Quote Originally Posted by Dein-machine View Post
You often mention the stadium move & subsequent costs as an potential excuse for Wenger's failure to win major trophies. Ofcourse, I would agree 100% that if the move restricted our transfer chest for the following decade then it was bound to have an effect but I quite clearly remember when Fitz & Wenger were on TV during the Emirates build, the only things being discussed were that the stadium move was being done to make us the driving force of European football.
Did they say when? Maybe they meant longer term. Or maybe they did think it would immediately push us on and didn't account for or foresee the way the billionaires coming in would inflate the transfer market and salaries.
Our ability to spend probably did go up after the stadium move but we still couldn't compete with what Chelsea and City were doing. Without those two I reckon we'd have won a title or two in the last 10 years.

Long term the stadium move was obviously a good and necessary thing to do. Maybe the board didn't foresee how it would affect us in an exponentially increasing transfer market, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do or a big con trick.

We tied ourselves into long term financial deals - it's easy to look back with 20:20 hindsight and see that as a mistake as subsequent deals at other clubs dwarfed it, but it was a way of mitigating the risk that comes with a long term loan. Now the new financial deals are in place we have started spending folding money and it's had an immediate impact in terms of trophies. Whether we'll push on and compete with teams like Bayern...well, City and Chelsea have struggled to despite the money they've been throwing around so it's easier said than done, but the stadium move gives us a much better chance than had we stayed at Highbury, why do you think so many other clubs have also either moved stadium or are looking to?