Was losing Dein the problem?

This has been discussed before, but I wonder whether the issue has more force now that most people seem to accept that Wenger has lost what once made him great.

I am trying to decide whether it is being revisionist to blame our current decline on David Dein's departure? At the time, the club's desire not to become an oligarch's plaything seemed to make sense. There seemed to be purpose in the club being run along sensible commercial lines, and it was reasonable to assume that once Highbury Square was finished we would not be short of funds.

But when we look at things now:

The club's failure to hold onto our best players; allowing contracts to run down and failing to shift our dross

Gazidis' utter ineffectiveness

Wenger's monomania

The failure of the Emirates to make any difference to our relative spending power

The arrogance of Hill Wood and co

The sad demise of Danny Fizman - a Gooner through and through

and...the oligarch's plaything, Chelsea FC now showing a profit!

Would much of this have been avoided if DD had stuck around? Was DD Peter Taylor to Wenger's Brian Clough?

Hard to tell, Dein didnt want us to build Ashburton grove he prefered Wembley (and we all know how that worked for us in the champions league) but in a nutshell yes I think he would have reconcidered Wembley given his love for Arsenal.

When Dein left, Wenger apparently asked him if he should hand in his resignation, that's how tight they were. Dein wasn't without his faults and was rightly pulled up on wanting to move to Wembley, but he identified long before anyone that Arsenal was going to need external investment to compete. From what I've read about Wenger and Dein, they obviously had a very strong working and personal relationship, most importantly I think Wenger listened to Dein, I doubt Wenger takes many 2nd opinions on board from people at the club anymore. Dein was also a very powerful guy and I think that always helped when it came to negotiations, it made life easy for Wenger and allowed him to focus on footballing matters.

We all agree the board are part of the problem, Dein was different to them and that's why he was kicked out. While it's impossible to say how different things could have been, it's not beyond the realms of all doubt to think there is a small correlation between our decline and his departure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

and...the oligarch's plaything, Chelsea FC now showing a profit!

---

Don't believe a word of it. That financial report didn't include their summer spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBK

This has been discussed before, but I wonder whether the issue has more force now that most people seem to accept that Wenger has lost what once made him great.

I am trying to decide whether it is being revisionist to blame our current decline on David Dein's departure? At the time, the club's desire not to become an oligarch's plaything seemed to make sense. There seemed to be purpose in the club being run along sensible commercial lines, and it was reasonable to assume that once Highbury Square was finished we would not be short of funds.

But when we look at things now:

The club's failure to hold onto our best players; allowing contracts to run down and failing to shift our dross

Gazidis' utter ineffectiveness

Wenger's monomania

The failure of the Emirates to make any difference to our relative spending power

The arrogance of Hill Wood and co

The sad demise of Danny Fizman - a Gooner through and through

and...the oligarch's plaything, Chelsea FC now showing a profit!

Would much of this have been avoided if DD had stuck around? Was DD Peter Taylor to Wenger's Brian Clough?

---

Its a hard one, i mean most people think Dein being here would have changed things. Maybe it would, maybe it would not. One thing i know if Dein never brought Stan to the club things would have been diffrent.

As much as he did for the club and the bond he had with Wumger, he was happy to sell out to the Russian quick. So there, i feel he was looking out for himself more then the club.

He wanted to become Chairman so desperately. Maybe that may not have been a bad thing and he may have given wumger that push he needed. Just think he is as bad as those in charge now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie the Gooner

As much as he did for the club and the bond he had with Wumger, he was happy to sell out to the Russian quick. So their i feel he was looking out for himself more then the club.

---

He only sold to Usmanov so he could chair Red & White holdings, he saw that as his route back into the club. It didn't work out because PHW and co flat out didn't want to work with him anymore, so it didn't make sense for Usmanov to keep him on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Overmars

He only sold to Usmanov so he could chair Red & White holdings, he saw that as his route back into the club. It didn't work out because PHW and co flat out didn't want to work with him anymore, so it didn't make sense for Usmanov to keep him on.

---

Probably still will be in a few years time ;)

no. he ended up being just as greedy and selfish as the current board are - it didn't take long for him to cash in.

in fact, it is because of dein that we now have both kroenke and usmanov sitting waiting to bleed us dry. yeah cheers for that mate. best interests of the club at heart no doubt.

god knows what kind of due diligence he undertook when talking with kroenke and assessing whether he was 'right' for the club or not.

admin is admin and the club should have been able to find someone good enough to deal with contracts, transfers etc since his departure. dein alone is not god like figure who operates far and above everyone else. the clubs lack of reorganisation has damaged us far more than any one director leaving us. directors leave companies all the time and do not suffer as we have.

he done some good things for us but in the end he made the most of his shares, just like every other greedy fucker.

Dunno. Let me think it through.

The schism between Dein and PHW/Fiszmann (hereafter PhiszWood) was down to the direction of the club. Although both parties agreed on the need to increase gates, they disagreed on how. The Phwisz felt we needed to own our own stadium, taking a tradionalist's view that Arsenal Football Club needed it's own place. Dein, being a fan first and foremost, felt we needed to win, and that building our own stadium would impact too heavily on funds for the team, hence the plan to rent Wembley.

When Dein approached Kroenke with a view to securing that investment, behind the backs of the board, it eventually led to his demise. More than likely Dein saw Kroenke as a means of eventually ousting PHW, the speed and brutality of his sacking suggests PHW saw this too.

The only scenario in which Dein stays is if PHW gets dethroned. By the time he was sacked in 2007, it would have already been too late for his Wembley rental plan, and we would have already have been well into our front-loaded but ultimately sapping commercial deals.

Materially we would have been in a similar position to now, except with a different chairman, and no Usmanov.

Where I think Dein would have differed is threefold.

1) He would have retained the relationship with the manager, I think his influence in this regard may be overstated, however sometimes even small things can have a large effect. He would at least be some kind of sounding board, if not a full-blown check and balance.
2) He was a schmoozer, he had a presence in UEFA, the FA, the G14 and his business nous in transfer negotiations was a major asset to the club.
3) He would have persued funding for the team far more aggressively than the current incumbent. The team, is after all, all Dein really cared about. It's here though, that his judgement has to be in question, his schmoozing may well have brought him into less savoury company. His association with Usmanov may have been born of desparation, but by bringing someone of such highly questionable morals into the club, he may ultimately have done more harm than good.

To sum up:
Old Guard, Old Money, Conservative, Risk Averse, Self-Sufficient.
VS
New Money, Risk Heavy, Winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimandi's Perm

Don't believe a word of it. That financial report didn't include their summer spending.

---

this, plus the fact they have spent 1 billion over ten years for a profit of 1.4 million. hardly amazing stuff.

though i read somwhere that they are in fact 800 million in debt, but abrovmich has written it off as equity or something. dont understand the economics of it, but its something along those lines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fist of Lehmann

Dunno. Let me think it through.

The schism between Dein and PHW/Fiszmann (hereafter PhiszWood) was down to the direction of the club. Although both parties agreed on the need to increase gates, they disagreed on how. The Phwisz felt we needed to own our own stadium, taking a tradionalist's view that Arsenal Football Club needed it's own place. Dein, being a fan first and foremost, felt we needed to win, and that building our own stadium would impact too heavily on funds for the team, hence the plan to rent Wembley.

When Dein approached Kroenke with a view to securing that investment, behind the backs of the board, it eventually led to his demise. More than likely Dein saw Kroenke as a means of eventually ousting PHW, the speed and brutality of his sacking suggests PHW saw this too.

The only scenario in which Dein stays is if PHW gets dethroned. By the time he was sacked in 2007, it would have already been too late for his Wembley rental plan, and we would have already have been well into our front-loaded but ultimately sapping commercial deals.

Materially we would have been in a similar position to now, except with a different chairman, and no Usmanov.

Where I think Dein would have differed is threefold.

1) He would have retained the relationship with the manager, I think his influence in this regard may be overstated, however sometimes even small things can have a large effect. He would at least be some kind of sounding board, if not a full-blown check and balance.
2) He was a schmoozer, he had a presence in UEFA, the FA, the G14 and his business nous in transfer negotiations was a major asset to the club.
3) He would have persued funding for the team far more aggressively than the current incumbent. The team, is after all, all Dein really cared about. It's here though, that his judgement has to be in question, his schmoozing may well have brought him into less savoury company. His association with Usmanov may have been born of desparation, but by bringing someone of such highly questionable morals into the club, he may ultimately have done more harm than good.

To sum up:
Old Guard, Old Money, Conservative, Risk Averse, Self-Sufficient.
VS
New Money, Risk Heavy, Winning.

---

Out of those I'd choose new money everytime.

Quote:

---

To sum up:
Old Guard, Old Money, Conservative, Risk Averse, Self-Sufficient.
VS
New Money, Risk Heavy, Winning.

---

More a case of:
Fucking slimy cockroach rat bastard bunch of ****s
vs
Fucking slimy cockroach rat bastard bunch of ****s

Hard to choose between them really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

Out of those I'd choose new money everytime.

---

That's because you are an economic fundamentalist posing as a champagne socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

More a case of:
Fucking slimy cockroach rat bastard bunch of ****s
vs
Fucking slimy cockroach rat bastard bunch of ****s

Hard to choose between them really.

---

Rat bastard :haha:

ain't heard that one in along time.

If PHW left maybe there would be a way back in for Dein. He introduced both Stan and Usmanov.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory

If PHW left maybe there would be a way back in for Dein. He introduced both Stan and Usmanov.

---

Maybe. Then he could introduce Putin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

That's because you are an economic fundamentalist posing as a champagne socialist.

---

Champagne socialist :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

Champagne socialist :haha:

---

That's you, that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fist of Lehmann

Dunno. Let me think it through.

The schism between Dein and PHW/Fiszmann (hereafter PhiszWood) was down to the direction of the club. Although both parties agreed on the need to increase gates, they disagreed on how. The Phwisz felt we needed to own our own stadium, taking a tradionalist's view that Arsenal Football Club needed it's own place. Dein, being a fan first and foremost, felt we needed to win, and that building our own stadium would impact too heavily on funds for the team, hence the plan to rent Wembley.

When Dein approached Kroenke with a view to securing that investment, behind the backs of the board, it eventually led to his demise. More than likely Dein saw Kroenke as a means of eventually ousting PHW, the speed and brutality of his sacking suggests PHW saw this too.

The only scenario in which Dein stays is if PHW gets dethroned. By the time he was sacked in 2007, it would have already been too late for his Wembley rental plan, and we would have already have been well into our front-loaded but ultimately sapping commercial deals.

Materially we would have been in a similar position to now, except with a different chairman, and no Usmanov.

Where I think Dein would have differed is threefold.

1) He would have retained the relationship with the manager, I think his influence in this regard may be overstated, however sometimes even small things can have a large effect. He would at least be some kind of sounding board, if not a full-blown check and balance.
2) He was a schmoozer, he had a presence in UEFA, the FA, the G14 and his business nous in transfer negotiations was a major asset to the club.
3) He would have persued funding for the team far more aggressively than the current incumbent. The team, is after all, all Dein really cared about. It's here though, that his judgement has to be in question, his schmoozing may well have brought him into less savoury company. His association with Usmanov may have been born of desparation, but by bringing someone of such highly questionable morals into the club, he may ultimately have done more harm than good.

To sum up:
Old Guard, Old Money, Conservative, Risk Averse, Self-Sufficient.
VS
New Money, Risk Heavy, Winning.

---

:gp:

I thought that it was evenly balanced. But my issue is that when it comes to replacing AW, I would trust DD. I would not trust anyone presently at the club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

That's you, that is.

---

Disgusting the way Joker is treated on here.

What I like about Dein is he's a genuine football fan, the board are basically just money men who don't really give a damn how we do on the pitch as long as the money rolls in, we need someone with a genuine interest in the sport at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsMe

What I like about Dein is he's a genuine football fan, the board are basically just money men who don't really give a damn how we do on the pitch as long as the money rolls in, we need someone with a genuine interest in the sport at least.

---

I tend to agree. Rather an Arsenal lover makes mistakes than a corporate noone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItsMe

What I like about Dein is he's a genuine football fan, the board are basically just money men who don't really give a damn how we do on the pitch as long as the money rolls in, we need someone with a genuine interest in the sport at least.

---

I agree, he cared about the club, the history, the prestige, the success...he was given the boot because he had a different vision from the vultures who are presently at the helm. Its a shame really and we can pull up some old threads of fans vilifying this guy. Arsenal havent been the same since he left and we miss his leadership and passion BIG TIME IMO.

He was moving away from the club before he was booted though, touting himself around as the next chairman of the FA wasn't he? He may have been a fan but Dein was primarily concerned about Dein. He demonstrated it by has actions after he left. Then again, is there such a thing as a decent owner? On the scale of abomination maybe Dein doesn't rank top. But I think that's the best you can say about him really.

If the fans are putting in the lion's share of the money, isn't it time we introduced a system where the owners are kicked out and the fans run the show? There must be at least a dozen fans with a brain cell between them who could run a club. What's the big deal anyway? You hire a few lawyers, a few accountants, tell Arshavin to go on a diet, demand Walcott shuts the fuck up and sell Ramsey. It's not that hard really. And the millions saved could be put to good use on the pitch.

What could they do if 60,000 Gooners turned up, booted the door down and told them to fuck off? Even the army couldn't do anything about that, let alone the police. And the tell the FA to like it or they'll be next.

Sorry, just drifting away there, thinking of happy things.

dein was a football fan. he breathed the sport.

i remember a story i read where dein persuaded wenger that you can't win the league without a world class keeper. the following week wenger met with the board and demanded we buy lehmann with the small budget we had. the rest is history.

my point is that dein pushed wenger to be successful. over the years those people left and control began growing in the hands of a bunch of tossers happy to let arsenal rot at a sub-standard level. even the death of fiszman fucked us over, he was the last real footballing man we had here. now he's gone there's no-one left. hill-wood is the one whispering in kroenke's ear and we know how much of a wanker he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiltord's Winner

dein was a football fan. he breathed the sport.

i remember a story i read where dein persuaded wenger that you can't win the league without a world class keeper. the following week wenger met with the board and demanded we buy lehmann with the small budget we had. the rest is history.

my point is that dein pushed wenger to be successful. over the years those people left and control began growing in the hands of a bunch of tossers happy to let arsenal rot at a sub-standard level. even the death of fiszman fucked us over, he was the last real footballing man we had here. now he's gone there's no-one left. hill-wood is the one whispering in kroenke's ear and we know how much of a wanker he is.

---

PHW strikes me as a thick and out of touch ****, a dinosaur. Do you really think Kroenke has any interest in what that **** thinks or says? Surely he'll be eased out the door soon? Set away to some cigar club.

i think they go hand in hand.

stan doesn't like to invest and hill-c*nt tells him the fans are being unfair, that we're a great club run the way we are, that we don't need too much investment and that 4th is a trophy. on top of that he tells stan that wenger is the best thing since sliced bread and that arsenal fans have become spoilt with 15 consecutive years of champions league football. we should be happy with what we have and that wenger is unsackable.

that's music to the ears of stan who wants to make as much money without putting too much in. that's why they're the best of friends, sharing cigars and sipping whiskey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

He was moving away from the club before he was booted though, touting himself around as the next chairman of the FA wasn't he? He may have been a fan but Dein was primarily concerned about Dein. He demonstrated it by has actions after he left. Then again, is there such a thing as a decent owner? On the scale of abomination maybe Dein doesn't rank top. But I think that's the best you can say about him really.

If the fans are putting in the lion's share of the money, isn't it time we introduced a system where the owners are kicked out and the fans run the show? There must be at least a dozen fans with a brain cell between them who could run a club. What's the big deal anyway? You hire a few lawyers, a few accountants, tell Arshavin to go on a diet, demand Walcott shuts the fuck up and sell Ramsey. It's not that hard really. And the millions saved could be put to good use on the pitch.

What could they do if 60,000 Gooners turned up, booted the door down and told them to fuck off? Even the army couldn't do anything about that, let alone the police. And the tell the FA to like it or they'll be next.

Sorry, just drifting away there, thinking of happy things.

---

:gp:

Lets be real Dein was no saint, he most probs would have made a bigger diffrence, but he had his faults. We were still giving poor wages even when he was here. Was he not the one who offered Cashley 60K a week and cashley got pissed off and left. No doubt Dein cared for the game, but just like the rest he was in it for himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

Out of those I'd choose new money everytime.

---

Except the new money was Kroenke, which is what we have now. The positives Dein seemed to bring were his influence on Wenger, nothing to do with his grand plans for the club. Most of us seem to agree that we should be doing better with the resources at our disposal and that is the main bone of contention, not our lack of funds per se. It seems Dein was wrong in that sense, that we didn't need massive external investment, just smarter business/management decisions, and his isolating himself fucked us over there. Although, as TT said, we should have been able to replace Dein's business nous better than we have.

Also, thinking about this idea that Dein steered Wenger in the right direction on transfer matters, surely if Dein genuinely has Arsenal at heart and had great influence on Wenger and Wenger in turn great respect for him, even after he left he could still have been a positive influence on Wenger? If Wenger thought so highly of his opinion have they not remained in some contact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cricketsi

Also, thinking about this idea that Dein steered Wenger in the right direction on transfer matters, surely if Dein genuinely has Arsenal at heart and had great influence on Wenger and Wenger in turn great respect for him, even after he left he could still have been a positive influence on Wenger? If Wenger thought so highly of his opinion have they not remained in some contact?

---

They're pretty much best friends, I'm sure they discuss goings on at the club but there's nothing Dein can do in the way of getting his influence across. The mechanics of the club are different now at the top.

Quote:

---

Ljungberg said: ‘One thing for me when I was there was David Dein, he moved between Arsene and the board to make sure there was money to buy new players and put pressure on the players that were there. I think there is a connection between when he disappeared and that we have not won a trophy.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz2CLDE9yRK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie the Gooner

:gp:

Lets be real Dein was no saint, he most probs would have made a bigger diffrence, but he had his faults. We were still giving poor wages even when he was here. Was he not the one who offered Cashley 60K a week and cashley got pissed off and left. No doubt Dein cared for the game, but just like the rest he was in it for himself.

---

Charlie/Niall, lets be honest here, we all have our own motives when it comes to business, money, our own welfare...there is nothing wrong with that. But unlike the bloodsuckers, this guy does care about the game and thats something our club misses greatly right now. There is nobody carrying on the Gunner tradition at the club, thats why I think it is important for the club to get guys like Bergkamp, Henry or whoever from that era, to come back in some capacity and bring back the passion of football to the club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Overmars

They're pretty much best friends, I'm sure they discuss goings on at the club but there's nothing Dein can do in the way of getting his influence across. The mechanics of the club are different now at the top.

---

So Wenger wants to make more signings/retain players but the board's the problem despite what they keep telling us? Or Dein can't influence Wenger into thinking we should be acting differently in the transfer market? Or Dein's feeding Arsene bad advice/doesn't see a problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cricketsi

So Wenger wants to make more signings/retain players but the board's the problem despite what they keep telling us? Or Dein can't influence Wenger into thinking we should be acting differently in the transfer market? Or Dein's feeding Arsene bad advice/doesn't see a problem?

---

Well that's it. To me there's no distinction anymore between board, CEO and manager.

They all sing from the same songsheet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Lahey

Charlie/Niall, lets be honest here, we all have our own motives when it comes to business, money, our own welfare...there is nothing wrong with that. But unlike the bloodsuckers, this guy does care about the game and thats something our club misses greatly right now. There is nobody carrying on the Gunner tradition at the club, thats why I think it is important for the club to get guys like Bergkamp, Henry or whoever from that era, to come back in some capacity and bring back the passion of football to the club.

---

Is there anyone carrying on the traditions at any club? What are the traditions and do they have a dollar value,, because that's the real question in modern football. Yes of course we'll all take what advantage we can but most impose their own limits. You have to live on the street with your neighbours, you might not give a fuck about them in most respects but you don't set fire to their house so you get a better view from your window. There are more and more creatures in the game now that don't have these limits. Dein starts to look good by comparison but I wonder what anyone could do in the modern game to restore some equality. For me the fans will have to wait until the swarm has consumed everything and football loses its financial appeal. Then the swarm moves on and football picks up the pieces. Luckily all you need is a ball to play. Could Bergkamp do anything? What would he do when you have Kroenke and his goons sitting there with their five year plan and exit strategy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Is there anyone carrying on the traditions at any club? What are the traditions and do they have a dollar value,, because that's the real question in modern football. Yes of course we'll all take what advantage we can but most impose their own limits. You have to live on the street with your neighbours, you might not give a fuck about them in most respects but you don't set fire to their house so you get a better view from your window. There are more and more creatures in the game now that don't have these limits. Dein starts to look good by comparison but I wonder what anyone could do in the modern game to restore some equality. For me the fans will have to wait until the swarm has consumed everything and football loses its financial appeal. Then the swarm moves on and football picks up the pieces. Luckily all you need is a ball to play. Could Bergkamp do anything? What would he do when you have Kroenke and his goons sitting there with their five year plan and exit strategy?

---

gahh those are tough questions to answer. all i can give you is that regardless of how the board functions, at least someone like Bergkamp or TH14 can inspire players and educate them about how lucky they are playing football for a living and how lucky they are to put on the Arsenal shirt. It goes along with our ridiculous over 30 policy, we have all these young cats, with lots of potential but there is nobody teaching these guys. Who do they answer to? Wenger? lol.

Theoretically I'd love to see Bergkamp here. But then again, I'd hate to see him walk out in front of the cameras and start congratulating the greedy bastards on the marvellous job they were doing. I like his legacy just the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Theoretically I'd love to see Bergkamp here. But then again, I'd hate to see him walk out in front of the cameras and start congratulating the greedy bastards on the marvellous job they were doing. I like his legacy just the way it is.

---

Agreed. No need to see him as anything other than my favourite Arsenal player.

Any mixture with these hybrid blood suckers and his legacy is forever tainted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshGooner

Agreed. No need to see him as anything other than my favourite Arsenal player.

Any mixture with these hybrid blood suckers and his legacy is forever tainted.

---

Which is what Wenger has allowed to happen to himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Theoretically I'd love to see Bergkamp here. But then again, I'd hate to see him walk out in front of the cameras and start congratulating the greedy bastards on the marvellous job they were doing. I like his legacy just the way it is.

---

Spot on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn

Is there anyone carrying on the traditions at any club? What are the traditions and do they have a dollar value,, because that's the real question in modern football. Yes of course we'll all take what advantage we can but most impose their own limits. You have to live on the street with your neighbours, you might not give a fuck about them in most respects but you don't set fire to their house so you get a better view from your window. There are more and more creatures in the game now that don't have these limits. Dein starts to look good by comparison but I wonder what anyone could do in the modern game to restore some equality. For me the fans will have to wait until the swarm has consumed everything and football loses its financial appeal. Then the swarm moves on and football picks up the pieces. Luckily all you need is a ball to play. Could Bergkamp do anything? What would he do when you have Kroenke and his goons sitting there with their five year plan and exit strategy?

---

Spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Lahey

Charlie/Niall, lets be honest here, we all have our own motives when it comes to business, money, our own welfare...there is nothing wrong with that. But unlike the bloodsuckers, this guy does care about the game and thats something our club misses greatly right now. There is nobody carrying on the Gunner tradition at the club, thats why I think it is important for the club to get guys like Bergkamp, Henry or whoever from that era, to come back in some capacity and bring back the passion of football to the club.

---

Im not questionning his motives to the game. Its true he loves the game. I just don't think he now he is as diffrent to the rest of them up there. It was dowm to him this model of not playing top wages started. with Ashley Cole. (not that its a bad thing). Even with here, we still have seen alot of talent out the club if they wanted bigger wages like Ashley. Lets not forget he was the one who brougt both Stan and Usmanov to the club look how thats worked out.

Your right when you say we need a Bergkamp type back at club. like chavs have Di Matteo. But like NQ said you don't want someone like that to come back to have his reputation tarnished.