The bonhommie that PHW liked to portray as existing in the boardroom was shattered this morning with Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith going on the offensive following her departure from the Arsenal Board:

I’m in total shock and very upset about the appalling way I have been treated. The board have no manners whatsoever and my views were ignored on many occasions. I can’t understand why I have been removed in such a ruthless fashion. I had no intention of selling my shares and was no threat to the lockdown agreement between the directors. I have also had no proper explanation as to why they wanted me out so much. It is very difficult to accept, especially after what my family has done for Arsenal for so many years. I am extremely upset at what’s happened and the way it has been done. I’ve never had a thought of selling my Arsenal shares and I still don’t

There are, of course, two sides to every story and whilst Bracewell-Smith is undoubtedly upset, you cannot help but wonder what instigated her removal. It is disingenuous of her to come out and say that she does not know why she has been removed. She knows why and in her comments, she hints at the very reason when she says her views were ignored on many occasions.

To me, that carrys more than a hint of a fit of pique on her part, perhaps more than a tad of a bruised ego. This is ‘confirmed’ with the comments of a ’source’:

She always felt the club was being run for Fiszman. Her family own nearly as much as him but she felt she was not being recognised in the way the club was run. She got fed up with that and they got fed up with her trying to exert her position — that she should be treated equally

The notion that she felt her views should be taken more note of simply because of her family’s shareholding is somewhat naive. Board decisions are normally taken through consensus with any number of people having to temper their views. If she was not able to do so, then may be it was the right time for her to go.

One thing that needs to be recognised by all of the directors; the club is not there for their individual benefit. It is there for the supporters. Hill-Wood and Fiszman have both said in the past that they are ‘custodians’. They would do well to remember that as would Bracewell-Smith. There is the obvious financial investment they have made in buying their shares but they paid substantially less than the shares are worth now.

Boardroom politics are never pretty when the become public knowledge. The Daily Telegraph speculates that the other directors want to sell their shares but that idea does not sit comfortably with the utterances of PHW recently which given Arsenal is a plc have to be to a certain extent, truthful. Others speculate she opposed the appointment of the new CEO, perhaps fearful of more dilution of her views.

Usmanov lurks in the background, the media believe he is adopting a ‘watching’ brief until the time is right for him to buy her shares. Maybe he will. Maybe Silent Stan will buy them. Who knows. PHW indicated that some existing board members might be interested in her shares. We shall see.

’til Tomorrow.