Wenger Referendum: Yes Or No

[LDG]

Wenger has consistently delivered C.L. football by finishing in the top 4. He has done this without the spending power of the Chavs or Gypos whilst still competing with a strong Utd side under Fergie. This is fact & can only be admired.
However, Wenger & Danny Fitz sold us the Emirates dream which funnily enough didn't mention a struggle for top 4 every year.
The stadium move hasn't cost us every year, it hasn't left a deficit - the extra revenue easily exceeds the stadium repayments so maybe even they didn't expect a fight for 4th every year.
But over a decade later, we have won the FA cup once , we have a team that doesn't compete in the EPL or the C.L. anymore, our football style hasn't progressed & due to the players we have it can't, we struggle to get 4th, we struggle to get out of C.L group stages ( this year a Demba Ba header away from even qualifying ), total lack of squad depth defensively, lack of quality in 3 main positions in our starting 11 & a team regularly beaten by the teams who have progressed.
The stadium was supposed to take us to another level, Wenger can just about guarantee us 4th although its getting tighter every year but the above should prove that to match our new shiny, modern stadium - we need a new shiny, modern manager.

I'm not sure about the Spurs C.L. question under Wenger. I can see what you are saying but I think if we had replaced Wenger with a Guardiola or a Klopp 5 years ago - I think we'd be regularly fighting with the top teams for the title which would probably have meant it was only United that Spurs could overtake. The Invincible team came at the right time for Wenger, before money spoilt the game, but it was a team that he has failed to recreate & I doubt he would have any more success at doing that at Spurs.

Well, yes.

So we're all singing from the same hymn sheet then.

Wenger and co. should be admired for consistently delivering top four on a budget.

Wenger doesn't have what it takes to take it further, because of his tactical limitations, his gambling with the squad, and persistence with failed players/methods/style.

I don't see anyone who is arguing differently.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

Not got a problem with anything you say apart from "our status as one of the biggest clubs in Europe" - exactly the words used to sell us the Emirates move.
Now you tell me as a football fan & not a share holder - Are we seen as a bigger European club now or 10 years ago. Galatasary get 80,000+ every week, doesn't mean there viewed at a top European team. The top teams are Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, teams we used to compete with in C.L semi's & finals - Yes, when we were seen as one of Europe's biggest clubs.
We need to stop thinking that big stadiums & big sponsorship deals = success. The top teams spend that money on quality to guarantee that success, we have a manager who won't because of his principles.

Post of the year tbh

[LDG]

Yes, true, we should have at least won a cup with some of those teams, but you get my point. We weren’t buying the same quality as what we once were when at Highbury even though the revenue went up. But this is where the language used gets confusing.

Why would we fall out of the Top 4 if we had a financial advantage over the teams below us? We were working on a budget and financial constraints compared to the teams above us but not below. So why the argument that the move to the Emirates was desperately needed to stay in the Top 4?

It wasn't needed to keep us in the top four. It was needed to compete with the best in terms of revenue. Which is what they said.

As it conspired, that didn't matter once we started to move and build, because we were handicapping ourselves unwittingly due to the financial doping that then ensued! You're getting the timeline of events mixed up.

We have done well to stay top four when all is said and done, because football changed. We agreed what seemed sensible deals at the time, but which were soon dwarfed by the change in the way football is financed.

Why would we fall out of the top four? Well, you look sensibly at what the teams below us were spending at those time, and come back and tell me. 100's of millions of quid have been spent by Liverpool, Spuds, Newcastle and many more, who spent much more than us. So what is the difference. Why did we manage to stay top four, without that spending power (debt led or not)??

[Dein-machine]

Well, yes.

So we're all singing from the same hymn sheet then.

Wenger and co. should be admired for consistently delivering top four on a budget.

Wenger doesn't have what it takes to take it further, because of his tactical limitations, his gambling with the squad, and persistence with failed players/methods/style.

I don't see anyone who is arguing differently.

Well then I don't see why were arguing - the thread is Wenger YES or NO - we're both saying NO - YES!

[Power n Glory]

It wasn't needed to keep us in the top four. It was needed to compete with the best in terms of revenue. Which is what they said.

As it conspired, that didn't matter once we started to move and build, because we were handicapping ourselves unwittingly due to the financial doping that then ensued! You're getting the timeline of events mixed up.

We have done well to stay top four when all is said and done, because football changed. We agreed what seemed sensible deals at the time, but which were soon dwarfed by the change in the way football is financed.

Why would we fall out of the top four? Well, you look sensibly at what the teams below us were spending at those time, and come back and tell me. 100's of millions of quid have been spent by Liverpool, Spuds, Newcastle and many more, who spent much more than us. So what is the difference. Why did we manage to stay top four, without that spending power (debt led or not)??

Those teams weren't spending that much per season and couldn't sustain a challenge for the Top 4 consistently. What they blew in fees, they couldn't afford in wages like we could. Also, we sat on heap of cash for a long and I've always maintained that instead of spreading £20m-£40m across 3 to 5 cheap and young players, we should have been doing what we were doing now. Buying one megastar and then looking for cheap deals for cover positions.

We were title contenders before the Emirates. If we hadn't broken up our title winning squad so quickly, I seriously doubt those teams would have been able to come near us. We went undefeated in the league when Abromovich first arrived and gave Ranieri bought Crespo, Veron, Duff and co. We only bought Lehman in the Summer. One season of a big splash from those teams lower than us wouldn't have been enough to top us.

[LDG]

Those teams weren't spending that much per season and couldn't sustain a challenge for the Top 4 consistently. What they blew in fees, they couldn't afford in wages like we could. Also, we sat on heap of cash for a long and I've always maintained that instead of spreading £20m-£40m across 3 to 5 cheap and young players, we should have been doing what we were doing now. Buying one megastar and then looking for cheap deals for cover positions.

We were title contenders before the Emirates. If we hadn't broken up our title winning squad so quickly, I seriously doubt those teams would have been able to come near us. We went undefeated in the league when Abromovich first arrived and gave Ranieri bought Crespo, Veron, Duff and co. We only bought Lehman in the Summer. One season of a big splash from those teams lower than us wouldn't have been enough to top us.

So can you just put into one paragraph what you are saying. As you're going all over the place at the moment.

[The Emirates Gallactico]

Not got a problem with anything you say apart from "our status as one of the biggest clubs in Europe" - exactly the words used to sell us the Emirates move.
Now you tell me as a football fan & not a share holder - Are we seen as a bigger European club now or 10 years ago. Galatasary get 80,000+ every week, doesn't mean there viewed at a top European team. The top teams are Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, teams we used to compete with in C.L semi's & finals - Yes, when we were seen as one of Europe's biggest clubs.
We need to stop thinking that big stadiums & big sponsorship deals = success. The top teams spend that money on quality to guarantee that success, we have a manager who won't because of his principles.

I'm not disagreeing with much of what you're saying either. I was more specifically replying to both your and PNG's point about sponsorship being the driver of the recent transfer splurge and not the stadium when in fact it was the stadium that allowed the massive sponsorship deals to be gained. They're inextricably linked.

As for your other point, I would say we're probably at a similar level. We weren't exactly pulling many trees up in Europe in the early Wenger years either I remind you. Whilst our reputation has definitely taken a hit due to a lack of recent domestic success, our consistency in Europe as well as the increase in brand reputation predominately driven by the explosion of popularity of the PL around the world has reflected favourably on us. Obviously the latter is no substitute for real trophies, but again it's not either one or the other - increasing our sponsorship and matchday revenue will increase the chance of us winning silverware.

[Power n Glory]

So can you just put into one paragraph what you are saying. As you're going all over the place at the moment.

In short, you're talking shit, mate!

[LDG]

In short, you're talking shit, mate!

No, what is your argument? Come on, you know what your point of view is. I want to hear it concisely so that I can respond properly. And I do want to respond properly.

[Özim]

I'm not disagreeing with much of what you're saying either. I was more specifically replying to both your and PNG's point about sponsorship being the driver of the recent transfer splurge and not the stadium when in fact it was the stadium that allowed the massive sponsorship deals to be gained. They're inextricably linked.

I'm not so convinced, success is a bigger driver for sponsorship because companies want their names associated with successful brands that have big fan bases ideally.

Had we stayed at Highbury and maintained our level of success there we'd have been able to get even bigger deals perhaps.