Gooners have been spoilt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Berg Kamping

Noone is trying to deny that not winning anything, and enduring groundhog day in terms of our best players leaving hurts - but I maintain that there is/was little, if anything that the club could have done to prevent Cesc; Na$ri; RVP and Song walking out of the door. We are not as rich or successful as the competition. Its a fact and we have to deal with it. Blaming the club for not being as rich/successful as others is trite.

---

In the case of Nasri, RVP and Song it should have been handled and more importantly pre planned so we did not fall into those situations. The club has to accept criticism for that, particularly for RVP and Song - when it becomes clear that a player who has two years left on their contract is delaying then moves have to be made to ship them on. Not only does offer more security for the club but of course it ensures that other players, clubs and agents get the message that we are not there to be fucked around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry Tuffnutz

In the case of Nasri, RVP and Song it should have been handled and more importantly pre planned so we did not fall into those situations. The club has to accept criticism for that, particularly for RVP and Song - when it becomes clear that a player who has two years left on their contract is delaying then moves have to be made to ship them on. Not only does offer more security for the club but of course it ensures that other players, clubs and agents get the message that we are not there to be fucked around.

---

I agree with you re Nasri and Fabregas - although IMO the blame has to be laid at Wenger's door. He clearly believed he could keep both players, ignoring the smoke, and miscalculated.

With RVP and Song, I disagree. Last season was RVP's standout season. Before that there were serious question marks over whether he could keep fir for half a season. Would it have made sense to offer him a big contract beyond 30 with his injury record? Very very questionable, and in my view just as much of a risk as offering stupidly good contracts to unproven players - which the manager is now quite rightly being criticised for. It is quite clear that AFC were not prepared in Summer 2011 to offer £130+ for RVP and in my view, that decision was justified.

And in any event, would it really have made a difference? Song was contracted to 2014, but by all accounts agitated away. Again, I can't really see how the club were at fault. When he showed some signes of improvement, the player was happy to sign up to an improved 5 year contract in 2009. He has his best season and wants out, despite being offered better terms.

As for shipping them on - would you have preferred to do without RVP's last season? Song's last season? - For us to have sold both fopr peanuts and arguably not playing CL? Bottom line is that players leave us because we are not able to offer the terms they are given elsewhere, and/or are not as successful as clubs elsewhere. Not really sure what the club is supposed to do when players almost automatically want out once they have been seasoned at our club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice Berg Kamping

I agree with you re Nasri and Fabregas - although IMO the blame has to be laid at Wenger's door. He clearly believed he could keep both players, ignoring the smoke, and miscalculated.

With RVP and Song, I disagree. Last season was RVP's standout season. Before that there were serious question marks over whether he could keep fir for half a season. Would it have made sense to offer him a big contract beyond 30 with his injury record? Very very questionable, and in my view just as much of a risk as offering stupidly good contracts to unproven players - which the manager is now quite rightly being criticised for. It is quite clear that AFC were not prepared in Summer 2011 to offer £130+ for RVP and in my view, that decision was justified.

And in any event, would it really have made a difference? Song was contracted to 2014, but by all accounts agitated away. Again, I can't really see how the club were at fault. When he showed some signes of improvement, the player was happy to sign up to an improved 5 year contract in 2009. He has his best season and wants out, despite being offered better terms.

As for shipping them on - would you have preferred to do without RVP's last season? Song's last season? - For us to have sold both fopr peanuts and arguably not playing CL? Bottom line is that players leave us because we are not able to offer the terms they are given elsewhere, and/or are not as successful as clubs elsewhere. Not really sure what the club is supposed to do when players almost automatically want out once they have been seasoned at our club.

---

if it did not make sense to offer them contracts then surely putting them out onto the market would've been the alternative solution. i mean sure, with hindsight we can wonder what we would have done without those 30 goals last season but the dynamics of the situation within the team and club would've been completely different if he had been shopped then.

This constant cloud hanging over the club every season, selling on key players or being forced into tight corners in the last year of their contracts, media hype everywhere, affecting potential new signings and those currently at the club only adds to the negative feeling surrounding the club for some time now.

The apparent 'issue' with walcott at the moment is again, very similar. now a few people are applauding the club for not going above a certain limit but you have to wonder why. we have been happy to pay park god knows how much for two games, so what is the difference in giving theo the money? we cannot talk about principles when too many young players have been overpaid for so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry Tuffnutz

if it did not make sense to offer them contracts then surely putting them out onto the market would've been the alternative solution. i mean sure, with hindsight we can wonder what we would have done without those 30 goals last season but the dynamics of the situation within the team and club would've been completely different if he had been shopped then.

This constant cloud hanging over the club every season, selling on key players or being forced into tight corners in the last year of their contracts, media hype everywhere, affecting potential new signings and those currently at the club only adds to the negative feeling surrounding the club for some time now.

The apparent 'issue' with walcott at the moment is again, very similar. now a few people are applauding the club for not going above a certain limit but you have to wonder why. we have been happy to pay park god knows how much for two games, so what is the difference in giving theo the money? we cannot talk about principles when too many young players have been overpaid for so long.

---

Top point, tbf.

And another question that needs to be asked of the club.

But no fucker ever seems to ask them. Even the AST don't want to rock the boat. Madness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry Tuffnutz

if it did not make sense to offer them contracts then surely putting them out onto the market would've been the alternative solution. i mean sure, with hindsight we can wonder what we would have done without those 30 goals last season but the dynamics of the situation within the team and club would've been completely different if he had been shopped then.

This constant cloud hanging over the club every season, selling on key players or being forced into tight corners in the last year of their contracts, media hype everywhere, affecting potential new signings and those currently at the club only adds to the negative feeling surrounding the club for some time now.

The apparent 'issue' with walcott at the moment is again, very similar. now a few people are applauding the club for not going above a certain limit but you have to wonder why. we have been happy to pay park god knows how much for two games, so what is the difference in giving theo the money? we cannot talk about principles when too many young players have been overpaid for so long.

---

:gp:

@ Ice Berg, you say the petro dollars have made things predictable and boring but last season was one of the most unpredictable and exciting Premier League seasons in recent years, especially near the end. IMO "petro dollars" has actually stimulated and revitalised competition. Without petro dollars, there is no way for a team outside the "top 4" to break into the oligopoly. With sponsorship, TV deals, Champions League revenue there was already enormous inequality between the "haves" and the "have nots". At least through these billionaire owners, there is an opportunity for other clubs to break the status quo, which should at least give the established clubs an incentive to break out of their comfort zone (although that doesn't seem to be happening with our owners).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

@ Ice Berg, you say the petro dollars have made things predictable and boring but last season was one of the most unpredictable and exciting Premier League seasons in recent years, especially near the end. IMO "petro dollars" has actually stimulated and revitalised competition. Without petro dollars, there is no way for a team outside the "top 4" to break into the oligopoly. With sponsorship, TV deals, Champions League revenue there was already enormous inequality between the "haves" and the "have nots". At least through these billionaire owners, there is an opportunity for other clubs to break the status quo, which should at least give the established clubs an incentive to break out of their comfort zone (although that doesn't seem to be happening with our owners).

---

So what your saying is without the money City would never have won the league. It might have made the league exciting for city and utd fans but others not so much.

Your right with out money clubs like Everton/Villa etc will never break into that top 4 and thats the problem not every club has a fancy owner like city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

@ Ice Berg, you say the petro dollars have made things predictable and boring but last season was one of the most unpredictable and exciting Premier League seasons in recent years, especially near the end. IMO "petro dollars" has actually stimulated and revitalised competition. Without petro dollars, there is no way for a team outside the "top 4" to break into the oligopoly. With sponsorship, TV deals, Champions League revenue there was already enormous inequality between the "haves" and the "have nots". At least through these billionaire owners, there is an opportunity for other clubs to break the status quo, which should at least give the established clubs an incentive to break out of their comfort zone (although that doesn't seem to be happening with our owners).

---

This is like saying the effects of cancer can be mitigated by giving everyone cancer. It's a more level playing field if everyone is fucked, right? You don't solve a problem by inflating it. City and Chelsea have been horribly damaging to the game. They have destroyed the already diminishing bonds between the clubs and the fans and now you can see what we have. A closed shop where billionaire owners horsetrade with millionaire players with the focus being money rather than football. How anyone can view that as favourable is astounding. And it can only get worse because there may well be more teams at the top now but the gap between themselves and the rest is wider than it has ever been and now looks impossible to close unless more and more teams start employing the Chelsea model. Stupidly rich owner, dump tons of cash in, buy the trophies, suck the fans dry and a spending race to the finish line.

What should have happened is fairer deals with TV rights, fairer deals with European competitions. Extreme penalties for clubs who strayed outside their means. And this all goes without talking about the nature of those "petro" dollars and how many human beings had to die or suffer extreme poverty of disenfranchisement so fat fucking Frank Lampard could literally rob the food out of their mouths to stick petrol in his wide boy Ferrari. The price of everything, the value of nothing. Plus all the other average ****s who would have never made it if football was run on a merit system.

But I know - that's just the way the world works and as sentient beings and the most advanced species ever to walk the earth there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. It's "normal"

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimandi's Perm

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

---

Neither is an ignorant and complacent electorate. What is the definition of an "expert" today? Somebody who stands to gain at your expense if he can convince you to fuck yourself. Anyway, it was a lake, not a pond.