Printable View
Jonathan Wilson with a bizarre article that contradicts itself at every turn.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...hs-tv-billions
He actually uses Leicester as a comparison without realising the comparison blows his argument to shreds. Then he tells us being very rich is less of an advantage when everyone is rich. Well we were never paupers, were we?
These tired old excuses need to be retired.
That article is pretty much spot on.
As for contradictions, it's interesting that the people who are saying the money thing with Chelsea and City is an 'excuse' are also saying that we should be finishing above Leicester because we have so much more money than them (which is right, we should, and that is also why the money thing isn't an excuse)
Why is that funny? Getting paid 8 million to win nothing and never being under any pressure from the board seems pretty comfy to me, who wouldn't want a job like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
True, except for the fact people aren't saying we should finish above Leicester because we have more money than them. We should finish above them because we've supposedly, got better players than them, oh, and a world class manager - LOL. Truth is we have a manager who can't build a competitive team. Same old problem then. 12 years an counting. How long must we sing this song?Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
Wenger's ultra conservatism, fucked up ideas of value, crazed favouritism, one dimensional tactics, inability to motivate, etc, etc, these are the reasons why (despite the presence of chavs and gypo cash) we've failed on several occasions over the last decade to put in a challenge right to the finish line. Just a couple more players here (when we had the cash), or the desire to do more than be a 4th place champion - that's what has held us back. The fact Leicester have come along and demonstrated this has stripped the emperor bare for all to see.
I hear Garde is avaliable......
We've got plenty of money, it's just we've chosen not to spend it (or should I say Wenger), that's where the problem is. The article once again deflects from the real problems, a manager who just won't do the necessary and time and time again wastes money on cheap options (spending on 4-5 lesser players in some cases rather than using that to sign world class players).Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
In addition, the clubs with money can only sign so many players, there's plenty for everyone, most of the time we sit there and wait like jackasses for "the market to move" because "we're in a waiting period" or "we only look for players better than we have", clubs who want to get better get their business done as early and quickly as possible, we just sit there.
We've got two billionaire's who own us and yet somehow unlike other clubs they don't seem to want to spend, seems to me they came to the club learnt how it works and cottoned on that not spending is the best way forward rather than going on a spree like the other billionaires.
In addition Leicester have a small squad and overall a weaker squad than us, so they shouldn't be competing for that reason, with our resources and our lack of success over the years we should also be very hungry to win, you get the feeling we're not 99% of the time when we walk on the pitch. Ah but wait let's not forget we're already winners, 4th place winners and that's just as good as the CL or League, so let's not be disappointed and pat ourselves on the back for our trophy cabinet full of imaginary 4th placed trophies.
`Frenchman won two of 20 Premier League matches in charge of bottom club ` heh, thats pretty dam terrible, but he didnt exactly have much to work with :tumbleweed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicks and chicks
Oh are you saying those trophies aint real.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Özim
Seriously, we are our own worst enemies or do it on purpose which is what I think is going on. Wenger prefers to buy average players or buys what he thinks ae potentially world class players. This gives him time to work with them before success gets to their heads or lack of it makes them know their place. You dont here Wilshere or Walcott complaining do you. He buys world class players only when the pressure is on and the coterie of average joes fail repeatedly. But never enough of the world class to make up for the dross. In many instances the better players will be watching the clunkers from the bench while Wenger weaves his magic with them.
If the manager is not hungry for titles and neither is the owner, then only the fans rarely can tip the balance.
In truth we have never been short of money only the will to spend it and the only person who kept on making the case that others spending hindered us was Wenger, which Leicester are about to prove conclusively, is not true.
I don't think the article tries to exonerate Wenger to be fair, i think it just broadly paints a picture that Arsenal in trying to cut the gap between the big clubs and itself through increased matchday revenue has found itself in a situation where that kind of revenue is now largely irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn
And regardless of what Wenger has or hasn't done off the field, that the project has failed for other factors that were unforeseeable
It's funny because I've explained to you over and over the pressure Wenger is under.Quote:
Originally Posted by Özim
Like any employee he is under pressure to deliver what his bosses expect.
It seems that the board expects top 4 football of him which he keeps delivering. And during the years where the finances were such that it was hard for us to compete with City and Chelsea maybe that was a fairly reasonable deliverable. IMO now we have the finances to compete he should be delivering more.
Of course he's under pressure, from himself and from the board. Do you think that by endlessly repeating the statement that he's under no pressure that makes it true?
He's kept his job because he's delivered what the board expect although that may not entirely tally with what the fans expect or hope for.
Had he taken us into mid-table (as many predicted he would) for any length of time he'd have been long gone.