Middle Class opposition to "Conspicious Consumption"

[Xhaka Can’t]

You talked about how clubs can use unlimited amounts not being a good thing, which I agree. Ok you didn't say specifically we couldn't compete but it's what a lot of people on here seem to think.

Not a view I subscribe to however, put a decent squad together of players who want to win and mix it with some top quality talent and you've got a good chance providing, the tactics and dynamics are right.

Under the current setup, that is very unlikely to happen. I don't have confidence in the Manager to take those steps, nor do I have much confidence that the Board would pick a successor that would want to take such a fundamental change in approach. Very often the question is raised here as to who could replace Wenger. The answer is, that there are a good few Managers, but I think the question that should be considered is who do you think this Board would consider as a successor to Wenger.

I fear they could be looking for someone to replicate the approach of Wenger and unfortunately I don't think there are any Managers of comparable quality that would be willing to work in such a way.

[Letters]

Are you saying you didnt' enjoy the late nineties and early noughties when we were one of the two teams though?

Of course I enjoyed the style of football (finally shaking off the boring boring Arsenal tag) and the sack of trophies. It was brilliant. But I also remember expressing some concern that it was always us or Utd and that football was becoming more predictable. And that was before the CL became really big, the transfer fees and wages became so obscene and the billionaires stuck their noses in and started spending money in a way which no-one had before.

As NQ and others have said, it's not just that they spend big on players to strengthen their squads, they spend big to stop other clubs strengthening too - signing players so their rivals don't get them and either sticking them on the bench or loaning them out to teams who aren't their direct rivals.

I agree with much of the rest of your post btw about having a team you can believe in and that is something which has been sadly lacking over the last few years. The season just gone there were some positive signs but even then we only just stumbled over the line on the last day having seemingly sewn up 3rd place with a few games to go.

[Kano]

are clubs with 'unlimited resources' really such a new thing, at least when it comes to perceptions? city and chelsea owners have collateral in real terms yet barca and madrid have had this safety net as their debts would never be called in.

back in the years when vieira was courted every summer and for many years during the nineties the italian and spanish teams were bankrolled to the hilt creating super teams. the wages and transfer fees were astronomical relative to the the time. what has happened is that due to the money we've pumped in via sky we've created our own super clubs able to control the flow of the market. the issue is now on our doorstep but it is a phenomena new only to this country, where a select few are in the driving seat every year. if we had wanted to stay a plucky isle with a merseyside team turning up and running riot in europe we would've stayed on a different road but everyone wanted to eat at the big table in europe, stand shoulder to shoulder instead of being the underdog, so after a while our league follows a similar format.

[selassie]

Under the current setup, that is very unlikely to happen. I don't have confidence in the Manager to take those steps, nor do I have much confidence that the Board would pick a successor that would want to take such a fundamental change in approach. Very often the question is raised here as to who could replace Wenger. The answer is, that there are a good few Managers, but I think the question that should be considered is who do you think this Board would consider as a successor to Wenger.

I fear they could be looking for someone to replicate the approach of Wenger and unfortunately I don't think there are any Managers of comparable quality that would be willing to work in such a way.

I gotta say I do agree with this. I think the issue is not so much about finding a manager who is tactically on Wenger's level, but more a case of finding a successor who is prepared to juggle a number of hats. I'm not for one minute suggesting that a new manager will come in with as much influence as Wenger but he will need to be able to be shrewd in the market and have an eye for cheaper/moderately priced talent.

The situation we our in regarding Wenger's successor is actually quite messy due to the fact he (Wenger) appears to have so much control and influence.

[Niall_Quinn]

Under the current setup, that is very unlikely to happen. I don't have confidence in the Manager to take those steps, nor do I have much confidence that the Board would pick a successor that would want to take such a fundamental change in approach. Very often the question is raised here as to who could replace Wenger. The answer is, that there are a good few Managers, but I think the question that should be considered is who do you think this Board would consider as a successor to Wenger.

I fear they could be looking for someone to replicate the approach of Wenger and unfortunately I don't think there are any Managers of comparable quality that would be willing to work in such a way.

If I had to bet on it I'd guess things will be considerably worse than our very worst estimates. I can picture some yank baseball coach coming in once Stan hits full stride and changing the pies to hot dogs. That will be that. We'll have players running down the touchlines trying to get to the corner flags every time the opposition goalie kicks it out. And our shooting will be perfect for the new model, just over the crossbar each time. And we'll all get Peter Cech headgear, I hope they at least keep it red instead of changing it to blue.

Stan has already said he loves the way the club is run and won't be changing anything. Hasn't he? Highest prices, money pouring in and nothing going out, a manager that can generate cash in the transfer windows and keep us in the big cash competition. What's not to love and why would any owner want to kill that golden goose?

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

As was aptly shown last year Chelseas spending was not our undoing last year, neither was Citys. Man U were the only top 6 team that beat us home and away. You can argue that Chelsea ahad an ubcharacteristically bad year in the league, but we were not there to capitalise because of our own shortcomings. it is the nature of unsuccesful people to always blame others for thier own shortcomings. indulge me me please

1. is it Chelseas fault that we have 1 young excellent keeper and 3 hapless clowns

2. Is it Citys fault that we have 1 dent RB, 1 average LB and Djorou as back up CB, with the god awful Squillaci taking up a squad place

3. Was it SAF that forced Wenger to play Wilshere into a literal grave 2 seasons ago, knowing full well what the implications could be long term

4. Who was making all those mind bogging sunstitutions and playing a clearly out of sorts Ramsey for 70% of last season.

2 seasons ago, it was reported that RVP literally begged Wenger to sign VDV who eventually went to the spuds, evidently Wenger must have not known where to play him aor maybe that would have 'killed" Walcott. Afellay is apparently available now, another player that RVP swears by. If your best players dont believe in your stategy, you will fail

We lost last season to mind boggling defeats to Blackburn, Wigan, Swansea et al and poor displays when there was no one on the bench to change the game, add to that an infuriating incapability to defend on the break. These are sysytemic and endemic deficiencies that have little to do with money and all to do with tactics and training. Our wage bill is not reflective of the quality of our players. Money is not our problem, we are stupid in the way we spend it. We buy shit, caress shit, maintain shit, indulge shit and finally wonder why we look like shit.

A lot of good sensible posts here (shout out at my dawgs Tipsy and the Boss Ricky Ross), but this is still my favourite

[Fist of Lehmann]

Some of our supporters are behaving in precisely that way, praising our "self sustainable" model of not spending beyond our means, as if this short term sacrifice is necessary and crucial to maintain our long term financial health. This ignores that the fact that we're a football club first and foremost, and securing financial returns should not be the only goal of a football club.

I don't know how many people on GW praise the model of self-sustainability.

This has always been the unified stance of Arsenal's senior management in the face of calls for squad investment. We always spend within our means.

And yet despite the fact that our board contained some of the wealthiest men in Britain, none saw fit to help the club with it's stadium debt. Soft loans or a rights issue could have generated free cash for the club. But the former requires them to put their hands in their own pockets while the latter would perhaps have diluted their shareholding, and consequently their power.

So while beating the "self-sustainability" drum might seem like taking the moral high ground, for all intents and purposes it's more a convinient pretext to raise ticket prices and generate profit from player sales.

With Kroenke now having acquired the board's shares this is unlikely to change, in fact, expect to see the little man squeezed even harder.

And as for that last sentence - securing financial returns should not be the goal of a football club full stop. Financial returns should be a means to an end.

Does it matter if those financial returns come from the footballing business or another business altogether? Outside investment in football is nothing new, but when a club does not have to live with the consequence of it's financial mistakes it can happily throw any amount of money at the problem.

Before the uber-rich, every club had to live within it's means to a degree because no-one had unlimited outside funding. Beyond that it was skill, talent and hard work, all the things you needed to cultivate to succeed. Now success can now simply be bought, just like any commodity. Just like the Premier League trophy.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don't know how many people on GW praise the model of self-sustainability.

This has always been the unified stance of Arsenal's senior management in the face of calls for squad investment. We always spend within our means.

And yet despite the fact that our board contained some of the wealthiest men in Britain, none have saw fit to help the club with it's stadium debt. Soft loans or a rights issue could have generated free cash for the club. But the former requires them to put their hands in their own pockets while the latter would perhaps have diluted their shareholding, and consequently their power.

So while beating the "self-sustainability" drum might seem like taking the moral high ground, for all intents and purposes it's more a convinient pretext to raise ticket prices and generate profit from player sales.

With Kroenke now having acquired the board's shares this is unlikely to change, in fact, expect to see the little man squeezed even harder.

And as for that last sentence - securing financial returns should not be the goal of a football club full stop. Financial returns should be a means to an end.

Does it matter if those financial returns come from the footballing business or another business altogether? Outside investment in football is nothing new, but when a club does not have to live with the consequence of it's financial mistakes it can happily throw any amount of money at the problem.

Before the uber-rich, every club had to live within it's means. Beyond that it was skill, talent and hard work, all the things you need to cultivate to succeed. Now success can now simply be bought, just like any commodity. Just like the Premier League trophy.

[Kano]

I don't know how many people on GW praise the model of self-sustainability.

This has always been the unified stance of Arsenal's senior management in the face of calls for squad investment. We always spend within our means.

And yet despite the fact that our board contained some of the wealthiest men in Britain, none saw fit to help the club with it's stadium debt. Soft loans or a rights issue could have generated free cash for the club. But the former requires them to put their hands in their own pockets while the latter would perhaps have diluted their shareholding, and consequently their power.

So while beating the "self-sustainability" drum might seem like taking the moral high ground, for all intents and purposes it's more a convinient pretext to raise ticket prices and generate profit from player sales.

With Kroenke now having acquired the board's shares this is unlikely to change, in fact, expect to see the little man squeezed even harder.

And as for that last sentence - securing financial returns should not be the goal of a football club full stop. Financial returns should be a means to an end.

Does it matter if those financial returns come from the footballing business or another business altogether? Outside investment in football is nothing new, but when a club does not have to live with the consequence of it's financial mistakes it can happily throw any amount of money at the problem.

Before the uber-rich, every club had to live within it's means to a degree because no-one had unlimited outside funding. Beyond that it was skill, talent and hard work, all the things you needed to cultivate to succeed. Now success can now simply be bought, just like any commodity. Just like the Premier League trophy.

Barca and real Madrid have surely lived outside of these financial parameters you mention above for quite some time?

Weren’t the Italians doing the same thing in the the 80s/90s – Lazio, Parma, Fiorentina and of course the traditional big 3?

The difference now is that it has finally arrived on our doorsteps and we finally have to face up to the reality of what it means.

[IBK]

From my reading of this thread it seems that 3 questions are being confused.

1. Are people who lament the kind of spending that the Chavs and Manure are doing snobs?

IMO people who think yes are making a few wrong assumptions. The first that its sour grapes to oppose what the oligarchs are doing, and that we would love it if we were in the same position. I don't think that is right at all. No Gooner would turn his/her nose up at silverware - but most people would agree that something 'earnt' rather than just bought is a lot more satisfying. Does the athlete who dopes feel the same satisfaction of winning gold when he knows that he was unfairly stacking the odds in his favour, than one who wins clean?

And that's ignoring the effect that the Chavs'/Citeh's approach is having on the essence of the game. Noone is saying that they are the first to tip the playing field or gain an advantage over other clubs. Its the extent to which they are doing so that is sapping the essence of the game in a way that has not happened before. If we want to see the top football teams as the EPL's version of the Haarlem Globetrotters - where the point is not competition but simply showcasing the world's best talent then fine - but that's not the game that most people know and love.

2. Is it Citeh's/the Chav's fault that we haven't won stuff? No its not, its our's. But referring to our results against the top 4 teams/or highlighting the other reasons why we haven't won trophies is a bit of a sideshow, really. For me there are 2 questions to be asked. Have the mega bucks made it more difficult for us to compete? Of course they have. Have the affected our ability to compete? Well losing our best players year on year to much richer clubs, and having disaffected players because their agents know that they can refer to the nonsensical wages paid by the likes of Citeh/the Chavs has clearly had a prejudicial effect on AFC.

And whatever Montpellier-style anomalies can be teased out the simple fact is that more £ = more titles. It has been the case over the lifetime of the EPL, incuding when we were in the ascendancy - and it will continue self-evidently to be the case - hence the (correct) charge of buying the league.

3. Are we hypocrites in criticising the moneybags?

On the one hand, yes, because when we were one of those with most muscle, no Gooners looked at the likes of Everton; Sunderland or Bolton and felt that we had benefitted from an unfair advantage. But on the other you do have to look at degree and not just principle. We didn't distort the market like the rich clubs are doing now, and we were still subject to the vagaries of injury; loss of form and pure chance in a way that the rich teams have almost eliminated these days. We were the athletes with the state of the art training facilities; the coaching and the psychiatric conditioning - an advantage for sure. But what we didn't do was dope to guarantee success - which is what is happening now.