Are the doubters wrong about Wenger?

[Power n Glory]

Maybe he would appreciate that buying us everything would make us financially dependent on him

Listen just give it up, if your trying to present an equivalency between that and Chelsea and what they have done you are pissing into the wind.

I don't know if you love Mourinho or your just being argumentative for the sake of it. But i don't respect him or what he has won as a manager outside of Portuguese football, and i don't believe anyone who loves the game can do. He represents how money is eating the heart out of it with the obscene amounts being poured into certain clubs by wealthy plutocrats which has driven up both transfer fees and player wages monumentally.

This is why i make the case that you are pathalogically adverse to Wenger, because you seem determined to defend what is the antithesis of what he and what Arsenal FC represent.
He's no longer a good or effective manager....i don't see why it can't be left at that. Whoever follows him will be doing so using the self-sufficiency blueprint that he and the club have laid out....the challenge will be for that person to make the most from that.

Stop getting emotional and answer the question. How can the governing bodies regulate outside investment if we're going on love for the club?

[Niall_Quinn]

Whoever follows him will be doing so using the self-sufficiency blueprint that he and the club have laid out....the challenge will be for that person to make the most from that.

Might not be the case though. And if we do bring in a new manager in, say 2016, and the financial clout of the club has developed to the point where he can go out and compete for the very best players then Wenger's contribution will have been even greater than is perceived at present. I believe there are very good times ahead for our club.

[Power n Glory]

You put a lot of things aside in you argument, almost everything. It's pretty easy to measure how much some managers love the club, for example the Russian mobster and the Arab gangsters - they love the club as a laundry but quite obviously they don't love it in sporting terms. Otherwise they wouldn't be destroying the sport. No matter how much you argue in favour of turning a blind eye, you can't persuade people to respect something they don't respect. It's a futile effort. Trying to compare Fizsman with Abramovich in terms of football is also futile, there's no comparison at all. Beyond that, as in blood diamonds, well that's a different thing and I think comparisons would be valid.

You guys are too busy looking at the individual instead of the system and regulations that make it possible for shady characters to enter football. Outside investment is outside investment. I don't know how Danny made his money, but if he was involved in the diamond trade, you're right, that has it's own ethical issues but I'm not going to get into that. How can you control ownership? Through means testing?

We may see a shake up with FFP rules but I don't think the rules for financing have ever been fair in football and it's why we are here where we are now. Eyes are now opening because we are now seeing clubs outside of the status quo start to rise and vast amounts of money being thrown around. The rules weren't right in the first place. It was never an even playing field for most clubs.

[Power n Glory]

Also, it's not about turning a blind eye. If anything, people have failed to see how money has always played an important factor in football. The corruption in ownership and football goes way beyond what we're seeing if you want to compare the Franco era.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Stop getting emotional and answer the question. How can the governing bodies regulate outside investment if we're going on love for the club?

Don't be condescending to me please, i'm just getting bored of this discussion and frankly i do believe you are pursuing this line because of your own agenda. When i point out the obvious differences such as in terms of financial scale and how the finances spent are generated, you seem to believe that these are somehow irrelevant matters and frankly it's seems rather redundant arguing with you if you are going to hold that mindset.

i'm drawing a line under it, i think your arguing for the sake of it.....it's abundantly clear whatever fiszman put into the club was more than made back in terms of finances generated independently by success on the pitch. So that if he'd wanted to retrieve the money he'd invested he could have done so.


The kind of money he invested isn't a game changer in terms of inflating transfer fees and wages where as the money pumped into their respective clubs by characters such as Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour is.

But if you want an answer to your question, it's an obvious one. A transfer and salary cap....that plus you legislate that no investment from outside can be greater than what the club would be realistically able to generate in order if it was to say pay it back.
There is no way Chelsea could pay back the money given to it on transfers by Abramovich independently

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You guys are too busy looking at the individual instead of the system and regulations that make it possible for shady characters to enter football. Outside investment is outside investment. I don't know how Danny made his money, but if he was involved in the diamond trade, you're right, that has it's own ethical issues but I'm not going to get into that. How can you control ownership? Through means testing?

We may see a shake up with FFP rules but I don't think the rules for financing have ever been fair in football and it's why we are here where we are now. Eyes are now opening because we are now seeing clubs outside of the status quo start to rise and vast amounts of money being thrown around. The rules weren't right in the first place. It was never an even playing field for most clubs.

This is a whole different discussion entirely, because you don't want to accept that there is no equivalency not only between us and Chelsea but between United and Chelsea in terms of expenditure....your just changing the subject entirely.

[Niall_Quinn]

You guys are too busy looking at the individual instead of the system and regulations that make it possible for shady characters to enter football. Outside investment is outside investment. I don't know how Danny made his money, but if he was involved in the diamond trade, you're right, that has it's own ethical issues but I'm not going to get into that. How can you control ownership? Through means testing?

We may see a shake up with FFP rules but I don't think the rules for financing have ever been fair in football and it's why we are here where we are now. Eyes are now opening because we are now seeing clubs outside of the status quo start to rise and vast amounts of money being thrown around. The rules weren't right in the first place. It was never an even playing field for most clubs.

It's the individuals that make the problems. I'd agree, in the absence of governing bodies that actually give a shit about the game beyond its ability to be their cash cow it's not a surprise that similarly unethical types will be attracted to the sport. In fact it's inevitable, like flies to shit. There's supposed to be a test for who is allowed to operate, the gypos have had two criminals (not hyperbole, fact) own them now. These are individuals you can look up in daily newspapers, no background checks even required. When it's that blatant then obviously the test is a sham. And so it is safe to conclude the regulatory bodies are just as harmful to the game as the crooks they are letting into it. That's where a clean up needs to start. Shits like Blatter and his host of cronies, the buffers at the FA who watch it all sail past without ever paying heed to their duties.

FFP could have had some influence if it hadn't been crafted by dodgy individuals. Now it transpires this is just another cash grab for the likes of Platini, there is no intention to clean up the game. They'd rather hammer a player for making a gesture on the pitch and then spend a month in the papers praising themselves for being at the progressive forefront of change, when in reality they are all about business as usual. FFP could have simply stated that clubs need to run as a business within certain boundaries. No need to chuck clubs out of Europe, that was a red herring designed to fail because they knew the lawyers would have a field day with it. Instead dock 3 points, 6 points, 12 points and these clubs don't qualify for Europe anyway. That's what a smart administrator with genuine intent would have done. You get caught paying Neymar's dad a million quid - 3 point fine, get caught involved in all manner of transfer abuses, 6 points. Barca would be out of the CL by now without ever having been thrown out. But they'll dock a club points for having a brawl on the pitch.

It's a sad day when we have to look to the Italians for balls when it comes to taking action against structural corruption. The fucking Italians! It took big balls to relegate a top club. That came down to individuals too. It's all about individuals and they should be allowed to hide behind faceless organisations of shell companies and plead their innocence. First step before anything else can happen is to root the bastards out.

Then we'll start working towards the day when we can see if Mourinho can emulate his Porto days again. Maybe it's not just Wenger who has his best days behind him and is a bit behind the times?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

It's the individuals that make the problems. I'd agree, in the absence of governing bodies that actually give a shit about the game beyond its ability to be their cash cow it's not a surprise that similarly unethical types will be attracted to the sport. In fact it's inevitable, like flies to shit. There's supposed to be a test for who is allowed to operate, the gypos have had two criminals (not hyperbole, fact) own them now. These are individuals you can look up in daily newspapers, no background checks even required. When it's that blatant then obviously the test is a sham. And so it is safe to conclude the regulatory bodies are just as harmful to the game as the crooks they are letting into it. That's where a clean up needs to start. Shits like Blatter and his host of cronies, the buffers at the FA who watch it all sail past without ever paying heed to their duties.

FFP could have had some influence if it hadn't been crafted by dodgy individuals. Now it transpires this is just another cash grab for the likes of Platini, there is no intention to clean up the game. They'd rather hammer a player for making a gesture on the pitch and then spend a month in the papers praising themselves for being at the progressive forefront of change, when in reality they are all about business as usual. FFP could have simply stated that clubs need to run as a business within certain boundaries. No need to chuck clubs out of Europe, that was a red herring designed to fail because they knew the lawyers would have a field day with it. Instead dock 3 points, 6 points, 12 points and these clubs don't qualify for Europe anyway. That's what a smart administrator with genuine intent would have done. You get caught paying Neymar's dad a million quid - 3 point fine, get caught involved in all manner of transfer abuses, 6 points. Barca would be out of the CL by now without ever having been thrown out. But they'll dock a club points for having a brawl on the pitch.

It's a sad day when we have to look to the Italians for balls when it comes to taking action against structural corruption. The fucking Italians! It took big balls to relegate a top club. That came down to individuals too. It's all about individuals and they should be allowed to hide behind faceless organisations of shell companies and plead their innocence. First step before anything else can happen is to root the bastards out.

Then we'll start working towards the day when we can see if Mourinho can emulate his Porto days again. Maybe it's not just Wenger who has his best days behind him and is a bit behind the times?

To be honest i think you are casting pearls amongst swine even bothering to answer this guy, i am not convinced he wants a genuine discussion he has changed the parameters even of what we are discussing when it becomes abundantly clear that his own argument doesn't work.
Like Ozim (or whatever the fuck his name is) the long and short of it is, they are digging and digging in order to provide some justification for their inate reaction of disgust and anger to everything that comes from Wenger's mouth. It's perfectly fine that they feel that way and if they had actually had the clout to admit that nine years of frustration causes them to respond to him irrationally than i'd respect them a lot more for it.
In many respects my own antipathy towards Mourinho is irrational, but even if i didn't have a deep personal dislike for the man i'd still feel that there is a level of illegitimacy towards what he has won with Chelsea. To extend that to his time at Porto, Inter and even Real Madrid (where arguably his record was a very mixed bag) would be stretching things somewhat....all of these clubs to some extent or another are self-sustaining.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I do believe actually that a lot of the Mourinho veneer has been lost, i think his old "one trick pony" approach of "doing a number" on rival teams still works from time to time. But i think at the same time he can't get the same players to impose themselves on a game the way city and liverpool do and this is why they have suffered away from home against smaller opponents.

[Power n Glory]

Herb, you can check out of this conversation at any point. I just didn't appreciate the line about being pathologically adverse to Wenger or being a Mourinho lover of all things. There is no need to go down that route and get emotional. When it comes to the finance issue, what is it that you have a problem with?

1- The fact that outside investment is allowed?
2- The amount allowed to be invested?
3- Or whose investing?

There are holes in the argument. Why downplay Liverpool'a succes becaue they've spent £100m but turn a blind eye when we spent £50m of Fizsman's money when that was a huge sum way back then? Had, like in Manure's case, the money been generated from football, why is ok for us to take outside money from Danny? Is it the amount that matters or how it was generated? Then we look to Chelsea and City and there is a problem with the owners not loving the club and how that money may have been acquired. It's a lot of grey areas that's hard to regulate. I agree with the part about a salary cap even thought that may cause problems, but I've always been a fan of the American system. It seems more fair to what we have now.

This debates all over the shop and I'm not switching goal posts. It's just interesting to here people talk about football finance. The growns grow louder now that we're not winning, but when we were nobody damn about the little clubs below us struggling that couldn't afford to do what we were doing. The game has never been fair but you only want justice when your the victim, right?

I applaud our financial model to a degree and trying to stay Financially independent but I have a serious problem with the burden being lumped on to the fans. That's no good for me or anyone else if we can't afford to go to games.