Defensive coach

[IBK]

Well it's not irrelevant because so far as ownership is concerned the two are inextricably linked. If he could see where football was going and 'introduces' the person who is happy with the 'status quo' as you put it, whose fault is that? If he could see where it is going and what is needed to change that, he should've taken the steps to ensure the businessman he is involved with would not be what we have (apparently) got.

He's not a great visionary if he hits the first roadblock.

I don't think we are debating 'fault'. As the article Ach posted makes clear, the rift between DD and the board was that the team should be prioritised rather than the stadium. DD clearly felt that outside investment was necessary on the playing side for us to be able to match Chelsea and Manure. He found Kroenke and it is reasonable to assume that Kroenke gave DD some assurances that he would invest in the playing side.

I said earlier that time moves on. By the time DD left AW's astuteness had ensured that the team maintained top 4 status during the worst of the stadium debt years. By then the board saw Kroenke as the lesser of 2 evils (DD having now perhaps realised that Kroenke wasn't the right man to invest in the team), and Kroenke realised that he could own the club as a self financing business without investing in the playing side.

What is clear, in hindsight, is that the stadium became obsolete as a means of us competing with the richest teams almost as it was being built. It was also the catalyst for the transformation of our team into also-rans, as we became committed to trying to develop young players as a sustainable means of managing the debt. In this light a vice-chairman who was opposed to the stadium and saw investment on the playing side as the necessary route to maintain our success as a team looks rather more far sighted than the rest of the board.

[Flavs]

Good read that.

Trouble is, you hear so many opinions, it's difficult to believe any of them.

This is what always amuses me about these things, "Wenger is in complete control and keeps everything secretive and close to his chest" then they manage to fill out 500 word articles with what they "know"

I dont think we would have made big name signings if Dein had stayed because i dont think that's the way the board want the club to go while we are paying off the stadium, i agree that Dick Law () seems to be fuckin useless but he is working in a restricted field, Dein would never accepted that and seemed to be very much my way or the highway.

[Flavs]

Good read that.

Trouble is, you hear so many opinions, it's difficult to believe any of them.

This is what always amuses me about these things, "Wenger is in complete control and keeps everything secretive and close to his chest" then they manage to fill out 500 word articles with what they "know"

I dont think we would have made big name signings if Dein had stayed because i dont think that's the way the board want the club to go while we are paying off the stadium, i agree that Dick Law () seems to be fuckin useless but he is working in a restricted field, Dein would never accepted that and seemed to be very much my way or the highway.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I don't think we are debating 'fault'. As the article Ach posted makes clear, the rift between DD and the board was that the team should be prioritised rather than the stadium. DD clearly felt that outside investment was necessary on the playing side for us to be able to match Chelsea and Manure. He found Kroenke and it is reasonable to assume that Kroenke gave DD some assurances that he would invest in the playing side.

I said earlier that time moves on. By the time DD left AW's astuteness had ensured that the team maintained top 4 status during the worst of the stadium debt years. By then the board saw Kroenke as the lesser of 2 evils (DD having now perhaps realised that Kroenke wasn't the right man to invest in the team), and Kroenke realised that he could own the club as a self financing business without investing in the playing side.

What is clear, in hindsight, is that the stadium became obsolete as a means of us competing with the richest teams almost as it was being built. It was also the catalyst for the transformation of our team into also-rans, as we became committed to trying to develop young players as a sustainable means of managing the debt. In this light a vice-chairman who was opposed to the stadium and saw investment on the playing side as the necessary route to maintain our success as a team looks rather more far sighted than the rest of the board.

On the stadium point I disagree, (without sounding too much like Sammy Lee) I've said on many occasions I believe the money has been there to help the team. It's not Citeh or Chelsea level money of course but I'm not sure Wenger neccesarily needs that kind of much money so long as he, as the article says is shown the "law of the land". I've also said before, pretty recently in fact, that the board should be held accountable (as this is what I think has gone on) for allowing the culture to exist of effectively giving Wenger the ability to veto investing any money we may have recouped or earnt. I guess that cautiousness might well have come about from the debt level we've had but I don't think that debt level is (as much of an) issue now. Would Dein's presence have changed that? Possibly but the evidence of 2005-2007 leaves me with some doubt.

However if we are looking for someone to come in and be free-willing with spending then Dein picked the wrong man, regardless of what he might have been told. I can't abide seeing him being hailed as a visionary and then seeing him being defended as though he been has led up the garden path.

Dein has done a lot of good things for Arsenal and obviously he has had a very good working relationship with Wenger but I think there is a danger of mythologising him here.

[IBK]

On the stadium point I disagree, (without sounding too much like Sammy Lee) I've said on many occasions I believe the money has been there to help the team. It's not Citeh or Chelsea level money of course but I'm not sure Wenger neccesarily needs that kind of much money so long as he, as the article says is shown the "law of the land". I've also said before, pretty recently in fact, that the board should be held accountable (as this is what I think has gone on) for allowing the culture to exist of effectively giving Wenger the ability to veto investing any money we may have recouped or earnt. I guess that cautiousness might well have come about from the debt level we've had but I don't think that debt level is (as much of an) issue now. Would Dein's presence have changed that? Possibly but the evidence of 2005-2007 leaves me with some doubt.

However if we are looking for someone to come in and be free-willing with spending then Dein picked the wrong man, regardless of what he might have been told. I can't abide seeing him being hailed as a visionary and then seeing him being defended as though he been has led up the garden path.

Dein has done a lot of good things for Arsenal and obviously he has had a very good working relationship with Wenger but I think there is a danger of mythologising him here.

I'd agree with the mythologising point. I agree also that Kroenke is not the investor we need to compete with the best teams. But does the fact that Dein may have made the wrong call on this detract from the fact that he was right in principle to see where the game was going and take the view he did as regards investment in the playing side rather than the stadium side? Even visionaries can make mistakes along the way - look at our manager for a start...

Like I said, I was firmly in the anti DD camp and I am not eulogising him now. What I am saying is that given all that has happened I am more sympathetic to the way he saw the world when he was kicked out.

As for disagreeing with my statement that the stadium became obsolete as a means of us competing with the richest teams almost as it was being built - I can't really see what is there to disagree with - because the reality faces us every transfer season. As long as it remains full the stadium receipts should ensure that we will never struggle in the EPL, but the fact is that the project has failed as a means of itself to allow us to compete at the top. That is not a judgment on whether it was right or not to build it - it is just a fact.

[Ollie the Optimist]

that was a very interesting read, two points really stood out for me, the first saying without arsene there would not be the arsenal we have today (by that he means champions league, top four year after year not current start) and thats a fcat many really need to remember.

the other one was that he was overruled over austria. i think that was common knowledge before but we go to asia and have the worst start in history, perhaps it owuld be best to go back to austria rather then a far east commercial tour

[McNamara That Ghost...]

I'd agree with the mythologising point. I agree also that Kroenke is not the investor we need to compete with the best teams. But does the fact that Dein may have made the wrong call on this detract from the fact that he was right in principle to see where the game was going and take the view he did as regards investment in the playing side rather than the stadium side? Even visionaries can make mistakes along the way - look at our manager for a start...

Like I said, I was firmly in the anti DD camp and I am not eulogising him now. What I am saying is that given all that has happened I am more sympathetic to the way he saw the world when he was kicked out.

As for disagreeing with my statement that the stadium became obsolete as a means of us competing with the richest teams almost as it was being built - I can't really see what is there to disagree with - because the reality faces us every transfer season. As long as it remains full the stadium receipts should ensure that we will never struggle in the EPL, but the fact is that the project has failed as a means of itself to allow us to compete at the top. That is not a judgment on whether it was right or not to build it - it is just a fact.

Well in much the same vein as you've just Dein was right in principle, I'd say the stadium move should've been right in principle too. The reason we are selling our best players with regularity is not solely because we don't have the investment available that other teams do. It's more that our investment (that could have been utilised) has been less than teams apparently worse off! The stadium has allowed us the ability to do what it should've promised to do but it's that act of going that extra mile that we haven't taken.

[Xhaka Can’t]

that was a very interesting read, two points really stood out for me, the first saying without arsene there would not be the arsenal we have today (by that he means champions league, top four year after year not current start) and thats a fcat many really need to remember.

the other one was that he was overruled over austria. i think that was common knowledge before but we go to asia and have the worst start in history, perhaps it owuld be best to go back to austria rather then a far east commercial tour

You are making far to simplistic a link between Austria and our start.

Could it have been a factor? Maybe.

Could it be as big a factor as the timing of our transfer activity? Not a chance.

[Ollie the Optimist]

You are making far to simplistic a link between Austria and our start.

Could it have been a factor? Maybe.

Could it be as big a factor as the timing of our transfer activity? Not a chance.

i dont mean it as a massive factor in our start and i think its a valid point, the tour wouldnt have done much bar raise money comerically, there was a lot of travelling involved at high heat. at least with austria its one place at reasonable temperatures. i think it might have affected more then we think it did BUT is not a major reason why we started shit, though would change tour for next sesason

[IBK]

Well in much the same vein as you've just Dein was right in principle, I'd say the stadium move should've been right in principle too. The reason we are selling our best players with regularity is not solely because we don't have the investment available that other teams do. It's more that our investment (that could have been utilised) has been less than teams apparently worse off! The stadium has allowed us the ability to do what it should've promised to do but it's that act of going that extra mile that we haven't taken.

The stadium has done what it promised, yes, but it hasn't achieved what the club hoped it would because the goal posts have been moved. Of course its right on one level to try to maximise your match day income, and that is what we have done - in lending circumstances that will most probably never be duplicated. But ultimately, this means little when other clubs can just bring in outside investors to achieve the same and more at a stroke.

And then there are the side-effects. We may well have matched our increased match day revenue by marketing overseas off the back of the success of the Invincibles. There is no doubt that the most expensive players can recoup their transfer fees in shirt sales alone. At a time when Chelsea; manure; Liverpool; Citeh are all making strides in this regard - 7 trophyless seasons and loss of star names have seen us dropping behind the competition in terms of profile abroad.

Ultimately, the success of a football team is measured by its success on the pitch, not in the boardroom. The stadium move has coincided with us losing this focus.