Printable View
Where have I made Wenger out to be a victim? Wenger is an EMPLOYEE. Of course he goes along with the wishes the owners. Can you tell me what normally happens to any employee who decides to do otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory
If Wenger had £500million in his pocket I'd punch him in the gob too.
Come on now. You can play that card all day about him being an employee but he has no integrity if that’s what’s going on. You said something about his top players being stolen from under his nose or something. I don’t agree. That makes him sound like a victim. He goes out of his way to keep the fans in line with this vision. He’s just as bad, maybe worse. He sells the dream and the con wouldn’t work without him.
My post earlier was not trying to defend the board - merely to try to point out that there is another way of looking at the situation.
I do feel that inevitably perhaps there is a tendency amongst Arsenal fans to look for a scapegoat on whom to blame the fact that we used to be one of 2 top dogs and now there are 3, and we're not one of them. Its not an experience likely to generate a feel good factor in any fan. So we lash out at manager; board; certain players - someone has to pay.
The reality is that the real reason why we have had so many barren years is the cold hard cash spunked into the game by the oligarch/arabs. Yes our failure to win an odd trophy might be down to another reason - but that's simply football.
What we are debating here is ambition, and as yet noone has been able to deal with the fact that an ambition to do as well as the club can - while adopting a cautious approach financially is still ambition. It might not be what you would do in the same circumstances, but who said that to be ambitious you have to follow a single path or achieve things within a set timescale?
Its accepted wisdom that there's all this money lying around - but does anyone now this for sure? Yes we can do simple arithmetic on transfer ins and outs, but how much of that cash is earmarked for wages - for contract renewals?
The board is supposed to be hoovering up this cash - but unless shareholders actually sell their shares, how is this the case? No dividends have been paid.
And AW's previous buying policy is cited as evidence that he does want to spend but isn't being allowed to. Sorry, but this doesn't add up to me - because it suggests a policy/philosophy that hasn't changed since 1997, when we know from the teams AW has put out and the style in which we have played that it has. Massively.
If AW can go from the Invincibles to Project Youth to the current blend of experience and promise why can't his philosophy re spending cash change also? In fact, I would suggest that during Project Youth it did massively - the principal issue being that once committed to developing his players he was never going to buy ready made player who could restrict that development. It may well be that, faced with a bloated game where nonsense fees are paid thanks to the Chavs and Citeh AW does not wish to be part of the rot.
And as for the board fucking AW over in the Summer. I'm not buying that. Nothing could have been done to prevent the Catalan erection from his Barca snatch. And with Nasri - even if Wenger was leant on to agree the sale - it was obvious to the world that keeping Nasri would have been an error of judgment. His head had been turned, he didn't want to play for us, and after most likely an indifferent season, he would have walked anyway for free. Personally, I think that keeping him would have been stupidity rather than lack of ambition. We often express dismay that there's noone to tell AW he's doing the wrong thing, but when the owner(by some accounts) does, then he's slated for lack of ambition.
Like I say, I'm no Arsenal Board sycophant, but the assumptions and jumping to conclusions that happen are often unjustified. Like someone else has said. Liverpool and Spurs have deeper pockets than we've had, but have their boards had the foresight to build new stadia? Have they had managers who have delivered sustained success - finacially or footbalistically? Would we prefer to have a board/owners who have saddled the board with debt (Manure), or disrupted a winnign formula by chopping and changing managers like a kid with OCD at the pick 'n' mix counter (Chavs)? What are the long term plans, ambitions of any of our competitors - and do the likes of Spurs and Liverpool even have any long term plans? Damn sure Twitchy hasn't - as he'll be off as soon as the England job comes up for grabs, as he has been from any other club he's managed.
IMO we need to step back and see that overall we ain't in bad shape. Manure fans can say all they like beware of Kroenke doing a Glazers, but perhaps, just perhaps we need to take the view that in maintaining what is seen as such an unambitious status quo we are avoiding a debt time-bomb, and that trying to live within our means is in fact a sensible and justifyable, rather than an unambitious aim.
A commendably sane and reasonable post :good:
Although...it has been said elsewhere that we maintain a single transfer/wage/renewal pot and that any transfer surplus goes back in the pot.
Allegedly.
From a commendably sane and resonable poster! :tiphat:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fist of Lehmann
But the Board have sold their shares and they have hoovered up the money - how else could Stan and Jabba own over 90% of the Club.
From what I am gathering from people against the board... Wenger is just an employee and losing out on all his top players, has no money and the board also enforces the terrible tactics he has displayed from the last few seasons. Fine, they are right! So why is AW still here? Why did he resign a deal to stay at Arsenal? His stock was sky high a couple of seasons back and wouldve easily got as high a pay job elsewhere...Quote:
Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory
Reality is, AW has this vision of winning with kids coming from the youth academy, similar to Barcelona. This project started after the invincibles were dismantled and Roman became a huge figure in transfers. At this very point, SAF decided that he is not going to take on Chelsea's spending power but rather get players that fit into his vision, played players in their best positions and spent a net of 12 million quid a season (very very reasonable). Does anybody on here think SAF wouldve stayed had Glazers tightened the purses season after season? He would have never tainted his legacy.. same goes for Arsene. I cant see Arsene staying with us if Kroenke or the board did not give him the funds he needs... once again, the question is... Why on earth is Arsene still with us? Never got an answer to this..
I’ll just quickly chime in as I’m bored of this tiresome subject. First of all, I never indicated a change of ownership would bring about a GUARANTEE success. That’s just you with your slant on the issue warping the point I was making. What I’m saying is a change of ownership is the best alternative out of the two which would bestow upon the club the best likelihood outcome or ODDS of Success A and B bearing in mind that the LANDSCAPE OF COMPETITION now is different and the dominant factor affecting that playing field is that of an issue of resources and the willpower to compete on that front.Quote:
Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory
Did you not pay attention to the recent AGM and Arsene’s honest admission (or slip) that fourth is what we’re hoping for? Why is that good enough for the board/employers? Why is it acceptable for a club of our stature? After all, isn’t this the whole point of what you were feverishly moaning about here in the past, about mediocrity and whatnot and claiming that it is Arsene’s fault? What’s changed? A goal post shift now that it’s clear that Arsene is not the main culprit but instead it’s the board/owner and the overwhelming evidence of their zeal for success C at the expense of success A?
Look, I’m tempted to go about via a long winded elaborative post and address the rest of the glaring weaknesses I see in your argument but suffice to say I’ll refrain from going down this route as it’s ultimately a worthless pursuit leading either of us anywhere except perhaps the likes of some hysterical exhibition like the one I’ve been fortunate enough to witness recently. It’s evident that neither of us can ever see eye to eye on the issue and it’s best to just agree to disagree and not waste our time further in this farcical little exercise. Like I said before, nothing’s gonna change.
Not sure about p diddy to the hw. But i think he has only ever had 1 gabollionth of a share. He owns less of the club than i do. He's just a cunt who is in the family line of to the hw's. Cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by GB.
He's also fat.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG
And a cunt.