Wenger being sanctimonious again

[Japan Shaking All Over]

As I see it, this isn't a debate about 'reality'. We can all see the reality of destructive financial doping. Its a debate about whether it should be allowed to run unrestricted through the game.

And that isn't even an argument about legality - for the purposes of what we are debating, legality is irrelevant. I am sure that the deal's been done with legal advice - and that there are legal aruments that will probably end up sanctioning this 'deal'. But that too is irrelevant.

No - it is a matter of principle. You say effectively that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But as Terry(?) says if you take this line, then basically nobody could ever make a negative comment about anyone else. its a bit ridiculous.

Sure Citeh might be described as only the latest incarnation of a trend that's existed in football for a long time - but that doesn;t exonerate them. What people are objecting to is that Mansour and Co have now taken pure financial doping to an extreme level. One that is unprecedented in terms of the damage it wreaks elsewhere.

You want to defend that? Well you are entitled to do so, but I would suggest that you are no real lover of the game.

My arguement is that Wenger has all the right in the world to say whatever he wants, he is in a position where people are eager to hear his views, this extends to thoughts about a game just played, although there are times especially afyer a game just played

the way that I see it Citeh are taking things to a higher level and their financial clout is allowing them to do so, whether this is through legal or shady loopholes I dont know and TBH cant afford to give a fuck cos there aint jack shit I can do about it, so we are lefy with Wenger to say whats on most peoples minds, to do so at a press conference where he wad probably asked 1000 and 1 questions but only the juiciest answers were reported
those same answers piss of a few Mancs, bothered? couldnt care less!
more worried about what goes down on the pitch, which is where Wengers focus should always return to once he gets the bee out of his bonnet

but I have no belief in the piwers that be. . . which is why the odd AW/SAF rant sometimes feels like a shout for the masses

[IBK]

I am not defending city. What I have been arguing is that the reaction to their deal is knee-jerk and not grounded in any objective reality. Total over-reaction.

I love the game -- and as I have said time and time again in this thread, the game is headed in a purely commercial direction. Wenger is a strong proponent of the fact that clubs should be run as a sensible business venture -- but business nonetheless. He sees AFC as a business -- and we are running a business model of our choosing.

What City are doing is basically employing a cheeky pure business strategy. And until we know the full details of it no one has the moral right to castigate them for some arbitrary flouting of contraventions.

Where does one draw the line? That is my point?

The FFP rules is actually quite a stupid idea, frankly,in my opinion. Idealistic but impractical.

I think you are contradicting yourself. Defending Citeh is precisely what you are doing - in an 'innocent until proven guilty' kind of way. Yet Citeh aren't 'innocent' by any means. They are indulging in unprecedented financial doping - and their unprecedented naming rights deal -- whether strictly within the rules or not, is another example of this process.

Then you say that you love the game, but it is moving in a strictly commercial direction. Do you love football being strictly commercial - most fans don't.

Drawing the line is precisely what this is all about. Noone is trying to argue that AFC is not run on a commercial basis. least of all AW who believes in self sustainability. The farcical thing is the suggestion that Citeh is being run commercially. That couldn't be further from the truth.

What Wenger FIFA are saying is that there should be a correlation between spending and income. You may think the rules are stupid - and thenecessary need for compromise has made them a bit toothless, but I cannot fault the ideal.

[Joker]

Wenger being pretentious again about Mancini's comments RE: Nasri. I saw the interview with Mancini, and IMO I don't think he said anything out of order, certainly not in anyway near as disrespectful as Xavi, Iniesta et al's comments about Cesc. Moreover, if it's disrespectful to talk about Nasri, I put it to ******* that it's also disrespectul to assume that another club's sponsorship deal attempts to subvert the financial fair play laws, when he has no evidence of this. Practise what you preach Wenger, if you don't want to be hated by the football world.

[Kano]

jesus christ. wenger defending Arsenal again???

what a dick

[Joker]

It's not the fact he's defending Arsenal that's a problem. It's him picking unnecessary fights with Man City that is jarring.

[GP]

[Kano]

It's not the fact he's defending Arsenal that's a problem. It's him picking unnecessary fights with Man City that is jarring.

look, it's simple. someone talks about a player under contract who the manager has only recently said he wants to keep, then expect a reaction.

if mancini or the dicks at city are upset about his comments to do with anything about their club, then man up and speak or just shut up. everyone talks about everyone else and most definitely every single manager will react to another team talking about their player

[Joker]

He's right.

And he's protecting our club. We should be grateful.

The FFP rules are there to promote healthy competition, not only in business, but in football as well. Yes, we may exploit loopholes in a business sense, and I have no problem with that. It's business afterall.

City are not a business. The owners are not in it to profit, they are only in it to show off. If they are not accountable, or don't play by the same rules as everybody else, then it's all pointless.

There will always be winners and losers in sport and in busniess, that's the way it works. The best win through in both, and that is down to good management in both. Even if it's like the glazers at utd. It's business.

City are not a business, and that is why FFP needs to come in. Otherwise it will ruin the sport.

But in that case we really do not have any right to act sanctimonious with respect to Man City. Their owners may want to engage in conspicious consumption, and to show off their wealth, but why is that more detrimental to football on the whole compared to a club that is run purely as a profit maximising private enterprise? I don't support City's way of running a football club, but I don't agree with the way our board members are more concerned with the value of their shares and property deals than they are with the on-field success of the club.

This is why I accuse Wenger of hypocricy. If he spoke out against greed in football as a general point, and its rampant commercialisation and marketisation, I would applaud him. However, he only seems opposed to City precisely because they are not operating as a normal business, with their sugar daddy ownership. Wenger is ultimately a free market fundamentalist, so in his opinion all football clubs should be let loose in the jungle of the free market, with no protection being afforded to any clubs, whether that's through government intervention to save the smaller clubs or extrovert businessmen buying clubs and then using their political links to benefit them.

This is why Wenger is not opposed to big clubs poaching promising youngsters from smaller clubs, preventing them from making a healthy return on these players or ever having the chance of progressing as clubs. Wenger is fine with that, because in a free market, no protection is afforded to the weakest. This is why he's a hypocrite. He thinks football should be treated as a private business, but is angry when the natural tendencies of business towards cronyism, corruption and monopolisation takes place.

[Joker]

In any case, there are many examples of Wenger publically expressing interest in footballers:

http://www.football.co.uk/arsenal/we...t_313201.shtml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...amberlain.html

http://fourfourtwo.com/news/england/71356/default.aspx

http://www.tribalfootball.com/articl...enzema-1654881

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...-Senderos.html

[Kano]

obsession wouldn't really cover it for you would it?