Ah, vindication. I'd like to imagine David Dein will apologise for his mistake, pack his bags and swan into a sunset that matches his own orange skin-tone; but of course he won't.
What mistake would that be? Imagining that Arsenal need an oligarch; that Arsenal needed the colossal fortune of anyone, let alone the utterly repugnant Jabba the Hut lookalike that is Alisher Usmanov.
Today, Arsenal published their full year results for the first season we've fully spent at Ashburton. And by doing so, one of the worst-kept secrets in football has come to light: we are bloody loaded. Our turnover has now breached the £200 million mark; operating profit has increased by 274% to over £51 million, and that's before the profit we made from player trading is taken into account. We are the richest club in Britain, and snapping at the heels of Real Madrid.
When Ashburton Grove was built a lot of people gave it the 'comical' nickname 'Cashburden Grave'. Their logic was that by building a very expensive stadium, we would saddle ourselves with huge levels of debt that we would never repay. Yet, all we were doing is following one of the most basic law of economics: you have to spend money to make money. And when this money is spent efficiently and carefully, lots of money comes back.
Yes, we still have a large amount of debt on the balance sheet, but this is countered by a) our large (£73 million odd) cash reserve b) the Highbury property development, which will wipe a considerable amount of debt away in one stroke and c) the massive increase in revenue and profits that the new stadium has given us.
Because we have sensible directors who plan for the long-term, we also have very-secure low-interest debt. Total debt repayments per year currently stand at £20m. To put that in perspective, it has been recently suggested that Man United are currently paying almost £100 million to service the debt that was taken out by the Glazers to buy the club. You have to keep asking yourself who the takeover benefits in that situation? Glazers or United? It's not hard to answer that question.
Furthermore, and as importantly, the increases in revenue come from within the club: gates, programmes, merchandise etc, not from external sources such as TV revenue which can fluctuate and change without our consent or planning.
The bottom line is that the only reason for wanting a takeover has been negated. We have enough money, more than enough in fact, to compete for any trophy. That it hasn't been spent was Arsene's choice. And considering we're currently top of the league, and free-spending Chelsea have just had their manager sacked so Abramovich can run the team himself, I think it's not a bad way of going about things.
So in the end, who would a takeover benefit? Not the club: it doesn't need new money or new management. A takeover would only serve to benefit those who took control of the club, not the club itself, a sentiment which would fit with the following quote, taken from an 'anonymous Emirates source':
"David always sees himself as number one. He wants to be chairman. The Arsenal board put Arsenal first. The board see themselves as the custodians of the club. That is the difference."
Let's continue to back the club; let's continue to back the board. We don't need a takeover and we don't need David Dein. We are one of the best run clubs in world football. To use an old adage, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.