Dein now felt able to return to watch his team from the comfort of Usmanov's box. He had retained his paid-for season tickets in the Club and upper levels and made them available to friends and family but for the first time in years there was no reserved parking space. He had to leave his car in a school car park and walk the few hundred yards to the ground, rather than use the parking space under the stadium reserved for the boxholder.
However, mixing with the hoi polloi showed Dein he had a lot of personal support. Walking from his parked car to the stadium for the Saturday afternoon game against Birmingham in January 2008 he passed the Tollington pub on the Hornsey Road, which had fans packed outside in a pavement terrace area. A friend who was accompanying him, anticipating potential ill feeling, dropped back a couple of paces. Over his shoulder Dein shouted to him, “You think they're going to throw their beer over me, don't you?” “Yep,” replied his friend who was dumbfounded to find that they greeted him like a long lost son. Lads leaned over the railing to shake his hand. “When are you coming back?” they asked. “I'm here, aren't I?” he responded. Outside the stadium he was stopped for photos and autographs, asked the same question and gave the same answer. In spite of some negative press in internet blogs and fanzines and a large banner created by the REDaction group to relay the message that Usmanov was not wanted, there were no catcalls and abuse for Dein, nothing in fact to warrant him needing the kind of minders a Russian magnate wouldn't dream of leaving the house without.
Arsène Wenger was circumspect about the predatory share-buying of the company that had installed his friend as chairman, adamant that he had no intention of getting involved in the boardroom politics of the ownership issue. However, he did admit, “I'm concerned with the intent of people coming in”, although he distanced himself by stating, “What is happening up there [in the boardroom] is nothing to do with me. I'm not a shareholder and I don't want to be involved in a strategic struggle for shares because, basically, it's not my problem. Self-sufficiency should be any club's target. You cannot have a policy at the club that, every year, somebody puts £50 million or £100 million in. Prices are rising but will people continue to pump in £40 million, £50 million or £100 million every year without any natural resources or dividends paid back? I'm not convinced. You have to work with a club's natural resources.”
The manager with the degree in economics had previously expressed a distaste for the exorbitant spending that other clubs practised, and Dein's reasoning behind bringing Usmanov to the party was not going to change that view. “Am I concerned that major foreign investment might affect the way we work here?” said Wenger. “Yes. There are many ways to work in the game. You can say you don't want any youth development at all and I'll respect that. If there are good players on the market, you go for them. But we've gone for a different solution and that's what we want to continue to do. We go this way. I feel we are strong enough to compete and that's what I want to show.” Defiantly, he emphasised, “If I wanted to buy a player today I have money available, it's not a problem.” The company books, however, suggested that in fact he didn't quite have a blank chequebook.
Wenger's transfer and wages budget was later described by Ken Friar as being a case not so much of the manager saying “I need this much” but more asking “How much have I got?” Was it significant that Theo Walcott did not appear for the first team between joining from Southampton in January 2006 and the end of that season, before being selected for England's World Cup squad? Although he made the bench on occasion, the suspicion was that if he'd actually trod the turf in Arsenal colours, an immediate further instalment on his transfer fee to his former club would have been activated. At a time when every penny was being counted, perhaps the decision was taken to give him first-team experience purely from the perspective of a non-playing substitute.
Now Wenger was in a situation where he could concentrate on developing younger players without any internal pressure to buy more established names. There was simply no choice. So he accepted it willingly, and got on with the job he loved. It was certainly a different position to the one Dein had taken up on his behalf. However, Wenger had been content to work without any cash and then when given some, he didn't necessarily spend it. Nevertheless, Dein's position was that he needed “bags more”, and quickly. Not so long ago Dein and Wenger were, in Dein's words, “a team”. Peter Hill-Wood had been asked “Have you ever known David Dein to disagree with Arsène Wenger?” “Never”, he shot back. Perhaps Dein felt he had been given the licence to act as Wenger's
agent provocateur
. More likely, as with so many self-made millionaire businessmen, Dein trusted his own judgment implicitly and found it difficult to veer away from his predetermined course of action.
If the situation regarding Stan Kroenke a few short months earlier had been unnerving, then the new threat to their position had the board reaching for their tin hats as shares were being hoovered up by Red and White at a rate of knots. Contrary to the view of many who regarded David Dein as no longer having any influence, the former vice-chairman believed he held an even stronger hand than hitherto. He could now wield Red and White's shareholding which was much larger than his former stake. There were even mischievous rumours that, to demonstrate his resurrection, he might turn up at the club's AGM in October 2007, although they proved inaccurate. It was just as well, as he would not have enjoyed hearing the board give the strongest indication yet that they would be around for the long haul with the announcement of an extension to their âlockdown agreement', which was greeted by spontaneous applause from the large gathering of several hundred shareholders (more than anyone can ever remember seeing at an AGM). Under the new agreement, none of the directors' shares could be sold until 2009, and even then, only to family members or fellow directors. In 2010, if there is unanimous agreement, then shares can be disposed of, but failing this, no one can sell until 2012. Keith Edelman later triumphantly claimed the pact made the board “bulletproof”. The edict sent a message out that the status quo would remain. (By 2010, the Highbury Square residential development is due to be complete, a decent chunk of the outstanding debt should have been paid off and the future should look much rosier. The value of the club might actually be greatly enhanced and the board members might be able to cash in if there is any inclination to sell.)
Despite the backslapping, there were still unresolved issues regarding the future. The Hill-Wood and Bracewell-Smith families may have had three generations on the board over the years but none of the offspring of the current directors are being groomed for succession. Despite Danny Fiszman, the board's major shareholder, having five grown-up children, there is currently no sign that any of them are ever likely to be involved in establishing a third Arsenal family dynasty. Further, with the majority of the board in their seventies, their ownership of the club could soon be subject to last wills and testaments, worth tens of millions of pounds in the cases of Danny Fiszman and Lady Nina. Peter Hill-Wood revealed that discussions had taken place about the years ahead. Asked whether the board might bring in someone who would be around in 20 years' time, Hill-Wood replied, “When you say the board is not youthful, they are very experienced.” When put to him that this was not necessarily true in terms of marketing or television rights, he responded, “But do we realise that the world is changing? Indeed we do. If the perfect answer is a 40-year-old from Google or something, we'd be very happy. We're not ex cluding them but we certainly look at it and we all know that we're unfortunately getting older.” Equally unfortunately, inaction was speaking so much louder than wishful thinking. However, the growing relationship with the AST indicated that the directors were beginning to widen their horizons.
The board donated use of the Diamond Club suite for the AST's annual Christmas drinks do, held in conjunction with AISA. Four of the directors â Danny Fiszman, Keith Edelman, Ken Friar and Sir Chips Keswick â attended. Obviously there was no compulsion to do so, but a board meeting had been held at Highbury House earlier, so it was convenient for some of those attending to pop along and show their faces. The first drinks were on the AST, but Danny Fiszman appeared somewhat taken aback at being asked for £3 when he subsequently ordered a Coke at the bar. Possibly never having had to buy a drink at the stadium before, his grasp on the club's finances may not have extended to the mundane matters that affect the rank-and-file. When questioned about the events of recent months off the field, Fiszman responded, pointing towards the pitch, “I haven't given up six years of my life to make this happen only to walk away from it now.”
Fiszman spoke of the stress of being responsible for the well-being of the club, in that so many people cared so deeply about it and thus were reliant on him “to get the stadium right without endangering the club. It's one thing if by failing you suffer yourself,” he explained, “but it's different when there are so many people relying on you.” If the remarks were reassuring, the motive may not have been entirely without self-interest, but it suited all concerned to take it at face value for the time being. Fiszman told senior members of the AST he would in future be spending more time on club matters, having understandably taken something of a back seat after the extraordinary commitment he had displayed in getting the stadium up and running. Despite the message, some observers still believe he might contemplate selling up when the time is right as long as it does not entail the Red and White Holdings chairman replacing him.
There was no danger of that happening in the short term as financially the club looked to have turned a corner, the Emirates effect having been responsible for catapaulting it into the top strata of the football money league. After the first season in the new stadium, the club announced a 34 per cent increase in their football turnover, up to £177 million, over half from matchday revenue (season tickets, corporate hospitality, through the turnstiles, catering and dining and programmes) â twice that of Highbury. They were now the fifth largest club in the world in terms of footballing revenue, although when their property activities were included, their turnover exceeded £200 million and saw them climb above Barcelona and Chelsea, with only Manchester United and Real Madrid ahead of them in June 2007. The US business magazine
Forbes
rated the club as the third most valuable in world football, worth £600 million albeit with debts of 43 per cent of this valuation.
Arsenal are now indisputably a mega-club. And this status was attained in spite of Wenger funding much of his buying by selling first, the very situation that David Dein could not live with. Not only that, but he has been such a shrewd seller (with Dein's assistance) that he actually contributed handsomely to the bottom line. A profit of £18.5 million was made on player sales in 2006/07, excluding the Thierry Henry transfer fee which fell into the following year's accounts. Peter Hill-Wood revealed that in the summer of 2007 Wenger had told him, when transfer matters were discussed, “You're going to have to be brave this year. I've got every confidence in our young players. There's nobody I want and I'm not going to buy just to impress everybody.”
In March 2008 the chairman was asked, “Has there ever been a notion at the club that Arsène has a bit too much power?”
“Never crossed my mind,” he replied. “But I'm probably a reasonably self-confident person. And therefore, I'm very happy for the manager to manage and he's a much broader person than many football managers. And therefore he has a bit more leeway because if he started doing things that the board didn't like . . .”
“Has he ever done anything . . . ?”, his questioner interrupted.
“No. I think his contribution, not only with the team but with the development of the training ground, the stadium and everything else, has been extremely positive.”
If the chairman's thoughts on Stan Kroenke were initially unwelcoming, by early 2008 the American had been superseded in the suspicion stakes by Usmanov. “He is certainly not an open book,” said Peter Hill-Wood. “I would not want him to be the owner of the club.” Taking heed of the message, Usmanov responded, “What we heard about David Dein and the board at the outset of our Arsenal adventure and what we can see now are two different pictures. But we won't be hostage to any hostility that exists between him and the board.” So, taking Peter Hill-Wood at his word (“I will avoid it [getting involved with Dein] if I can help it”) the conclusion must be that the only way Red and White will gain a presence in the Highbury House boardroom is by jettisoning its chairman or as a consequence of a hostile takeover. As far as Peter Hill-Wood and the rest of the board are concerned, David Dein had long since been airbrushed out of the picture. At the AGM, it took an unexpected interjection from the floor to remind the board that “without David Dein there would have been no Arsène Wenger”, and that it was a shame, despite the acrimonious divorce, that they couldn't bring themselves to acknowledge his contribution. To his credit, the chairman concurred and apologised for the omission.
Peter Hill-Wood and Keith Edelman did meet with Farhad Moshiri, but the ties with Kroenke were the ones the board chose to strengthen. How ironic, Dein must have thought when he found out. His overtures to Kroenke contributing to his own downfall, now Hill-Wood and Kroenke are breaking bread together. In April 2008, Kroenke was in London and spent time meeting directors, sitting next to Keith Edelman for the duration of a rather uninspiring Premier League home draw with Liverpool. Edelman chatted sporadically during the game to his guest. âSilent Stan' lived up to his nickname and for the most part patiently listened. It was the penultimate match that Edelman would view from the directors' box.