Originally Posted by
Niall_Quinn
Last question first then. I have absolutely no doubt you have twisted what he said and paraphrased the result to meets your needs, because that's what you do. But even then, if he said it is necessary to raise prices to bring in more revenue to compete with the comedy clubs then what of it? What's the great ah-ha conclusion being reached in relation to the original supposition that Wenger doesn't deserve his wages? And even more so, now you've reversed and said he does deserve them, what am I missing here? Explain it.
I'll take a guess at deciphering based on the claim you make the the fans have had nothing. Well if there was never an intention to deliver on the reasons for undertaking the stadium project in the first place, I'd agree. Ticket increases would be outrageous, salaries at the executive level would be outrageous. But for this to be the case there would have to be no signs of delivery. And yet there are clear signs. So why not take the price increases in the context of the overall plan rather than suggest they are a further means to milk the fans? You understand I'm not even saying with certainty these guys will deliver and it is not their aim to rob everyone. Maybe it is. None of us knows for sure this isn't the end game. What I'm saying is they have delivered some of what they promised they would deliver, a world class signing for big money, much improved sponsorship deals. So the evidence goes in their favour at the present time. We genuinely seem to be on the verge of moving into a sustainable period where we can compete at the top level of the game, in a business sense at least.
Of course we cannot ever compete with some barbaric monarch with endless funding, nobody can. Business doesn't work like that, normally you have to invest and build a business. Very few have the means to run their pseudo-business at a perpetual loss, pumping more money all the time to fund the loss. But it's also true you can only put eleven players on the pitch at any given time, so we now have the means to attract eleven such players who may not fancy sitting it out on the comedy club benches. And of course you need more than eleven and if it's true we will have up to £70mill a year to fund transfers we can start to build a squad with sufficient quality to counter the huge financial advantage of the dopers.
Some of the money I hope we'll spend will come from sponsorship deals, money attracted to the club because those investing it think they can make more money back. The rest will come straight from the pocket of the fans, more fans given the increased stadium capacity. This is when the fans get their money back, when they see better quality - expensive assets - on the pitch. This in turn improves the chances of delivering those trophies. I'm assuming ticket prices are set in relation to the budget and other variable factors such as inflation and the continually rising cost of transfer fees, player wages and so on. And I suppose because the nation runs a debt based, inflation based economy ticket prices will always increase. The fans will then have to weigh the cost of a ticket against what is being delivered on the pitch in terms of entertainment and results. Some will find the balance in their favour, others won't. Unfortunately many will be priced out entirely, but that's a general ailment with modern football and not specific to Arsenal.
Finally, on that first point, there's a more simple reason Wenger might justify a price increase. Because the club owners say that's the way it's going to be. Simple as. He's an employee. How was the question framed? Was he asked if he likes the price increases? If he disagrees with them? I can't recall and I go back to the first sentence in my response.
On your other points, you are revisiting the Wenger runs everything and controls everything argument. That's your opinion,, based on nothing. It's almost certain this isn't the case, as no businesses run like that and no investors would tolerate such a state of affairs if for nothing more than prudence. If you mean Wenger has a say in everything then probably he does and that makes sense, he's been there for almost two decades. It's odd he couldn't save his friend Dein if he has such overwhelming control.
Regarding the players, there's no doubt Wenger has delivered many times over. We may not agree with the priorities that have been set, we may hate certain aspects of the finances and the business plan, but Wenger has delivered what the board has demanded with unerring consistency. There's no genuine dispute about him earning his salary. The players on the other hand, they have a task to achieve too. On the pitch. On the training ground and, because they are in a position of great privilege, in their personal lives too. Some have delivered, often under difficult circumstances. Some have not. It's not black and white like Wenger's delivery, and there's a degree of subjectivity. But some players can rightly be criticised for failing to deliver a return on the amount invested in them. A lot of them were cleared out last summer. Some have jumped ship in search of more money without ever providing an equitable return for the money they took from Arsenal. In these cases it's legitimate to criticise the player.
The departed board members invested little and took a fortune. They started the project to enhance the revenues of the club, so fair enough if you are generous and say they had the best interests of the club at heart. From their antics in the boardroom and the fact they cashed out there's strong evidence to suggest their motivation was purely selfish. But no solid proof admittedly. Legally speaking they were entitled to do what they did. I mention them in response to the ludicrous idea it has been Wenger on the take.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote