Match Reaction: Inter 1 Arsenal 0

[Mac76]

For the millionth time it wasn't FFP it was the Kroenkes wanting to break even in terms of our summer spend8ng

[HCZ_Reborn]

[QUOTE=Mac76;4597237]For the millionth time it wasn't FFP it was the Kroenkes wanting to break even in terms of our summer spend8ng[/QUOTE

Even with the Champions league money coming in the cost of the transfers we’ve made in the last few years, and the fact that we’ve been making modest losses for about five years, means we have to expand commercial revenue and continue to be in the Champions League for the next few seasons and that’s without factoring in extra expenditure for new signings.

Are we in the position of Newcastle or Aston Villa? Let alone Everton or Forest. No


But it’s a consideration all the same. Much in the same way it has been for Liverpool and let’s be fair every club in the league

The days of going berserk are over, even Chelsea had to act with some restraint

[HCZ_Reborn]

The point anyway was that the failure wasn’t even so much in not signing a striker in the summer, but not signing at least one in the three transfer windows between Summer 2022 and Summer 2023 (Jesus nor Havertz really count in my view)

[Mac76]

[QUOTE=HCZ_Reborn;4597240]

For the millionth time it wasn't FFP it was the Kroenkes wanting to break even in terms of our summer spend8ng[/QUOTE

Even with the Champions league money coming in the cost of the transfers we’ve made in the last few years, and the fact that we’ve been making modest losses for about five years, means we have to expand commercial revenue and continue to be in the Champions League for the next few seasons and that’s without factoring in extra expenditure for new signings.

Are we in the position of Newcastle or Aston Villa? Let alone Everton or Forest. No


But it’s a consideration all the same. Much in the same way it has been for Liverpool and let’s be fair every club in the league

The days of going berserk are over, even Chelsea had to act with some restraint

Anyway, spending lots of money has nothing to do with taking objective decisions about how much power you give the manager and how long you give them to succeed, which is actually what I'm talking about

[HCZ_Reborn]

[QUOTE=Mac76;4597243]

Anyway, spending lots of money has nothing to do with taking objective decisions about how much power you give the manager and how long you give them to succeed, which is actually what I'm talking about

No it doesn’t, and I’m saying that spending loads of money is what helped Chelsea win things not their management policy

My attitude is unless there is a horrible run of results, a coach should get three seasons to show noticeable improvement

As for how much power the coach has, I do think a coach should be able to choose the players they want at the club. How much influence they have outside of first team tactics and training etc, well preferably little as there such be some element of compartmentalisation in that regard

[Mac76]

[QUOTE=HCZ_Reborn;4597244]

No it doesn’t, and I’m saying that spending loads of money is what helped Chelsea win things not their management policy

Well that's demonstrably untrue, you only have to look at Chelsea more recently and also Man Ure to know that spending loads of money doesn't work unless you get the right manager

[HCZ_Reborn]

[QUOTE=Mac76;4597246]

Well that's demonstrably untrue, you only have to look at Chelsea more recently and also Man Ure to know that spending loads of money doesn't work unless you get the right manager

It would be demonstrably untrue if I’d said that spending money is the only guarantee of winning things. Man United like Chelsea (more recently) have spent a lot of money on players that weren’t good enough or had the wrong attitude.


Chelsea’s high turnover of managers almost always accompanied a run of poor results, and in both cases their champions league wins were accompanied by poor league form. Three of their five titles were delivered by the same coach….so there’s an argument for retaining a sense of consistency

[Marc Overmars]

I’m not sure I’d back Arsenal being run in the same way as Chelsea however during the Abramovich era it was ridiculous how much they won despite the chaos. It was hard not to be envious when our supposed stability and consistency yielded nothing other than a few FA Cup wins.

[Mac76]

[QUOTE=HCZ_Reborn;4597247]

It would be demonstrably untrue if I’d said that spending money is the only guarantee of winning things. Man United like Chelsea (more recently) have spent a lot of money on players that weren’t good enough or had the wrong attitude.


Chelsea’s high turnover of managers almost always accompanied a run of poor results, and in both cases their champions league wins were accompanied by poor league form. Three of their five titles were delivered by the same coach….so there’s an argument for retaining a sense of consistency

As George Graham showed when he went after the Cup Winners Cup the reality it sometimes helps if you focus on one competition - no Chelsea fan is complaining at a middling league position for the years they won the CL and nor would we