Wenger Referendum: Yes Or No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

They won't sustain it. Anomalies can always happen and absolutely a good manager and a good squad can buck the odds every once in a while. But you won't see the second tier clubs at the top season after season. Same with Liverpool, they could have won it last year. But they could also end up outside the top 4 this year having lost a key player who wanted to go to a "bigger club". Hanging on to your players, attracting top talent, being able to afford the runaway inflation wages, attracting bigger sponsors, building the fan base, expanding the merchandising operations, getting a bigger share of the media pie, and so on. Money attracts money and is a decisive factor in achieving sustained "success". It's shitty it works that way but it does. Seems to me Southampton have a great set up and a more than competent manager but money is their glass ceiling. Next summer the big clubs will be back to take their pick again and it's back to the drawing board for them, albeit a very competent drawing board. With a more tactically astute manager we might have won the title last season, but we'd have been punching above our weight had we done so. Slowly we are adding to that weight and unfortunately it's all based on cash. Football is more business and finance than sport these days, the football is almost the by-product. It's what happens when something has mass appeal and the money men find an angle. We either play the game or we accept second tier status for the long term.

---

Don't agree NQ - anomalies are an easy excuse when trying to fight this argument but there is nothing to suggest Athletico won't be a top European team for the next few years. You would probably have said Dortmund were an anomaly a few years ago but they have stayed strong & with stadium revenue less than half of ours are fielding a weakened team that is able to shit all over us. Money is one thing but managers like Klopp & Simeone are modern managers able to get the best out of players that don't cost the earth & are tactically astute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WMUG

Spurs, mostly. They were very nearly good enough to do it with the move, let alone without.

Everton have also been fairly close, City might've done it when the effects of their doping started presenting themselves. There have been teams that have been snapping at our ankles, it's not like that's controversial. Nobody knows how big an effect the stadium move had, but it can't have hurt.

---

Spurs and Everton! Be serious! :lol:

As said in a previous post, they came close because we hamstrung ourselves with the stadium move. David Moyes, Harry, Jol, Ramos, AKB...do you think those guys are anywhere close to Wenger's level? I don't rate Wenger as the best tactician but there is no way those guys should be beating him over a season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Emirates Gallactico

Maybe not in the immediate years there after but you certainly would have seen it's impact around about now, especially with the emergence of the two oil giants who have basically sown up two spots between themselves.

No new stadium means no Sanchez & Ozil and lower wage bill with less established players right now. Also we certainly wouldn't be in the position we're in right now, where we have a massive opportunity and platform to push for major honours with a few minor tweaks in right now.

At the moment we're at the same level as Chelsea/Man City/Man Utd (it's only one year) as the top clubs in the league. Without the new stadium we're be in the tier just below right now with Spurs, Liverpool and Everton who as Steve French points out, only make the odd CL appearance and don't have the same consistency that we do.

The stadium move will be imperative to any future success at the club.

---

:gp: Future success.

If we had fell off in 2006, something must have gone seriously wrong at Arsenal.

We seem to be talking about two different things. I'm talking about pushing on to compete at the top level on a consistent basis, like your chavs and gypos. The stadium move is an essential ingredient for that to be even moderately realistic. As for the other argument, I doubt anyone disagrees we could do better than Wenger in terms of tactics, selection and the general approach to on-field activities. But that's not the only aspect to consider at Arsenal. Wenger has been involved in much more than that and you look around and wonder could any other manager have transformed the club in such a way as we have witnessed since his arrival? Whether it's right or wrong for Wenger to have had such a huge role is immaterial after the fact. For me his job is all but done now and he's leaving the club in excellent shape for the next guy. Some are saying our ambitions are limited, I think it's the opposite. We're up against industrial scale dopers and we're still turning a modest profit year on year while hanging on to their coattails. Now the commercial teams need to get to work (which they have been doing) and the board has to start considering Wenger's replacement, which is surely on the cards? They won't leave it until the day Wenger leaves to start hunting around. I bet that search is already in progress. We'll get what we want in the end, a top class manager with a much more limited role backed by a financial powerhouse of a club. If that's the plan then it suits me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDG

That's pretty difficult to say, even though I think it's true. Why on earth would Liverpool and Spurs be trying to do the same if there wasn't a huge need to do so?

What someone needs to do is substitute the income received since the stadium move, for an estimate of what we would have received from Highbury over the same period.

Then you would see a massive loss given current wages, and player purchases. I.e. We would have had shitter quality players, and be relying even more on Wenger's ability to buy cheap and get results. See Fabregas, Nasri, Adebayor etc....these were the cheapo guys who kept us there....now we're buying Ozils and Sanchez to (try and) compete....we wouldn't be able to do that if we were still at Highbury.

Of course, when the move was conceived as a way of putting us on a par with Utd...it wasn't anticipated that a load of criminals would come in and make it impossible to compete (on a monetary front) under your own steam. Luckily we "almost" can, but for on the pitch inadequacies....which is really why it's time for Wenger to go, as eloquently put by Gary a few posts back.

The MASSIVE difference, is going to be whether a Rogers or a Pochettino(sp) can do the same job Wenger did in keeping us relatively competitive....assuming they have the same financial constraints we did when building our gaff.

But it's different times now. Because those two seem to have backers who will front the money. So maybe they won't have to do it the hard way.

---

We had poorer quality players as result of moving to the Emirates. We weren’t replacing the Invincibles and opted for cheaper, younger alternatives in hope that they’d get better. I say cheaper alternatives, but that wasn’t true because we’d pay these guys really well. They earned first team money. The wages didn’t go down, they went up even though the quality went down. The stadium move has put us in a good position for this era but then again, it’s the new sponsorship money that’s seen a complete shift in our finances. Ozil and Sanchez wouldn’t have happened without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

We had poorer quality players as result of moving to the Emirates. We weren’t replacing the Invincibles and opted for cheaper, younger alternatives in hope that they’d get better. I say cheaper alternatives, but that wasn’t true because we’d pay these guys really well. They earned first team money. The wages didn’t go down, they went up even though the quality went down. The stadium move has put us in a good position for this era but then again, it’s the new sponsorship money that’s seen a complete shift in our finances. Ozil and Sanchez wouldn’t have happened without it.

---

Totally agree - sponsorship revenue is the reason we are able to spend big. The additional match day revenue comparing Highbury to Emirates is not what some people on here think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

We had poorer quality players as result of moving to the Emirates. We weren’t replacing the Invincibles and opted for cheaper, younger alternatives in hope that they’d get better. I say cheaper alternatives, but that wasn’t true because we’d pay these guys really well. They earned first team money. The wages didn’t go down, they went up even though the quality went down. The stadium move has put us in a good position for this era but then again, it’s the new sponsorship money that’s seen a complete shift in our finances. Ozil and Sanchez wouldn’t have happened without it.

---

It's all relative though. We've done what we can financially as the game has moved on. That has been enough to keep us in the top four. And without the stadium, the inflation in the market wouldn't allowed us to spend the top wages you state. The players that earned first team money in the end, were the ones who made the first team....they may not have been the required quality, but they must have been to keep us top four ;)

Ozil and Sanchez may well have happened outside of a doped market, with lower sponsorship revenue.

We may have gotten away with a couple more years at Highbury, but the point is this. We spend within our means, from our own profits, and still compete. Without the stadium, we wouldn't be able to, AND maintain competetive. Full stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dein-machine

Totally agree - sponsorship revenue is the reason we are able to spend big. The additional match day revenue comparing Highbury to Emirates is not what some people on here think it is.

---

And what sets your level of sponsorship??

Coming mid-table, or making the ECL? Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

We seem to be talking about two different things. I'm talking about pushing on to compete at the top level on a consistent basis, like your chavs and gypos. The stadium move is an essential ingredient for that to be even moderately realistic. As for the other argument, I doubt anyone disagrees we could do better than Wenger in terms of tactics, selection and the general approach to on-field activities. But that's not the only aspect to consider at Arsenal. Wenger has been involved in much more than that and you look around and wonder could any other manager have transformed the club in such a way as we have witnessed since his arrival? Whether it's right or wrong for Wenger to have had such a huge role is immaterial after the fact. For me his job is all but done now and he's leaving the club in excellent shape for the next guy. Some are saying our ambitions are limited, I think it's the opposite. We're up against industrial scale dopers and we're still turning a modest profit year on year while hanging on to their coattails. Now the commercial teams need to get to work (which they have been doing) and the board has to start considering Wenger's replacement, which is surely on the cards? They won't leave it until the day Wenger leaves to start hunting around. I bet that search is already in progress. We'll get what we want in the end, a top class manager with a much more limited role backed by a financial powerhouse of a club. If that's the plan then it suits me.

---

Competing financially with the Chavs & Gypos is not going to happen but to give ourselves a chance we have to address our squad in a similar way. Both of these teams have quality players in all positions with strong benches. This is NOT impossible for us to do.
We may not be able to have as many £50 mill players in the squad but we can make sure that when we buy, we buy quality that may cost more that Wenger is prepared to give. Chelsea for example buy Felipe from Athletico whilst already having Azperlaceuta. Would we not have been better to buy a Felipe type left back instead of Monreal for an additional £10 mill. If we are to compete, the answer has to be yes. Wenger doesn't see it this way & therefore all the money in the world will not allow us to bridge the gap.
Both Chelsea & Man City would not have Arteta or Flamini anywhere near their teams, nor would they have the likes of Podolski, Rosicky or Sonogo on the bench. They move their deadwood out as soon as they realise they have or need better, Negrado being an example from City whereas Wenger has too many squad players that would struggle to get a game for Stoke. If we are bringing on Monreal at CB, Flamini or Podolski in Midfield, Sonogo in attack, we are not replacing like for like. This has to change. It will cost decent money, but we have it & we are not talking about buying 5 Gareth Bale's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDG

And what sets your level of sponsorship??

Coming mid-table, or making the ECL? Go figure.

---

Who's been talking about mid table? - we've had C.L. football for 17 years but our sponsorship levels were shit compared to other mediocre European teams.
Sponsors want to be involved with successful & ambitious brands - success & ambition are not two words you would link to Wenger these days.