Originally Posted by Flavs
Nothing new or surprising here. The time has long since passed for Wenger to be sacked if he was evaluated purely on the basis or regularity of success he brought to the club pitch side. So for him to be consistently awarded bumper new contracts (highest paid in the league?), he must be delivering big time on the performance target(s) set out by the board, otherwise he’d have been shown the exit long ago.Gazidis said: "If we went out and spent all our money we would make bad decisions, so we've been restrained. "The club is focused on a responsible, sustainable model. Football's going that way and people are trying to get where we already are. We represent the future of football."
So what’s this performance yardstick or important benchmark in which Wenger is judged by? None other than the bit in bold quoted above. And where does it stem from? None other than the people at the top of the hierarchy (unless you’re one of those deluded morons with no clue how commercial entities work in reality and believe that an employee is empowered to play master puppeteer in steering the strategic direction of the club) which in turn is laughable as it would then imply that said “custodians” of the club are failing in their primary fiduciary duties of acting in the best interest of the club. Thus the assertion that the buck stops with the manager is actually a logic failure which the Wenger out camp has no answer to this day. Come to think of it, if you blame Wenger for everything whilst not pointing the finger at the board, you are in fact helping to reaffirm the board’s stance that you are indeed a mong!
The logical question then becomes one of: Is the board right and of sound mind to focus their efforts on the prime directive of self sustainability first instead of pitch side issues? I don’t have a problem with the concept of sustainability per se. I think it’s a laudable aim but I suspect many like me have a problem with the fine print of how said model is implemented. The main problem with the board’s sustainability model is that, it is strictly one way street; i.e. the only contributing party to the equation are the pockets of supporters (paying the highest prices) and not themselves. If you look at it cynically, the only thing you’re doing is to help sustain these fat cats at your own expense at the end of the day!
The opportunity was there 2 years ago for the board to do the right thing when there were calls for a rights issue proposal (rights issue remains the only viable way to raise un-leveraged capital with zero risk exposure due to the structure of ownership in the club) but going this route meant money had to be pumped in, or come out from the wallet of shareholders themselves. But no, this was shot down by the board with the insinuation that it would not necessarily tie in with their vision of self sustainability (which is bollocks as it was plain to see the board were only trying to wind down their stake on their personal terms, not inject money into the club).
The board wasted no time in commissioning Rothchilds to spin some pathetic findings in their favour such as the verdict that premature debt settlement was non value added and the club would not save much by repaying early. Fine, there is absolutely no need to do so if debt obligations were well within their projections, but the immediate funds generated would mean a boost to our transfer kitty as Arsene would have a larger pot to play with at the end of the day. That much is irrefutable fact. But no, everything was honky dory when it suited them. No doubt, with the money making machine that is Arsene consistently delivering more than adequate returns with minimal fuss or risk of spending, the opportunity was too good for the board to turn down as they rubbed their hands in anticipation at the prospect of hustling the yank into meeting their asking price.
Not surprisingly, the only one who was prepared to put his money where his mouth is, was Usmanov, but there was very little outcry at the time because the partisan BNPesque mob bought into the romantic notion and the club’s clever line of “remaining bastion of proud English owners in the land”; when in truth, they were working quietly in the background towards their private agenda or aim of selling out for the highest possible returns when the timing suited them (for example Fiszman, who even managed to get the better of “1 out of the 2 certainties” in life) by sanctioning the parsimonious acts of an employee who bore the brunt of the angst from supporters on the frontline. Brilliant, no?
Then when some smart ones saw through this deception, their attempts at mass enlightenment were immediately drown out by these closet BNP wannabes who were quick to remind everyone that these good honest folk were trustworthy people who did not take a penny out via dividends (nevermind that any dimwit with any basic knowledge of finance knows that that retained profits subsequently re-invested back into the company equals no big deal or sacrifice on their part as it’s ultimately reflected back via capital gains or appreciation in share price). Besides, these so called men of honour were hardly living on peanuts but were in fact handsomely rewarded in their executive capacity - meaning they fall into high income tax brackets, and any tax smartass (ask ‘arry for pointers) knows that dividends is not a tax efficient method of extracting money from of the club.
As for Arsene (being a football man) himself, should he have said something or put his foot down knowing the circus act that was occuring in the boardroom? In the end, it comes down to a philosophical debate imo. Who has the right to determine the strategic focus of a club? Is it the fans, who want a steady stream of success and trophies, or does that right belong to the stakeholders who paid the millions to exercise legal control of the club? As an employee and a professional, was it appropriate for him to bite the hand that fed him? In the end I suspect that Arsene, being the idealistic dreamer that he is, with his utopian vision of how football should be responsibly run, saw nothing wrong with the leadership’s stance of self sustainability, as circumstances necessitated a collusion in congruence with the goals and ultimate decision by board members that it is the best way forward for the club, to help protect it against unforeseen financial pressures as a consequence of the stadium project. Hence the emphasis on youth project which so many of you abhor.
I don’t think the majority of sensible Wengerites out there think he’s untouchable, irreplaceable or beyond reproach, nor are they blind to his flaws, such as his tactical shortcomings for example, but all things considered, I feel they believe the real problem in the club lies with the board/owner and their insistence with self sustainability. Let’s consider this from a different angle with a hypothetical scenario. Suppose Wenger is asked to manage City now while Mancini heads our way, who do you do think stands a better chance of winning the league in the near future? And if Wenger doesn’t deliver the goods, do you think he’ll be able to hang on to his job for more than half a decade? Now you can begin to understand why the pro Wenger camp is worried about him leaving. And if the board is the real problem, then don’t you think it’s risky or foolhardy to lose perhaps the only manager who can keep us competitive in this climate with our board’s obsession with buy low sell high and their unwillingness to budge from our strict wage structure to attract or hang on to established quality? If we do get a new manager, do you think he’ll not have to bend over backwards first and serve our board’s primary MO as well?
The way I see it, you’re only left with a few possibilities at the end of the day. If you don’t think our board’s obsession with self sustainability is a major hindrance but believe Arsene is the one who is holding the club back, then you need to answer this question for me. Why hasn’t he been sacked by now? If you are still adamant that you are right, and Wenger has to shoulder the blame instead of the board, then we need to establish who is moron here do we not? Is it the Wenger out camp or the board? Since we already know that the board is firmly behind Wenger and regards the Wenger outs as mongs, how is this paradox resolved other than the inevitable conclusion that the Wenger out die-hards are mongs?
On the other hand, if you subscribe to the logic that the board’s priority with self sustainability is the major stumbling block in our pursuit of the PL trophy, then you either acknowledge that our board is the major culprit and accept out plight begrudgingly, or you move on and vote with your wallet. It’s pointless and a complete waste of time going on in circles about Wenger because (barring a major catastrophe), he’s here to stay for a long, long time. No matter how you try to slice or dice it, the irrefutable fact remains that Arsene has no power of self appointment to keep this drought in a perpetual loop, so if you’re sick of it, you either point the finger at the board or you move one. You’ve got to come to terms and learn to accept it’s either trophies, or self sustainability, as the two cannot co-exist harmoniously. And to hope that an equilibrium can be found in this era of unrestrained megalomaniacs where the two opposing variables can help fulfil all your dreams and desires as an Arsenal fan is just that, a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
