Arshavin

[Letters]

Agreed, but if your bosses are happy with your output, and pat you on the back at the end of every profit making financial year, then who the hell can tell you that what you are doing isn't great? You have to remember who Wenger is really answerable to at the end of the day.

I honestly believe that he's given a tight budget to work with, and said budget only comes after major asset stripping. It has always been the Arsenal way. Even in our most successful era, this was how it was. An example is the sale of Anelka and the subsequent purchase of Henry. Now that worked well and we all hailed Wenger as a genius. Thing is, inevitably, others soon caught on and found ways to better what we were doing, especially when the arrogance and complacency started to seep in - a bit similar to the smartphone industry a la Blackberry and Apple/Android situation.

As for SAF, he really has no alternative but to reap on field success, because as heavily indebted as the mancs are, he's still given funds to work with in the transfer market without having to 1st strip down his team. The manc **** Board ensure that money is invested in the squad for the purpose of strengthening.

Our board are certainly not blameless. At best they've sat back and been far too content to watch the money keep rolling in. At worst they've asset stripped and made Wenger's job impossible. I think Wenger has been too principled though, in an era of clubs spending £20m on mediocre players he's refused to play that game. Admirable up to a point but you have to mix it with a bit of pragmatism. He's clearly not the bumbling idiot ™ make out, even this season it's looking like we might scrape a top 4 finish, you don't do that every single year without having some nous, but we wouldn't have had to break the bank to be properly competitive.

[Özim]

That a bit beside the point. What I'm trying to say is we made bank off him, bought Henry for peanuts and went on to achieve greatness.

We are stil trying to replicate these type of dealings and fortune to this very day.

I don't disagree, but that's not all driven by the board, Wenger endorses by going for players who aren't really on the radar (we could spend that money on players who are more high profile if we chose to) and has often said signings are not always the answer.

The policy very much suits his philosophy, we've heard him complain about the money in the game many times.

[Letters]

He'd like to win in an ideal world but it's not the be all and end all, just listen to him talking about 4th place and his lack of emphasis on the cups.

In the old days he use to talk about competing for 4 trophies (when there were more games), now he just talks about 2 and watches his side fail every season without ever really addressing the problems.

A man really that concerned about winning wouldn't be telling us he's doing a good job getting 4th when he's won nothing since 2005.

Unfortunately in an era when football is a business and 4th place delivers such high financial rewards (we both agree it shouldn't, but it does), 4th place is unfortunately a high priority, not just for us. And when we don't have the infinite money cheat turned on like some clubs we are somewhat constrained in trying to compete. But I agree Wenger has focussed too much on perennial top 4 finishes and not invested where and when he should have.

[Power n Glory]

We just have to accept that Wenger has lost his touch.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

Was talking about that match at work recently with a Liverpool fan.

He said that's the match that cost them the league.

Agree?

No.

[Letters]

We just have to accept that Wenger has lost his touch.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that but he seems unable or unwilling to compete in the era of billionaires and now the methods he brought in are now widely adopted and no longer give us an edge.

[Letters]

No.

You finished 4 points off the title that year. You won every league game after the Arsenal game. Even if you'd beaten us you'd have still finished 2 points behind.
So Cripps' colleague's theory makes no sense at all.

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

You finished 4 points off the title that year. You won every league game after the Arsenal game. Even if you'd beaten us you'd have still finished 2 points behind.
So Cripps' colleague's theory makes no sense at all.

Well we didn't win the league thanks to too many stupid draws against crap teams; Hull, Stoke, Wigan et al, United had that stupid run of 10 games without conceding and because we bought Robbie fucking Keane instead of a footballer. Not because of "Rafa's rant" (our results were actually better after it) or a one off performance by a random Meerkat. And in any case, United were always a game or two in hand and nearly always ahead of us anyway, so we were relying on them tripping up.

And then it all turned to shit.

[Power n Glory]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that but he seems unable or unwilling to compete in the era of billionaires and now the methods he brought in are now widely adopted and no longer give us an edge.

If he’s unable or unwilling to compete, wouldn’t that suggest he’s either lost his edge or settled?

[Letters]

Aye, there was a run in the middle of the season when you drew 8 out of 14. Not good enough. That's what killed you.
You won 10 and drew 1 (the 4-4) of the last 11 games so you did your bit but Utd were always ahead and didn't trip up.