You do remember another team in London having a bit of success with splashing the cash, right? Managed by a sharp con-man? Pragmatic but effective play? Anything coming back?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.
ahh, the old abrahmovich came in and knocked us off the two-team race we used to enjoy with Man U, eh? My point exactly.Originally Posted by Darth Vela
And didn't we almost slip out of the top four when the spuds suffered food poisoning? Where was Man City then?
‘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!
Nowhere, we were a bit shite that season is all.
I'm not entirely sure how Abramovich fucking up footballing economics relates to your point that Wenger was doing it before Citeh came along though, you're aware Chelsea spent lots of money BEFORE Citeh, right?
If your point was merely that Chelsea screwed up our plans for austerity whilst comfortably qualifying for the CL, then I agree 100% and apologise for any misinterpretation your somewhat ambiguous post implied.
Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to defend what personally I regard as an overly cautious/principled approach to the transfer market, combined paradoxically with an over generous approach to rewarding our project players - this was all part of the manager's failed youth project. What I am defending is the suggestion that selling the stadium project as the key to the club's ability to invest long term was a lie. I don't think it was.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.
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
All Chelseas and Man Citys money has done is elevate them to title/trophy chasing status. That is no reason for us to go in to decline. That is all down to Wenger and his stubborn ways.
There can be more than 2 teams challenging for trophies.
You really don't see how two teams pushing the prices of players and their wages up into the stratosphere affects a club with a limited budget due to a large-scale project incurring large amounts of debt? Wenger has been part of why we've failed but he's also part of why we've remained 'relatively' competitive.
Very true.
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
Fair play that's a good point. Wenger has pretty much driven the club forward through his own financial restrictions/expectations but I suppose that's pretty much what you are stating.
Shit enough to have been on the brink of not "comfortably" qualifying for a CL place.
Read my entire post again! And, whilst reading it consider how Abrahmovich and Man City screwed up football economics so much so even Birmingham could win a trophy!
Last edited by budesonide; 23-06-2011 at 11:25 AM.
‘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!
Well, my comments weren't really relating to the rest of the post, just the first part that mentioned that Wenger was doing his thang way before City came along, which he was and part of the reason that didn't work was due to Chelsea.
In terms of the rest, it's very misleading to point to individual incidents like the CC final and say 'that could have been prevented by xyz' when the fact is the reason top players are top players is due to their consistency, the top players going into their peak cost a lot of money and, I think you know where I'm going with this, we can't afford to fill our team with them. I think there should be a balance between experience and youth, attitude and ability, the balance was wrong and that is down to Wenger so essentially I agree with you on that point, there's just a few things around it I don't agree with.
Incidentally, I think we could afford 25m for a Torres (Benzema?) now but back then? No chance.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote