Are the doubters wrong about Wenger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

What's wrong with emotional? Damn, that's why we're in it. Along with idealism and even naivety - why not? If the whole world was rationally submissive we'd be right up shit street. A world of drones. It's the ones who get emotional and shout out what they are thinking without the fear of some terrified bloke telling them to shush who make life interesting. Otherwise we'd be cradle to grave without living at all.

---

:lol: True, but it takes the deabte somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

How can you be pragmatic about the influence of money in the game and the lament the effect that has on the fans? Anyway, what fans? How many of the £3 ticket and pie brigade even go any more? So many priced out, myself included. It would cost me the best part of £100 to go to a home match and I'm only an hour and a half away by train. But if we want biog stadiums and mercenary players on £300k per week and agents wanting multi-million quid bungs and kits that cost £100 quid and American style razzmatazz and all the glitter that's now piled on top of what is still basically the same art of 22 bloke kicking a ball around, which you used to be able to see for a few quid, then the blame needs to be shared all around, doesn't it?

Shitty owners who are in it for the investment, Sky TV (the runner-up prize for the fans priced out), greedy bastard players who in the main aren't a patch on the the heroes of old who could really play the game and did it for a tenner a week which they spent down in the local drinking with the fans. This shit we have now isn't better in any way, but it costs 20, 30, 50 times more. When it looks like, smells like, sounds like and quacks like a racket then it's a racket. And the dumb rules are simple enough, if he's doing it then you need to d it, just to stand still. Keeping up with the Joneskis and the Al-Jonas. What did people think was going to happen to the game when these bastards were allowed to through the door?

This is what turning a blind eye, being pragmatic about abuse and being complacent about robbery produces. The fans went along with all of it, in fact some of them call our own manager a cunt because he won't play the inflation game - even the the money has to come from somewhere (euphemism for the fans' pockets). It's all on the fans. Ticket prices, train prices, the price of a bag of chips, a drink down the pub. Who do you think ultimately foots the Puma bill? They ain't doing it for love of the club. Fans will pick up that tab in increased merchandising costs. Are Vodaphone chipping in? Increased phone bills. Barclays? Increased bank charges. It's all on the fans - or should I say consumers because that's a much more accurate term now.

This is the effect of unlimited money in the game. A ravaging from top to bottom. Cunts like Rooney who is mediocre compared to a Jimmy Greaves, £300K. Theo, haven't done a bloody thing in my career Walcott (as an example, he's forgiven now), I want £100K, I want to play here or there, I want. Used to be he'd clean the boots and like it and maybe, maybe the manager would throw him a bone from time to time to keep him engaged.

This is money. And to round it all off, that once prestigious now hateful club Chavski with their hateful, criminal, thieving motherfucker of a rat bastard Abramovich dumping the money he stole from millions of common people into an already shit soaked sport and hiring a fucking tosser like Mourinho and giving him a billion fucking quid and the cunt STILL parks a bus and delights in destroying the spectacle? Fuck me. They've taken everything. Can we not even have the original game that was there? Not even that?

That's money. That's what it does. That's why people may not be able to put a precise finger on it but they instinctively hate it anyway and that's why I'll never give an inch of credit to a bunch of cunts who have wapped their wad on the table and bought football so a photo of them getting sucked by Bobby Charlton could hang in their mansion above their Chippendale record player and Fabergé ashtray.

Cunts.

---

Harsh! :lol:

It's crazy to think about the amount of money flushed around in football. It's only going to get worse and the fans will be priced out from going to games. But since we are considered as consumers, they're not worried about the fans who can't afford to go to games because they know they'll pick up that revenue from somewhere else. Sky bill, BT Sports, club shirts and the yearly addition of FIFA on the Playstation or Xbox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

That's a stretch. No, it's more like what's the difference between illegally downloading a song and illegally downloading a whole album. It's the same problem just multiplied and that's how I see it when talking about finances in football. Most teams are over reliant on the transfer window and finances to get one over the other team.

Say Man City and Chelsea were owned by lifelong genuine billionaire fans? Would it be ok if they pumped the same amount of money the current City owners pump into the club? I doubt it because we'd have the same problems. Outside investment is outside investment which is why I'm not going to distinguish the differences between Fiszmans character and the current owners of Chelsea and City. I don't even know how Danny acquired his wealth, ethical or not. I don't think the current authorities have the time or resources to make that sort of distinction either. Change the rules and they may have some success into getting some fairness.

---

That brings us full circle to the original comparison between Jose and Fergie. I'm not moving goal posts. Back in the 90s, it may have taken Fergie one or two top stars and maybe the odd record signing to win the league. In this day and age it will probably 3 or 4 top players. Maybe more. They all spend money to either maintain their dominance or reclaim the title. Fergie bought Stam and Yorke to win the title after we did the first double. He went even further when we spent record fees on Veron, Forlan, Rude in 2001 and then Rio the following season. He spent something like £90m over 2 seasons. That was the threshold of spending to knock us off our perch back then. Nothing much has changed since then regarding the method. Where I thought Wenger was a genius was the fact that he'd box smart spend less than Fergie and come out on top. I never thougth for a second Fergie was a better tactician than Wenger. I always thought we played the better brand of football across the park. Lord knows what's happened now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie

That plus the money spent by his predecessor that allowed Inter to take full advantage of the fall out of the calciopoli scandal.

I am not trying to ridicule his achievements, in all honesty Inter and Porto are examples of where he has performed better as a coach without silly money to spend. I just don't and won't ever buy the suggestion that he's the best manager in the world. He's a very good manager whose achievements stood out at a time when there weren't so many managers at his level.
Currently there are great coaches of the elk of Diego Simeone, Jurgen Klopp, Pep Guardiola, Carlo Ancelotti who for me are in and around the same level as him but no where near the level of arrogant self-regard. For me the great managers are the ones who build a dynasty at the one club so I'm sorry to say for me Mourinho will never be the same standard of old whiskey cheeks. I despised Whiskey cheeks but there was no doubt in my mind possibly the greatest manager of all time and no one will emulate his success at Old Trafford.

---

Whether he is the best manager in the world is up for debate but he certainly will be right among the top 3. This based on his achievements with clubs with money and clubs without a lot of money.
I completely agree that he is nowhere near SAF in regards to building a dynasty but he is fairly young and has time on his side to do that. For now, we can only rate him on his achievements at the clubs he has been at. Do I like him a human being? Absolutely not.. I think he'd feature in the top 3 hated football personalities for most fans (except Chelsea).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Might not be the case though. And if we do bring in a new manager in, say 2016, and the financial clout of the club has developed to the point where he can go out and compete for the very best players then Wenger's contribution will have been even greater than is perceived at present. I believe there are very good times ahead for our club.

---

This is what I don't get, why does Wenger get all the credit and yet you crucify the people who put themselves on the line, the board.

Wenger didn't put his money in, he didn't take the risk of a huge loan against his name, he didn't even take a pay cut, he basically got paid handsomely throughout, sure he might have suggested a bigger stadium (seems pretty obvious to me clubs need one) but he didn't put himself on the line, he took no risk and didn't suffer any hardship.

If you want to praise someone praise the board, he just did what he was paid 6-7 million for.

He takes no risk and yet he's the guy who gets all the credit, this idolising of Wenger is odd, you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who wouldn't be happy to have had his job earning what he was.

Yes he didn't spend big on transfers (you could argue our results suffered because of it), but this very much suits his philosophy of building a team from kids, bargains and unknowns and not unsettling the staus quo with star players.

Crap post.

Arsenal Holdings PLC - they risk nothing. The bunch who went before invested nothing, bar the exception already mentioned, and cashed out with half a billion quid. Your use of the word "idolising" is pure shit. And then you do the Wenger robbing the club thing again. Hence - crap post.

Not a crap post at all, it's a fact, he risked nothing and got paid fully throughout....what exactly did he put on the line, please tell me I'm interested. Like I said all the credit for none of the risk.

They board owned the club, if you own a company and you take loan you're the one who is taking the risk, not the employees you pay, I find it strange it's all down to Wenger, sure the board benefited but it's risk and reward, big risk big reward that's how business works.

Wenger's situation is strange though, no risk, big reward, all the credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Özim

Not a crap post at all, it's a fact, he risked nothing and got paid fully throughout....what exactly did he put on the line, please tell me I'm interested. Like I said all the credit for none of the risk.

They board owned the club, if you own a company and you take loan you're the one who is taking the risk, not the employees you pay, I find it strange it's all down to Wenger, sure the board benefited but it's risk and reward, big risk big reward that's how business works.

Wenger's situation is strange though, no risk, big reward, all the credit.

---

Nowhere was it said it's all down to Wenger - you made that bit up. And again, PLC, a fictional legal entity takes the risk and the taxpayer foots the bill if it fails. Wenger is an employee, he's not required to put up collateral or make an investment to do his job. Ferguson didn't, Maureen hasn't, no manager does so this is another manufactured fault with zero substance. Risk and reward only applies when you risk something. Like banks who risk nothing when they lend imaginary money, shareholders who don't pay for their shares risk nothing, of course they get rewards. This is the modern form of entrepreneurship, very much in line with the corporate ideal that sees profit privatised and cost socialised. Your conclusion is invalid because you had to invent the findings it's based on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Nowhere was it said it's all down to Wenger - you made that bit up. And again, PLC, a fictional legal entity takes the risk and the taxpayer foots the bill if it fails. Wenger is an employee, he's not required to put up collateral or make an investment to do his job. Ferguson didn't, Maureen hasn't, no manager does so this is another manufactured fault with zero substance. Risk and reward only applies when you risk something. Like banks who risk nothing when they lend imaginary money, shareholders who don't pay for their shares risk nothing, of course they get rewards. This is the modern form of entrepreneurship, very much in line with the corporate ideal that sees profit privatised and cost socialised. Your conclusion is invalid because you had to invent the findings it's based on.

---

Then why are you so grateful to him, being grateful to a man who takes no risk, gets paid 7 million a year to do his job and has zero succcess is a bit odd don't you think.

Oh and regarding the business, not true the investors lose the money they put in if it goes down the pan, noone rescues it unless someone buys the club.

Cheer up, we might lose the Cup Final :hug: