Charlie Ashmore
I suppose it is a reflection of the modern football world that a survey such as this now has to have a section wholly dedicated to the Boardroom and the management of the club as opposed to the team. This is in part a result of the increasing commercialisation of the game at the highest level at which we operate but also a result of the era of mass opinion sharing. This started (in a football context) with the fanzine movement in the late 80s, leading into the first football phone in on 606 and has spread through the internet with multiple forums available to all those who want to share their thoughts about all matters relating to their football club.
I was particularly interested to see the results of this section given the discord amongst the fans over a number of years about the club’s direction. As someone who has generally been supportive of the way the club has been run and the desire to operate a self-sustaining model in the face of financial assault from Russia and the Middle East in particular, I was fascinated to see what the wider Gooner reading fanbase was thinking about these things.
And so, without further ado, to the survey results:
In general, how well run a club do you think Arsenal is?
Very well run 50%
Moderately well run 43%
Not very well run 6%
Terribly run 1%
This is broadly similar to last year’s result and I have to wonder to what extent it is influenced by the events on the pitch with two trophies now bagged in two years and a squad which is looking like it has the potential to match the quality of Wenger’s earlier successful squads. Looked at in an admittedly simplistic manner it does seem to me that the clubs plans from ten years ago are now bearing fruit. We have moved stadium, remained competitive in the harder financial times and are now not frightened of competing in the transfer market. I suspect if this question had been asked 5 years ago, when the journey was at its hardest, the answer might well have been different. As we progress through the survey, one should see this result reflected in subsequent answers.
Stan Kroenke has been the majority shareholder of Arsenal for four years. How satisfied are you with the way he has managed the club?
Very satisfied 3%
Quite satisfied 24%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 38%
Quite dissatisfied 23%
Very dissatisfied 12%
Do you feel Stan Kroenke’s majority ownership has been beneficial for Arsenal?
Absolutely 7%
Partially 50%
Not at all 43%
Arsenal paid Kroenke Sports Enterprises (owned by Stan obviously) £3m for advisory services last year. There is an expectation that this will become a regular occurrence, yet the club have failed to disclose the nature of the services provided. Do you believe the payment is:
Entirely justified 5%
Can only be justified if the services are disclosed 60%
Entirely unjustified 35%
So although only 7% think the club is not well run, we now have 35% who don’t like the way the majority shareholder has done his bit. Or, looked at another way, only 27% who do. And as many as 43% think his involvement has not been beneficial at all. This is odd and suggests the performance of others running the club has kept it on an even keel in spite of the efforts of Kroenke. Does that mean the fans see he is doing nothing at all and should be more involved? But if the club is being run well, why require him to be more involved? Or is he too involved and the club is doing well in spite of him. I cannot imagine this is what people think given the general perception of him as distant from the day to day operations. What is perhaps most surprising is to consider that if he was not involved our majority shareholder would be Alisher Usmanov who as I understand it would be our very own Abramovich or Mansour, and would almost certainly lead us away from the self-sustaining model which it seems most fans are now supportive of now that we have turned the corner both financially and in terms of ability to win trophies. Perhaps the real root of dissatisfaction lies in the third of the Kroenke questions and the poorly explained payment made to his company. And what is particularly interesting about that is that the majority have no problem with the concept of him being paid by the club – it is the lack of transparency that is most offensive to us and I cannot help but feel that that is responsible for the negative feedback on his performance generally, which I have to say would feel otherwise unjustified in the wider context.
How satisfied are you with the performance of Ivan Gazidis as Arsenal Chief Executive?
Very satisfied 11%
Quite satisfied 42%
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied 31%
Quite dissatisfied 11%
Very dissatisfied 5%
So although the club is overwhelmingly thought to be well run, the majority shareholder does not impress and only half the respondents are satisfied with the CEO’s performance. I cannot be alone in identifying the obvious disconnect between those things. I suppose that to make sense of all of these inconsistencies a further question might be helpful – who do you think is primarily responsible for running the club. Given these answers, one suspects that the answer might be someone other than either Kroenke or Gazidis. Which must mean Wenger. And yet the fans have been split on Wenger for some years now, albeit perhaps less so since we started winning trophies.
Or is it simply reflective of the fans’ approach and in particular the tension between that which we truly care about namely what goes on on the pitch and that which, if the former were going well, we would largely not give two hoots about, namely the boardroom activities. In other words is it a case of the club has won a couple of trophies so we are pleased with how the club is being run but we don’t care for the commercial/business side of it so the individuals who reflect that side of the business get disproportionately marked down?
Do you think new appointments are needed to the Arsenal Board?
Yes 69%
No 6%
Not sure 21%
No view 4%
This is an odd one. I suppose given the disconnect between how the club is seen to be run and how the people running it are viewed it is logical that there would be a positive response to this but what I really wonder here is who it is that people want appointed to the board. Is it a case of any change is good change or do people have someone specific in mind? Usmanov? But that would be inconsistent with the happiness with how the club is run as he would change that. Who else? The answer to the next three survey questions perhaps gives it away.
With the demise of Fanshare in the last few months, less than 3% of the club's shares are now held by individuals not connected with either Stan Kroenke or Alisher Usmanov. How important do you believe it is for fans to be involved in the ownership of the Club?
Very important 61%
Quite important 28%
Not very important 9%
Not important at all 2%
Given the dwindling number of shareholders there is an increasing risk that if Stan Kroenke were able to buy out Alisher Usmanov's holding, he'd be able to take the Club into private hands. How important do you believe it is for Arsenal to retain its status as a company listed on the Stock Exchange with obligations towards financial transparency and accountability to shareholders?
Very important 63%
Quite important 28%
Not very important 7%
Not important at all 2%
Do you feel there should be a fan representative on the Board?
Yes 82%
No 10%
Don’t know 8%
These reveal two concerns which answer some of the issues raised above. There is overwhelming support for supporter ownership and supporter board presence. There is further an overwhelming desire for transparency and accountability. I have always had a nagging doubt about the whole supporter board presence issue. Firstly Ken Friar is of course a Board member and surely nobody would doubt his support for the club. Secondly and this is the nub of it for me – given that it is rare to find two supporters who agree on all aspect of the club, why do each of those people who want a supporter on the Board feel that their interests would thus be represented? Or are people really saying that they want themselves on the Board? The reality is for every supporter who supports the self-sustaining model you will find another who would be very happy to have an Abramovich or a Sheikh Mansour splashing the cash (or would you? – see below). I think we can all agree that transparency and accountability is important – supporter share ownership is therefore a good thing because even if only on a superficial level given the control exerted over AGMs it maintains the opportunity to question the board.
With the news that UEFA are to relax the Financial Fair Play rules, which is likely to be to the advantage of clubs with billionaire owners prepared to invest in their teams, should Arsenal persevere with the self-sustaining model?
Yes 67%
No 20%
Don’t know 13%
I find this really interesting and reassuring. Would this question have generated the same response two years ago before we started winning trophies again? I somehow doubt it. But it appears that with the Cup wins and the wide perception that the quality of our squad (and with that inevitably our ability to challenge for the biggest trophies) has improved as we have come out of the financial shadow cast by the new ground development, supporters are increasingly supportive (and possibly proud) of our stance.
Do you think Arsenal should be paying all their staff the London Living Wage and ensuring all their suppliers do likewise?
Yes 86%
No 4%
Don’t know 10%
