His wife?Originally Posted by Dog Toffee
His wife?
It’s good to know there are alternative perspectives like yours Iceberg. But what I feel you’ve neglected to consider in your deliberations on the subject is the other side of the coin, and in doing so, you’ve evaded the underlying crucial point of what all the fuss is about. Allow me then to present the alternative viewpoint in perhaps a slightly comical way to illustrate this point.
Yes that’s one perspective. But what about “in wanting to run AFC as a football club with a desire or willpower to win compared to the aspirations you see emanating from the likes of Manure, Liverpool, Citeh, Chelsea, Tottnumb etc? Are we better than our contemporaries? I’d say no. Emphatically.
Nah, that can’t be the real question. It’s quite silly to even contemplate that we are taking steps ACTIVELY with the result that we finish no higher than fourth. The more relevant real question is, are we taking steps ACTIVELY to ensure we finish HIGHER than fourth? I’m not at all sure this is the case.
Yes that’s one perspective. But the notion, that funds have been withheld from the manager is just one extreme, just like the other extreme which argues that Arsene is leading the board by the nose and embarking on some personal utopian quest for glory at the expense of the club with his obsession on project youth. There’s another more logical perspective. The lack of quality signings and the constant surplus of transfer funds we see stems from one common core or strategic directive, i.e. that of a long term approach to excellence which is consistent with the club’s pursuit of self sustainability. It is from this congruent goal (albeit perhaps with different motives from both sides) that we see the kind of transfer activity being exhibited by the club. So there are no funds (though wages might be a different story) to be withheld from the manager, because he doesn’t demand for it in the first place, nor is the board shackling him in any way or form, because there’s nothing to constraint him from. It’s a symbiotic partnership working in harmony with a prime directive.
As you can see from the perspective I’ve presented above, the question of whether Arsene enjoys controls or not, then become a rather farcical one because he is doing exactly what he believes is right for the club (i.e. in accordance with the prime directive) with a freedom that may not be available elsewhere and get rewarded well in the process. So if you believe he should resign just because his values or definition of integrity does not match yours as a fan, then just like the mong paradox argument, a long elaborative mocking post can be made to show this sort of hypocritical view.
Yes that’s certainly one perspective. But why should the extreme Citeh style route be the only way to go? Why can’t a change of leadership/owner in the club to one which emphasises the desire or will to win or compete more rigorously while self sustainability takes a backseat not be another logical option? Perhaps even one who sees nothing wrong with contributing some equity into the club as a small token of appreciation in consideration of the suffering masses who are paying through the roof out of their own shallow pockets.
I get where you are coming from SG. Because as a fan - if you were to ask me am I happy that AFC appears to have been lacking in conviction in our approach to winning silverware, I would wholeheartedly agree. And until recently, I had started to curse our fortune at having Stan and his cronies in charge. But my philosphysing is an attempt to make some sense out of what is going on and while your perspective is of course as valid as mine - certain aspects of the theory that the board lacks ambition - period - (as opposed to simply being cautious and conservative in its approach to success) don't really make sense. Because
- No matter how much we would like it to be otherwise we simply ain't in a position to compete with Citeh; the Chavs and Manure for players. The board knows this. So do we.
- As Stan has said. He knows little about football and is relying on Wenger to lead the ship here. That is just not consistent with not allowing him to spend any transfer surplus.
- Given the reality of our club's current reputational and spending power, and the fact that the 3 clubs above are moving faster than we are. Trying to ensure that we at least finish in 4th is an understandable aim. Relying on a manager - the only apart from Ferguson who has done this every year since 1998 - seems a no brainer.
- And given that it is a no brainer, the idea that they would rely on him to the extent they have to, yet alienate him by not giving him the funds he wants to spend on players just doesn't make any sense (I know you concede the point). I agree with you re AW's philosophy. What I cannot and do not believe is that he does not have a burning desire to win with our club.
- IMO, comparisons with how more ambitious Spurs and Liverpool are are not valid. Both clubs are trying to get where we are, in truth. They are also gambling a great deal on short term success. Look at 'Arry. He has a creative MF (Modric) who may not be around after Jan. A loan signing striker who is no long term solution. Because lurking afterwards for both is a need to build new stadia that (barring another oligarch) is unlikely to be as seamless an undertaking as it was for them. Both clubs would love to be in our position, believe me. And FWIW I no longer bet on either team finishing higher than us this season.
- I don't see what advantage a huge cash surplus has to the shareholders. The club pays no dividend. Noone has sought to raise capital against the value of their share assets. They want the value of their shares to increase. Is this going to happen by the club becoming less and less successful? Of course not. And its ironic that some of the board members now are the self same ones who launched a stadium project that was stunning in its ambition just a decade ago, and one of the most prominent to actually cash in on his shares is the same one who is regarded as the face of ambitious Arsenal, whom many want back in now!
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
http://arseblog.com/2011/09/defendin...-arsecast-210/
Here is the link. Worth a listen and touches on many points discussed here.
That podcast on Arseblog talks about some of the points you've made.
Wenger isn't simply an employee for this club. As said, they rely on his knowledge and value his opinion. I expect Wenger to have a burning desire to win trophies because he's the football coach and his goals and focus should be on the short term. The Board on the other hand are looking at long term goals and stability is key to them. I'm pretty sure everyone at the club is disappointed when we fall apart like we've done in the past. But I can't imagine any of the Board members telling Wenger what he needs to do on the pitch to win games. As seen with his response to a fan questioning him about certain players at an AGM meeting and the media suggesting he should bring in a defensive coach, Wenger can get tetchy when his wisdom and knowledge on the game is questioned. I don't know how we can get around that. Do we want a Director of Football at the club? Someone that's an ex player and can support Wenger when it comes to the decisions relating to football? As seen with Newcastle and Chelsea, this sort of set up can lead to conflict and I can't see Wenger agreeing to this. Stan, Gazidis and PHW can't really advise Wenger on football matters. He had to give in on the Nasri situation because it made no sense financially and he was right to concede. The same goes for the Asia tour. These points were raised in the podcast interview. It's worth a listen.
But there is hope because of what we've seen this summer. We've gone for signings that have experience, are cheap and unknown but have the quality. We should have done this a long time ago. These players have always been about but Wenger placed too much faith in his young players. Sessengnon is player I've been impressed with since he played against us in the Emirates Cup and I was shocked to see him move to Sunderland for £6m. He could have done a job for us but Wenger wants to give his young players a chance and won't buy players if it's going to cause a selection headache. Check out his recent comments about our CB situation. He says it's a good problem to have but sneaks in a jab about people saying we needed to buy more CB's.
Well, it looks like we may be on the right road now. We've got to give this team time to gel and I think it would be unfair to say Wenger has a season to win something or else. If we continue to mix youth and experience then we're on the right path. I see no other way we can compete with other clubs unless we bring in a sugar daddy. But Wenger has to get that balance right and know when to call time on players development time. I like Theo, but if he continues to be hit and miss on the wing, he has to try something else or be moved on. If Chamakh can't find his goalscoring form, he has to be moved on. If we continue to struggle with teams that park the bus, then isn't it time to try to play with two strikers? These are the things Wenger has to wrestle with this season and I hope we see some improvement on the tactical side because it's the only way we're going to win. With so many players contracts up for discussion, this club has to show some ambition and improvement. Our actions in the summer has definitely boosted the confidence of the players and if we'd have only had signed a player like Merts last season when Verms was out, or a striker when RVP was out....who knows what could have happened. Oh well.
Great posts, Ice Berg. We'll see how the season develops and if lessons have been learned.
Nobody but SG and GB want to even talk about the investment side in real terms. The whole thing gets brushed under the carpet and then a pile of loosely related or even entirely irrelevant stuff gets piled on top. We have two billionaires that own the club now. The creatures who used to own the club and claimed they loved the club and wanted to see the club do well and wanted the club to be in the top echelon of the game have managed to arrange things so the entire pot that was used by Kroenke and Usmanov to buy their way in went into private pockets. Their new friend who was previously the wrong sort now has control while the other guy can't even get a seat at the table. And anyone who disagreed with these "weaklings" (who are pushed around and dominated by Wenger) has been purged. Not content with that, they have also made year on year profits in the transfer market, just to rub some shit in the wounds.
Arsenal has fallen out of the top flight as a result, and we can talk as much as we want about City but it was the absence of a player like RvP that cost us last year, and the absence of a decent keeper that cost us, and the absence of a decent defender, and so on. Would it have cost a billion quid to correct these problems? No, it would have cost a tiny fraction of what City have spent and it could have been taken from the pot that has been building year after year from major player sales.
It's either a complete coincidence we've sold almost all our best players or it's a strategy. The money flow has ALWAYS been one way. The damage done by these policies has been cumulative. People are free to believe this has all been done in the interests of the club, it's a free country (actually it's anything but, but that's a different argument). All I'm saying is their case is as unconvincing as it's possible to be. We have a lot of people hovering around who want the best for the club. Not one of them has taken a single step to back that sentiment with real action. So let's excuse these guys and soldier on in the hope there's a big pay-off at the end? Yes, there IS a big pay off at the end. Just as they last shareholders got theirs, Stan will get his. YOU, by the way, won't be getting anything - as you have already seen. Except higher ticket prices.
Somebody said the board has done well. I agree, they've done spectacularly well. For themselves. If we're all still here in 5 years we'll see, won't we? By then I'm sure financial fair play will have rushed to the rescue and Utd, City and Chelsea will be chasing us as we stride clear at the top, unassailable due to the marvellous model that has coincidentally dumped £500million into the pockets of a handful of swine. That's a really likely outcome, don't you think? All we have to do is be patient and carry on doing the things that have failed. In other words, business as usual where the rich guy gets richer and the little guy gets fucked.
Is that the way the world works? Yes it is. Should we say thank you, oh you're wonderful, you are, as we get pumped from behind? I think no, it would be humiliating and embarrassing to do that.
Für eure Sicherheit
It's worth listening to that podcast. You're just repeating yourself.
The podcast will clarify things beyond what Kroenke himself has said? Yes indeed, I'm repeating what continues to be ignored in the hope it will stop being ignored. We've got to the stage now where some will not even acknowledge the shareholders' lottery win. What do you suggest, simply accepting an obvious fantasy as fact?
Für eure Sicherheit
I listened to it, almost 35 minutes of talk with about 60 seconds of substance. Nevertheless, what is it I'm supposed to be hearing that explains what has gone on in the boardroom? I get the part about DD, some interesting tidbits there but nothing that wasn't already broadly understood. I get the bit about Wenger choosing youth and wages over expensive signings. He has chosen to spend what budget he has in a way some of us might agree with and some of us might not. Fair enough. Is this the evidence that suggests Wenger is responsible for the lack of investment? How so? Where's the bit about the board tying the proposed purpose of the stadium move to the final outcome, which was them scarpering with a shitload of money? Where's the part about Stan not investing a penny in the team and instead handing it all to the shareholders? I'm struggling to find any relevance in this podcast to the key points.
Here are my complaints set out again.
1. The ex-shareholders are utter cunts because they took the absolute maximum and gave back nothing. 100% to them. Nothing to the club. This does not demonstrate a love for the club, it demonstrates contempt and a level of greed that's hard to comprehend. In fact they took even more than that by turning profits in the transfer windows. Whether Wenger was aligned with this policy of not (and it appears he probably was and is), why should we focus on the manager to the exclusion of the shareholders? And who has gained most from this policy? Wenger? The worst you can say about him is he's wrong. But you can rightly call the shareholders abusive because that's what they are.
2. Stan is no better because he's chosen to put nothing into the team and expects the fans to fund the whole enterprise, despite the fact he's the one who stands to take the lion's share of any future profits. He will not throw money at the wall, he expects the fans to do that for him though. Better if he fucked off really. What use is he? He has openly stated he intends to carry on with the so-called sustainability model, a euphemism for milking the fans for as much as can be squeezed and then some. If we criticise Wenger, why do we not criticise this guy? Why is there a need to show understanding or suggest his behaviour is somehow admirable or expected? If Stan is admirable or had behaved acceptably, then why is Wenger not admirable? Why is his behaviour viewed as unacceptable? Why on earth do we point the finger at the employee but lend a receptive ear to the employer? Both sing the same song, both are out of key with the fans, we want to throw Wenger out of the choir but let Stan keep squawking? Makes not one bit of sense.
Finally, suppose these strange theories about Wenger dictating to his bosses are true. That in itself is enough to get rid of the bosses, is it not? You don't want weak-willed incompetents running the club do you? Nothing good can come of that.
This all started with a debate on whether Wenger should be sacked. I say fine, sack him if you want. But you must also sack the people whose plan he is executing. These are the people that tell you Wenger is the best in the business and is doing a great job. They deserve to keep their positions if Wenger is made to walk - why exactly?
Für eure Sicherheit
Have you even considered the the fact that our spending habits haven't really changed since Highbury but due to inflation and the amount teams are now willing to pay for our players, we're now making more of profit?
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/prem...transfers.html
We've sold our star players, but this isn't something new. It's not as if we've sold our players to the highest bidders and you can look at the Cesc case if you need any evidence of that. You could also look back to the Henry situation. We had a chance to sell him for way more but we didn't.
If you feel your getting screwed and your not getting value for money, stop going to games. I know that's what I'd do. It's worth listening to that podcast because your ignoring Wenger's role in this and the footballing side to our dealings.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote