Arsenal board's agreement not to sell 'is reversible'
25/04/2007 |
 |
 |
The agreement by Arsenal's board members not to sell their combined 45.45 per cent stake in the club in the next year is reversible, a well-placed source has told The Independent, leaving open the possibility that the American billionaire, Stan Kroenke, might persuade one of the key shareholders to sell sooner, and then acquire full control of the club.
The most obvious shareholding for Kroenke to target would be that of Danny Fiszman, the diamond-dealing Arsenal director who owns 24.1 per cent. If Kroenke added that to his own current 12.2 per cent, and also bought the 14.6 per stake of the ousted vice-chairman, David Dein - who is pro-Kroenke - then he would pass the critical 50 per cent holding needed to give him effective control.
Fiszman's role in a potential takeover now bears a strong resemblance to that of John Magnier and JP McManus in the Glazer family's takeover of Manchester United. As soon as that pair sold to the Glazers, it was effectively game over in the United takeover. The same would be the case if Fiszman sold.
The main players on the board in terms of shares are Fiszman, Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith (15.9 per cent), and Richard Carr, who with his brother, Clive, owns 6.2 per cent.
Unlike the others, Fiszman's attachment to the club has always been more for financial and less for emotional reasons. It might indeed make sense for him to keep his shares until next year, when he would be free of capital gains tax obligations after living in Geneva for more than a year, but Kroenke could explore ways of a quicker solution.
Kroenke is hugely respected in American soccer, investing heavily in his MLS franchise, the Colorado Rapids. He is intensely private, but said by those close to him to be "a very open, ordinary guy". He has already made a commitment to meet fans' groups to discuss his hopes for Arsenal.
Of the board's position, the source said: "There's a feeling that it's a case now of 'who breaks ranks first?' The agreement not to sell is not binding in a meaningful sense. It could, theoretically, lead to one director suing another, but breaking the agreement would not contravene any stock market rules or be illegal in any way. It was more a statement of intent than anything else. And everyone is aware that things might change very quickly."
(Source: Independent.co.uk)
|
| Back |
|
|
|
|
 |
