Are the doubters wrong about Wenger?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Interestingly enough the "Sociopathic one" has bemoaned that Chelsea don't get the respect they deserve and don't get the recognition for what they've brought to English football over the past ten years.
Au Contraire my deluded friend everyone recognises exactly what Chelsea have brought to english football over the last ten years....

[Niall_Quinn]

Interestingly enough the "Sociopathic one" has bemoaned that Chelsea don't get the respect they deserve and don't get the recognition for what they've brought to English football over the past ten years.
Au Contraire my deluded friend everyone recognises exactly what Chelsea have brought to english football over the last ten years....

Poor old Maureen still struggles with the idea respect has a price tag attached. Doesn't even dawn on him it can't be bought - doesn't compute for him.

[Power n Glory]

It's important in terms of whether i should respect a manager's accomplishments or not, Ferguson spent the money that he contributed towards generating in the first place...Mourinho did not.

Plus there is an element of scale to it all, Ferguson broke the British Transfer record but he wasn't at a club that routinely bought it's entire team in a short period of time. The players best remembered at United will be the ones he developed himself and turned into Stars.

Does it matter that we’ve had money come from Fizsman’s own pocket? Wouldn’t the clubs under us have a right to pick a gripe with us if they don’t have such someone on the Board that can invest that much into their squad? The finances in football isn’t fair on any scale. Also, I think it’s worth bringing back the point about Jose at Porto and Inter. The two teams he won the CL with weren’t blessed with unlimited funds. I get what’s being said about Utd, but much like Bayern Munich, for a long time they were the big fish in a small pond team. I think the amount of money Chelsea and City have had to spend so quickly was in order to get into that elite bracket. Although they’ve spent a silly amount, I don’t think they’ve spent wisely. The fees paid for some players is just so they don’t have the hassle of negotiating.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Does it matter that we’ve had money come from Fizsman’s own pocket? Wouldn’t the clubs under us have a right to pick a gripe with us if they don’t have such someone on the Board that can invest that much into their squad? The finances in football isn’t fair on any scale. Also, I think it’s worth bringing back the point about Jose at Porto and Inter. The two teams he won the CL with weren’t blessed with unlimited funds. I get what’s being said about Utd, but much like Bayern Munich, for a long time they were the big fish in a small pond team. I think the amount of money Chelsea and City have had to spend so quickly was in order to get into that elite bracket. Although they’ve spent a silly amount, I don’t think they’ve spent wisely. The fees paid for some players is just so they don’t have the hassle of negotiating.

Did we buy an entirerly new team with Fiszman's money, no we invested in a few key players over a few years like Petit, Overmars etc....like i've said previously you don't seem to have any perspective when it comes to scale.

I respected Mourinho a lot for his achievements at Porto, as i think they are the one and only thing in his career that truly stand out as unique. But then he came over to England and starting talking....it all went down hill from there.

[Power n Glory]

Did we buy an entirerly new team with Fiszman's money, no we invested in a few key players over a few years like Petit, Overmars etc....like i've said previously you don't seem to have any perspective when it comes to scale.

I respected Mourinho a lot for his achievements at Porto, as i think they are the one and only thing in his career that truly stand out as unique. But then he came over to England and starting talking....it all went down hill from there.

I think financial scale is variable. What seems like a small amount to a club like us may be the world to a club like Southampton or Swansea who all have ambitions of being a top club. What was a lot of money back in the 90s is peanuts now. Where do you draw the line? We used money from player sales to invest in a new training ground. Was the money from Danny used to buy Overmars, Petit and Anelka which then went towards our training ground? Grey areas. The financing in football is messed up. There is no scale. The rules are just messed up when it comes to the finances and if United had unlimited funds, I’m sure they’d take full advantage of it.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think financial scale is variable. What seems like a small amount to a club like us may be the world to a club like Southampton or Swansea who all have ambitions of being a top club. What was a lot of money back in the 90s is peanuts now. Where do you draw the line? We used money from player sales to invest in a new training ground. Was the money from Danny used to buy Overmars, Petit and Anelka which then went towards our training ground? Grey areas. The financing in football is messed up. There is no scale. The rules are just messed up when it comes to the finances and if United had unlimited funds, I’m sure they’d take full advantage of it.

I think what worries me is that your unable to see the difference between a man who loved our club helping us out of his own pocket to help us buy a few players, and a billionaire who throws money to buy 10-15 players at a time to run the club as his own personal plaything.

If you think it's all a grey area that's up to you, i don't respect Mourinho's (or indeed any managers) achievements at Chelsea because it's all artificial. The bottom line is would they have been premiership champions three times without Abramovich and the answer is no....that's all you need to know.

[Power n Glory]

I think what worries me is that your unable to see the difference between a man who loved our club helping us out of his own pocket to help us buy a few players, and a billionaire who throws money to buy 10-15 players at a time to run the club as his own personal plaything.

If you think it's all a grey area that's up to you, i don't respect Mourinho's (or indeed any managers) achievements at Chelsea because it's all artificial. The bottom line is would they have been premiership champions three times without Abramovich and the answer is no....that's all you need to know.

Put sentiment aside. What if Danny was a billionaire and pumped £500m into the club. Would that make it right? Can you we actually measure how much an owner loves a club?

[Letters]

I agree completley, but at the same time i think anything you acheive as a result is entirerly artificial and you don't deserve a scintilla of respect for it.
And don't get me wrong i would have the same opinion of Mourinho's "so-called" achievements at Chelsea even if he committed to playing expansive, attractive football. I slightly prefer Man City because the football they play is good to watch, but i have no more respect for someone like Mancini than i do for Mourinho.

Pretty much.
Chelsea proved that money can buy success.
City have proved that you can do it at any club if you pump enough money in for long enough.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Put sentiment aside. What if Danny was a billionaire and pumped £500m into the club. Would that make it right? Can you we actually measure how much an owner loves a club?

Maybe he would appreciate that buying us everything would make us financially dependent on him

Listen just give it up, if your trying to present an equivalency between that and Chelsea and what they have done you are pissing into the wind.

I don't know if you love Mourinho or your just being argumentative for the sake of it. But i don't respect him or what he has won as a manager outside of Portuguese football, and i don't believe anyone who loves the game can do. He represents how money is eating the heart out of it with the obscene amounts being poured into certain clubs by wealthy plutocrats which has driven up both transfer fees and player wages monumentally.

This is why i make the case that you are pathalogically adverse to Wenger, because you seem determined to defend what is the antithesis of what he and what Arsenal FC represent.
He's no longer a good or effective manager....i don't see why it can't be left at that. Whoever follows him will be doing so using the self-sufficiency blueprint that he and the club have laid out....the challenge will be for that person to make the most from that.

[Niall_Quinn]

Put sentiment aside. What if Danny was a billionaire and pumped £500m into the club. Would that make it right? Can you we actually measure how much an owner loves a club?

You put a lot of things aside in you argument, almost everything. It's pretty easy to measure how much some managers love the club, for example the Russian mobster and the Arab gangsters - they love the club as a laundry but quite obviously they don't love it in sporting terms. Otherwise they wouldn't be destroying the sport. No matter how much you argue in favour of turning a blind eye, you can't persuade people to respect something they don't respect. It's a futile effort. Trying to compare Fizsman with Abramovich in terms of football is also futile, there's no comparison at all. Beyond that, as in blood diamonds, well that's a different thing and I think comparisons would be valid.