Non home grown

[Özim]

So you are talking about perception? How it looked to the blind man?

Without the finer details...of which some points I have raised such as redundancy payouts I think it's a discussion / debate that is a moot point.

As I have said on numerous occasions, he may not have actually been shafted! He may be financially better off and don't forget he will be coming back into his role once things get back to normal, so essentially he has been temporarily relieved of his duties.

We're never going to know the facts though, but generally speaking redundancy is something people prefer to avoid on the whole.

Well Arsenal wanted him to take a pay cut, they had no right to ask that either as he's contracted to be paid a certain amount, but they did, he wanted to make sure if he did it went to what he deemed the right people, they wouldn't assure him this so he didn't take a pay cut, he's 100% entitled to ask where the money from his pay cut will go.

[selassie]

We're never going to know the facts though, but generally speaking redundancy is something people prefer to avoid on the whole.

Well Arsenal wanted him to take a pay cut, they had no right to ask that either as he's contracted to be paid a certain amount, but they did, he wanted to make sure if he did it went to what he deemed the right people, they wouldn't assure him this so he didn't take a pay cut, he's 100% entitled to ask where the money from his pay cut will go.

Just because people prefer redundancy doesn't make it a bad thing based on some of the examples I have given.

If it was pretty obvious why Arsenal asked the players to take a paycut?! FFS we are going through a Global Pandemic

[Özim]

Just because people prefer redundancy doesn't make it a bad thing based on some of the examples I have given.

If it was pretty obvious why Arsenal asked the players to take a paycut?! FFS we are going through a Global Pandemic

Let's be honest, Arsenal are owned by a billionaire, he doesn't need the players to take a paycut or indeed for people to lose job, he could easily cover it, I'm not going to lose any sleep over Arsenal struggling . On top of that Arsenal went out and spent 45 million on a player, that doesn't sound like a club struggling for money to me, so yes we are in a global pandemic but we needn't be so ruthless.

As it happens I think players maybe should have taken a pay cut, but to help others, not if it means others losing their jobs, but as I said Kroenke could easily take the hit if he so wished.

The no fans in stadium thing is kinda karma for Arsenal really, they took fans turning up for granted for years and charged them sky high prices, kinda ironic they now can't have any fans really, the club didn't develop the other areas of revenue as much as they could as the gate receipts were so high, very shortsighted really.

[Niall_Quinn]

Let's be honest, Arsenal are owned by a billionaire, he doesn't need the players to take a paycut or indeed for people to lose job, he could easily cover it, I'm not going to lose any sleep over Arsenal struggling . On top of that Arsenal went out and spent 45 million on a player, that doesn't sound like a club struggling for money to me, so yes we are in a global pandemic but we needn't be so ruthless.

As it happens I think players maybe should have taken a pay cut, but to help others, not if it means others losing their jobs, but as I said Kroenke could easily take the hit if he so wished.

The no fas in stadium thing is kinda karma for Arsenal really, they took fans turning up for granted for years and chrged them sky high prices, kinda ironic they now can't have any fans really.

That should have happened too - and (conspiracy theory) maybe it did? We won't be clear on how this has been handled until next year. So I won't condemn Stan outright, until the evidence is in. But absolutely. In the good times he can mortgage the club to buy his ranches. In the bad times he needs to be there too, paying it back so there's a partnership rather than a one way street. We'll see, won't we. It will be very illustrative to see how Stan behaved when the club was most in need.

[Özim]

That should have happened too - and (conspiracy theory) maybe it did? We won't be clear on how this has been handled until next year. So I won't condemn Stan outright, until the evidence is in. But absolutely. In the good times he can mortgage the club to buy his ranches. In the bad times he needs to be there too, paying it back so there's a partnership rather than a one way street. We'll see, won't we. It will be very illustrative to see how Stan behaved when the club was most in need.

Yes I agree, there were redundancies though, he may have helped but for me those jobs should not have been lost during this period, it's the little people basically being discarded because they don't matter and aren't valued, we've got multi million pound a year footballers and somehow we still have to get rid of people on a relative pittance (I know the players took a pay cut too but 15% is a drop in the ocean for them).

Not that I think it should be down to the players, but for me if anyone should take py cuts then highest paid t the club should take the biggest hit because in the end they still have plenty even with a pay cut.

From a fan point of view it's great we signed partey don't get me wrong, but for people to lose their jobs and then for us to splash the cash doesn't sit well with me, I just think noone should have lost their job.

[Niall_Quinn]

Unfortunately, in this world, the little people don't matter. So if a club has to make cuts in the short term it's almost certainly looking at who can be replaced easily once things return to normal, or whatever passes as normal. And that's not going to be the big boys in the boardroom, or the people with football knowledge, or the players. Realistically, the support staff are most expendable. But they also have the lowest wages, so it really does become a mean endeavour to make savings there, unless we're so up against the wall financially that pennies count.

That's not really the main point though. For me, I don't want the club to be talking about "the Arsenal Way" from now on, as if we are somehow different and above it all. We're down in the dirt with the rest of them. Everyone has known that for a long time, and this is just another illustration of it. Let's put that to one side now and just call it like it is - a business that also happens to be a football club. Same as all the rest. And getting rid of the dinosaur is ironic because he's a part of that Arsenal Way that was sacrificed by the great Kroenke/ Wenger project - and I can't wait to get to Wenger's explanation for all this in his book. He says he loves the sport, he loves the club, and then he goes on about sustainability, as if that was ever a reality in the casino, cash wheelbarrow world of modern football. All a scam to preach constraint to the little guy who gets it up the arse, and provide bounty to the few who are high on the hog come thick or thin.

As always, it works out in favour of those who have at the expense of those collecting the crumbs. I'm realistic enough to know that's the way it is. I don't agree with it And I would never contemplate trying to excuse those who benefit from it, because they do a relentless job of that themselves. Maybe the dinosaur is walking off into the sunset entirely content. But he's another part of what football used to be, that has also walked into that same sunset. And that's my main issue.

[Özim]

Unfortunately, in this world, the little people don't matter. So if a club has to make cuts in the short term it's almost certainly looking at who can be replaced easily once things return to normal, or whatever passes as normal. And that's not going to be the big boys in the boardroom, or the people with football knowledge, or the players. Realistically, the support staff are most expendable. But they also have the lowest wages, so it really does become a mean endeavour to make savings there, unless we're so up against the wall financially that pennies count.

That's not really the main point though. For me, I don't want the club to be talking about "the Arsenal Way" from now on, as if we are somehow different and above it all. We're down in the dirt with the rest of them. Everyone has known that for a long time, and this is just another illustration of it. Let's put that to one side now and just call it like it is - a business that also happens to be a football club. Same as all the rest. And getting rid of the dinosaur is ironic because he's a part of that Arsenal Way that was sacrificed by the great Kroenke/ Wenger project - and I can't wait to get to Wenger's explanation for all this in his book. He says he loves the sport, he loves the club, and then he goes on about sustainability, as if that was ever a reality in the casino, cash wheelbarrow world of modern football. All a scam to preach constraint to the little guy who gets it up the arse, and provide bounty to the few who are high on the hog come thick or thin.

As always, it works out in favour of those who have at the expense of those collecting the crumbs. I'm realistic enough to know that's the way it is. I don't agree with it And I would never contemplate trying to excuse those who benefit from it, because they do a relentless job of that themselves. Maybe the dinosaur is walking off into the sunset entirely content. But he's another part of what football used to be, that has also walked into that same sunset. And that's my main issue.

Spot on.

[selassie]

Unfortunately, in this world, the little people don't matter. So if a club has to make cuts in the short term it's almost certainly looking at who can be replaced easily once things return to normal, or whatever passes as normal. And that's not going to be the big boys in the boardroom, or the people with football knowledge, or the players. Realistically, the support staff are most expendable. But they also have the lowest wages, so it really does become a mean endeavour to make savings there, unless we're so up against the wall financially that pennies count.

That's not really the main point though. For me, I don't want the club to be talking about "the Arsenal Way" from now on, as if we are somehow different and above it all. We're down in the dirt with the rest of them. Everyone has known that for a long time, and this is just another illustration of it. Let's put that to one side now and just call it like it is - a business that also happens to be a football club. Same as all the rest. And getting rid of the dinosaur is ironic because he's a part of that Arsenal Way that was sacrificed by the great Kroenke/ Wenger project - and I can't wait to get to Wenger's explanation for all this in his book. He says he loves the sport, he loves the club, and then he goes on about sustainability, as if that was ever a reality in the casino, cash wheelbarrow world of modern football. All a scam to preach constraint to the little guy who gets it up the arse, and provide bounty to the few who are high on the hog come thick or thin.

As always, it works out in favour of those who have at the expense of those collecting the crumbs. I'm realistic enough to know that's the way it is. I don't agree with it And I would never contemplate trying to excuse those who benefit from it, because they do a relentless job of that themselves. Maybe the dinosaur is walking off into the sunset entirely content. But he's another part of what football used to be, that has also walked into that same sunset. And that's my main issue.

Right

[selassie]

Let's be honest, Arsenal are owned by a billionaire, he doesn't need the players to take a paycut or indeed for people to lose job, he could easily cover it, I'm not going to lose any sleep over Arsenal struggling . On top of that Arsenal went out and spent 45 million on a player, that doesn't sound like a club struggling for money to me, so yes we are in a global pandemic but we needn't be so ruthless.

As it happens I think players maybe should have taken a pay cut, but to help others, not if it means others losing their jobs, but as I said Kroenke could easily take the hit if he so wished.

The no fans in stadium thing is kinda karma for Arsenal really, they took fans turning up for granted for years and charged them sky high prices, kinda ironic they now can't have any fans really, the club didn't develop the other areas of revenue as much as they could as the gate receipts were so high, very shortsighted really.

A billionaire doesn't have infinite amount of money.

You say you won't lose any sleep over Arsenal struggling yet you would have been the first on here complaining that Arsenal haven't strengthened their team if we choose (as you put it) to continue paying our playing and non-paying staff full wages in preference to strengthening the team. As I stated on numerous occasions...I don't think they are linked but hey ho.

You talk as if Arsenal are the only club in world football who have taken on a cost cutting exercise.

How do you know that Kroenke could have taken a hit? Are you privy to his financial circumstances? Do you personally know where his money is tied up or where it is spent?

[Özim]

A billionaire doesn't have infinite amount of money.

You say you won't lose any sleep over Arsenal struggling yet you would have been the first on here complaining that Arsenal haven't strengthened their team if we choose (as you put it) to continue paying our playing and non-paying staff full wages in preference to strengthening the team. As I stated on numerous occasions...I don't think they are linked but hey ho.

You talk as if Arsenal are the only club in world football who have taken on a cost cutting exercise.

How do you know that Kroenke could have taken a hit? Are you privy to his financial circumstances? Do you personally know where his money is tied up or where it is spent?

The guy has plenty of money, he owns clubs left right and centre and he's also married to someone worth an absolute fortune, he won't end up on the streets don't worry

From a fan point of view yes, but from a human point of view no, but as I said we're owned by a billionaire both could have been done.

They're not, but any club that makes people redundant in a time like this and then spends 45 million on some footballer doesn't come out well out of it, that goes for any club that behaves this way.

I could throw that straight back at you. How do you know Kroenke doesn't have plenty of money? How do you know he has taken a hit? How do you know Gunnersaurus got a decent settlement? How do you know Ozil isn't being treated unfairly? You just like everyone else forms an opinion based on things you believe rather than fact.