleven years, make one decision differently, and suddenly everything changes. It saddens me when I realise we can't do this, and we're in a different era because of the wrong choice when we didn't have to be.
Sliding Doors
posted on 26/1/18
Wenger supposedly asked if he should resign out of solidarity, and had he seen how things would progress, he probably would have.
--------------------------------
Source for this because I doubt it or Fiszman wouldn't have given him so much power to him just at the time he fell ill.
However I disagree on the supposition that Usmanov would have injected cash compared to Kroenke's hand off approach. The world is amidst of great deal of money control on russian oligarchs. When was the last time Chelsea made a vanity purchase?
posted on 26/1/18
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-464262/Wenger-tells-Gunners-Get-Dein-Ill-quit.html
Granted, it's from the Daily Bile but I recall reading it when the story broke.
Usmanov might not have pumped the club full of money, but unlike us, Chelsea didn't spend 9 years devoid of any kind of success. So I dispute that logic. Kroenke, on the other hand, is another story.
posted on 26/1/18
Wenger has become quite the diva for someone so magnanimous after Dein quit.
The problem with Oligarchs and Sheiks are that at some point they get bored or take a decision that the publicity they are generating is longer useful. The world is governed by a kleptocracy at the moment and I don't think it can go on for much longer. So at some point business economics has to takeover.
I also think this entire buying a team is a bit overused by poor coaches to justify their existence. Granted Pep and Mourinho's spending has been mind blowing. But I think the lesson of Leicester City has been to easily forgotten.
posted on 26/1/18
Your recollection of history is a little patchy, although I don’t know if that is deliberate. You realise Dein was the one who originally introduced Kroenke to the club, helping him acquire his first 12% stake? It was the fact that he did this behind the backs of other board members that started his fall-out with Fiszman and probably lost him his seat. It was only after this that he decided to get into bed with the fat Uzbek.
I’m not saying that Dein didn’t always want what he thought best for the club, just helping add to the story. You’re right when you say there would be no Wenger without Dein, but there would also be no Kroenke without Dein too.
posted on 26/1/18
The Skins is spot on.
I am a huge David Dein fan as most know here. I made quite a lot of money thanks to his stewardship helped me to buy my first property.
But you have to understand that Dein was never mega rich. And the stadium was built to make Dein, Fiszman, Bracewell-Smith, Carrs a ton of profit. Not the bogus 'compete with big clubs' lines sold to the fans. They did exactly that and are now much wealthier because of their strategic decisions. Unfortunately when it comes investing and money the colour is green and no one gives a toss how ethical or committed the buyers are.
posted on 26/1/18
I was thinking about Dein earlier as well, but in the context that after first introducing Kronke to Arsenal he later recognised that Kronke was not the best route for Arsenal.
There was also the fact that Dein had major influence at the FA. There were rumours that he pushed for Arsenal at the FA and that after he left there was a push back with a lot of people who had felt intimidated by him wanting to make sure Arsenal didnt get any more favours It was after that we started seeing things like refs decisions going against us and a change in the way we were treated. Its all a conspiracy theory but could there be something more in it...
The fact is that both Kronke and Usmanov were introduced to Arsenal by Dein. What I dont know is how or why. Was it a case of Arsenal asked Dein to act in that capacity and be the first port of call for anyone interested in buying into Arsenal? Was it that they knew Dein carried influence so sought him out to work with them?
Whatever it was we know that wenger worked well with Dein, Dein was great at getting transfers done and that we havent been the same since.
posted on 26/1/18
Dein OWNED 40%+ of Arsenal. He didn't need permission of anyone to sell his shares.