Hopeful, obvious really.Originally Posted by Nasri Scoreng
Hopeful, obvious really.
I'm expecting my outlay on beer exceeds Arsenal's net spend on transfers.
That's not a bad thing.
I think that that asessment is a tad harsh. Firstly, it ignores the need to repay the stadium debt - something that the club is doing ahead of time. In April this year, the debt had been reduced to £147m from £350m.
Second - and this is the crux of the matter for AFC - the stadium project was intended to allow Arsenal to compete at the very top against the background of the EPL as it existed in the early 2000's. However, the unrestricted 'investment' that has since occurred at the likes of Chelsea and Citeh means that the market has made it impossible to compete at the top via traditional means. You either become a billionaire's plaything, or you live on the verge of bancruptcy - and the latter is something that only the very biggest clubs can do 'safely' because lenders have to have the security of the underlying asset base - in tems of fanbase as well as tangible assets.
It is undeniably the financially doped clubs that have had an adverse effect on us - by making it far more expensive for us to buy and keep players than if they had not inflated the market. So the club can't be wholly blamed for having to divert more of the stadium income into player's wages.
What we are talking about, essentially, is degrees of borrowing. And while I think we would all agree that our manager has been overly puritanical in his approach to the transer market, and over-indulgent as regards rewarding his 'project' players, I don't think you could go so far as to say that the aim of long term investment was a lie. It is an aim that has been taken over by events, and one that will only now bear fruit in the unlikely event of the FIFA fair play rules having any real effect - but only the most blinkered fans woiuld deny that long term stability remains a key aim of the club management.
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
Messi it is then
Which is ssentially my point, mate (I wasn't being facetious). Our purchases will almost certainly be 'project' purchases rather than 'oven ready' ones. Players from different leagues who may or may not adapt. Players whom the manager feels he can develop and wring value out of.
I know that no transfer is guaranteed - and we all know that most spectacular failures. But a Ya Ya Toure; a Ballack; a Suarez; a Silva are purchases that you would expect to hit the ground running. Our signings will be much more suck it and see.
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
Actually, I agree.
Fair enough
both previous 2 posts on this page by Nasri make a lot of sense
thanks for that
I don't think they'll be completely 'project players', they'll be guys like Gervinho who have done well at a slightly lower level and are starting to come to their peak rather than Jenkinsons who still need a fair bit of work and development to come into the first team regularly, I wouldn't rule out one or two oven ready players but we all know how much they tend to cost, even the slghtly shit ones.
We were still selling our top players and not replacing them with the same quality or experience way before man city came into the picture. That has been Wenger's deluded approach always -- this has now been shown up to be as you refer to it "an overly puritanical" approach. This is what is to blame -- external factors are irrelevant because as a club we are still big enough to influence our own fate.
A former board chairman has said wenger has to be made to feel comfortable to spend money FFS. I mean if spending over the top ocassionally to address serious deficiencies in the squad so we are competitive is too much for wenger then who is to blame?
Xabi Alonso was one vital potential signing we let slip away because his club's valuation was a bit over wenger's valuation. I read a couple of million. Now here we are looking to flog denilson whose replacement I am sure will be the unseasoned ramsey and wilshere!
The blame mostly lies at wenger's door steps, though the board are partly to blame -- rightly or wrongly they have ceded the matters on the pitch and and those that directly afftect what happens on the pitch entirely to AW's whims.
Do you genuinely feel that it was not entirely within the club's control to make sure what has happened the past few seasons did not happen? Are we not better than that? Torres initially went to liverpool for 25mil -- could we not have bought a top striker like that for that sum?
We could have, but wenger doesn't want to "bankrupt" the club.
‘Arsene was very cautious and David was very ambitious for the club,’ said former director Keith Edelman, managing director at the time. ‘He was very good at getting Arsene into a position where he was comfortable spending money.’
The board have said if wenger identifies a player he really wants and he needs the money it's there. Wenger doesn't think it's worth it!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote