Quote Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory View Post
There is a real problem with what you’re suggesting. If that were truly the case, then how did we make it down this road? Didn’t our fortunes change with the appointment of Arsene Wenger? If we had appointed someone like Redknapp or Hoddle instead of Wenger, do you think we’d have moved to the Emirates or dare to dream of competing with Europe’s elite clubs? We’ve had the same Board member for years…so what changed? Do you think they demanded the double when Wenger first arrived or just supported his vision for the club and gave him space to work?

What about with George Graham? Did they demand the double from him? Wasn’t it the same Board members? We hadn’t won anything in ages before Graham arrived. So what do you think happened? It wouldn’t take a change in Board members in turn out fortunes around. That’s never been the case in sports and it’s a recent trend we’re seeing because Billionaires are getting involved and ‘throwing money at the wall’ as Stan would say. A change in ownership is very unlikely and most members on here are against the Chelsea/City model. In fact, nobody really cared about our owners until we started losing but that’s a separate issue.

It’s really flawed to believe nothing will change unless something at the top level changes. Say we win the title this year or we didn’t slip up last year or the year before that and won back to back titles? Who gets the credit for that? Did aspirations at Board level suddenly change? Were new targets set? I highly doubt it. I don’t think we have a Board with low aspirations. They’re just looking focussing on the long term strategy. Trophies will come as long as we have stability and keep growing. I think that’s a similar mindset they had when appointing Graham and Wenger.

Also, a change in ownership doesn’t guarantee success. With Chelsea, they had to appoint Mourinho to win back to back titles. When he left, Avram Grant and Scolari couldn’t win anything despite the high targets set. It took another top manager to come in to see them win the title again. It’s a similar story for City with Hughes and Mancini. You have a point about the hiring and firing part. These owners have a burning desire to win the league and they’re spending big to get it, but it’s worth remembering that they are the exemption. You won’t find many owners like them in football or any other sport for that matter. In most sports, it’s still down to the skilled manager that knows how to motivate a team and get the best out of them. On the flipside, regarding ownership, you have nightmare stories like what we’ve seen at Liverpool. They had the money to spend but Rafa didn’t have a clue or skills to guide that team. Even with bad owners, a manager can change fortunes around. Look at Chris Hutton and Alan Pardrew. Mike Ashley has been terrible and morale was low but a new manager can turn things around.

I understand about the hiring and firing part. The current regime are happy with Wenger so nothing will change for the time being. Staff wise, at least. But again, if by some miracle, we go on a run and win the title or Cup….who gets the credit? Stan won’t cross anybody’s mind if that were to happen. We can only hope Wenger comes to his senses and whips this team into shape.
Its a very valid point to ask whether the board's ambition has changed or not. We percieve it as having changed because we are not trying to compete spending-wise with Citeh and Chelsea, but the reality is that we're probably not looking at a change of ambition so much as a change of circumstance. Can you be ambitious while accepting that you can't compete financially? I guess you can - because what is ambition? People regard it as wanting to be the best - but you don't have to be able to achieve the impossible to be ambitious, so ambition is more accurately wanting to be the best you can be.

The reason why people are accusing the board of a lack of ambition is firstly its refusal to spend the sums at its disposal, and secondly its wish to back Kroenke over Usmanov. The first issue is a conundrum, because we simply don't know whether it is the manager rather than anything else leading to the club's apparent refusal to spend. But for me, the fact that Wenger has traditionally taken a long time negotiating to secure his transfers, and been willing to lose out rather than pay more than his valuation suggests that this it at least partly the case. Another factor that is rarely mentioned is that once bought, players need to be paid, and i imagine that at least part of any transfer profits are earmarked for players' wages under improved contracts.

And the real issue is whether you can be termed as ambitious if your principal aim is the stability/well-being of the club rather than what might be termed 'short term' gain? Is an athlete lacking in ambition if he trains at 90% because that way the chances of being injured and missing the olympics altogether are lowered by 70%? I would genuinely like to know what people's answer is to this question. I know what mine is.

In fact that question also encompasses the Wenger situation - because its a question of percentages. A golfer might hit a short ball from the rough onto the fairway rather than trying to smack it through the trees onto the green. Because although the potential rewards of the latter option are higher, the likelihood of success is vastly lower. Sticking with Wenger is the equivalent of taking the safe shot - does that mean that the golfer has any less of a desire to win? No - he simply sees playing the percentages as the route most likely to achieve this.

I have been in two minds about the board, I really have. But the fact that AW has bounced back to a degree from his nightmare Summer - the fact that we can see the potential of some of his signings now, and see some spirit back in the team to me vindicates their decision to stick by him following our nightmarish post March half year. We are not, realsitically, going to compete with the Manc teams or the Chavs while keeping to our self-sustainable route, so I see no real disgrace in aiming for the top but realising that 3/4 is most likely the best we'll achieve, and I can at least see the reasoning behind putting the club's stability before a headlong attempt to keep up with the league's moneybags.