Wenger Referendum: Yes Or No

[Power n Glory]

It's all relative though. We've done what we can financially as the game has moved on. That has been enough to keep us in the top four. And without the stadium, the inflation in the market wouldn't allowed us to spend the top wages you state. The players that earned first team money in the end, were the ones who made the first team....they may not have been the required quality, but they must have been to keep us top four

Ozil and Sanchez may well have happened outside of a doped market, with lower sponsorship revenue.

We may have gotten away with a couple more years at Highbury, but the point is this. We spend within our means, from our own profits, and still compete. Without the stadium, we wouldn't be able to, AND maintain competetive. Full stop.

No, go back a step. I didn’t say they weren’t the required quality to keep us Top 4. They weren’t the required quality to win us silverware and that was my original comparison. We didn’t replace the Invincibles and went from Henry, Pires and Vieria to Ade, Hleb and Denilson/Cesc. It was a drop in quality but they earned around the same amount the Invincibles did and maybe more. The stadium boosted our revenue but it’s not as if we used that boost in revenue to upgrade or even maintain the standard we had back in Highbury.

I’m not saying the move wasn’t necessary, just questioning why people think we’d have dropped out of the Top 4. I think we’d have survived in Highbury more than a couple of seasons because there was nobody below us to worry about. Spurs, Everton…those teams weren’t even close to us without the stadium so why do you think we needed a significant boost in finances to compete for Top 4? That’s what I don’t get. There hasn’t been a team in the league to be consistently on our heels to challenge us for that spot. Not one. This season and last are the only two seasons where I think we could be in serious trouble because we now have 5 top teams with a history and record of finishing in the Top 5. But, we’re in a very good position because of the sponsors and stadium. It’s almost been 10 years since the move, so it’s been a strategic and case of long term planning. It wasn’t something we needed immediately or we’d have been blown out the water by teams like Spurs and Everton.

If those smaller teams manage to build a bigger and better stadium than ours, do you think they’ll immediately catapult to our level?

[LDG]

Who's been talking about mid table? - we've had C.L. football for 17 years but our sponsorship levels were shit compared to other mediocre European teams.
Sponsors want to be involved with successful & ambitious brands - success & ambition are not two words you would link to Wenger these days.

You're talking at cross purposes then.

We wouldn't be able to afford Ozil etc without the huge sponsorship deal we have.

Yet, sponsors want to be involved with successful clubs. Isn't our relative success a part of that. And isn't our stature in the game, stadium/fanbase etc included part of achieving that?

In terms of previous deals, they were lower than perhaps we could have got, but we also had a lot of them built in with the stadium rebuild, hence why they were lower.

I don't get some of you lot. We all get that Wenger is at the end of the road, because he isn't tactically astute, and makes some really stupid decisions / gambles with the squad. But people want to bash anything and everything regardless!!

The stadium was a good and very necessary move. Even Dein would agree now, I'm sure.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

Debunked by whom though, the rose tinted glasses brigade. We are in a fight every year for 4th with teams who have 30,000+ seater stadiums & less financial clout than us, so I fail to see how anyone can suggest we couldn't be doing the same if we'd stayed at Highbury.

Excellent post tbh

[LDG]

No, go back a step. I didn’t say they weren’t the required quality to keep us Top 4. They weren’t the required quality to win us silverware and that was my original comparison. We didn’t replace the Invincibles and went from Henry, Pires and Vieria to Ade, Hleb and Denilson/Cesc. It was a drop in quality but they earned around the same amount the Invincibles did and maybe more. The stadium boosted our revenue but it’s not as if we used that boost in revenue to upgrade or even maintain the standard we had back in Highbury.

I’m not saying the move wasn’t necessary, just questioning why people think we’d have dropped out of the Top 4. I think we’d have survived in Highbury more than a couple of seasons because there was nobody below us to worry about. Spurs, Everton…those teams weren’t even close to us without the stadium so why do you think we needed a significant boost in finances to compete for Top 4? That’s what I don’t get. There hasn’t been a team in the league to be consistently on our heels to challenge us for that spot. Not one. This season and last are the only two seasons where I think we could be in serious trouble because we now have 5 top teams with a history and record of finishing in the Top 5. But, we’re in a very good position because of the sponsors and stadium. It’s almost been 10 years since the move, so it’s been a strategic and case of long term planning. It wasn’t something we needed immediately or we’d have been blown out the water by teams like Spurs and Everton.

If those smaller teams manage to build a bigger and better stadium than ours, do you think they’ll immediately catapult to our level?

Silverware....well, I think we should have won a cup or two with those players. We've been over that before, and it's the same reason we're saying Wenger should go now. Because of gambling with squad, not preparing a team properly etc.

But even then. Even when we had a squad that should have won something. EVEN THEN. We did it on a budget, because we were tied into various deals, we didn't have oil money, we were funding the stadium and other build projects. What I'm saying, is that I don't believe there were or are many other managers capable of keeping us where we were, and on that budget. That's the argument.

And as we agree the move was necessary, you have to give credit to those involved who made it possible, without dropping out of the top four. There is a good argument that had we put David Moyes in charge of that period of time, on the budget Wenger had, we WOULD have dropped way out of the top four. He managed it with Utd's millions.

[Dein-machine]

[QUOTE=LDG;423918]You're talking at cross purposes then.

We wouldn't be able to afford Ozil etc without the huge sponsorship deal we have.

Yet, sponsors want to be involved with successful clubs. Isn't our relative success a part of that. And isn't our stature in the game, stadium/fanbase etc included part of achieving that?

In terms of previous deals, they were lower than perhaps we could have got, but we also had a lot of them built in with the stadium rebuild, hence why they were lower.

I don't get some of you lot. We all get that Wenger is at the end of the road, because he isn't tactically astute, and makes some really stupid decisions / gambles with the squad. But people want to bash anything and everything regardless!!

The stadium was a good and very necessary move. Even Dein would agree now, I'm sure.[/QUOTE

Your the one talking at cross purposes - The debate here is not whether or not its been good to move to the Emirates, I doubt anyone on here doubts that. The debate for me is whether ( as per the thread title ) or not the stadium move can be used as an excuse in the Wenger Out argument. I don't understand those on here who are trying to suggest that staying at Highbury would have automatically meant us not competing for 4th place - the fact that Liverpool, Everton & Spurs regularly run us close & haven't changed stadium would suggest not, especially as we would have more money to spend on players over the past decade without stadium repayments. Therefore even with a fantastic new stadium & extra revenue we are unable to make any real impact at the top level.
Yes we buy Ozil, but would the money have been better spent elsewhere, what did he do for the team last year as opposed to what a top striker would have done or what a top DM would have meant to us defensively. We can spend the next ten years breaking our transfer record in similar players but unless the squad has the quality of our opposition in EVERY position then we wont compete

[LDG]

The debate for me is whether ( as per the thread title ) or not the stadium move can be used as an excuse in the Wenger Out argument. I don't understand those on here who are trying to suggest that staying at Highbury would have automatically meant us not competing for 4th place

Eh??

The whole thing is about Wenger right?

Yes, of course he would have kept us top four without the stadium, and without the financial constraints of the stadium move. Of course he would. That's the point.

I would then say (like you agree) the stadium move was necessary. So you have to factor that in.

You then have to say, how many other managers would have been able to keep us there, on the budget he had.

Indulge me:

If Wenger had been the Spurs manager during the period we're talking, and that ragtag succession of failed spud managers (who had plenty of money to spend) were in charge of our club during that time. Who would have finished top four?

Isn't that the argument really?

[The Emirates Gallactico]

Totally agree - sponsorship revenue is the reason we are able to spend big. The additional match day revenue comparing Highbury to Emirates is not what some people on here think it is.

And what do you think influences sponsorship revenue?

Do you think if we were playing in some shitty run down 35 k old stadium that Puma would have been prepared to offer us the biggest kit deal in the world at the time (before the Mancs blew us out of the water with Addidas)?

Having a brand new modern 60 K stadium in London and filling it out week in, week out cements our status as one of the biggest clubs in Europe, essentially improving our prestige and making us more attractive for sponsors to associate with. Would Real Madrid be as big as they are if they played in a small 30 K stadium? No they wouldn't. As has been pointed out already, it's not surprising that clubs who are right below us now like Liverpool and Spurs are desperately trying to modernise their stadiums in order to replicate our journey.

Now, it's been well reported why our sponsorship deals prior to last year were poor - pathetic long term contracts that the board were tied into in order to raise cash up front for the stadium. It was poor business foresight and in hindsight an awful decision as we lost out on millions in potential sponsorship deals when the popularity of the PL boomed around the world. However since we've been able to renegotiate them it's not surprising to see them rocket up to some of the largest in the world and only behind the four really elite clubs in the world (Man Utd, Bayern, Madrid and Barca). Not a bad position to be in tbh.

[Power n Glory]

Silverware....well, I think we should have won a cup or two with those players. We've been over that before, and it's the same reason we're saying Wenger should go now. Because of gambling with squad, not preparing a team properly etc.

But even then. Even when we had a squad that should have won something. EVEN THEN. We did it on a budget, because we were tied into various deals, we didn't have oil money, we were funding the stadium and other build projects. What I'm saying, is that I don't believe there were or are many other managers capable of keeping us where we were, and on that budget. That's the argument.

And as we agree the move was necessary, you have to give credit to those involved who made it possible, without dropping out of the top four. There is a good argument that had we put David Moyes in charge of that period of time, on the budget Wenger had, we WOULD have dropped way out of the top four. He managed it with Utd's millions.

Yes, true, we should have at least won a cup with some of those teams, but you get my point. We weren’t buying the same quality as what we once were when at Highbury even though the revenue went up. But this is where the language used gets confusing.

Why would we fall out of the Top 4 if we had a financial advantage over the teams below us? We were working on a budget and financial constraints compared to the teams above us but not below. So why the argument that the move to the Emirates was desperately needed to stay in the Top 4?

[Dein-machine]

Eh??

The whole thing is about Wenger right?

Yes, of course he would have kept us top four without the stadium, and without the financial constraints of the stadium move. Of course he would. That's the point.

I would then say (like you agree) the stadium move was necessary. So you have to factor that in.

You then have to say, how many other managers would have been able to keep us there, on the budget he had.

Indulge me:

If Wenger had been the Spurs manager during the period we're talking, and that ragtag succession of failed spud managers (who had plenty of money to spend) were in charge of our club during that time. Who would have finished top four?

Isn't that the argument really?

Wenger has consistently delivered C.L. football by finishing in the top 4. He has done this without the spending power of the Chavs or Gypos whilst still competing with a strong Utd side under Fergie. This is fact & can only be admired.
However, Wenger & Danny Fitz sold us the Emirates dream which funnily enough didn't mention a struggle for top 4 every year.
The stadium move hasn't cost us every year, it hasn't left a deficit - the extra revenue easily exceeds the stadium repayments so maybe even they didn't expect a fight for 4th every year.
But over a decade later, we have won the FA cup once , we have a team that doesn't compete in the EPL or the C.L. anymore, our football style hasn't progressed & due to the players we have it can't, we struggle to get 4th, we struggle to get out of C.L group stages ( this year a Demba Ba header away from even qualifying ), total lack of squad depth defensively, lack of quality in 3 main positions in our starting 11 & a team regularly beaten by the teams who have progressed.
The stadium was supposed to take us to another level, Wenger can just about guarantee us 4th although its getting tighter every year but the above should prove that to match our new shiny, modern stadium - we need a new shiny, modern manager.

I'm not sure about the Spurs C.L. question under Wenger. I can see what you are saying but I think if we had replaced Wenger with a Guardiola or a Klopp 5 years ago - I think we'd be regularly fighting with the top teams for the title which would probably have meant it was only United that Spurs could overtake. The Invincible team came at the right time for Wenger, before money spoilt the game, but it was a team that he has failed to recreate & I doubt he would have any more success at doing that at Spurs.

[Dein-machine]

And what do you think influences sponsorship revenue?

Do you think if we were playing in some shitty run down 35 k old stadium that Puma would have been prepared to offer us the biggest kit deal in the world at the time (before the Mancs blew us out of the water with Addidas)?

Having a brand new modern 60 K stadium in London and filling it out week in, week out cements our status as one of the biggest clubs in Europe, essentially improving our prestige and making us more attractive for sponsors to associate with. Would Real Madrid be as big as they are if they played in a small 30 K stadium? No they wouldn't. As has been pointed out already, it's not surprising that clubs who are right below us now like Liverpool and Spurs are desperately trying to modernise their stadiums in order to replicate our journey.

Now, it's been well reported why our sponsorship deals prior to last year were poor - pathetic long term contracts that the board were tied into in order to raise cash up front for the stadium. It was poor business foresight and in hindsight an awful decision as we lost out on millions in potential sponsorship deals when the popularity of the PL boomed around the world. However since we've been able to renegotiate them it's not surprising to see them rocket up to some of the largest in the world and only behind the four really elite clubs in the world (Man Utd, Bayern, Madrid and Barca). Not a bad position to be in tbh.

Not got a problem with anything you say apart from "our status as one of the biggest clubs in Europe" - exactly the words used to sell us the Emirates move.
Now you tell me as a football fan & not a share holder - Are we seen as a bigger European club now or 10 years ago. Galatasary get 80,000+ every week, doesn't mean there viewed at a top European team. The top teams are Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, teams we used to compete with in C.L semi's & finals - Yes, when we were seen as one of Europe's biggest clubs.
We need to stop thinking that big stadiums & big sponsorship deals = success. The top teams spend that money on quality to guarantee that success, we have a manager who won't because of his principles.