Silent Stan Speaks

[Power n Glory]

I’ll just quickly chime in as I’m bored of this tiresome subject. First of all, I never indicated a change of ownership would bring about a GUARANTEE success. That’s just you with your slant on the issue warping the point I was making. What I’m saying is a change of ownership is the best alternative out of the two which would bestow upon the club the best likelihood outcome or ODDS of Success A and B bearing in mind that the LANDSCAPE OF COMPETITION now is different and the dominant factor affecting that playing field is that of an issue of resources and the willpower to compete on that front.

Did you not pay attention to the recent AGM and Arsene’s honest admission (or slip) that fourth is what we’re hoping for? Why is that good enough for the board/employers? Why is it acceptable for a club of our stature? After all, isn’t this the whole point of what you were feverishly moaning about here in the past, about mediocrity and whatnot and claiming that it is Arsene’s fault? What’s changed? A goal post shift now that it’s clear that Arsene is not the main culprit but instead it’s the board/owner and the overwhelming evidence of their zeal for success C at the expense of success A?

Look, I’m tempted to go about via a long winded elaborative post and address the rest of the glaring weaknesses I see in your argument but suffice to say I’ll refrain from going down this route as it’s ultimately a worthless pursuit leading either of us anywhere except perhaps the likes of some hysterical exhibition like the one I’ve been fortunate enough to witness recently. It’s evident that neither of us can ever see eye to eye on the issue and it’s best to just agree to disagree and not waste our time further in this farcical little exercise. Like I said before, nothing’s gonna change.

This guy.

Yes, please stop wasting my time with these long winded posts that lack any real substance. Iceberg has made a great point about our situation and you should probably try tackling that. That's if you have the time.

[AKBapologist]

Nonsense Ice Berg Kamping
Wenger has loads of money, he's just too stubborn to spend it!


(good post btw even if I don't agree with all of it.)

[Power n Glory]

My post earlier was not trying to defend the board - merely to try to point out that there is another way of looking at the situation.

I do feel that inevitably perhaps there is a tendency amongst Arsenal fans to look for a scapegoat on whom to blame the fact that we used to be one of 2 top dogs and now there are 3, and we're not one of them. Its not an experience likely to generate a feel good factor in any fan. So we lash out at manager; board; certain players - someone has to pay.

The reality is that the real reason why we have had so many barren years is the cold hard cash spunked into the game by the oligarch/arabs. Yes our failure to win an odd trophy might be down to another reason - but that's simply football.

What we are debating here is ambition, and as yet noone has been able to deal with the fact that an ambition to do as well as the club can - while adopting a cautious approach financially is still ambition. It might not be what you would do in the same circumstances, but who said that to be ambitious you have to follow a single path or achieve things within a set timescale?

Its accepted wisdom that there's all this money lying around - but does anyone now this for sure? Yes we can do simple arithmetic on transfer ins and outs, but how much of that cash is earmarked for wages - for contract renewals?

The board is supposed to be hoovering up this cash - but unless shareholders actually sell their shares, how is this the case? No dividends have been paid.

And AW's previous buying policy is cited as evidence that he does want to spend but isn't being allowed to. Sorry, but this doesn't add up to me - because it suggests a policy/philosophy that hasn't changed since 1997, when we know from the teams AW has put out and the style in which we have played that it has. Massively.

If AW can go from the Invincibles to Project Youth to the current blend of experience and promise why can't his philosophy re spending cash change also? In fact, I would suggest that during Project Youth it did massively - the principal issue being that once committed to developing his players he was never going to buy ready made player who could restrict that development. It may well be that, faced with a bloated game where nonsense fees are paid thanks to the Chavs and Citeh AW does not wish to be part of the rot.

And as for the board fucking AW over in the Summer. I'm not buying that. Nothing could have been done to prevent the Catalan erection from his Barca snatch. And with Nasri - even if Wenger was leant on to agree the sale - it was obvious to the world that keeping Nasri would have been an error of judgment. His head had been turned, he didn't want to play for us, and after most likely an indifferent season, he would have walked anyway for free. Personally, I think that keeping him would have been stupidity rather than lack of ambition. We often express dismay that there's noone to tell AW he's doing the wrong thing, but when the owner(by some accounts) does, then he's slated for lack of ambition.

Like I say, I'm no Arsenal Board sycophant, but the assumptions and jumping to conclusions that happen are often unjustified. Like someone else has said. Liverpool and Spurs have deeper pockets than we've had, but have their boards had the foresight to build new stadia? Have they had managers who have delivered sustained success - finacially or footbalistically? Would we prefer to have a board/owners who have saddled the board with debt (Manure), or disrupted a winnign formula by chopping and changing managers like a kid with OCD at the pick 'n' mix counter (Chavs)? What are the long term plans, ambitions of any of our competitors - and do the likes of Spurs and Liverpool even have any long term plans? Damn sure Twitchy hasn't - as he'll be off as soon as the England job comes up for grabs, as he has been from any other club he's managed.

IMO we need to step back and see that overall we ain't in bad shape. Manure fans can say all they like beware of Kroenke doing a Glazers, but perhaps, just perhaps we need to take the view that in maintaining what is seen as such an unambitious status quo we are avoiding a debt time-bomb, and that trying to live within our means is in fact a sensible and justifyable, rather than an unambitious aim.

Some good questions posed on your first post as well. These are the tough questions worth thinking about. If we're saying this strategy is wrong, then what's the alternative? It's way too easy to point the finger at figures like Stan and say they've taken us for a ride. If that's true, Wenger is in on it. I don't believe that. I hope that's not the case anyway. We've brought in Stan and Ivan for a reason. They have experience in Sports and have worked under very restrictive financial models over in the US. The plan is to increase revenue through commercial deals rather than looking for outside investors. That's a good long term plan IMO.

It's worth reading all of Stan's transcript.

[Power n Glory]

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news...cle825147.html

Silent' Stan Kroenke has given his first in-depth insight into his vision as Arsenal's majority shareholder.

The US tycoon, who has splurged £400million on buying into Arsenal, outlined his views on Robin van Persie, Arsene Wenger, Manchester United American owners the Glazers and why he chose to buy the club.

Kroenke also told how he nearly became a journalist, reveals he mixed with Chelsea fans on Saturday and explained that he got his love of football from his son.

It was a 40-minute interview, held at the club's at the training ground on Monday after Kroenke had addressed the players.


Here is a full transcript:

You went to Chelsea on Saturday, had a great weekend and addressed the players [on Monday]. Tell us about it...

"It has been very enjoyable. I think the experience of being able to go to the game at Chelsea was great - I had a great time the whole day. I got out and walked as it was such a nice day. I walked to the stadium and the fans were having as good a day as I was. I spoke with a few of them along the way. Of course, the game was spectacular. It was a beautiful afternoon and nice to be there. I thought our team responded well and I am certainly proud of them because they have had their share of challenges and it's a huge win. I don't know - it's fun. We are involved in a lot of sports [Kroenke's company also owns US major-league American Football, basketball, ice hockey and football teams], as you guys know, so you are involved for a lot of different reasons, and I was out there on Saturday afternoon when I could have been anywhere in the world. I wanted to be there and it was a great place to be. I was proud to be involved in our team and the sport. Sports are a very important part of our modern society, and I think particularly the Premier League and the visibility they have around the world. It does a lot of good in a lot of ways that often aren't pointed out so I was happy to be there."

How did Chelsea fans react to you?

"They were fine. They were very good. They were talking to me a little bit about the stadium. They care about it. It is interesting that they can see with our stadium... that, as a fan, they like seeing things like that. It has been developed, we have a strong economic model - something they don't have - and it is something they are interested in."

How do you define success here and how long can you wait for a trophy?

"The other day somebody pointed it out that I said I wasn't so sure why everybody was so interested in me speaking. Maybe it's because I look at the club differently. These clubs are bigger than one person. They are a lot more about a lot of things than just one person, one fan, one manager, one anything. This club has been here for 125 years, It has had its periods when it was up and long periods when it wasn't so up. But I am proud of the club. We have been around the club for four years at one stage or another and you always like to win trophies. We were very close last year but didn't get there. You are not going to win trophies every year. I am smart enough to know that. I think it is fair to say we have a broader experience than anybody in sports, because we are involved in so many different teams. You don't win trophies every year - you'd like to. I have friends who are owners in the leagues in the US who have never won a trophy and they have been in it for 30 or 40 years. We have been fortunate to win a few. I am very proud of our management and I am certainly extremely proud of our manager and I am very proud of the way the club has been run. I said it the other day, for us to be involved in a club - and we had lots of chances here in England and elsewhere - but to be involved with Arsenal was something different to look at and this is a place where we are glad we are involved here."

Which other clubs did you look at before Arsenal?

"I don't really want to go into that. Suffice to say it was more than eight and less than 15. How's that?"

What drew you to Arsenal?

"First of all, I love London. We deal with this in the States. When you look long term, and that is us - if you look at our history we are long-term investors - we don't get involved just to be here, be gone tomorrow, flip and make a profit, do whatever. That's not us. We like to get involved in things that we like to get involved in and think we can help develop over time. London is a great place and a great market. So, comparably in the US, you would talk about Los Angeles and New York. There was a study done in the States and if you ask any 20- to 30-year-old person where they would most like to live if they didn't live where they presently lived, they will tell you LA and New York. It's interesting because players are a lot of times 20-30 years old, so where are they most likely to gravitate? If you ask players in the US, they'll say being in LA or New York is a pretty good place to be for 20-30 year olds. So those markets to me have an inherent advantage as far as recruiting. Maybe that's just me, but I think London is a great place to be. I think, long-term, if you want to attract players, it is a great place to me. If you are in London, Arsenal football club. 'Wow. 125 years, great tradition, great manager, great model but lots of opportunity.'"

Where did your love of football start?

"Well, my son played the game from the time he was very small. When he got to be 14 or 15 he was so tall, and he was a very good basketball player, [so] the coaches at that level, when you start moving to the elite level in these sports - I'm sure you see it over here in European football - they really want you to focus on their sport and spend all your time on it. So he had some choices to make and since he was into that elite group in basketball, they were wanting him to spend a lot of time there. At one stage, he was chosen for what they call the Olympic development programme in the States for soccer. He had a huge interest in it and I used to go to all his games and it was a game I didn't get to play when I was young. We played baseball, a lot of basketball, ran track and all this. But we didn't have European football, so it's a sport that has grown in the States and the interest level is certainly at an all-time high in the States and the interest level in the States has a lot to do with football over here. I mean, I'm not saying that in a bad way, because the MLS has grown. We are involved in that. It has grown substantially in the States but there is a huge interest. Our game [against Chelsea] on Saturday was on one of the main national-TV channels and a lot of people watched it. People were texting some of the guys [who were] with me. It wasn't because we told them, they were just interested."

Arsenal have a business model. But how do you compete with a team at the top of the league, Manchester City, that's fuelled by billions?

"We have done that in the States, too. We compete with people in our league in the States who have the same resources as anyone in the world. You can check it out. The NFL restricts spending, so it's a bit different. In the NBA, they sort of restrict spending but not really, so if you want to spend you can spend, you just have to pay a penalty for it. I think what you have to focus on... I understand it in the short-term...your business is to write articles... short-term... the long-term good of the club is not always in the short-term interest of the next thing you want to write about... I don't think you can... and I am proud of the fact that Arsenal has had this sustainable business model. I think you can have people, and we have had them in the States, where they will spend a lot and they will do it for a little while and they might have some success. And then the person everyone is relying on maybe gets tired of it or has a financial reversal, but what you are doing is that you are putting the focus on one person, one resource. Is that really in the interests of a long-term situation for a great club that many people identify with and rely on? I would much rather, and I would be much more proud, if all our leagues were developed with the idea that you are competing on the basis of intellect and work and effort instead of just simply, 'I am going to throw dollars against the wall.' That's one side of it. Another side of it is that, in the States, it doesn't always work. It does work sometimes, so I understand what you are getting at. If you look at Arsene, as a good example. He has been here 15 years and you look at what the club had as assets and revenues, it's fantastic the growth that has occurred within the club. It has been done very responsibility and they have the record for participating in the Champions League for the most consecutive years. For the long-term stability and an approach to excellence, I think that's unsurpassed, really. That's my view."

Are you worried, as Arsene Wenger is, whether the Financial Fair Play rules being introduced can work?

"I think Arsene or Ivan (Gazidis) are better people perhaps to chat about that.

Chief executive Ivan Gazidis: "I would be happy to, but I don't want to waste your time with Stan."

Is there anything you've seen from the US sports leagues you would like to see here?

"The greatest league in the US, on the basis of most things, is the National Football League. The National Football League's revenues are far greater than any other league's. The fan following is huge in the States. They implement and have restrictions on spending and what that does is restrict people. Now, it's all about, 'How smart are you in selecting personnel' - utilising these resources so you don't go signing a player to a long-term deal and the guy is over the hill, for example. What really happens in our system is that, if you do that, it will penalise you greatly, because you will have less resources to spend everywhere else - and it will show up, believe me. I've watched the teams that have done that. They will make a big run, then say, 'We will spend on everybody' and they bring in a lot of free agents, [but] the free agents don't work out because they're too old. They have a thing called cash-over-cap and what happens is you then have less to spend on other things and invariably those teams are among the worst in the league. Anybody who is a sportsman would rather compete on the basis of intellect, cleverness than they would at being able to throw money against the wall. Anyone can go and buy a player, but it takes a lot more to identify that player, develop that player and position him. I'm not going to start throwing out that there's a direction that the Premier League should take. It's a tremendously successful league. It's a little presumptous of me to start dictating rules."

Can Alisher Usmanov join the board?

"I think the view - it's a board matter - has been outlined and I don't think I should get into it."

Gazidis: "It's a board issue. As Stan has said, it's not about one individual, not Stan, not Usmanov. The board is running well, aligned on direction and very happy with the way it's running."

Kroenke: "I think the board should be given a lot of credit. I've been around this thing for three or four years now and it goes back to what I said earlier - If you go back to where this club was, revenue-wise, in the early to mid-1990s, in terms of assets and things, then it's dramatically different. That didn't just happen by itself, it's not easy to do the things that they have accomplished. The board should be given credit for that. A lot of people are happy that the board is still around."

Does it taste sweeter when you win things because you don't spend so much?

"I think there are a good few people who would argue that - a few people from other clubs who would argue that. Would I rather be successful spending less or spending more? What a question! If you run responsibly and do it well... if you look at our manager, he's a great example. I said recently that there's a film out in the US called Moneyball. Moneyball is all about being smart in sports, specifically baseball. There's a wave in the US now of statistical evaluation - this whole science of sport goes a long way. There's some very smart people - we employ some of them - who are analysing every stat and who are connecting every bit of data and trying to make sense of it. But that really started with Billy Beane, who is the guy in Moneyball. And Billy Beane's hero truly is Arsene Wenger. He loves Arsene. There's a reason and maybe the reason goes directly to what you are talking about. He's proud and is a fan of Arsenal because he realises what it takes to succeed and be responsible and that is different."

Can you compete on player contracts?

"That is a loaded question."

Can Arsenal compete on the money?

"Here's the thing. Could you? Yeah. You could. Do you want to? Maybe you don't. See what I mean? What I told you earlier - sometimes you can overspend for the wrong assets and you end up shorter in the long run. Or you could say, and you might, 'Well, just buy him anyway. The whole has unlimited resources, go out there and spend anything, stockpile everyone and maybe you'll win. You buy to win.' But you might not. There's examples where you haven't. Now I think that you want to be sure that you want to spend the money and I think that's what our manager does. He makes that evaluation. That's his job. It wasn't because the money wasn't there. We have money. And it wasn't because, Ivan can tell you, anybody sitting here ever said, ' Don't spend it.' Now, if you spend it all and there is no more money, you guys come and say, 'Well, Stan, we're short now, you need to spend some more money.' Well then you could blame me, maybe, but I don't think you can blame me now, because I think it's a philosophy. I think this club is run a certain way and I think people are proud of the way it's run. And I think our fans are proud of the way it's run. Now, does that mean there are people who wouldn't like to see you spend more? I think there is a natural tension there. I think maybe they would want you just to make the biggest offer out there. A club could go into a bunch of debt again, spending debt - there was various proposals, we should do different things, I didn't think we should do them and it's turned out fairly well. The club has no debt now, because the cash resources exceed the amount of debt that's on the team."

How confident are you that Fabregas and Nasri transfer situations won't happen again?

"Well, here's the thing. I think you know that one of the players who departed had nothing to do with money. I think our manager would tell you that. There was a specific personal circumstance that happened. Maybe I am saying too much. That has nothing to do with money. So we say, 'Well, we've seen players depart.' Well, then you could say, 'Well, the other player departed for money.' Well then, you get into an evaluation. That's where being smart and not being smart comes in. You've got one year left on a player's contract. You've got a large sum of money being offered. Can you employ those resources better than you could had you not taken the money, taken a chance on losing the guy for nothing in a year or perhaps overpaying for him now and having less resources later? I don't know. That's how I would see the evaluation."

There have been some tough times for your fellow American owners, Hicks/Gillett and the Glazers, recently...

"What was so tough about the Glazers' situation?"

Lot of fan protests?

"Okay, guys, let's talk about it. But they won. And they have increased revenues by a huge amount. If I was a fan of that club, I would still go there and go, 'Wow', because how could you do it any better? That's what I would say."

Manchester United fans would say the Glazers are taking money out of the club...

"But they still won. We don't need to get into an exchange here but I don't know, as a fan, how could you do it much better? They have increased massively. Some of their players have taken money out, and maybe they haven't performed. We have a whole different philosophy I think in the States, maybe, but I think it's time maybe for everybody to think a little bit. Maybe I am saying too much, but I think they ought to think a little bit about who invests in these clubs. What do you want for the long-term? Because, in the States, you would never get this dialogue that you and I are having. [The Glazers] took money out of the club. So what? Jerry Buss [owner of basketball's LA Lakers] takes money out of the club. A lot of owners in the US do. No-one ever says anything about it. What's it about, in fairness - did the Lakers win anything? Well, yeah. They did. How big's their revenue? Pretty darn good."

How do you propose making money for yourself?

"I don't know the specific situations [about Liverpool] and I don't think it's fair for me to comment because I'm not that close to them. George Gillett and Tom Hicks, they had that situation and I really don't know too much about it."

But how do you propose to make money?

"Well, we'll see. That's the risk. There's no guarantee I'll make any money. As a matter of fact, believe it or not, you can actually lose money in sports! I know you'll find that shocking."

There was a lot criticism after the 8-2 loss at Manchester United in August. But it seems to have got better since then. How much faith does that give you in Wenger?

"I think I've said all I want to. I've never departed from that. Arsene Wenger is an unbelievable manager. I think he's a tremendous person, I just think he is as good as there is. Now, do you lose some games? Do you have tough losses? It happens. You cant judge a manager on one game or on one stretch of games. You judge him over time. That's how the really good ones are judged."

The Silent Stan label - how do you feel about that?

"Perhaps bemused? We are busy. We do have a lot of obligations. Sometimes I think if we engage too much, it's a matter of who did you engage with?, were you fair to people?, how much time do you have to give to them? We have very capable people, like Ivan and Arsene. We have lots of very capable people - they wouldn't be involved if I didn't have lots of confidence in them. I think it's more about that. The gentlemen who created it said, 'Well, I'm creating a character.'"

Did keeping a low profile breed suspicion? Should have put yourself out there more at the start?

"Perhaps. I have a lot of friends in the press. Some of them laugh because I tell them that journalism was my love early in my life and that I almost went to study journalism at the University of Missouri. At the time, that was the number one journalism school in America. I chose not to, but they all think that's quite funny now."

It was said recently that there are overseas owners who want to scrap relegation from the Premier League. What do you think?

"It would be presumptuous of me to comment. The history of the league is a great history. I think that is for people who have studied that and understand it. We don't have a point of view on that. Ivan and Arsene might have - and, by the way, none of the American owners that I know have a point of view on that."

What about Robin van Persie and his current contract situation? Do you have a message to the fans?

"I think Robin van Persie is a great player. I think he's doing a great job. He's captain of the club. Arsene said the other day, 'Can we succeed if we are not together? Absolutely not.' If we are together, we have a chance. I thought it was extremely important that Arsene said that. I think that everybody needs to think about that. I think that Robin van Persie gets that, and I think he has shown real leadership. I have watched him and had a chance to chat with him. I think he has done a great job of that. But I think asking me to talk about Robin van Persie at this stage is not fair to Robin van Persie and is not fair to Arsene and Ivan. They are the guys who know the particulars of that situation.

But Nasri had 12 months left, as Van Persie will have next summer, and you made a business decision [Nasri was sold to Manchester City]?

" Arsene made a business decision. I understand why you guys want to do this, but I don't think it is fair on any of the parties for me to start talking about this."

What was your message when you met the players this week?

"That I'm proud of them. That they have faced adversity and have shown a real class and spirit in fighting through it. By the way, it was a lot of fun to watch that game Saturday. Great game. Great win. It was hard early, maybe gave up some things you shouldn't have done, went in at half-time, they scored right before half-time and then you come out. Tremendous spirit and fight."

[Super Ghel]

This guy.

Yes, please stop wasting my time with these long winded posts that lack any real substance. Iceberg has made a great point about our situation and you should probably try tackling that. That's if you have the time.

Well if my long winded post lacked substance in the first place, why then did you bother to reply with a long winded post of your own via another veiled attempt to justify your position? It’s not like the people here in this forum can’t see what your slant is on Wenger by now. It’s been done ad nauseam after all, in one inspired form or another. Yeah sure, my mong paradox argument was long winded, but it started out only as 2 paragraphs to FY. Hell even after all that, I still sense that there are some issues of acceptance here.

And if the mong dilemma was so obvious to you in the first place, why then have I never seen you factoring this simple logic in any of your arguments about Wenger? Did you not argue vehemently that you felt it was understandable for the board to act this way because you felt it’s in their nature to do so? Why then was the cringeworthy double standard (i.e. that the employers are Wengerites) seem acceptable you? Hell, weren’t you one of main advocates in the old board who maintained the view that that the buck had to stop with Wenger? Should I dig up some old posts and have a laugh?

Why even bring IceBerg into this? I have no problem with his rather philosophical take on ambition or even his sensible view of why things don’t seem that bad from his perspective (in essence his is just another definition of success which encompasses a wide spectrum of many others as one would expect from a diverse fanbase). My problem is your slant on Wenger, but more importantly, one which is of a more immediate nature, which is; what does it take going forwards for Arsenal to achieve the definition of success A, bearing in mind the dominant factor in the landscape of competition now is that of an issue of resources?

Like I said above, did you not pay attention to Arsene’s slip at the AGM that fourth is what the club is aiming for? Why is that good enough for you now? After all, weren’t you moaning feverishly in the past about mediocrity and whatnot and claimed that it was Arsene’s fault? Why shift that goal post now? Is it because that it’s overwhelmingly clear now that the board/owner’s zeal for success C at the expense of A is the main contributing factor which presents a problem in your slant against Wengs?

Well I better stop here before I get accused of being too long winded again. If there’s anything that we can both agree on at this juncture, is this exchange between us is clearly a waste of time. So let me just stop here and part you with the message: “whatever your opinion is of me, let me just say that the feeling is mutual” and leave it at that. If you want the last word, knock yourself out. I can walk away as he bigger man

[Niall_Quinn]

Wow, is all I can say to that interview. We are well and truly fucked. It's like a broken record. Yes you can read the interview but you have to understand it as well. In summary this guy is saying it's all about the money and only the money, maybe we'll win, maybe we won't but we can all be proud of the fact we run the finances so tightly. Can we indeed? The deceit is staggering as well, unless he really believes what he is saying which in itself is hard to believe considering he's made a lot of money in sports. Is he suddenly naive or is he just in a gambling mood and really doesn't have and idea of how his investment will pan out. His goal plainly is to increase revenues. That's no surprise and not a bad thing in itself. But where are his goals for the football team? Nowhere. And the arrogance concerning Usmanov is astounding. He prefers to hide behind a board that no longer has any interest in the club (having jumped ship financially) so they can decide the fate of shareholder who actually has some money in the game. Ridiculous. I ask yet again, who are these board members that retain this alleged power over those with a genuine interest? I mean Usmanov but much more importantly the fans. Is anyone buying Stan's reluctance to lead, as the majority shareholder? This will be a first in the history of business if true. At least we may be first at something I suppose.

But even though Kroenke's agenda is painfully obvious, let's give him the benefit of the doubt as suppose he is invested in Arsenal for the overall good of the club. It's embarrassing to even pretend to be so naive but for arguments sake let's humiliate ourselves. What of the ex-shareholders and lingering board members? Could somebody please list very clearly the excuses we are making on their behalf? Please spell out clearly how the ex-shareholders have earned their £400million (or £500 million depending on what you read) on the condition that football must (I insist) be included in your analysis. If we are going to understand these people and be reasonable about their actions then let's do it for a reason rather than simply concede their words while overlooking their actions. If these men (and that bird who fled with over £100mill) are misunderstood then please detail their grand (for surely it must be significant given the sums involved) contribution to the club and explain it in the context of our decline on the pitch.

I just don't understand it. It's like the situation with the bankers. Even now you will get some people defending them as if the stark realities of their behaviour are somehow theoretical rather than practical and with disastrous consequences for all except the guilty. Incidentally, if I observe a bank robbery and cheer on the robbers, I am not a bank robber. If I refuse to give evidence against the robbers I am still not a bank robber. So please don't commence your analysis with a conclusion that because Wenger has gone along with all this there is no crime to answer, except perhaps by Wenger.

How many years have the fans been calling for investment in the TEAM? Where has the money that could have been invested ended up? Why has the team been less deserving of attention considering we are a football club supposedly with ambitions to compete at the top of the game? We see the same behaviour as that of the ex-shareholders in every walk of life. That's why the whole world is fucked up, by the way. Greed. It's a fucking terrible thing. I don't mind any guy having ten or twenty or even fifty mansions if he has the cash to buy them. We are not talking jealousy here. But if he has made that cash by robbing people, then I have a problem.

At least with Stan he makes no pretence about his lack of ambition for the club, beyond revenue generation. The fact he has put nothing in so far is highly suggestive of how much we can expect him to contribute in the future, but we'll need top wait to verify this. However, the rotten cunts who have cashed in clearly and without ambiguity informed the fans the purpose of the stadium move was to keep the club in the upper tier. Nowhere did they mention their desire to exploit assets that would increase the value of the club so they could cash out. In fact they very much painted the opposite. If the final outcome is not what they intended at the outset then how happy for them it occurred nonetheless. It must be with great reluctance they pocket their millions while still retaining their comfortable chairs. What a bunch of cunts and how could you call it any other way?

On these other "inevitable" and unavoidable happy occurrences such as the sale of Fabregas, these things do not become inevitable at the flick of a switch. If you drive a car towards a cliff a thousand miles away you will eventually go off the cliff. Yes, it is inevitable if you don't apply the brake. But don't say nothing could be done as the car plunges over. Action could have been taken with 900 miles still to go, or 800, or 500 or even 50. The inevitability increases with incompetence, wishful thinking or bloody minded determination to court disaster. Some investment in 2005 or 2007 or 2009 or at any point within stopping distance of the cliff edge may have reduced many "inevitabilities", we'll never know because the board pressed the fucking accelerator instead. Now we lament the fact that big players don't want to come here. I wonder why? Can anyone Hazard a guess?

This is all just so convenient for these bastards. I'll tell you though, they are clever. It takes some planning to pull off what they have achieved, especially considering they had to completely reverse their position to do it. So yes, they are liars too although they prefer to cover their tracks by blaming Manchester City. It wasn't Manchester City that assembled that rag-tag squad that took to the pitch to get hammered 8-2 by Utd. That was down to Arsenal Football Club and any denial of the fact is a pointless nonsense. That was down to a lack of investment coupled with a chain of excuses designed to distract while the real business of the board was conducted behind the scenes. Their plan to cash out with millions didn't end in humiliating defeat, I notice. That was the one plan that seems to have been executed perfectly. Another coincidence no doubt.

Whatever. Let's hope that what we have can provide us with a more conventional form of entertainment, excitement and pride until recently commonly understood to be the point of football. As "proud" as we all are of our balance sheet (I'm sure), I wouldn't mind a few wins and even a trophy thrown in. or is that much too much too ask? Manchester City, Chelsea, these are the reasons we make a profit in the transfer window - didn't you know? Trophies, we must be patient. As patient as the board has been in securing it's own success. Maybe even more patient than that because Stan makes no bones about it. He won't be throwing money at the wall. That's the only option you see. You either spend fuck all or take your credit card out and rack up a huge and unsustainable debt. There is absolutely nothing in between. Everyone knows that because Stand says so. And so do the fuckers who are still fouling up the place with their presence and feel so comfortable about it they even have time to insult the fans who paid for it all.

That's enough on this for me. I'm off to be proud of our finances now because that's what it's all about. Come on you balance sheet!

[Özim]

There was a lot criticism after the 8-2 loss at Manchester United in August. But it seems to have got better since then. How much faith does that give you in Wenger?

None

You don't win trophies every year - you'd like to. I have friends who are owners in the leagues in the US who have never won a trophy and they have been in it for 30 or 40 years

Good for them, this guy's attitude stinks....he's just interested in the business side, the football side he doesn't really give a sh*t about....if we win we win, if we don't we can be proud of what we've achieved....in others words winning isn't that important at all.

We shouldn't be proud of losing, sure we won't win stuff all the time, but we should reserve praise for the time we do achieve something.

[IBK]

I can see some of what you are driving at - but I think that we have become a bit too polarised and paranoid about the board, the manager, and the performance of our team.

Lets start with the basics shall we? No owner, no board member, no manager, no player is in the game altruistically for the benefit of the fans. Everyone has an agenda. The Glazers and JW Henry the are in the game to make cold hard cash - just like Silent Stan. Mansour and Abramovich are in to compensate for their small dick sizes, and because ownership of an EPL club gets you exposure on the world stage. So its wrong to see what's happening at our club from a position of utopian ideals - I think that where the board is criticised for being driven by greed - the point of reference is wrong.

What we are dealing with here is degrees. In wanting to run the club as a business is our owner and board any worse than their contemporaries? I'd say no. Emphatically. Despite their successes on the field, we all know what most Manure fans think about their owners. Liverpool fans have been mollified by the appoitnment of King Kenny and some reasonable signings - but watch what happens if they've won nothing in the next 3 years - which is more than possible. I do not think its representative to argue that there is a lack of greed at Citeh and Stamford Bridge because the cheque books are always open. They are open because of the unbridled greed of their owners away from the game - its a totally artificial situation at these clubs.

So the bottom line is that the gleam of silverware covers a multitude of sins. And the majority of those critical of the motives and modus operandus of our owner and board would not even be entering into this territory if it had appeared recently in our trophy room.

So the next question is whether our owner/board are to be villified for 'aiming' for 4th while teams formerly behind us are reaching for the stars? To start - IMO its ridiculous to suggest that 4th is the club's 'aim'. Do people think that if were to find ourself top of the legue in April, we would throw our next matches to finish 4th? Of course not. So the real question is whether steps are being taken actively with the result that we finish no higher than 4th. I'm not at all sure this is the case. We can point to signings/non signings etc. and the transfer surplus, but there is no evidence that funds have been witheld from the manager, or that signing decisions are not solely down to him. In fact, I'd say that common sense suggests otherwise, because if AW was being treated in this way then he would walk. 6mil pa salary or not. Its funny that those who claim that the board is refusing the manager funds often claim that the manager stays nevertheless because he is too 'cosy' and could never find another club where he enjoys the level of control/influence that he does at Arsenal. Either he enjoys control or he doesn't. And if he does, then its not the board denying him available funds to spend.

And for me - using the Cesc and Nasri situations to justify claims of lack of ambition is wide of the mark. Fabregas had a hard on for Barca and was never going to stay. This much was obvious even when we looked like we could win the league last season. People say he'd have stayed had we won something, or bought this or that player. I think not. There is no way that we could ever have achieved anything to make Arsenal look like a better proposition than Barcelona. As for Nasri - he was simply not worth 22 mil with 1 year on his contract and 173K pw. Keeping him would have been an act of gross stupidity rather than an act of ambition. So was failing to land, say Mata, lack of ambition? - Well, if what we hear is to be believed the main reason why we didn't land Mata was because Wenger misread the Nasri situation, not because the board witheld the funds.

NQ talks about the Citeh situation not being responsible for our 8-2 hammering. What's the purpose of looking at this freak result? But if you do - it was undoubtedly the result of a mismanaged Summer transfer window, injuries and poor team tactics/selection. In the latter, Wenger is joined this season by SAF and Villas-Boas - managers of so-called more ambitious clubs.

So perhaps this talk of 4th from the club is realism rather than lack of ambition. I see nothing wrong with conceding that AFC cannot match the spending power of 2 multi billionaires on a pissing contest, or of the biggest football club, with the most successful manager this county has ever seen. That is pretty much simple a factual observation to me. And what's more, we are not talking forever, we are talking for now. Because if people would only see the other side of the coin, our club has shown clear ambition on a number of fronts. It has shown an ambition to build for the future in investing in the Emirates - an interesting topic given that the Chavs; Liverpool and Sp*rs are all facing significant headaches in this regard in the near future. It has shown the same ambition in outbidding richer clubs for the pick of this country's best talent on several occasions. And from the board's point of view, it has shown ambition in paying big style to retain the services of a manager who remains regarded as one of the world's best.

We may be frustrated that the club is focussed on sustainability at the cost of immediate success - but IMO its wrong to suggest that the Citeh style route is the only way to roll. Given that we are not going this route, maybe we should be pleased that Kroenke isn't taking the Glazer route either - despite his appreciation for their model.

[Coney]

Can we rename this thread 'War and Peace'?

[IBK]

Some good questions posed on your first post as well. These are the tough questions worth thinking about. If we're saying this strategy is wrong, then what's the alternative? It's way too easy to point the finger at figures like Stan and say they've taken us for a ride. If that's true, Wenger is in on it. I don't believe that. I hope that's not the case anyway. We've brought in Stan and Ivan for a reason. They have experience in Sports and have worked under very restrictive financial models over in the US. The plan is to increase revenue through commercial deals rather than looking for outside investors. That's a good long term plan IMO.

It's worth reading all of Stan's transcript.

Also worth reading what Herbert Chapman's Zombie has to say over on the Arseblog thread. Certainly appears that its Wenger not spending, not the board.