If you don’t want to buy a share, or a share of a share, in Arsenal, you don’t have to. That was going to be my simple response to Charles Brooker. However, his article also contains a number of inaccuracies and promulgates several misconceptions that a rather fuller response is merited.

Perhaps the first thing to say is this – the scheme is the outcome of literally hundreds of hours of work by a small number of dedicated fans who have done this unpaid, and without a penny of expenses being reimbursed. I have only been tangentially involved but I know how much effort has been put in. It has all been done with the best of intentions in mind, and I firmly believe the scheme that has been designed has been done in a way which keeps costs to a minimum.

Secondly, and I have no idea how many other people share this view (although I suspect many will), while I will be joining the scheme, I won’t be doing so in order to make money. I will join because I want to own even the tiniest bit of the club which I have supported for over 40 years and in which my family’s history of supporting dates back to before the Second World War. If I want to invest to make money, I’ll put my money elsewhere.

But back to Mr Brooker’s article; let me address some of his points and correct inaccuracies or misconceptions:

1. The costs of the scheme: £20 to join and £50 to leave, plus 2% management fee; personally it strikes me as very reasonable; there are fixed costs involved in running the scheme, ie the website, doing the admin, ensuring compliance with the FSA’s and other legal rules, communicating with the members of the scheme and so forth. The £50 exit fee may seem high but it is undoubtedly also there to discourage people from dipping in and out of the scheme – which would cost money and, apart from the time given by AST members in setting the scheme up, there is little free in life! Put another way, let’s say you invested £20 in month one and then decided to stop; you have spent £90 all in, or roughly two match tickets, or one replica kit perhaps. A real hardship? I am not sure – it’s how you choose to spend your money.

2. An imminent takeover is “actually fairly likely”; sorry, Mr Brooker, but on what basis do you make that assertion? Imminent? What do you mean? In a week or two? Or next month? In six months’ time? Next year perhaps? Sometime? Never? I don’t know what circles you mix in, but people with £600m to spare may exist but they are not making themselves widely known to the current major shareholders. And if even if they did, there is nothing to suggest the current major shareholders will sell. The scheme has the support of the major shareholders (I just don’t believe it would have happened if either Danny Fiszman or Stan Kroenke said no), and even the oft-maligned Mr Usmanov has voiced his support for fan ownership in the past.

3. Mr Brooker also forgets that Stan Kroenke can’t buy many more shares, if any, without being forced to make an offer for the remainder. I don’t know Stan any more than Mr Brooker, but given his sporting investments in the US, I just can’t see him doing this. Lady Nina wants to sell her shares but has not found a ready buyer for her block. I have no special insight, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she were to sell some of her shares in regular tranches to the Fanshare scheme. Danny Fiszman is not going to launch a takeover bid and for all sorts of reasons I can’t see Usmanov doing so either. So, Mr Brooker, there is no imminent takeover candidate in reality – unless you know something different?

4. The history of Arsenal has been built around plurality of ownership, not the dominance of one owner; the actions of the current large shareholders suggests that they want this to continue and this scheme – which has been praised by UEFA, the Premier League and UK politicians from across the political spectrum – will help to promote and widen fans’ involvement at Arsenal. I don’t know about Mr Brooker, but I have many friends who are not Arsenal fans; in the last few days they have all expressed admiration for and indeed jealously of this scheme. They would love an easy and simple way to own even the tiniest bit of their club.

5. The price of the shares: my understanding is that most of Stan Kroenke’s shares have been bought for £8,500 or less; there were some for which he did pay a higher price (the shares he bought from the Carrs were for £10,000 I believe); for the last three months the bid/offer price has hovered around £9,500 so that is why that figure has been quoted; it’s a share price Mr Brooker, it goes up and down.

6. In terms of actually buying the shares, the scheme has appointed an established broker, Winterflood, who know how to do these things; the AST itself has helped several people to buy shares already and, I believe, has potential sellers ready to sell their shares to the scheme.

7. Mr Brooker seems to think that the scheme is aimed at raising nearly £600mn to buy the club. Sorry, this is just not the case at all. The AST does not want to own Arsenal. The AST supports plurality of ownership, some large shareholders, some small, but with the supporters being involved in the club. This is what the club has always had and the scheme will reinforce this. The Arsenal board do listen to the AST and other supporters groups and I am sure that this will continue – the more people who subscribe to the scheme, the more the board will listen.

8. Towards the end of his piece, Mr Brooker says the principle is flawed and it is a socialist ideal and a romantic notion which won’t give the fans any say at all in the club and how it is run. Sorry, Mr Brooker but I disagree, and socialism is nothing to do with it. From my involvement with the AST and looking at what AISA and RedAction have achieved in terms of the Arsenalisation of the stadium and other initiatives, it seems to me that Arsenal, for all its faults, do listen to the fans and do involve them. Sure there is more they could do, but please give some credit for what has been developed for those fans who want to own a bit of their club.

9. The scheme is not designed to be vehicle to takeover the club. It is designed to increase the formal voice of the fans at the club and – I think this is the crucial bit which Mr Brooker completely misses – also gives the fans the chance to own a tiny bit of the club. Yes, may be it would have been better to do a share split and divide the shares in 100, making it easier to buy whole shares; I don’t know why we don’t have that scheme, but to be honest, I don’t care.

It’s the emotional aspect which Charles Brooker seems to completely miss. Do I want another replica kit? No, my middle-aged body doesn’t look so good in one any more, but do I want a share certificate on my office wall? Yes, please.

I am signing up this week with a monthly “investment”; I don’t expect a return, I don’t expect to be on the board of the club, I don’t expect to win the ballot to be at the AGM. But I want to own a bit of the club, or feel as if I do. I bet several thousand others feel the same way.