Silent Stan Speaks

[Fist of Lehmann]

Where is this Arsenal podcast of the 4th Oct which HCZ talks about?

[Power n Glory]

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.

A really good post. Hits on a lot of good points people have missed. It sums up my feelings on this complex situation.

Good read! If we're saying this isn't the right way to go, then what's the alternative?

[IBK]

Where is this Arsenal podcast of the 4th Oct which HCZ talks about?

http://arseblog.com/category/arsecast/

I think he means 4 Nov.

[Fist of Lehmann]

http://arseblog.com/category/arsecast/

I think he means 4 Nov.

Today's?

Maybe I've gone completely batshit, but I recall nothing in today's Arsecast regarding the things that HCZombie mentioned.

Oh and this:

...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.

Have you a sauce?

[gunsofashburtongrove]

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.

Very good post as was the earlier one in which you have rightly pointed out that the transfer policy has always been the same. Wenger has always been a developmental manager.The one thing that has crucially changed is us not being able to retain our important players. While examples of Petit, Overmars etc did exist in the past we still retained a fair bit of our core or was able to directly find a replacement as in the case of Pires. With top clubs all over expanding their scouting network, the young super talents are not always successfully bought neither are the experienced ones as they are all expensive. Despite of this we have developed some very good players in the past 6 years.
Something fans of most clubs as you have said feel the board does not invest sufficiently Manure, Scouse et all. Our board has been very astute at guiding the club through a very difficult phase.We now have a swanky stadium which has increased our income.The common question i get is why cant we spend if we have more money? The answer is simple 1. Clubs like Manure, Barca and Real continue to grow fast the last two at least at a faster rate than us. The growth that the other clubs have achieved are in areas where huge investments were not required 2.The appearance of sugar daddy sponsored clubs.

If anything board has to account for these factors that were not accounted for during planning of the stadium and look at innovative ways at addressing these issues. I think they are attempting to do, so the efficacy of the approach can be measured only later.

As a foot note I would like to see if another club is going to build a stadium and remain competitive like we have. Forget the spuds i would like to see how a Liverpool or Chelsea who both have more revenue than spuds do this

[Dog Toffee]

Who gives a fuck about Stan Kronk-face?

[GP]

So's your Kronk-face.

[Dog Toffee]

[GP]

[Dog Toffee]