Are the doubters wrong about Wenger?

[Power n Glory]

i think what gets peoples back up is not only the spending but the crude style of football Jose plays. he has had the money at his disposal to purchase the creme of attacking players but his teams continually play the dullest football imaginable. At least City are giving it a go with being entertaining. Stacked up against the constant big mouth moans off the pitch whilst his teams drill their way to success, season after season, Jose brings the criticism upon himself. He has no excuse to spend so much yet produces such droll football. Fergie made the most of his money, of course his team were minted but you can at least offer a begrudging note of admiration for someone who has something to show for all the money spent.

It’s become all too popular on here to kiss Fergie’s ass now that the rivalry between him and Wenger have simmered. I’m not on it. He’s a good manager but since we’re on the subject of overrated managers and Fergie was thrown into the debate, I’m offering my opinion. Why should I begrudgingly express admiration when we’re on this sort of subject? I don’t like Jose’s brand of football but I can’t remember being a fan of Fergie’s either. If we’re going to talk about ‘anti football’, I remember he was the first to start kicking our team off the park after our Invincible run then every other team was at it. I won’t applaud that. A great motivator but I don’t rate his tactics and I think the constant switching to backroom staff have kept him fresh with ideas.

Jose hasn’t had decades with one club but if he did, I don’t doubt for a second that he’d dominate and achieve just as much when it comes to trophies. Style of football is a matter of personal preference. It’s not as if he buys great attacking players and turns them into duds. Real had some entertaining games with quick counters. I really don’t have much against Jose. He’s just a bit of a jerk but he hasn’t done enough for me to dislike him as much as Fergie.

[Power n Glory]

:doh: The level of Fergie ass kissing is just as bad as the all-out praise Jose keeps getting. It’s nauseating.

[Letters]

:doh: The level of Fergie ass kissing is just as bad as the all-out praise Jose keeps getting. It’s nauseating.
As FY would say, I'll just leave this here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Ferguson#Honours

[Power n Glory]

As FY would say, I'll just leave this here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Ferguson#Honours

What does that have to with the ass kissing? I'm not questioning the accolades. But if we're going to hold up the accolades against the resources and talk about style of football for Jose, it's worth talking about Fergie and holding up the same yardstick.

[Kano]

It’s become all too popular on here to kiss Fergie’s ass now that the rivalry between him and Wenger have simmered. I’m not on it. He’s a good manager but since we’re on the subject of overrated managers and Fergie was thrown into the debate, I’m offering my opinion. Why should I begrudgingly express admiration when we’re on this sort of subject? I don’t like Jose’s brand of football but I can’t remember being a fan of Fergie’s either. If we’re going to talk about ‘anti football’, I remember he was the first to start kicking our team off the park after our Invincible run then every other team was at it. I won’t applaud that. A great motivator but I don’t rate his tactics and I think the constant switching to backroom staff have kept him fresh with ideas.

Jose hasn’t had decades with one club but if he did, I don’t doubt for a second that he’d dominate and achieve just as much when it comes to trophies. Style of football is a matter of personal preference. It’s not as if he buys great attacking players and turns them into duds. Real had some entertaining games with quick counters. I really don’t have much against Jose. He’s just a bit of a jerk but he hasn’t done enough for me to dislike him as much as Fergie.
i can't speak for anyone else as i'm only talking from my point of view. i've always respected the man, despite him managing a cunt club with cunty little players. he was a massive cunt too but he knew what he was doing. you'd have to be a fool not to respect a man who can maintain such exceptionally high standards. he kicked the shit out of our team because it generally worked. by the time he retired he certainly held a more favourable record over arsenal because he realised our failings. he adapted when needed, thats how he survived so long. style in football isn’t a matter of preference. there is a generally accepted approach that all people recognise as exciting, which is attacking. the actual style may vary but the mentality is clear. even stoke fans came to the realisation under pulis that their stone age football was only good for so long. football is not all about trophies. that is the ultimate aim and what every club should be aiming for but as a fan you remember far more than just the trophies. well, i would hope that to be the case anyway. otherwise, whats the point?

fergie was recognised for building attacking teams, jose isn't. other fans can respect - not arse kiss as you keep repeating - someone who tries to do that.

[Özim]

At the end of the day, a manager is judged by success and on that basis Ferguson and Mourinho are amongst the very best around, Ferguson himself was full of praise for Jose saying that he's won a phenomenal amount.

That aside what is clear is that he seems to be very tactically astute and does what you would expect good managers to do, affect games with substitutions, tactics etc, whenever a manager comes into a new club it does usually take a couple of seasons to get things working as they want it, initially you inherit someone else's squad and although it's possible to be successful it relies on players adapting and performing as they should.

At most of his clubs within two seasons you've seen the impact he's had. People dislike him and I understand that, but to question his achievements is ridiculous, I agree style of football is important too, but we have a manager who claims his teams are about entertainment and look how poor we are to watch overall.

I also think it's far easier to question a manager who isn't willing to adapt and react to the changing world around him and sacrifices success for rigid principles.

[Power n Glory]

United's on the field success under Ferguson allowed them to become a bigger and bigger global brand and arguably he was spending the money that he had been influential in generating. Don't get me wrong, United were always a big rich club but the extent of what they've been able to spend is down to what sponsorship deals etc they have been able to harvest from on the pitch success, plus the money they have made from constant champions league qualification.
And whatever we think of Wenger, it's fair to say that when he goes he leaves the club in a monumentally better state than it was in when he joined us. And to dismiss and downplay his role in that would be grossly unfair.

Okay, I get you. But it’s not like Fergie bought them from nowhere. Maybe someone else can fill in the gaps, but when they were floated on the Stock market in 1991 and the Prem was formed further increasing revenue, that increased their financial power. That’s when they started to dominate under Fergie but the amount of resources he’s given is something out of his control. But let’s put things in perspective, people are questioning Mourinho’s credentials partly because of the resources he’s had access to. You, yourself in another thread, called Brendan Roger’s a cretin and is this very thread you’ve linked his success to have the 3rd best player in the world and spending £100m. So why is it any different for Fergie?

[Özim]

There's almost a resentment on here with other clubs spending money, I'd suggest it's because our own club and manager has for a decade refuse to open the coffers and we've had to watch bargain buys whilst other clubs have seen world class players walk through their doors.

I see there are now excuses as to why Brendan Rodgers is a success, yet if you look he was also successful in relative terms at Swansea, in the end he's put a team together who have proved capable of beating all that's put in front of them and hasn't had to spend huge amounts, yes he has Suarez but he's developed him into the player he is and has also brought other players alongside him to make Liverpool more potent.

In my eyes, he's adapted, changed tactics and analysed the team and looked to improve them in a logical way, I'd expect he'll invest in the defence in the summer as that's the logical thing to do to continue with their current progress, I'm sure it's refreshing for Liverpool to have a manager who does the things that clearly need to be done and addresses issues that are clear to all.

[Power n Glory]

i can't speak for anyone else as i'm only talking from my point of view. i've always respected the man, despite him managing a cunt club with cunty little players. he was a massive cunt too but he knew what he was doing. you'd have to be a fool not to respect a man who can maintain such exceptionally high standards. he kicked the shit out of our team because it generally worked. by the time he retired he certainly held a more favourable record over arsenal because he realised our failings. he adapted when needed, thats how he survived so long. style in football isn’t a matter of preference. there is a generally accepted approach that all people recognise as exciting, which is attacking. the actual style may vary but the mentality is clear. even stoke fans came to the realisation under pulis that their stone age football was only good for so long. football is not all about trophies. that is the ultimate aim and what every club should be aiming for but as a fan you remember far more than just the trophies. well, i would hope that to be the case anyway. otherwise, whats the point?

fergie was recognised for building attacking teams, jose isn't. other fans can respect - not arse kiss as you keep repeating - someone who tries to do that.

What Jose does works and it’s effective. If Fergie is justified in using roughhouse tactics to beat us, then why single out Mourinho for using what’s effective? You can’t talk about a general accepted approach and then throw that in. The way football is played is down to preference. There are some fans out there that can appreciate a defensive masterclass just as much as a goal fest.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

There's almost a resentment on here with other clubs spending money, I'd suggest it's because our own club and manager has for a decade refuse to open the coffers and we've had to watch bargain buys whilst other clubs have seen world class players walk through their doors.

I see there are now excuses as to why Brendan Rodgers is a success, yet if you look he was also successful in relative terms at Swansea, in the end he's put a team together who have proved capable of beating all that's put in front of them and hasn't had to spend huge amounts, yes he has Suarez but he's developed him into the player he is and has also brought other players alongside him to make Liverpool more potent.

In my eyes, he's adapted, changed tactics and analysed the team and looked to improve them in a logical way, I'd expect he'll invest in the defence in the summer as that's the logical thing to do to continue with their current progress, I'm sure it's refreshing for Liverpool to have a manager who does the things that clearly need to be done and addresses issues that are clear to all.

I'm sorry what's your basis for suggesting that Suarez has developed at all under Rodgers, his scoring rate was very similar to what it was when he was being managed by Kenny Dalglish.
In my eyes Brendan Rodgers will have a lot of adapting to do to his back line and midfield in order to make them competitive next season when he has continental fixtures to contend with. It remains to be seen whether he is up to the task.

[Kano]

What Jose does works and it’s effective. If Fergie is justified in using roughhouse tactics to beat us, then why single out Mourinho for using what’s effective? You can’t talk about a general accepted approach and then throw that in. The way football is played is down to preference. There are some fans out there that can appreciate a defensive masterclass just as much as a goal fest.
because fergie didn't make an entire career from it. so far mourinho has. i don't know any fan that enjoys seeing their team play dull football week after week. the occasional match to suit the opposition is fine, that makes sense. mourinho will go a whole season playing shite football as long as he wins.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What Jose does works and it’s effective. If Fergie is justified in using roughhouse tactics to beat us, then why single out Mourinho for using what’s effective? You can’t talk about a general accepted approach and then throw that in. The way football is played is down to preference. There are some fans out there that can appreciate a defensive masterclass just as much as a goal fest.

Do they?....plus Ferguson's side used to try and rough us up a bit and that's fine but there is a difference between that and sticking 11 men behind the ball and then whinging when smaller sides come to you and do it. To be fair, I used to get annoyed with Wenger when we dropped points at home and bemoaned smaller sides playing for a draw. If in terms of resources you can't compete in terms of football, setting up for a clean sheet is understandable and acceptable. For a team like Chelsea, whilst I can understand them playing that way against Barcelona...a team like Atletico Madrid who have far less than them in terms of financial resources its pretty depressing.
Than again I think the 0-0 wasn't so much about a Mourinho masterclass, it was exposing the limitations of players like Diego Costa....I hope Chelsea do sign him because I think he's overrated....one season wonder like Diego Tristan at Deportivo.

[Power n Glory]

because fergie didn't make an entire career from it. so far mourinho has. i don't know any fan that enjoys seeing their team play dull football week after week. the occasional match to suit the opposition is fine, that makes sense. mourinho will go a whole season playing shite football as long as he wins.

It’s preference. I know a guy that loved Serie A football back in its prime and could sit and watch the AC Milan Vs Juve CL final over again. These debates happen all the time in sports. You get some fans in boxing and UFC that want knockouts all day but you get some that love the technical side to the grappling or a defensive 12 rounder in boxing. There is an art to defending as well as attacking.

Also, I’m not a huge La Liga watcher but I don’t recall Madrid being a boring team under Jose whenever I watched them.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Good football is remembered more than effective football

Take for instance 1974 World Cup. Which side is remembered more the winners or the Dutch side of Rep, Cruyff and Neeskens and their commitment to "total football".

Same with West Germany's other World Cup, 1954 it was all about the Hungarians and in 1990 the whole tournament was written off as a turgid bore fest with only Cameroon remembered with any fondness

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It’s preference. I know a guy that loved Serie A football back in its prime and could sit and watch the AC Milan Vs Juve CL final over again. These debates happen all the time in sports. You get some fans in boxing and UFC that want knockouts all day but you get some that love the technical side to the grappling or a defensive 12 rounder in boxing. There is an art to defending as well as attacking.

Also, I’m not a huge La Liga watcher but I don’t recall Madrid being a boring team under Jose whenever I watched them.

He didnt have the choice to set them up the way he wanted, he often got into internal spats most notably with Jorge Valdano about how much control he had at the club. And then ridiculously claimed victimisation as a Portuguese in Spain.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

I'm sorry what's your basis for suggesting that Suarez has developed at all under Rodgers, his scoring rate was very similar to what it was when he was being managed by Kenny Dalglish.
In my eyes Brendan Rodgers will have a lot of adapting to do to his back line and midfield in order to make them competitive next season when he has continental fixtures to contend with. It remains to be seen whether he is up to the task.

No it wasn't.

[Kano]

It’s preference. I know a guy that loved Serie A football back in its prime and could sit and watch the AC Milan Vs Juve CL final over again. These debates happen all the time in sports. You get some fans in boxing and UFC that want knockouts all day but you get some that love the technical side to the grappling or a defensive 12 rounder in boxing. There is an art to defending as well as attacking.

Also, I’m not a huge La Liga watcher but I don’t recall Madrid being a boring team under Jose whenever I watched them.
He wasn't the only fan of italian football then because it was the glamour league with most of the big stars playing there, so no wonder he wanted to watch it. no one is debating the art of defending over attacking. what is being discussed is playing a style of football you expect from a bottom half team in order to succeed every week, when your resources enable you to do so much more. at real madrid he had a team already full of attacking players, he had no choice but to. that was one club that he couldn't get to bow to his every whim. it's an institution far bigger than his ego, which is a rare thing to find. mourinho would garner more respect if he tried a bolder approach in how he set up his teams but he's too afraid to do that. it's the reason why someone like federer is loved by more people than pete sampras who was a machine that churned out wins relentlessly.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

PnG :lol:

Seriously, go home.

[Niall_Quinn]

Fergie is overrated.

No. He has set the benchmark as the most successful British manager of all time, and that stands even against Paisley. You can't be overrated when you are top of the pile. You set the rating. Then those behind can be overrated or underrated by comparison. If Ferguson is overrated, then who are you comparing that rating to? There is nobody. At the tail end of his career he had to play things like every other club that doesn't have the infinite money cheat enabled. But right up until the final few seasons Utd played proper football, fast and lethal. Comparable to Wenger's brand of football in terms of entertainment. That's why we hated them, because they were the only challenge. And because everyone at Utd is a cunt, but that's a side issue in this case. Mourinho has been branded the enemy of football everywhere he's been. That's because he takes all the resources at his disposal and crafts something horrible instead of something inspiring. He's had all the tools to leave a positive mark on the game, he's shit all over it instead. He knows it too, which is why he's becoming more bitter by the season and it's why he hates Wenger so much. He knows he can never emulate what Wenger achieved no matter how many trophies he bludgeons his way to. Mourinho is simply incapable of producing the joy Wenger arranged on the pitch. Nobody will ever talk about Mourinho's teams in hushed tones. Give the fucker a billion quid and it's still beyond him to produce the magic. Instead he cobbled together a parody, a Frankenstein bride as opposed to a ten out of ten fuck fantasy. The Sam Allardyce of Saville Row.

[Niall_Quinn]

No it wasn't.

Nobody likes you any more. It was fine when you were losing but that's all over now and you brought this on yourself.

[Özim]

I'm sorry what's your basis for suggesting that Suarez has developed at all under Rodgers, his scoring rate was very similar to what it was when he was being managed by Kenny Dalglish.
In my eyes Brendan Rodgers will have a lot of adapting to do to his back line and midfield in order to make them competitive next season when he has continental fixtures to contend with. It remains to be seen whether he is up to the task.

He's scored and created a lot more (his scoring rate isn't the same he only got 17 from 39 for Dalglish, he's got 30 in both following seasons in less games this and marginally more last), I'd say he's improved significantly in the last couple of years as a player to now being considered one of the best players around.

Time will tell, but you'll probably find he'll try and address the issues.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Nobody likes you any more. It was fine when you were losing but that's all over now and you brought this on yourself.

Uhuh.

4.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I agree, go away we can't take pity on you now your going to be league champions. Now your part of the problem :-)

[Özim]

Good football is remembered more than effective football

Take for instance 1974 World Cup. Which side is remembered more the winners or the Dutch side of Rep, Cruyff and Neeskens and their commitment to "total football".

Same with West Germany's other World Cup, 1954 it was all about the Hungarians and in 1990 the whole tournament was written off as a turgid bore fest with only Cameroon remembered with any fondness

Sorry but that's rubbish, 1990 was a great tournament, IMO one of my favourite World Cups. Italy and West Germany were outstanding and there were some real classic matches.

[Power n Glory]

He wasn't the only fan of italian football then because it was the glamour league with most of the big stars playing there, so no wonder he wanted to watch it. no one is debating the art of defending over attacking. what is being discussed is playing a style of football you expect from a bottom half team in order to succeed every week, when your resources enable you to do so much more. at real madrid he had a team already full of attacking players, he had no choice but to. that was one club that he couldn't get to bow to his every whim. it's an institution far bigger than his ego, which is a rare thing to find. mourinho would garner more respect if he tried a bolder approach in how he set up his teams but he's too afraid to do that. it's the reason why someone like federer is loved by more people than pete sampras who was a machine that churned out wins relentlessly.

What’s crowd pleasing and fan favouritism is totally different to efficiency and being effective. That’s not the debate.

[Niall_Quinn]

He's scored and created a lot more (his scoring rate isn't the same he only got 17 from 39 for Dalglish, he's got 30 in both following seasons in less games this and marginally more last), I'd say he's improved significantly in the last couple of years as a player to now being considered one of the best players around.

Time will tell, but you'll probably find he'll try and address the issues.

Was looking at the leading scorer table. Suarez on 30, Sturridge on 20. That's insane. 50 goals between the pair.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The Sam Allardyce of Saville Row.

Speaking of which have you ever read Not Big Sam on twitter?

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

Was looking at the leading scorer table. Suarez on 30, Sturridge on 20. That's insane. 50 goals between the pair.

I know right. Who would have thought having top strikers would win you the title.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Sorry but that's rubbish, 1990 was a great tournament, IMO one of my favourite World Cups. Italy and West Germany were outstanding and there were some real classic matches.

I think that's an opinion you will find yourself in the minority about

[Niall_Quinn]

Speaking of which have you ever read Not Big Sam on twitter?

No, but I have a feeling I will now.

[Niall_Quinn]

I know right. Who would have thought having top strikers would win you the title.

Not even the enemy of football could flush enough sewage onto the season to stop them. I hope they blow his clogs off in the upcoming game.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I have a feeling Chelsea will win this weekend, I think the Sociopathic one has been going out of his way to dampen expectations by talking about playing a weakened side. Rodgers will foolishly go all out attack and Chelsea will grab a 1-0 win and the media circle jerk will begin anew

[Özim]

Was looking at the leading scorer table. Suarez on 30, Sturridge on 20. That's insane. 50 goals between the pair.

Having two goalscorers makes a huge difference, it means if one is off form or injured you still have another to get you goals, the great Man U teams always had at least two players up front who could get a decent amount of goals.

In our heyday we had 3-4 goalscorers (a couple in midfield).

[Niall_Quinn]

I have a feeling Chelsea will win this weekend, I think the Sociopathic one has been going out of his way to dampen expectations by talking about playing a weakened side. Rodgers will foolishly go all out attack and Chelsea will grab a 1-0 win and the media circle jerk will begin anew

That's the issue isn't it? It's in Maureen's nature to find the very best way to kill a match. He's a great manager, great as in the guy who comes along and takes the kids' ball away when they are playing happily in the street. Who's the daddy?

[Niall_Quinn]

Having two goalscorers makes a huge difference, it means if one is off form or injured you still have another to get you goals, the great Man U teams always had at least two players up front who could get a decent amount of goals.

In our heyday we had 3-4 goalscorers (a couple in midfield).

We have Sanogo who can play there.

[Kano]

What’s crowd pleasing and fan favouritism is totally different to efficiency and being effective. That’s not the debate.

i think you're creating your own debate now. this started out talking about why fans give respect to fergie but are reluctant to do so to mourinho. the answer is simple and money has nothing to do with it.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

We have Sanogo who can play there.

Its actually - Don't forget we have Sanogo who can play there

I am getting too sentimental I felt bad for him when he miscontrolled the ball in the Hull box on Sunday. You expected it to happen, but you hoped it wouldn't.

[Niall_Quinn]

Its actually - Don't forget we have Sanogo who can play there

I am getting too sentimental I felt bad for him when he miscontrolled the ball in the Hull box on Sunday. You expected it to happen, but you hoped it wouldn't.

Actually it's, do not forget we have Sanogo who can little bit also play there.

Love his enthusiasm. Hate the fact he's doing his YTS starting for a top 4 club.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Yeah I love his enthusiasm, but when Michael J Fox in all likelihood can trap and control a ball better than you, you know you're on a hiding to nothing

[Power n Glory]

i think you're creating your own debate now. this started out talking about why fans give respect to fergie but are reluctant to do so to mourinho. the answer is simple and money has nothing to do with it.

If money has nothing to do with it, then why is it always brought up on here when talking about Jose's achievements? It's the same debate and I'm just using the same yardstick for Fergie that's been used on Jose.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

Yeah I love his enthusiasm, but when Michael J Fox in all likelihood can trap and control a ball better than you, you know you're on a hiding to nothing

Michael J Fox is overrated.

[Power n Glory]

Do they?....plus Ferguson's side used to try and rough us up a bit and that's fine but there is a difference between that and sticking 11 men behind the ball and then whinging when smaller sides come to you and do it. To be fair, I used to get annoyed with Wenger when we dropped points at home and bemoaned smaller sides playing for a draw. If in terms of resources you can't compete in terms of football, setting up for a clean sheet is understandable and acceptable. For a team like Chelsea, whilst I can understand them playing that way against Barcelona...a team like Atletico Madrid who have far less than them in terms of financial resources its pretty depressing.
Than again I think the 0-0 wasn't so much about a Mourinho masterclass, it was exposing the limitations of players like Diego Costa....I hope Chelsea do sign him because I think he's overrated....one season wonder like Diego Tristan at Deportivo.

:lol: Tristan

I'm not a fan of Diego Costa's either. When we were linked with him, I wasn't impressed and couldn't see how he'd solve our problems up front. I think we need something more. For some reason, I think he'd fit in at Chelsea. I complete shit of a player from what I heard with the wind ups and diving.

[Kano]

If money has nothing to do with it, then why is it always brought up on here when talking about Jose's achievements?
i've just spent the best part of 4/5 posts explaining why.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The money Ferguson spent was generated by the teams performance and the teams he created were built in a piecemeal way.
Mourinho inherited a team with Oscar and Hazard in it, he's spent money on Matic, Willian, Salah etc and yet trots out excuses for why he and his side have under performed like somehow he's Barack Obama and he's inherited a car crash.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Michael J Fox is overrated.

As is your mother

[Power n Glory]

i've just spent the best part of 4/5 posts explaining why.

I'm totally convinced so I guess we'll move on. Attacking football and defensive football is down to a matter of preference. I wouldn't choose a defensive style because I like attacking football. But if you choose to build a solid defensive team to win titles with all the money the club gives you and it wins titles, that's the managers choice.

I hopped in on this debate when Herb mentioned the amount of money Jose has spent and the clubs he's been with and then mentioned Fergie as the better manager. As originally said, if we're going to make comparisons that way, then it's hard to ignore the resources Fergie has had access to.

[selassie]

The Times did a piece today, analysing how EPL teams have been affected by injury this season. It was entitled
Mourinho stays silent after Chelsea keep their casualties to a minimum
The article calculated how many player weeks each of the top teams have lost this season through injury. First, it looked at the loss of weeks from players likely to be first choice for a starting 11.

The data?



It went further, and looked at the loss of teams' likely first 15.



Of course, stats can be manipulated at will - but Arsenal's injury data is shocking - even if we are well used to key players being out.

My first reaction to our last few positive results has been that we have shown, recently, that we can perform against teams below the top 6, and that we know how to scrape top 4 - its doing better than that that is our problem.

But I freely admit that the above stats make me question whether my points of criticism of Wenger are accurate, and whether the question marks over him should be in relation to his fitness regime and his failure to back his first team up properly rather than his ability to read and understand the game.

Am I right to reconsider, or am I falling back into the Arsene 'brainwash' of always looking to explain our failure to win, rather than accepting that he is no longer a good enough football coach to win the league?

I personally feel that even with a fully fit squad all season we would have still fallen short this season. IMO Arsene has too many flaws in his management style to execute a title winning team at Arsenal given the make up of his squad. Injuries did and do play a part in titles but I am not so sure we would have made up the requisite number of points with a fully fit squad.

We went into the season clearly handicapped with an unbalanced squad and we suffered the consequences.

Our issues with building balanced squads is just as much as a problem as our injury issues, as it is our tactics. These 3 issues combined make it neigh on impossible for us to win the league every season.

[Power n Glory]

The money Ferguson spent was generated by the teams performance and the teams he created were built in a piecemeal way.
Mourinho inherited a team with Oscar and Hazard in it, he's spent money on Matic, Willian, Salah etc and yet trots out excuses for why he and his side have under performed like somehow he's Barack Obama and he's inherited a car crash.


How the money is generated shouldn’t really come into it. On the flip side, you’ve criticised Rogers even though he plays a more attractive brand of football.

Ahh whatever….we can all agree they’re better manager than David Moyes! ;)

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm totally convinced so I guess we'll move on. Attacking football and defensive football is down to a matter of preference. I wouldn't choose a defensive style because I like attacking football. But if you choose to build a solid defensive team to win titles with all the money the club gives you and it wins titles, that's the managers choice.

I hopped in on this debate when Herb mentioned the amount of money Jose has spent and the clubs he's been with and then mentioned Fergie as the better manager. As originally said, if we're going to make comparisons that way, then it's hard to ignore the resources Fergie has had access to.

There is no comparison to a club like United spending money and a club like Chelsea with no constituency, no independent financing that would allow it to spend like United. Before Abramovich bought Chelsea it was well known that qualifying for the champions league in 2003 was not only a massive achieving it was financially essential as it was about to go down the plug hole. And if your asking me to respect a man for spending hundreds if millions at the whim of an oligarch and then win in the most turgid fashion, I cannot do that.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

How the money is generated shouldn’t really come into it. On the flip side, you’ve criticised Rogers even though he plays a more attractive brand of football.

Ahh whatever….we can all agree they’re better manager than David Moyes! ;)

Well it is relevant because your living off the finances you've helped generate and whilst United have spend a fair amount I'm pretty sure they haven't spent the money Chelsea have in the last ten years. Ferguson may have bought the odd 30 million signing a season, or two or three 15-20 million signings but he wasn't signing six-ten players in that price bracket like Chelsea have done.

[selassie]

Love his enthusiasm. Hate the fact he's doing his YTS starting for a top 4 club.

Oh keep up NQ, Wenger has used the first team to develop his youth projects for years. ;)

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I was meaning to say, good work keeping the wops out of Abyssinia

[Özim]

There is no comparison to a club like United spending money and a club like Chelsea with no constituency, no independent financing that would allow it to spend like United. Before Abramovich bought Chelsea it was well known that qualifying for the champions league in 2003 was not only a massive achieving it was financially essential as it was about to go down the plug hole. And if your asking me to respect a man for spending hundreds if millions at the whim of an oligarch and then win in the most turgid fashion, I cannot do that.

Ignoring that though, he won the UEFA Cup, CL and league titles at Porto, then at Inter a side who hadn't won the European cup for years and struggled every year he won the CL and as much as former managers might have spent (Italy isn't basking in money at the moment) they didn't win with those signings.

On that basis you still have to say he did a great job winning with those clubs, noone else has managed it or got anywhere near.

[Kano]

I'm totally convinced so I guess we'll move on. Attacking football and defensive football is down to a matter of preference. I wouldn't choose a defensive style because I like attacking football. But if you choose to build a solid defensive team to win titles with all the money the club gives you and it wins titles, that's the managers choice.

I hopped in on this debate when Herb mentioned the amount of money Jose has spent and the clubs he's been with and then mentioned Fergie as the better manager. As originally said, if we're going to make comparisons that way, then it's hard to ignore the resources Fergie has had access to.

glad to see i'm so persuasive.

[Özim]

Well it is relevant because your living off the finances you've helped generate and whilst United have spend a fair amount I'm pretty sure they haven't spent the money Chelsea have in the last ten years. Ferguson may have bought the odd 30 million signing a season, or two or three 15-20 million signings but he wasn't signing six-ten players in that price bracket like Chelsea have done.

The thing is why wouldn't you spend money if it's available to you, it would be foolish not to at those clubs.

[Power n Glory]

Well it is relevant because your living off the finances you've helped generate and whilst United have spend a fair amount I'm pretty sure they haven't spent the money Chelsea have in the last ten years. Ferguson may have bought the odd 30 million signing a season, or two or three 15-20 million signings but he wasn't signing six-ten players in that price bracket like Chelsea have done.

Why is how it's generated important? I just recently found out that Danny Fizsman used £50m of his own cash to invested in our squad and that helped us win trophies. That's a lot of money back then but does that taint us slightly?

Fergie spent money. Before Chelsea arrived they broke records bringing in Veron and Rude.

[Power n Glory]

glad to see i'm so persuasive.

Not! :lol:

But it's a healthy debate.

I still can't stand Fergie. Intimidating the refs and Fergie time won't be forgotten.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Why is how it's generated important? I just recently found out that Danny Fizsman used £50m of his own cash to invested in our squad and that helped us win trophies. That's a lot of money back then but does that taint us slightly?

Fergie spent money. Before Chelsea arrived they broke records bringing in Veron and Rude.

It's important in terms of whether i should respect a manager's accomplishments or not, Ferguson spent the money that he contributed towards generating in the first place...Mourinho did not.

Plus there is an element of scale to it all, Ferguson broke the British Transfer record but he wasn't at a club that routinely bought it's entire team in a short period of time. The players best remembered at United will be the ones he developed himself and turned into Stars.

[Niall_Quinn]

Why is how it's generated important?

Seriously?

Apart from the sporting issues, there's the wider moral and legal issues. Simple question. If Jimmy Saville was still alive and somehow had escaped jail (and you can bet your life he would have done), if tomorrow he dumped so much money into Arsenal that we could buy any players we wanted, if we then went on to win a bunch of trophies. How do you feel? Are the trophies themselves compensation? Do you just turn a blind eye to the other stuff? I pick Jimmy Saville because he's the fashionable hate figure of the day. He's had the special media treatment that living people don't get, especially mega rich ones. But people are what people do, regardless of the whitewash. How are those barriers between the whole story and the convenient story constructed? How many compromises does it take to take certain aspects of the Abramovich story and spin those up while holding your nose and shutting your eyes to the inconvenient parts?

How the money is generated is one of the biggest problems the human race faces today isn't it? Of course we can't shout too loudly about it because, shamefully, we have a certain character connected to our own club. How much better could the game be if we didn't have these scum infesting it? How much better and open and competitive could it be if we didn't have the likes of Platini setting rules designed to facilitate service to his organisation and himself rather than service to the game? How many world cups in Qatar does it take to screw a sport forever?

The money absolutely matters. It replaces everything worthy with cynicism. Like Mourinho's brand of "football". Like a cancer. Just because this is the way things are done now doesn't make it right or even tolerable and I don't see any need at all to assign respect to shit like this. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we reserve the deppest contempt for the chav project and the people behind it? I think yes.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The thing is why wouldn't you spend money if it's available to you, it would be foolish not to at those clubs.

I agree completley, but at the same time i think anything you acheive as a result is entirerly artificial and you don't deserve a scintilla of respect for it.
And don't get me wrong i would have the same opinion of Mourinho's "so-called" achievements at Chelsea even if he committed to playing expansive, attractive football. I slightly prefer Man City because the football they play is good to watch, but i have no more respect for someone like Mancini than i do for Mourinho.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Interestingly enough the "Sociopathic one" has bemoaned that Chelsea don't get the respect they deserve and don't get the recognition for what they've brought to English football over the past ten years.
Au Contraire my deluded friend everyone recognises exactly what Chelsea have brought to english football over the last ten years....

[Niall_Quinn]

Interestingly enough the "Sociopathic one" has bemoaned that Chelsea don't get the respect they deserve and don't get the recognition for what they've brought to English football over the past ten years.
Au Contraire my deluded friend everyone recognises exactly what Chelsea have brought to english football over the last ten years....

Poor old Maureen still struggles with the idea respect has a price tag attached. Doesn't even dawn on him it can't be bought - doesn't compute for him.

[Power n Glory]

It's important in terms of whether i should respect a manager's accomplishments or not, Ferguson spent the money that he contributed towards generating in the first place...Mourinho did not.

Plus there is an element of scale to it all, Ferguson broke the British Transfer record but he wasn't at a club that routinely bought it's entire team in a short period of time. The players best remembered at United will be the ones he developed himself and turned into Stars.

Does it matter that we’ve had money come from Fizsman’s own pocket? Wouldn’t the clubs under us have a right to pick a gripe with us if they don’t have such someone on the Board that can invest that much into their squad? The finances in football isn’t fair on any scale. Also, I think it’s worth bringing back the point about Jose at Porto and Inter. The two teams he won the CL with weren’t blessed with unlimited funds. I get what’s being said about Utd, but much like Bayern Munich, for a long time they were the big fish in a small pond team. I think the amount of money Chelsea and City have had to spend so quickly was in order to get into that elite bracket. Although they’ve spent a silly amount, I don’t think they’ve spent wisely. The fees paid for some players is just so they don’t have the hassle of negotiating.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Does it matter that we’ve had money come from Fizsman’s own pocket? Wouldn’t the clubs under us have a right to pick a gripe with us if they don’t have such someone on the Board that can invest that much into their squad? The finances in football isn’t fair on any scale. Also, I think it’s worth bringing back the point about Jose at Porto and Inter. The two teams he won the CL with weren’t blessed with unlimited funds. I get what’s being said about Utd, but much like Bayern Munich, for a long time they were the big fish in a small pond team. I think the amount of money Chelsea and City have had to spend so quickly was in order to get into that elite bracket. Although they’ve spent a silly amount, I don’t think they’ve spent wisely. The fees paid for some players is just so they don’t have the hassle of negotiating.

Did we buy an entirerly new team with Fiszman's money, no we invested in a few key players over a few years like Petit, Overmars etc....like i've said previously you don't seem to have any perspective when it comes to scale.

I respected Mourinho a lot for his achievements at Porto, as i think they are the one and only thing in his career that truly stand out as unique. But then he came over to England and starting talking....it all went down hill from there.

[Power n Glory]

Did we buy an entirerly new team with Fiszman's money, no we invested in a few key players over a few years like Petit, Overmars etc....like i've said previously you don't seem to have any perspective when it comes to scale.

I respected Mourinho a lot for his achievements at Porto, as i think they are the one and only thing in his career that truly stand out as unique. But then he came over to England and starting talking....it all went down hill from there.

I think financial scale is variable. What seems like a small amount to a club like us may be the world to a club like Southampton or Swansea who all have ambitions of being a top club. What was a lot of money back in the 90s is peanuts now. Where do you draw the line? We used money from player sales to invest in a new training ground. Was the money from Danny used to buy Overmars, Petit and Anelka which then went towards our training ground? Grey areas. The financing in football is messed up. There is no scale. The rules are just messed up when it comes to the finances and if United had unlimited funds, I’m sure they’d take full advantage of it.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think financial scale is variable. What seems like a small amount to a club like us may be the world to a club like Southampton or Swansea who all have ambitions of being a top club. What was a lot of money back in the 90s is peanuts now. Where do you draw the line? We used money from player sales to invest in a new training ground. Was the money from Danny used to buy Overmars, Petit and Anelka which then went towards our training ground? Grey areas. The financing in football is messed up. There is no scale. The rules are just messed up when it comes to the finances and if United had unlimited funds, I’m sure they’d take full advantage of it.

I think what worries me is that your unable to see the difference between a man who loved our club helping us out of his own pocket to help us buy a few players, and a billionaire who throws money to buy 10-15 players at a time to run the club as his own personal plaything.

If you think it's all a grey area that's up to you, i don't respect Mourinho's (or indeed any managers) achievements at Chelsea because it's all artificial. The bottom line is would they have been premiership champions three times without Abramovich and the answer is no....that's all you need to know.

[Power n Glory]

I think what worries me is that your unable to see the difference between a man who loved our club helping us out of his own pocket to help us buy a few players, and a billionaire who throws money to buy 10-15 players at a time to run the club as his own personal plaything.

If you think it's all a grey area that's up to you, i don't respect Mourinho's (or indeed any managers) achievements at Chelsea because it's all artificial. The bottom line is would they have been premiership champions three times without Abramovich and the answer is no....that's all you need to know.

Put sentiment aside. What if Danny was a billionaire and pumped £500m into the club. Would that make it right? Can you we actually measure how much an owner loves a club?

[Letters]

I agree completley, but at the same time i think anything you acheive as a result is entirerly artificial and you don't deserve a scintilla of respect for it.
And don't get me wrong i would have the same opinion of Mourinho's "so-called" achievements at Chelsea even if he committed to playing expansive, attractive football. I slightly prefer Man City because the football they play is good to watch, but i have no more respect for someone like Mancini than i do for Mourinho.
Pretty much.
Chelsea proved that money can buy success.
City have proved that you can do it at any club if you pump enough money in for long enough.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Put sentiment aside. What if Danny was a billionaire and pumped £500m into the club. Would that make it right? Can you we actually measure how much an owner loves a club?

Maybe he would appreciate that buying us everything would make us financially dependent on him

Listen just give it up, if your trying to present an equivalency between that and Chelsea and what they have done you are pissing into the wind.

I don't know if you love Mourinho or your just being argumentative for the sake of it. But i don't respect him or what he has won as a manager outside of Portuguese football, and i don't believe anyone who loves the game can do. He represents how money is eating the heart out of it with the obscene amounts being poured into certain clubs by wealthy plutocrats which has driven up both transfer fees and player wages monumentally.

This is why i make the case that you are pathalogically adverse to Wenger, because you seem determined to defend what is the antithesis of what he and what Arsenal FC represent.
He's no longer a good or effective manager....i don't see why it can't be left at that. Whoever follows him will be doing so using the self-sufficiency blueprint that he and the club have laid out....the challenge will be for that person to make the most from that.

[Niall_Quinn]

Put sentiment aside. What if Danny was a billionaire and pumped £500m into the club. Would that make it right? Can you we actually measure how much an owner loves a club?

You put a lot of things aside in you argument, almost everything. It's pretty easy to measure how much some managers love the club, for example the Russian mobster and the Arab gangsters - they love the club as a laundry but quite obviously they don't love it in sporting terms. Otherwise they wouldn't be destroying the sport. No matter how much you argue in favour of turning a blind eye, you can't persuade people to respect something they don't respect. It's a futile effort. Trying to compare Fizsman with Abramovich in terms of football is also futile, there's no comparison at all. Beyond that, as in blood diamonds, well that's a different thing and I think comparisons would be valid.

[Power n Glory]

Maybe he would appreciate that buying us everything would make us financially dependent on him

Listen just give it up, if your trying to present an equivalency between that and Chelsea and what they have done you are pissing into the wind.

I don't know if you love Mourinho or your just being argumentative for the sake of it. But i don't respect him or what he has won as a manager outside of Portuguese football, and i don't believe anyone who loves the game can do. He represents how money is eating the heart out of it with the obscene amounts being poured into certain clubs by wealthy plutocrats which has driven up both transfer fees and player wages monumentally.

This is why i make the case that you are pathalogically adverse to Wenger, because you seem determined to defend what is the antithesis of what he and what Arsenal FC represent.
He's no longer a good or effective manager....i don't see why it can't be left at that. Whoever follows him will be doing so using the self-sufficiency blueprint that he and the club have laid out....the challenge will be for that person to make the most from that.

Stop getting emotional and answer the question. How can the governing bodies regulate outside investment if we're going on love for the club?

[Niall_Quinn]

Whoever follows him will be doing so using the self-sufficiency blueprint that he and the club have laid out....the challenge will be for that person to make the most from that.

Might not be the case though. And if we do bring in a new manager in, say 2016, and the financial clout of the club has developed to the point where he can go out and compete for the very best players then Wenger's contribution will have been even greater than is perceived at present. I believe there are very good times ahead for our club.

[Power n Glory]

You put a lot of things aside in you argument, almost everything. It's pretty easy to measure how much some managers love the club, for example the Russian mobster and the Arab gangsters - they love the club as a laundry but quite obviously they don't love it in sporting terms. Otherwise they wouldn't be destroying the sport. No matter how much you argue in favour of turning a blind eye, you can't persuade people to respect something they don't respect. It's a futile effort. Trying to compare Fizsman with Abramovich in terms of football is also futile, there's no comparison at all. Beyond that, as in blood diamonds, well that's a different thing and I think comparisons would be valid.

You guys are too busy looking at the individual instead of the system and regulations that make it possible for shady characters to enter football. Outside investment is outside investment. I don't know how Danny made his money, but if he was involved in the diamond trade, you're right, that has it's own ethical issues but I'm not going to get into that. How can you control ownership? Through means testing?

We may see a shake up with FFP rules but I don't think the rules for financing have ever been fair in football and it's why we are here where we are now. Eyes are now opening because we are now seeing clubs outside of the status quo start to rise and vast amounts of money being thrown around. The rules weren't right in the first place. It was never an even playing field for most clubs.

[Power n Glory]

Also, it's not about turning a blind eye. If anything, people have failed to see how money has always played an important factor in football. The corruption in ownership and football goes way beyond what we're seeing if you want to compare the Franco era.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Stop getting emotional and answer the question. How can the governing bodies regulate outside investment if we're going on love for the club?

Don't be condescending to me please, i'm just getting bored of this discussion and frankly i do believe you are pursuing this line because of your own agenda. When i point out the obvious differences such as in terms of financial scale and how the finances spent are generated, you seem to believe that these are somehow irrelevant matters and frankly it's seems rather redundant arguing with you if you are going to hold that mindset.

i'm drawing a line under it, i think your arguing for the sake of it.....it's abundantly clear whatever fiszman put into the club was more than made back in terms of finances generated independently by success on the pitch. So that if he'd wanted to retrieve the money he'd invested he could have done so.


The kind of money he invested isn't a game changer in terms of inflating transfer fees and wages where as the money pumped into their respective clubs by characters such as Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour is.

But if you want an answer to your question, it's an obvious one. A transfer and salary cap....that plus you legislate that no investment from outside can be greater than what the club would be realistically able to generate in order if it was to say pay it back.
There is no way Chelsea could pay back the money given to it on transfers by Abramovich independently

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You guys are too busy looking at the individual instead of the system and regulations that make it possible for shady characters to enter football. Outside investment is outside investment. I don't know how Danny made his money, but if he was involved in the diamond trade, you're right, that has it's own ethical issues but I'm not going to get into that. How can you control ownership? Through means testing?

We may see a shake up with FFP rules but I don't think the rules for financing have ever been fair in football and it's why we are here where we are now. Eyes are now opening because we are now seeing clubs outside of the status quo start to rise and vast amounts of money being thrown around. The rules weren't right in the first place. It was never an even playing field for most clubs.

This is a whole different discussion entirely, because you don't want to accept that there is no equivalency not only between us and Chelsea but between United and Chelsea in terms of expenditure....your just changing the subject entirely.

[Niall_Quinn]

You guys are too busy looking at the individual instead of the system and regulations that make it possible for shady characters to enter football. Outside investment is outside investment. I don't know how Danny made his money, but if he was involved in the diamond trade, you're right, that has it's own ethical issues but I'm not going to get into that. How can you control ownership? Through means testing?

We may see a shake up with FFP rules but I don't think the rules for financing have ever been fair in football and it's why we are here where we are now. Eyes are now opening because we are now seeing clubs outside of the status quo start to rise and vast amounts of money being thrown around. The rules weren't right in the first place. It was never an even playing field for most clubs.

It's the individuals that make the problems. I'd agree, in the absence of governing bodies that actually give a shit about the game beyond its ability to be their cash cow it's not a surprise that similarly unethical types will be attracted to the sport. In fact it's inevitable, like flies to shit. There's supposed to be a test for who is allowed to operate, the gypos have had two criminals (not hyperbole, fact) own them now. These are individuals you can look up in daily newspapers, no background checks even required. When it's that blatant then obviously the test is a sham. And so it is safe to conclude the regulatory bodies are just as harmful to the game as the crooks they are letting into it. That's where a clean up needs to start. Shits like Blatter and his host of cronies, the buffers at the FA who watch it all sail past without ever paying heed to their duties.

FFP could have had some influence if it hadn't been crafted by dodgy individuals. Now it transpires this is just another cash grab for the likes of Platini, there is no intention to clean up the game. They'd rather hammer a player for making a gesture on the pitch and then spend a month in the papers praising themselves for being at the progressive forefront of change, when in reality they are all about business as usual. FFP could have simply stated that clubs need to run as a business within certain boundaries. No need to chuck clubs out of Europe, that was a red herring designed to fail because they knew the lawyers would have a field day with it. Instead dock 3 points, 6 points, 12 points and these clubs don't qualify for Europe anyway. That's what a smart administrator with genuine intent would have done. You get caught paying Neymar's dad a million quid - 3 point fine, get caught involved in all manner of transfer abuses, 6 points. Barca would be out of the CL by now without ever having been thrown out. But they'll dock a club points for having a brawl on the pitch.

It's a sad day when we have to look to the Italians for balls when it comes to taking action against structural corruption. The fucking Italians! It took big balls to relegate a top club. That came down to individuals too. It's all about individuals and they should be allowed to hide behind faceless organisations of shell companies and plead their innocence. First step before anything else can happen is to root the bastards out.

Then we'll start working towards the day when we can see if Mourinho can emulate his Porto days again. Maybe it's not just Wenger who has his best days behind him and is a bit behind the times?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's the individuals that make the problems. I'd agree, in the absence of governing bodies that actually give a shit about the game beyond its ability to be their cash cow it's not a surprise that similarly unethical types will be attracted to the sport. In fact it's inevitable, like flies to shit. There's supposed to be a test for who is allowed to operate, the gypos have had two criminals (not hyperbole, fact) own them now. These are individuals you can look up in daily newspapers, no background checks even required. When it's that blatant then obviously the test is a sham. And so it is safe to conclude the regulatory bodies are just as harmful to the game as the crooks they are letting into it. That's where a clean up needs to start. Shits like Blatter and his host of cronies, the buffers at the FA who watch it all sail past without ever paying heed to their duties.

FFP could have had some influence if it hadn't been crafted by dodgy individuals. Now it transpires this is just another cash grab for the likes of Platini, there is no intention to clean up the game. They'd rather hammer a player for making a gesture on the pitch and then spend a month in the papers praising themselves for being at the progressive forefront of change, when in reality they are all about business as usual. FFP could have simply stated that clubs need to run as a business within certain boundaries. No need to chuck clubs out of Europe, that was a red herring designed to fail because they knew the lawyers would have a field day with it. Instead dock 3 points, 6 points, 12 points and these clubs don't qualify for Europe anyway. That's what a smart administrator with genuine intent would have done. You get caught paying Neymar's dad a million quid - 3 point fine, get caught involved in all manner of transfer abuses, 6 points. Barca would be out of the CL by now without ever having been thrown out. But they'll dock a club points for having a brawl on the pitch.

It's a sad day when we have to look to the Italians for balls when it comes to taking action against structural corruption. The fucking Italians! It took big balls to relegate a top club. That came down to individuals too. It's all about individuals and they should be allowed to hide behind faceless organisations of shell companies and plead their innocence. First step before anything else can happen is to root the bastards out.

Then we'll start working towards the day when we can see if Mourinho can emulate his Porto days again. Maybe it's not just Wenger who has his best days behind him and is a bit behind the times?

To be honest i think you are casting pearls amongst swine even bothering to answer this guy, i am not convinced he wants a genuine discussion he has changed the parameters even of what we are discussing when it becomes abundantly clear that his own argument doesn't work.
Like Ozim (or whatever the fuck his name is) the long and short of it is, they are digging and digging in order to provide some justification for their inate reaction of disgust and anger to everything that comes from Wenger's mouth. It's perfectly fine that they feel that way and if they had actually had the clout to admit that nine years of frustration causes them to respond to him irrationally than i'd respect them a lot more for it.
In many respects my own antipathy towards Mourinho is irrational, but even if i didn't have a deep personal dislike for the man i'd still feel that there is a level of illegitimacy towards what he has won with Chelsea. To extend that to his time at Porto, Inter and even Real Madrid (where arguably his record was a very mixed bag) would be stretching things somewhat....all of these clubs to some extent or another are self-sustaining.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I do believe actually that a lot of the Mourinho veneer has been lost, i think his old "one trick pony" approach of "doing a number" on rival teams still works from time to time. But i think at the same time he can't get the same players to impose themselves on a game the way city and liverpool do and this is why they have suffered away from home against smaller opponents.

[Power n Glory]

Herb, you can check out of this conversation at any point. I just didn't appreciate the line about being pathologically adverse to Wenger or being a Mourinho lover of all things. There is no need to go down that route and get emotional. When it comes to the finance issue, what is it that you have a problem with?

1- The fact that outside investment is allowed?
2- The amount allowed to be invested?
3- Or whose investing?

There are holes in the argument. Why downplay Liverpool'a succes becaue they've spent £100m but turn a blind eye when we spent £50m of Fizsman's money when that was a huge sum way back then? Had, like in Manure's case, the money been generated from football, why is ok for us to take outside money from Danny? Is it the amount that matters or how it was generated? Then we look to Chelsea and City and there is a problem with the owners not loving the club and how that money may have been acquired. It's a lot of grey areas that's hard to regulate. I agree with the part about a salary cap even thought that may cause problems, but I've always been a fan of the American system. It seems more fair to what we have now.

This debates all over the shop and I'm not switching goal posts. It's just interesting to here people talk about football finance. The growns grow louder now that we're not winning, but when we were nobody damn about the little clubs below us struggling that couldn't afford to do what we were doing. The game has never been fair but you only want justice when your the victim, right?

I applaud our financial model to a degree and trying to stay Financially independent but I have a serious problem with the burden being lumped on to the fans. That's no good for me or anyone else if we can't afford to go to games.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Herb, you can check out of this conversation at any point. I just didn't appreciate the line about being pathologically adverse to Wenger or being a Mourinho lover of all things. There is no need to go down that route and get emotional. When it comes to the finance issue, what is it that you have a problem with?

1- The fact that outside investment is allowed?
2- The amount allowed to be invested?
3- Or whose investing?

There are holes in the argument. Why downplay Liverpool'a succes becaue they've spent £100m but turn a blind eye when we spent £50m of Fizsman's money when that was a huge sum way back then? Had, like in Manure's case, the money been generated from football, why is ok for us to take outside money from Danny? Is it the amount that matters or how it was generated? Then we look to Chelsea and City and there is a problem with the owners not loving the club and how that money may have been acquired. It's a lot of grey areas that's hard to regulate. I agree with the part about a salary cap even thought that may cause problems, but I've always been a fan of the American system. It seems more fair to what we have now.

This debates all over the shop and I'm not switching goal posts. It's just interesting to here people talk about football finance. The growns grow louder now that we're not winning, but when we were nobody damn about the little clubs below us struggling that couldn't afford to do what we were doing. The game has never been fair but you only want justice when your the victim, right?

I applaud our financial model to a degree and trying to stay Financially independent but I have a serious problem with the burden being lumped on to the fans. That's no good for me or anyone else if we can't afford to go to games.


You have clearly changed the goalposts, because you can't answer my assertion that there is no equivalency between Fiszmans outside investment and that of Chelsea you shift the premise to should there be any outside investment full stop. Which for me is like if I tell you that there is no comparison between downloading music off the Internet and mass murder, and you responding but they are both crimes and what can we do to tackle crime in modern society. Possibly a salient point, but its totally shifting the emphasis.

I am glad that Liverpool will probably win the title and there is no equivalency towards what Chelsea and Man City have done, but if I were to do what you are doing and change the parameters of the argument I think it's fair to say that I believe it a bit glib that there is a perception of Liverpool winning the right way when they are losing money hand over fist.

[Power n Glory]

It's the individuals that make the problems. I'd agree, in the absence of governing bodies that actually give a shit about the game beyond its ability to be their cash cow it's not a surprise that similarly unethical types will be attracted to the sport. In fact it's inevitable, like flies to shit. There's supposed to be a test for who is allowed to operate, the gypos have had two criminals (not hyperbole, fact) own them now. These are individuals you can look up in daily newspapers, no background checks even required. When it's that blatant then obviously the test is a sham. And so it is safe to conclude the regulatory bodies are just as harmful to the game as the crooks they are letting into it. That's where a clean up needs to start. Shits like Blatter and his host of cronies, the buffers at the FA who watch it all sail past without ever paying heed to their duties.

FFP could have had some influence if it hadn't been crafted by dodgy individuals. Now it transpires this is just another cash grab for the likes of Platini, there is no intention to clean up the game. They'd rather hammer a player for making a gesture on the pitch and then spend a month in the papers praising themselves for being at the progressive forefront of change, when in reality they are all about business as usual. FFP could have simply stated that clubs need to run as a business within certain boundaries. No need to chuck clubs out of Europe, that was a red herring designed to fail because they knew the lawyers would have a field day with it. Instead dock 3 points, 6 points, 12 points and these clubs don't qualify for Europe anyway. That's what a smart administrator with genuine intent would have done. You get caught paying Neymar's dad a million quid - 3 point fine, get caught involved in all manner of transfer abuses, 6 points. Barca would be out of the CL by now without ever having been thrown out. But they'll dock a club points for having a brawl on the pitch.

It's a sad day when we have to look to the Italians for balls when it comes to taking action against structural corruption. The fucking Italians! It took big balls to relegate a top club. That came down to individuals too. It's all about individuals and they should be allowed to hide behind faceless organisations of shell companies and plead their innocence. First step before anything else can happen is to root the bastards out.

Then we'll start working towards the day when we can see if Mourinho can emulate his Porto days again. Maybe it's not just Wenger who has his best days behind him and is a bit behind the times?

It's worrying times and I doubt FIFA anf UEFA will do anything about it. That's a good rule regarding the FFP and point deductions but we both know that won't happen. I'm sure I read a headline that said the current clubs under investigation won't even be thrown out of Europe this year. I'd have to check the full report but I'm skeptical about the whole throwing out of Europe idea. I've already read a couple of articles stoking up the idea of a European Super League. Something about Bayern being too good for the German league and maybe they should leave....whatever! That's probably going to happen in the future if FIFA and UEFA get too heavy handed. I doubt they will against the status quo traditional clubs and I suspect reps of the traditional elite clubs want the authorities to come down on new money clubs just so they can maintain their dominance.

It's not a fair system and there must be crooks at Board level at most clubs. This is the corporate world we're talking about. But on the playing side, I think football has always been too reliant on money and that's why we get so many sub par coaches. It's not just at title winning level, we see it with some of the smaller clubs facing relegation trying to buy as much foreign talent when they arrive in the Prem and gamble with resources just to stay up. It's good to see clubs with a strong youth system make it in the league and stay up. That's how the game should be. The sign of a very good manager is one that can get the very best out of what he has. I respect Wenger's vision for the game in that regards. When he steps down from the game, he should take on a role as head of UEFA or FIFA because he has an ethical vision to the way things should be run and thinks of things most coaches don't even concern themselves over.

[Niall_Quinn]

I have a serious problem with the burden being lumped on to the fans.

How can you be pragmatic about the influence of money in the game and the lament the effect that has on the fans? Anyway, what fans? How many of the £3 ticket and pie brigade even go any more? So many priced out, myself included. It would cost me the best part of £100 to go to a home match and I'm only an hour and a half away by train. But if we want biog stadiums and mercenary players on £300k per week and agents wanting multi-million quid bungs and kits that cost £100 quid and American style razzmatazz and all the glitter that's now piled on top of what is still basically the same art of 22 bloke kicking a ball around, which you used to be able to see for a few quid, then the blame needs to be shared all around, doesn't it?

Shitty owners who are in it for the investment, Sky TV (the runner-up prize for the fans priced out), greedy bastard players who in the main aren't a patch on the the heroes of old who could really play the game and did it for a tenner a week which they spent down in the local drinking with the fans. This shit we have now isn't better in any way, but it costs 20, 30, 50 times more. When it looks like, smells like, sounds like and quacks like a racket then it's a racket. And the dumb rules are simple enough, if he's doing it then you need to d it, just to stand still. Keeping up with the Joneskis and the Al-Jonas. What did people think was going to happen to the game when these bastards were allowed to through the door?

This is what turning a blind eye, being pragmatic about abuse and being complacent about robbery produces. The fans went along with all of it, in fact some of them call our own manager a cunt because he won't play the inflation game - even the the money has to come from somewhere (euphemism for the fans' pockets). It's all on the fans. Ticket prices, train prices, the price of a bag of chips, a drink down the pub. Who do you think ultimately foots the Puma bill? They ain't doing it for love of the club. Fans will pick up that tab in increased merchandising costs. Are Vodaphone chipping in? Increased phone bills. Barclays? Increased bank charges. It's all on the fans - or should I say consumers because that's a much more accurate term now.

This is the effect of unlimited money in the game. A ravaging from top to bottom. Cunts like Rooney who is mediocre compared to a Jimmy Greaves, £300K. Theo, haven't done a bloody thing in my career Walcott (as an example, he's forgiven now), I want £100K, I want to play here or there, I want. Used to be he'd clean the boots and like it and maybe, maybe the manager would throw him a bone from time to time to keep him engaged.

This is money. And to round it all off, that once prestigious now hateful club Chavski with their hateful, criminal, thieving motherfucker of a rat bastard Abramovich dumping the money he stole from millions of common people into an already shit soaked sport and hiring a fucking tosser like Mourinho and giving him a billion fucking quid and the cunt STILL parks a bus and delights in destroying the spectacle? Fuck me. They've taken everything. Can we not even have the original game that was there? Not even that?

That's money. That's what it does. That's why people may not be able to put a precise finger on it but they instinctively hate it anyway and that's why I'll never give an inch of credit to a bunch of cunts who have wapped their wad on the table and bought football so a photo of them getting sucked by Bobby Charlton could hang in their mansion above their Chippendale record player and Fabergé ashtray.

Cunts.

[Power n Glory]

To be honest i think you are casting pearls amongst swine even bothering to answer this guy, i am not convinced he wants a genuine discussion he has changed the parameters even of what we are discussing when it becomes abundantly clear that his own argument doesn't work.
Like Ozim (or whatever the fuck his name is) the long and short of it is, they are digging and digging in order to provide some justification for their inate reaction of disgust and anger to everything that comes from Wenger's mouth. It's perfectly fine that they feel that way and if they had actually had the clout to admit that nine years of frustration causes them to respond to him irrationally than i'd respect them a lot more for it.
In many respects my own antipathy towards Mourinho is irrational, but even if i didn't have a deep personal dislike for the man i'd still feel that there is a level of illegitimacy towards what he has won with Chelsea. To extend that to his time at Porto, Inter and even Real Madrid (where arguably his record was a very mixed bag) would be stretching things somewhat....all of these clubs to some extent or another are self-sustaining.

Herb - stop getting emotional and grow up. You're getting personal and tetchy and making rubbish up. This conversation doesn't concern Arsene Wenger. It started from Jose and Fergie and it's evolved into football finances. If you can't keep up without name calling then bow out. I haven't resorted to any of that in my post and now your just clutching at straws and it's getting nasty. The problem I have with most fans when it comes it this topic is the reluctance to admit money plays too much of a factor in football.

[Niall_Quinn]

Which is why I want Liverpool to win it. Not because they are angelic, but because they are a couple of yards closer to where the game used to be. Just a couple of yards mind, it's all that's on offer.

Truth be told, if the spuds won it I'd be crying but some of the tears would be for laughing.

[Niall_Quinn]

Herb - stop getting emotional and grow up. You're getting personal and tetchy and making rubbish up. This conversation doesn't concern Arsene Wenger. It started from Jose and Fergie and it's evolved into football finances. If you can't keep up without name calling then bow out. I haven't resorted to any of that in my post and now your just clutching at straws and it's getting nasty. The problem I have with most fans when it comes it this topic is the reluctance to admit money plays too much of a factor in football.

What's wrong with emotional? Damn, that's why we're in it. Along with idealism and even naivety - why not? If the whole world was rationally submissive we'd be right up shit street. A world of drones. It's the ones who get emotional and shout out what they are thinking without the fear of some terrified bloke telling them to shush who make life interesting. Otherwise we'd be cradle to grave without living at all.

[Niall_Quinn]

It's worrying times and I doubt FIFA anf UEFA will do anything about it.

Yeah they will, they'll up their fees.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Herb - stop getting emotional and grow up. You're getting personal and tetchy and making rubbish up. This conversation doesn't concern Arsene Wenger. It started from Jose and Fergie and it's evolved into football finances. If you can't keep up without name calling then bow out. I haven't resorted to any of that in my post and now your just clutching at straws and it's getting nasty. The problem I have with most fans when it comes it this topic is the reluctance to admit money plays too much of a factor in football.

I don't believe I was name calling, I am merely stating a fact that it is futile to engage in discussion with someone who when they cannot win an argument just changes it to another argument and pretends the original one didnt exist.
Of course there is a debate to be had over finances in football my point is is that it wasn't the debate we were having. And attempting to patronise me doesn't change that.
Im simply suggesting to NQ that there really is nothing to profit in engaging with someone who obfuscates as much as you appear to

[Power n Glory]

You have clearly changed the goalposts, because you can't answer my assertion that there is no equivalency between Fiszmans outside investment and that of Chelsea you shift the premise to should there be any outside investment full stop. Which for me is like if I tell you that there is no comparison between downloading music off the Internet and mass murder, and you responding but they are both crimes and what can we do to tackle crime in modern society. Possibly a salient point, but its totally shifting the emphasis.

I am glad that Liverpool will probably win the title and there is no equivalency towards what Chelsea and Man City have done, but if I were to do what you are doing and change the parameters of the argument I think it's fair to say that I believe it a bit glib that there is a perception of Liverpool winning the right way when they are losing money hand over fist.

That's a stretch. No, it's more like what's the difference between illegally downloading a song and illegally downloading a whole album. It's the same problem just multiplied and that's how I see it when talking about finances in football. Most teams are over reliant on the transfer window and finances to get one over the other team.

Say Man City and Chelsea were owned by lifelong genuine billionaire fans? Would it be ok if they pumped the same amount of money the current City owners pump into the club? I doubt it because we'd have the same problems. Outside investment is outside investment which is why I'm not going to distinguish the differences between Fiszmans character and the current owners of Chelsea and City. I don't even know how Danny acquired his wealth, ethical or not. I don't think the current authorities have the time or resources to make that sort of distinction either. Change the rules and they may have some success into getting some fairness.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What's wrong with emotional? Damn, that's why we're in it. Along with idealism and even naivety - why not? If the whole world was rationally submissive we'd be right up shit street. A world of drones. It's the ones who get emotional and shout out what they are thinking without the fear of some terrified bloke telling them to shush who make life interesting. Otherwise we'd be cradle to grave without living at all.

Well I wasn't getting emotional I'm more pointing out some facts, this individual resents my inferences that he has a pathological adversity towards Wenger yet was happy to assert all of his "inferences" as factually accurate.
He still can't respond to the point about equivalency so he takes the whole debate down a cul de sac and then gets exasperated when he's reminded of that.

[Power n Glory]

What's wrong with emotional? Damn, that's why we're in it. Along with idealism and even naivety - why not? If the whole world was rationally submissive we'd be right up shit street. A world of drones. It's the ones who get emotional and shout out what they are thinking without the fear of some terrified bloke telling them to shush who make life interesting. Otherwise we'd be cradle to grave without living at all.

:lol: True, but it takes the deabte somewhere else.

[Power n Glory]

How can you be pragmatic about the influence of money in the game and the lament the effect that has on the fans? Anyway, what fans? How many of the £3 ticket and pie brigade even go any more? So many priced out, myself included. It would cost me the best part of £100 to go to a home match and I'm only an hour and a half away by train. But if we want biog stadiums and mercenary players on £300k per week and agents wanting multi-million quid bungs and kits that cost £100 quid and American style razzmatazz and all the glitter that's now piled on top of what is still basically the same art of 22 bloke kicking a ball around, which you used to be able to see for a few quid, then the blame needs to be shared all around, doesn't it?

Shitty owners who are in it for the investment, Sky TV (the runner-up prize for the fans priced out), greedy bastard players who in the main aren't a patch on the the heroes of old who could really play the game and did it for a tenner a week which they spent down in the local drinking with the fans. This shit we have now isn't better in any way, but it costs 20, 30, 50 times more. When it looks like, smells like, sounds like and quacks like a racket then it's a racket. And the dumb rules are simple enough, if he's doing it then you need to d it, just to stand still. Keeping up with the Joneskis and the Al-Jonas. What did people think was going to happen to the game when these bastards were allowed to through the door?

This is what turning a blind eye, being pragmatic about abuse and being complacent about robbery produces. The fans went along with all of it, in fact some of them call our own manager a cunt because he won't play the inflation game - even the the money has to come from somewhere (euphemism for the fans' pockets). It's all on the fans. Ticket prices, train prices, the price of a bag of chips, a drink down the pub. Who do you think ultimately foots the Puma bill? They ain't doing it for love of the club. Fans will pick up that tab in increased merchandising costs. Are Vodaphone chipping in? Increased phone bills. Barclays? Increased bank charges. It's all on the fans - or should I say consumers because that's a much more accurate term now.

This is the effect of unlimited money in the game. A ravaging from top to bottom. Cunts like Rooney who is mediocre compared to a Jimmy Greaves, £300K. Theo, haven't done a bloody thing in my career Walcott (as an example, he's forgiven now), I want £100K, I want to play here or there, I want. Used to be he'd clean the boots and like it and maybe, maybe the manager would throw him a bone from time to time to keep him engaged.

This is money. And to round it all off, that once prestigious now hateful club Chavski with their hateful, criminal, thieving motherfucker of a rat bastard Abramovich dumping the money he stole from millions of common people into an already shit soaked sport and hiring a fucking tosser like Mourinho and giving him a billion fucking quid and the cunt STILL parks a bus and delights in destroying the spectacle? Fuck me. They've taken everything. Can we not even have the original game that was there? Not even that?

That's money. That's what it does. That's why people may not be able to put a precise finger on it but they instinctively hate it anyway and that's why I'll never give an inch of credit to a bunch of cunts who have wapped their wad on the table and bought football so a photo of them getting sucked by Bobby Charlton could hang in their mansion above their Chippendale record player and Fabergé ashtray.

Cunts.

Harsh! :lol:

It's crazy to think about the amount of money flushed around in football. It's only going to get worse and the fans will be priced out from going to games. But since we are considered as consumers, they're not worried about the fans who can't afford to go to games because they know they'll pick up that revenue from somewhere else. Sky bill, BT Sports, club shirts and the yearly addition of FIFA on the Playstation or Xbox.

[Power n Glory]

That's a stretch. No, it's more like what's the difference between illegally downloading a song and illegally downloading a whole album. It's the same problem just multiplied and that's how I see it when talking about finances in football. Most teams are over reliant on the transfer window and finances to get one over the other team.

Say Man City and Chelsea were owned by lifelong genuine billionaire fans? Would it be ok if they pumped the same amount of money the current City owners pump into the club? I doubt it because we'd have the same problems. Outside investment is outside investment which is why I'm not going to distinguish the differences between Fiszmans character and the current owners of Chelsea and City. I don't even know how Danny acquired his wealth, ethical or not. I don't think the current authorities have the time or resources to make that sort of distinction either. Change the rules and they may have some success into getting some fairness.

That brings us full circle to the original comparison between Jose and Fergie. I'm not moving goal posts. Back in the 90s, it may have taken Fergie one or two top stars and maybe the odd record signing to win the league. In this day and age it will probably 3 or 4 top players. Maybe more. They all spend money to either maintain their dominance or reclaim the title. Fergie bought Stam and Yorke to win the title after we did the first double. He went even further when we spent record fees on Veron, Forlan, Rude in 2001 and then Rio the following season. He spent something like £90m over 2 seasons. That was the threshold of spending to knock us off our perch back then. Nothing much has changed since then regarding the method. Where I thought Wenger was a genius was the fact that he'd box smart spend less than Fergie and come out on top. I never thougth for a second Fergie was a better tactician than Wenger. I always thought we played the better brand of football across the park. Lord knows what's happened now.

[fakeyank]

That plus the money spent by his predecessor that allowed Inter to take full advantage of the fall out of the calciopoli scandal.

I am not trying to ridicule his achievements, in all honesty Inter and Porto are examples of where he has performed better as a coach without silly money to spend. I just don't and won't ever buy the suggestion that he's the best manager in the world. He's a very good manager whose achievements stood out at a time when there weren't so many managers at his level.
Currently there are great coaches of the elk of Diego Simeone, Jurgen Klopp, Pep Guardiola, Carlo Ancelotti who for me are in and around the same level as him but no where near the level of arrogant self-regard. For me the great managers are the ones who build a dynasty at the one club so I'm sorry to say for me Mourinho will never be the same standard of old whiskey cheeks. I despised Whiskey cheeks but there was no doubt in my mind possibly the greatest manager of all time and no one will emulate his success at Old Trafford.

Whether he is the best manager in the world is up for debate but he certainly will be right among the top 3. This based on his achievements with clubs with money and clubs without a lot of money.
I completely agree that he is nowhere near SAF in regards to building a dynasty but he is fairly young and has time on his side to do that. For now, we can only rate him on his achievements at the clubs he has been at. Do I like him a human being? Absolutely not.. I think he'd feature in the top 3 hated football personalities for most fans (except Chelsea).

[Özim]

Might not be the case though. And if we do bring in a new manager in, say 2016, and the financial clout of the club has developed to the point where he can go out and compete for the very best players then Wenger's contribution will have been even greater than is perceived at present. I believe there are very good times ahead for our club.

This is what I don't get, why does Wenger get all the credit and yet you crucify the people who put themselves on the line, the board.

Wenger didn't put his money in, he didn't take the risk of a huge loan against his name, he didn't even take a pay cut, he basically got paid handsomely throughout, sure he might have suggested a bigger stadium (seems pretty obvious to me clubs need one) but he didn't put himself on the line, he took no risk and didn't suffer any hardship.

If you want to praise someone praise the board, he just did what he was paid 6-7 million for.

He takes no risk and yet he's the guy who gets all the credit, this idolising of Wenger is odd, you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who wouldn't be happy to have had his job earning what he was.

Yes he didn't spend big on transfers (you could argue our results suffered because of it), but this very much suits his philosophy of building a team from kids, bargains and unknowns and not unsettling the staus quo with star players.

[Niall_Quinn]

Crap post.

Arsenal Holdings PLC - they risk nothing. The bunch who went before invested nothing, bar the exception already mentioned, and cashed out with half a billion quid. Your use of the word "idolising" is pure shit. And then you do the Wenger robbing the club thing again. Hence - crap post.

[Özim]

Not a crap post at all, it's a fact, he risked nothing and got paid fully throughout....what exactly did he put on the line, please tell me I'm interested. Like I said all the credit for none of the risk.

They board owned the club, if you own a company and you take loan you're the one who is taking the risk, not the employees you pay, I find it strange it's all down to Wenger, sure the board benefited but it's risk and reward, big risk big reward that's how business works.

Wenger's situation is strange though, no risk, big reward, all the credit.

[Niall_Quinn]

Not a crap post at all, it's a fact, he risked nothing and got paid fully throughout....what exactly did he put on the line, please tell me I'm interested. Like I said all the credit for none of the risk.

They board owned the club, if you own a company and you take loan you're the one who is taking the risk, not the employees you pay, I find it strange it's all down to Wenger, sure the board benefited but it's risk and reward, big risk big reward that's how business works.

Wenger's situation is strange though, no risk, big reward, all the credit.

Nowhere was it said it's all down to Wenger - you made that bit up. And again, PLC, a fictional legal entity takes the risk and the taxpayer foots the bill if it fails. Wenger is an employee, he's not required to put up collateral or make an investment to do his job. Ferguson didn't, Maureen hasn't, no manager does so this is another manufactured fault with zero substance. Risk and reward only applies when you risk something. Like banks who risk nothing when they lend imaginary money, shareholders who don't pay for their shares risk nothing, of course they get rewards. This is the modern form of entrepreneurship, very much in line with the corporate ideal that sees profit privatised and cost socialised. Your conclusion is invalid because you had to invent the findings it's based on.

[Özim]

Nowhere was it said it's all down to Wenger - you made that bit up. And again, PLC, a fictional legal entity takes the risk and the taxpayer foots the bill if it fails. Wenger is an employee, he's not required to put up collateral or make an investment to do his job. Ferguson didn't, Maureen hasn't, no manager does so this is another manufactured fault with zero substance. Risk and reward only applies when you risk something. Like banks who risk nothing when they lend imaginary money, shareholders who don't pay for their shares risk nothing, of course they get rewards. This is the modern form of entrepreneurship, very much in line with the corporate ideal that sees profit privatised and cost socialised. Your conclusion is invalid because you had to invent the findings it's based on.

Then why are you so grateful to him, being grateful to a man who takes no risk, gets paid 7 million a year to do his job and has zero succcess is a bit odd don't you think.

Oh and regarding the business, not true the investors lose the money they put in if it goes down the pan, noone rescues it unless someone buys the club.

[Letters]

Cheer up, we might lose the Cup Final :hug:

[Power n Glory]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2261817/Arsenal-Manchester-United-financial-fair-play-plot-ruin-Premier-League--Martin-Samuel.html#ixzz2IEkv9gXv

I this isn't NQ's favorite writer or rag, but this is worth the read in light of the recent debate about finances and FFP.

It relates to what I said about protecting the status quo. The rules won't prevent takeovers, just the ability to invest. That doesn't help the smaller clubs because they don't generate a lot of sponorship money so would be stuck as feeder clubs for the elites forever. It's very dodgy. They need to rethink the rules.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2261817/Arsenal-Manchester-United-financial-fair-play-plot-ruin-Premier-League--Martin-Samuel.html#ixzz2IEkv9gXv

I this isn't NQ's favorite writer or rag, but this is worth the read in light of the recent debate about finances and FFP.

It relates to what I said about protecting the status quo. The rules won't prevent takeovers, just the ability to invest. That doesn't help the smaller clubs because they don't generate a lot of sponorship money so would be stuck as feeder clubs for the elites forever. It's very dodgy. They need to rethink the rules.

Nah, he's a cunt that bloke. Half the story Samuel. He's right on the point that the clubs who have managed their affairs within the confines of proper business practices are looking to lock themselves in at the top and exclude potential newcomers. And he's right they are rolling out a barely credible cover story. Shock, money men interested in money! But they also have a point, because what is seriously to be done about crooks buying up football and dumping their dirty money into it as if it's a giant laundry for washing the cash and their grim reputations? How does Samuel tackle this? He doesn't. In fact he barely mentions the crooks at chavski and in gypoland, instead he rolls out Walker as a front man and hides the nasty stuff behind him. Turns out Samuel is a bit of a devious shit himself. Of course he's right about UEFA, it would be hard not be right about them. But it's pretty incredible he manages to find such sympathy for the poor old fans who Arsenal are scalping, but doesn't manage to connect the dots that lead to one of the key reasons prices have been inflated in football. Financial dopers who don't care how much they dump into the game or how much they bung even mediocre payers. The odious Platini sealed the deal this week. The new rules are simple - do what you want and give Platini and his mates a brown envelope and all is well. Who could have ever guessed it would turn out that way? They're all in it together, all jostling for a cut. Samuel is the same. The more money sloshing around the game the greater the exposure and that means more material to be spun and ultimately more money for Samuel to write his half stories.

[Power n Glory]

The new rules wouldn't prevent crooked owners from buying a club. Also, it's fair to pin inflation all on the new money clubs. Real Madrid were breaking transfer records way before City and Chelsea, Utd were doing it as well. It's a problem now because the pace and threshold has been set by clubs outside of the establishment and that makes them uncomfortable. They want to protect the old regime.

Before Chelsea and City arrived, we were paying high prices on tickets as well. FFP won't stop that. Will continue on with the self sustaining model and we'll still have a crook on our board. I think that would have to be dealt with seperatly.

[Niall_Quinn]

The chavs have been here quite a while you know. And the gypos are only getting started. Expect to see the £1mill a week player on their books. Sounds ludicrous, just as the £100K player sounded ludicrous before it happened. Neither of these are real football clubs. The pay large sums of money with no hope of getting it back so they can secure a seat at the table with the real football clubs. The Spanish pair have had their snouts buried for years, at the expense of everyone else in Spanish football. No argument there. If I had billions I'd pick the most unglamorous team I could find - Breacon Beacon Fuckwits, or someone like that, give them a really cool name, like ARZ Bandits, and hire all the best players to play non-league. Just give them so much money they couldn't say no. That would show the extreme of what football can become. People could say, plucky little ARZ Bandits! Would they fuck, people like Samuel would be up in arms. Even if I changed my name to Jack Walker. Suppose I could bring Arry in to manage things, that way the media wouldn't be able to say anything bad about the club.

[Power n Glory]

That's nothing new. Having a team full of players that all cost over £1m was a think to bulk out way back in the 90s and Utd had no problem building such a team when their rivals couldn't. They've had their cash injection from wealthy investors, built there super team and taken advantage of sponsorship money, TV rights and CL money. They were happy to have most the TV rights carved up for the big clubs leaving little for everyone else. It's all dirty. That business with that horse, Utd's main shareholders, McManus and Magnier was dodgy. That's been swept under the carpet and went away quietly. Fergie and his son Darren....rumours of dodgy transfer deals, the BBC fallout...it's all very corrupt and another reason why i can't tolerate the applauds for Fergie. I thought that man was dodgy and the previous shareholders thought so too. It doesn't excuse what's going on now with the new money clubs, but it's an enquiry being led by crooks.

[LDG]

I can't believe this is still going!!

You're all fuckin nuts!

[Niall_Quinn]

That's nothing new. Having a team full of players that all cost over £1m was a think to bulk out way back in the 90s and Utd had no problem building such a team when their rivals couldn't. They've had their cash injection from wealthy investors, built there super team and taken advantage of sponsorship money, TV rights and CL money. They were happy to have most the TV rights carved up for the big clubs leaving little for everyone else. It's all dirty. That business with that horse, Utd's main shareholders, McManus and Magnier was dodgy. That's been swept under the carpet and went away quietly. Fergie and his son Darren....rumours of dodgy transfer deals, the BBC fallout...it's all very corrupt and another reason why i can't tolerate the applauds for Fergie. I thought that man was dodgy and the previous shareholders thought so too. It doesn't excuse what's going on now with the new money clubs, but it's an enquiry being led by crooks.

That's fair. Which is why at some point somebody somewhere has to intervene and put a stop to this. It'll have to be the fans because every bastard ever hired to protect the game has instead taken a teat and sucked. FIFA and UEFA it's a sick joke. But we should never accept that's just the way things are because that's an invitation for things to get worse.

[Niall_Quinn]

I can't believe this is still going!!

You're all fuckin nuts!

Passing the time until our cup triumph.

[GP]

Passing the time until our cup triumph.

This thread will never last for 4 years.

[Niall_Quinn]

This thread will never last for 4 years.

Oh yes it will....

[fakeyank]

I can't believe this is still going!!

You're all fuckin nuts!

:gp:

Let's all just agree that we all should thank Wenger for his services till now and hope that he leaves after winning the FA Cup. I think 90% of this board would agree with that... and then we can close this thread! :rolleyes:

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I have a feeling Chelsea will win this weekend, I think the Sociopathic one has been going out of his way to dampen expectations by talking about playing a weakened side. Rodgers will foolishly go all out attack and Chelsea will grab a 1-0 win and the media circle jerk will begin anew

Scary really how predictable that was

[Niall_Quinn]

Scary really how predictable that was

Except it will be 1-1

[LDG]

Except it will be 1-1

Or 2-0

[Niall_Quinn]

Or 2-0

Or that