Silent Stan Speaks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDG

Knowing me, I'll change my mind next month too.

I'm a glory monther.

---

montherfucker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FakeYank

No idea.. though in career mode in fifa, I always win all the trophies in the first few seasons and then become a mid-table manager.. hmm!

---

FY :rose: for what he was not for what he's become, If it helps i think tghe way your treated on here is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

Month?

---

Life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie the Gooner

FY :rose: for what he was not for what he's become, If it helps i think tghe way your treated on here is...

---

Funny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Overmars

Life?

---

Condor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie the Gooner

FY :rose: for what he was not for what he's become, If it helps i think tghe way your treated on here is...

---

with double standards? :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimandi's Perm

Funny?

---

Thought i let you all fill in the blanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FakeYank

with double standards? :unsure:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL)

You and FakeYank have so much in common.

---

You know your face? That's you, that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Super Ghel

Well it’s not like the other side doesn’t have some valid points about Wenger though I do find their diligent witch hunt in trying to pinpoint Wenger as the root cause of our problems (in one inspired form or another), is fundamentally flawed and bears little semblance to reality. As others have said, Wenger is a part of the problem; but only some other part. Because at the very core of this pointless kerfuffle about who is dragging the club down, are two crucial issues; one of which, as NQ wisely pointed out, is the definition of success and the other is the significance of the employer and employee relationship and the implications of that association.

1) So what is success for the club? It means different things to different people, not just between fans and board/owner, but also amongst supporters ourselves. For the sake of simplicity, I’ll say it broadly falls into one of the following three categories below.

A. Success is winning the PL or CL trophy, more befitting a club of our stature. I believe this is what the majority want. So assuming that the board/controlling interest remains where they are, if we appoint a new manager, what is the likelihood of success as defined here, bearing in mind the dominant factor in the landscape of competition now is that of unlimited resources? I believe the grounded majority would say it’s slim or next to none. In fact many would argue that the probability that “this fragile house of cards” would come tumbling down is far greater than that of a sniff of success with a new manager in charge. But what if it was the other way around and we got a new board/owner who measures success as defined above? Do we stand a better chance now? The answer would be hell yes, and if Wenger doesn’t deliver, there’s no way he’ll be around for long too.

B. Success for another group means winning some silverware, be it just the measly FA or CC. Forget about winning the PL or CL they say, because there’s no way we can compete with that kind of unrestrained spending power, but we might stand a better chance of a minor trophy with a new manager. I can see some rational sense in this, but at the same time I also see some slight problems. First of all, these cup competitions are essentially luck of the draw, so if we’re pitted against these mega spenders PL contenders, if you believe a new manager can lead us to glory, then you must believe in some way, that despite the gap in squad quality, we can defy the odds and get the results we want on these one off occasions. So by the same token, shouldn’t you also accept that an inferior team can perform out of their skins against us on their day? But that’s not my gripe. The way I see it, we should be aiming higher and if we’re gagging for success B at the expense of A, with the added risk of a tumbling house of cards, is that a positive move forwards? We’re an elite club after all, going by what most people maintain.

C. Success for the club means long term stability and an approach to excellence which is consistent with the club’s pursuit of self sustainability. Sounds familiar? For people with this mindset, it signifies that fourth place (or even worse) is acceptable (with the caveat that the club grows in assets and revenue of course), until such a time that the landscape of competition tilts in our favour or we are better equipped to do so. We don’t need to second guess who these “fans” are.

So as you can see above, what really stands in our way of success (as defined from the viewpoint of paying supporters) is the governing body/controlling interest of the club. Only with a change of leadership/owner with a real burning desire and ambition to win footballistically, can we hope to have success A and/or B while C takes a backseat. With a change of manager, there’s little to no hope for A, a slight chance for B while there’s no guarantee that C will even fade away.

2) The other crucial issue which I mentioned above is the significance of the employer and employee relationship and the major implications of that association. The way I see it, regardless of how you try to spin around the theme that Wenger is the main problem (or its various inspired manifestations); if you choose to focus all that angst on the golden goose/mouthpiece/whatever instead of the party of consequence with the power to do something about the situation, then we have a big headache as far as logical validity or sensibilities are concerned. I’ll just summarise them here as I’m getting bored of this subject. Briefly, it leads to:

A. Cringeworthy double standards. How can it be acceptable (or ignored just because you think it’s in their nature) for employers to be Wengerites but it is not OK for the employee to be one?

B. Logical collapse. If what you’re saying is true and Wenger is leading the board by the nose and dragging the club down, then by not acting on it, surely the incompetent board is in breach of their duty of care to the club and this would automatically warrant them walking?

C. The mong paradox argument from the perspective of a neutral observer trying to approach and evaluate the situation objectively.

D. Hypocritical stance. If you think that …

Arghh fuck this shit! Nothing’s gonna change anyway. :wave:

---

There is a real problem with what you’re suggesting. If that were truly the case, then how did we make it down this road? Didn’t our fortunes change with the appointment of Arsene Wenger? If we had appointed someone like Redknapp or Hoddle instead of Wenger, do you think we’d have moved to the Emirates or dare to dream of competing with Europe’s elite clubs? We’ve had the same Board member for years…so what changed? Do you think they demanded the double when Wenger first arrived or just supported his vision for the club and gave him space to work?

What about with George Graham? Did they demand the double from him? Wasn’t it the same Board members? We hadn’t won anything in ages before Graham arrived. So what do you think happened? It wouldn’t take a change in Board members in turn out fortunes around. That’s never been the case in sports and it’s a recent trend we’re seeing because Billionaires are getting involved and ‘throwing money at the wall’ as Stan would say. A change in ownership is very unlikely and most members on here are against the Chelsea/City model. In fact, nobody really cared about our owners until we started losing but that’s a separate issue.

It’s really flawed to believe nothing will change unless something at the top level changes. Say we win the title this year or we didn’t slip up last year or the year before that and won back to back titles? Who gets the credit for that? Did aspirations at Board level suddenly change? Were new targets set? I highly doubt it. I don’t think we have a Board with low aspirations. They’re just looking focussing on the long term strategy. Trophies will come as long as we have stability and keep growing. I think that’s a similar mindset they had when appointing Graham and Wenger.

Also, a change in ownership doesn’t guarantee success. With Chelsea, they had to appoint Mourinho to win back to back titles. When he left, Avram Grant and Scolari couldn’t win anything despite the high targets set. It took another top manager to come in to see them win the title again. It’s a similar story for City with Hughes and Mancini. You have a point about the hiring and firing part. These owners have a burning desire to win the league and they’re spending big to get it, but it’s worth remembering that they are the exemption. You won’t find many owners like them in football or any other sport for that matter. In most sports, it’s still down to the skilled manager that knows how to motivate a team and get the best out of them. On the flipside, regarding ownership, you have nightmare stories like what we’ve seen at Liverpool. They had the money to spend but Rafa didn’t have a clue or skills to guide that team. Even with bad owners, a manager can change fortunes around. Look at Chris Hutton and Alan Pardrew. Mike Ashley has been terrible and morale was low but a new manager can turn things around.

I understand about the hiring and firing part. The current regime are happy with Wenger so nothing will change for the time being. Staff wise, at least. But again, if by some miracle, we go on a run and win the title or Cup….who gets the credit? Stan won’t cross anybody’s mind if that were to happen. We can only hope Wenger comes to his senses and whips this team into shape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

There is a real problem with what you’re suggesting. If that were truly the case, then how did we make it down this road? Didn’t our fortunes change with the appointment of Arsene Wenger? If we had appointed someone like Redknapp or Hoddle instead of Wenger, do you think we’d have moved to the Emirates or dare to dream of competing with Europe’s elite clubs? We’ve had the same Board member for years…so what changed? Do you think they demanded the double when Wenger first arrived or just supported his vision for the club and gave him space to work?

What about with George Graham? Did they demand the double from him? Wasn’t it the same Board members? We hadn’t won anything in ages before Graham arrived. So what do you think happened? It wouldn’t take a change in Board members in turn out fortunes around. That’s never been the case in sports and it’s a recent trend we’re seeing because Billionaires are getting involved and ‘throwing money at the wall’ as Stan would say. A change in ownership is very unlikely and most members on here are against the Chelsea/City model. In fact, nobody really cared about our owners until we started losing but that’s a separate issue.

It’s really flawed to believe nothing will change unless something at the top level changes. Say we win the title this year or we didn’t slip up last year or the year before that and won back to back titles? Who gets the credit for that? Did aspirations at Board level suddenly change? Were new targets set? I highly doubt it. I don’t think we have a Board with low aspirations. They’re just looking focussing on the long term strategy. Trophies will come as long as we have stability and keep growing. I think that’s a similar mindset they had when appointing Graham and Wenger.

Also, a change in ownership doesn’t guarantee success. With Chelsea, they had to appoint Mourinho to win back to back titles. When he left, Avram Grant and Scolari couldn’t win anything despite the high targets set. It took another top manager to come in to see them win the title again. It’s a similar story for City with Hughes and Mancini. You have a point about the hiring and firing part. These owners have a burning desire to win the league and they’re spending big to get it, but it’s worth remembering that they are the exemption. You won’t find many owners like them in football or any other sport for that matter. In most sports, it’s still down to the skilled manager that knows how to motivate a team and get the best out of them. On the flipside, regarding ownership, you have nightmare stories like what we’ve seen at Liverpool. They had the money to spend but Rafa didn’t have a clue or skills to guide that team. Even with bad owners, a manager can change fortunes around. Look at Chris Hutton and Alan Pardrew. Mike Ashley has been terrible and morale was low but a new manager can turn things around.

I understand about the hiring and firing part. The current regime are happy with Wenger so nothing will change for the time being. Staff wise, at least. But again, if by some miracle, we go on a run and win the title or Cup….who gets the credit? Stan won’t cross anybody’s mind if that were to happen. We can only hope Wenger comes to his senses and whips this team into shape.

---

Its a very valid point to ask whether the board's ambition has changed or not. We percieve it as having changed because we are not trying to compete spending-wise with Citeh and Chelsea, but the reality is that we're probably not looking at a change of ambition so much as a change of circumstance. Can you be ambitious while accepting that you can't compete financially? I guess you can - because what is ambition? People regard it as wanting to be the best - but you don't have to be able to achieve the impossible to be ambitious, so ambition is more accurately wanting to be the best you can be.

The reason why people are accusing the board of a lack of ambition is firstly its refusal to spend the sums at its disposal, and secondly its wish to back Kroenke over Usmanov. The first issue is a conundrum, because we simply don't know whether it is the manager rather than anything else leading to the club's apparent refusal to spend. But for me, the fact that Wenger has traditionally taken a long time negotiating to secure his transfers, and been willing to lose out rather than pay more than his valuation suggests that this it at least partly the case. Another factor that is rarely mentioned is that once bought, players need to be paid, and i imagine that at least part of any transfer profits are earmarked for players' wages under improved contracts.

And the real issue is whether you can be termed as ambitious if your principal aim is the stability/well-being of the club rather than what might be termed 'short term' gain? Is an athlete lacking in ambition if he trains at 90% because that way the chances of being injured and missing the olympics altogether are lowered by 70%? I would genuinely like to know what people's answer is to this question. I know what mine is.

In fact that question also encompasses the Wenger situation - because its a question of percentages. A golfer might hit a short ball from the rough onto the fairway rather than trying to smack it through the trees onto the green. Because although the potential rewards of the latter option are higher, the likelihood of success is vastly lower. Sticking with Wenger is the equivalent of taking the safe shot - does that mean that the golfer has any less of a desire to win? No - he simply sees playing the percentages as the route most likely to achieve this.

I have been in two minds about the board, I really have. But the fact that AW has bounced back to a degree from his nightmare Summer - the fact that we can see the potential of some of his signings now, and see some spirit back in the team to me vindicates their decision to stick by him following our nightmarish post March half year. We are not, realsitically, going to compete with the Manc teams or the Chavs while keeping to our self-sustainable route, so I see no real disgrace in aiming for the top but realising that 3/4 is most likely the best we'll achieve, and I can at least see the reasoning behind putting the club's stability before a headlong attempt to keep up with the league's moneybags.