• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Goon Thread

- Barcelona do have a DM and his name is Busquets;

arteta, coquelin. ok theyre not busquets, but ozil isnt messi, alexis isnt suarez and walcott isnt neymar.
- Their finances show they have £208m in cash, £200+m of debt and are making a profit of 2014: £5m - 2013: £6.7m - 2012: £37m - 2011: £15m and £56m in 2010;

They can afford to spend big, but are choosing not to. They could get rid of a lot of dross and replace with better, but that does not seem to be what they are going for. They're in a catch 22 situation in that Wenger is guaranteeing them top 4 and some cup runs, but nothing else in terms of EPL and CL. He seems incapable of getting them there. Get rid of him and there's no guarantees that whoever replaces him will do better and they could do a Man United and drop out of the top 4 altogether and need huge sums to dig them out. My guess is that they will continue as they are for as long as Wenger is interested in doing so and building that cash pile so that when the time comes, they will be able to back the new manager with a huge transfer chest that could be a real game changer for them.

they could do all of this, but why should they? if they were to spend like you suggest they do, you can see that they will easily become a breakeven company or a slight loss maker.arsenal are worth over $1b according to forbes, and if they were to be sold, its not unreasonable to think that they would be worth double the forbes figure. surely profits of around £20m per year is not unreasonable for a business of that size.

i dont think that the next manager will have too much to spend either. he'll probably spend a lot more than wenger, but i doubt he would be allowed to spend like city or chelsea. if the arsenal board wanted to spend like that, either wenger would be doing so, or they would have brought in someone who would.
 
If I were an Ar5ena1 fan, I'd feel like @DubaiSpur and @LCLC do about our club now, but I'd be right ;). They can afford to spend big, but are choosing not to. They could get rid of a lot of dross and replace with better, but that does not seem to be what they are going for.

Cheeky. :p

When it comes to them, I think they're building up a cash reserve to hedge against the prospect of disruptions to their income flows that would affect their ability to repay that long-term debt. I'd expect us to do the same thing, really.

Where I think they're coming undone is Wenger: the board's made that money available to him (as both the board and Wenger have confirmed), but Wenger refuses to spend it. Why? Well, one possible reason is that he's too loyal to his own players for his own good: reluctant to sideline them in favor of the expensive buy, even at the cost of long-term success. The ruthlessness of his early days was replaced by a more mellowed 'fatherly' approach in more recent times, and it's showing in his reluctance to spend, I think. I read a good article on the Guardian a while back that talked about how stubbornly Wenger defended Diaby in front of everyone: his board, the media, even his own players, when it was clear that he'd struggle to ever play football at the top level again. How he'd kept hope in the idea that Diaby could recover from his injuries right up the point when he was finally released after ten years at the club and barely a handful of appearances to show for it. How Wenger's faith in Diaby was at the same time frustrating and somewhat endearing in a sentimental sort of way. The article says that Wenger's early ruthlessness was replaced by an idealistic desire to do things the right way, and that is something I largely agree with.

It's a paradox, you know: I despise that club, but at the same time, I can't bring myself to despise Wenger with the same intensity. I laugh at him when we beat them, or when he does stupid things with his zipper or his water bottle, but somehow, I can't bring myself to dislike him as easily as I can bring myself to dislike, say, Mourinho, or even Brendan Rodgers. He's held his club back with his reluctance to spend and seemingly genuine desire to do things in a long-term fashion...but at the same time, there's something idealistic and essentially honest about him. After all, he fled his well-paid job at Monaco in disgust after learning that Marseille had fixed matches (and went to Japan, of all places), and to this day (twenty-one years on) he drags around that Primorac fellow with him, the only man who stood up for Wenger after he'd decried that match-fixing and resigned alongside him. That's admirable, and worth respecting, as is his more sentimental desire to bring through the young players in his charge even as results suffer because of it. It isn't something I ever want at our club, of course (being far more possessed of a desire to see us win bloody trophies) but it is something I can respect.

Wenger's too idealistic, intellectual and loyal to his players and staff for his own good, I think. And he departs the progress of his club by being what he is. But I can't say, hand on heart, that that's a bad thing: after all, it slows the clams down while also being somewhat endearing in an excessively ruthless age.

And, @Gazzasrightboot, you know full well that that isn't what our club is doing now. The money's there for Wenger to spend, if he wants to: I dare you to say the same about our club with a straight face. :p
 
arteta, coquelin. ok theyre not busquets, but ozil isnt messi, alexis isnt suarez and walcott isnt neymar.


they could do all of this, but why should they? if they were to spend like you suggest they do, you can see that they will easily become a breakeven company or a slight loss maker.Ar5ena1 are worth over $1b according to forbes, and if they were to be sold, its not unreasonable to think that they would be worth double the forbes figure. surely profits of around £20m per year is not unreasonable for a business of that size.

i dont think that the next manager will have too much to spend either. he'll probably spend a lot more than wenger, but i doubt he would be allowed to spend like city or Chel53a. if the Ar5ena1 board wanted to spend like that, either wenger would be doing so, or they would have brought in someone who would.

Sure, Arsenal have DMs but not of the calibre that they can afford. The reason why they should do this is precisely the point that Raz is arguing i.e. to be the best football club that they can be. i.e. they have accepted their place and are unwilling to use their resources to go that extra.

If Forbes are saying they are worth $1bn then I don't understand why they would go for twice that. No person is going to buy them for that amount of money with a valuation of $1bn unless they can see the club doubling its value. And no, profits of £20m are not unreasonable but are if you are of the opinion that they should be trying to be the best football club they can be.
 
Damn you Dubai. I find myself mellowing to Wenger now. Damn you to hell!!

hon hon hon hon! Ze Joke, eet is on you, I think: for really, I was Wenger all along! Oui, I was only here to turn you all against zat, 'ow you say, zat leetle pest Levy and his dangerous ambitions of improving your pathetic club. Merde, if zat infernal stadium is built, my legacy ,it will only have been to leave l' Arsenal in a smaller stadium zan her rivals!

Come, Monsieur Rorschach, mon ami. Join ze dark side. Join me in undermining that Bâtard Levy, and I can promise you all ze sexy one-touch football and footballing integrity your 'eart desires.

wenger670afp.jpg



It is, 'ow you say....'your destiny'.






Ahem.....yeah, Wenger, great guy and all. :p
 
no. if man utd, Chel53a and city didnt exist you would probably be praising wenger for his coaching and tactics. basically, people always think whoever wins has "good coaching and tactics". the truth is, the teams that usually wins has a lot more money than the rest. Ar5ena1's coaching and tactics are fine. thats why they finish above the teams they spend more than and below the teams they spend less than. its funny how football fans really struggle with this concept

I think EVERYBODY can understand this concept, and probably most on here still don't understand then why you laud Arsene Wenger and Arsenal as highly as you continually do.

So can i ask simply: if Arsenal basically always finish in a position where they should relative to their spend compared to others in the league, what exactly is it that makes Wengers such a great manager in your eyes?
 
hon hon hon hon! Ze Joke, eet is on you, I think: for really, I was Wenger all along! Oui, I was only here to turn you all against zat, 'ow you say, zat leetle pest Levy and his dangerous ambitions of improving your pathetic club. Merde, if zat infernal stadium is built, my legacy ,it will only have been to leave l' Ar5ena1 in a smaller stadium zan her rivals!

Come, Monsieur Rorschach, mon ami. Join ze dark side. Join me in undermining that Bâtard Levy, and I can promise you all ze sexy one-touch football and footballing integrity your 'eart desires.

wenger670afp.jpg



It is, 'ow you say....'your destiny'.






Ahem.....yeah, Wenger, great guy and all. :p

Do you share an account with Neymar by any chance...?

;)
 
Cheeky. :p

When it comes to them, I think they're building up a cash reserve to hedge against the prospect of disruptions to their income flows that would affect their ability to repay that long-term debt. I'd expect us to do the same thing, really.

Where I think they're coming undone is Wenger: the board's made that money available to him (as both the board and Wenger have confirmed), but Wenger refuses to spend it. Why? Well, one possible reason is that he's too loyal to his own players for his own good: reluctant to sideline them in favor of the expensive buy, even at the cost of long-term success. The ruthlessness of his early days was replaced by a more mellowed 'fatherly' approach in more recent times, and it's showing in his reluctance to spend, I think. I read a good article on the Guardian a while back that talked about how stubbornly Wenger defended Diaby in front of everyone: his board, the media, even his own players, when it was clear that he'd struggle to ever play football at the top level again. How he'd kept hope in the idea that Diaby could recover from his injuries right up the point when he was finally released after ten years at the club and barely a handful of appearances to show for it. How Wenger's faith in Diaby was at the same time frustrating and somewhat endearing in a sentimental sort of way. The article says that Wenger's early ruthlessness was replaced by an idealistic desire to do things the right way, and that is something I largely agree with.

It's a paradox, you know: I despise that club, but at the same time, I can't bring myself to despise Wenger with the same intensity. I laugh at him when we beat them, or when he does stupid things with his zipper or his water bottle, but somehow, I can't bring myself to dislike him as easily as I can bring myself to dislike, say, Mourinho, or even Brendan Rodgers. He's held his club back with his reluctance to spend and seemingly genuine desire to do things in a long-term fashion...but at the same time, there's something idealistic and essentially honest about him. After all, he fled his well-paid job at Monaco in disgust after learning that Marseille had fixed matches (and went to Japan, of all places), and to this day (twenty-one years on) he drags around that Primorac fellow with him, the only man who stood up for Wenger after he'd decried that match-fixing and resigned alongside him. That's admirable, and worth respecting, as is his more sentimental desire to bring through the young players in his charge even as results suffer because of it. It isn't something I ever want at our club, of course (being far more possessed of a desire to see us win bloody trophies) but it is something I can respect.

Wenger's too idealistic, intellectual and loyal to his players and staff for his own good, I think. And he departs the progress of his club by being what he is. But I can't say, hand on heart, that that's a bad thing: after all, it slows the clams down while also being somewhat endearing in an excessively ruthless age.

And, @Gazzasrightboot, you know full well that that isn't what our club is doing now. The money's there for Wenger to spend, if he wants to: I dare you to say the same about our club with a straight face. :p

I agree with you completely on Wenger. He's the only class that they have at that club because he is sticking to an ideology. However, I woud say that is tempered by the fact he is unreeasonable "I did not see it" and has a sometimes warped view of the footballing world i.e. criticising the big spenders and then doing so himself with Ozil and Sanchez. My firm view is that they are brick scared of what they would be like without Wenger and aren't prepared to take the risk which I can respect.

And yes, I did have my tongue firmly in cheek when making my post. Of course we do have the money to spend, we're just choosing to spend it on our infrstructure (a stadium and training complex) instead of players. I accept that because it is about making Spurs competitive for the top 4 and maybe more. I would share your frustration if say we had the stadium and were not trying to push on ourselves instead keeping profit for the owners as I want Spurs to be the best football club it can possibly be.
 
I agree with you completely on Wenger. He's the only class that they have at that club because he is sticking to an ideology. However, I woud say that is tempered by the fact he is unreeasonable "I did not see it" and has a sometimes warped view of the footballing world i.e. criticising the big spenders and then doing so himself with Ozil and Sanchez. My firm view is that they are **** scared of what they would be like without Wenger and aren't prepared to take the risk which I can respect.

And yes, I did have my tongue firmly in cheek when making my post. Of course we do have the money to spend, we're just choosing to spend it on our infrstructure (a stadium and training complex) instead of players. I accept that because it is about making Spurs competitive for the top 4 and maybe more. I would share your frustration if say we had the stadium and were not trying to push on ourselves instead keeping profit for the owners as I want Spurs to be the best football club it can possibly be.

Yeah, I never said he wasn't contradictory - he often is, and the 'I didn't see it' gag was a risible affair while it lasted (think he's stopped now), even though I understood that it was his way of deflecting criticism a la Mourinho. However, he is undeniably idealistic, and also a mostly honest individual - the fact that he said 'no' when asked to condone match-fixing, exposed it, walked away and went to a footballing backwater to get away from it all, all while taking with him the one guy who'd stood up for him in a show of loyalty...that sort of thing holds a lot of weight with me (especially when compared with the likes of Harry and 'Rosie', or Sir Alex and his shady dealings with Mendes and behind the scenes). I also agree that the scum are probably at least somewhat scared of what will happen once he goes, but I also think Wenger himself is held in high regard by a lot of the old guard at that club: the likes of Nina Bracewell-Smith, Danny Fiszman and David Dein, although shorn of voting power since the take over, probably still have the ear of people like Kroenke and Usmanov, and probably counsel patience with Wenger at crucial times.

And yeah, I get where you're coming from, I just wanted to point out that Arsenal's situation is quite dissimilar to ours, thus rendering a direct comparison between their lack of spending (relative to their status, anyway) and our parsimony largely moot.
 
I think there are some things to admire about Wenger for sure, but also remember that he has generally been living off how innovative he was in his first 4/5 years in terms of actually how GHod he is.

Consider the following:

- He's generally been a media luvvie: How would he react to the media scrutiny and pressure (i mean real pressure) that many others at top 3/4 clubs across Europe face? In fact, how would he cope with the pressure managing Spurs alone? This is why i think Mourinho alluded to him having 'the best job in football'....he can 'fail' (in relative terms) as long as his board collect CL money and charge the highest tickets in the land even after having paid off the stadium. Arsenal is a plum job for any managerial 'coasters' out there.

- In Fergie's last 3/4 years Wenger was earning more (perhaps almost double, but don't quote me on that...). How mad is that?

- Holier than thou image borne out of GREAT PR:
"We like to do things the right way" (like having players paid in off-shore account for tax purposes, oh and using Belgium clubs to import foreign layers who wouldn't get Visas - i wonder where Chelski got the Vitesse Arnhem idea?)
"Spending 20M on one player is obscene" (just like collecting more money that most managers IN THE WORLD and not coming close to competing at the very top, did i mention Ozil and Sanchez transfer fees?)
"We like to play football the right way" (oh and they never play dour football to shut-up-shop or have ever had any players who are capable of putting the boot in and getting red cards that he often doesn't see)

He is a good manager and i do like his attempts at organic growth; however there is a thin line between gong for "organic growth" and straight ripping their fans off with highest prices and constantly stockpiling that money only to mostly not spend it. Wenger has more say at the club than almost any manager anywhere in the world and he has become intertwined with its workings of cash stockpiling, given his high pay and relatively little to show for it in a decade (relative to his peers).
 
Yeah, I never said he wasn't contradictory - he often is, and the 'I didn't see it' gag was a risible affair while it lasted (think he's stopped now), even though I understood that it was his way of deflecting criticism a la Mourinho. However, he is undeniably idealistic, and also a mostly honest individual - the fact that he said 'no' when asked to condone match-fixing, exposed it, walked away and went to a footballing backwater to get away from it all, all while taking with him the one guy who'd stood up for him in a show of loyalty...that sort of thing holds a lot of weight with me (especially when compared with the likes of Harry and 'Rosie', or Sir Alex and his shady dealings with Mendes and behind the scenes). I also agree that the scum are probably at least somewhat scared of what will happen once he goes, but I also think Wenger himself is held in high regard by a lot of the old guard at that club: the likes of Nina Bracewell-Smith, Danny Fiszman and David Dein, although shorn of voting power since the take over, probably still have the ear of people like Kroenke and Usmanov, and probably counsel patience with Wenger at crucial times.

And yeah, I get where you're coming from, I just wanted to point out that Ar5ena1's situation is quite dissimilar to ours, thus rendering a direct comparison between their lack of spending (relative to their status, anyway) and our parsimony largely moot.

I'm not sure that it is all that dissimilar. The only point that I wanted to make was that they have accepted their place and are unwilling to allocate the considerable resources at their disposal to improve which is a criticism that some level at Spurs, which is the similarity.

Hypothetical situation and I think you may have answered this already: if we were in the gooners' position, would you accept the idealism over pushing ourselves to be better?
 
Do you share an account with Neymar by any chance...?

;)

Zut Alors! Pat, get off ze internet, ze posters, sacre bleu, zey are aware! :p

I think there are some things to admire about Wenger for sure, but also remember that he has generally been living off how innovative he was in his first 4/5 years in terms of actually how GHod he is.

Consider the following:

- He's generally been a media luvvie: How would he react to the media scrutiny and pressure (i mean real pressure) that many others at top 3/4 clubs across Europe face? In fact, how would he cope with the pressure managing Spurs alone? This is why i think Mourinho alluded to him having 'the best job in football'....he can 'fail' (in relative terms) as long as his board collect CL money and charge the highest tickets in the land even after having paid off the stadium. Ar5ena1 is a plum job for any managerial 'coasters' out there.

- In Fergie's last 3/4 years Wenger was earning more (perhaps almost double, but don't quote me on that...). How mad is that?

- Holier than thou image borne out of GREAT PR:
"We like to do things the right way" (like having players paid in off-shore account for tax purposes, oh and using Belgium clubs to import foreign layers who wouldn't get Visas - i wonder where Chelski got the Vitesse Arnhem idea?)
"Spending 20M on one player is obscene" (just like collecting more money that most managers IN THE WORLD and not coming close to competing at the very top, did i mention Ozil and Sanchez transfer fees?)
"We like to play football the right way" (oh and they never play dour football to shut-up-shop or have ever had any players who are capable of putting the boot in and getting red cards that he often doesn't see)

He is a good manager and i do like his attempts at organic growth; however there is a thin line between gong for "organic growth" and straight ripping their fans off with highest prices and constantly stockpiling that money only to mostly not spend it. Wenger has more say at the club than almost any manager anywhere in the world and he has become intertwined with its workings of cash stockpiling, given his high pay and relatively little to show for it in a decade (relative to his peers).

True, but a) the trophies they've won recently and the big signings they've made have somewhat softened the reality of the situation, and b) even though he is their icon and longest-serving manager.....I think the prices are set by the board, not him. This is the same guy who advocates budget and wage caps for every team in the division, in a manner similar to the US: I find it hard to believe that he'd also advocate charging prices waayyy in excess of what is necessary to run the club and its transfer business, as is happening now. My suspicion is that he doesn't agree with it, but that the huge salary he gets and the (undoubted) need to maintain a cash reserve to hedge against income disruptions (and they do need to maintain a large one given their long-term debt) have combined to keep him constrained when it comes to speaking out over board policy. That, however, is just my opinion.

He's got the cushiest job in football? Perhaps now he does, but I doubt that was the case when his team routinely came within inches of being turfed out of the top four by....Harry Redknapp/Andre Villas Boas' Tottenham Hotspur. Looking back now at his sustained achievement of finishing 4th ahead of us, it seems like an easy enough thing to achieve: but back when we were actually ambitious on the field and came within a point or so of turfing them out (often taking it down to the last day), I'd say his place was looking far more insecure. Whether he would have stayed had we achieved a top four spot at Arsenal's expense is one of football's great what-ifs, imo.

I'm not sure that it is all that dissimilar. The only point that I wanted to make was that they have accepted their place and are unwilling to allocate the considerable resources at their disposal to improve which is a criticism that some level at Spurs, which is the similarity.

Hypothetical situation and I think you may have answered this already: if we were in the gooners' position, would you accept the idealism over pushing ourselves to be better?

Would I accept idealism, if we were in the gooners' position? I'm tempted to just shout expletives and profusely deny it, but, having thought about it a bit, it seems more complicated than it first appears.

Would I accept idealism if we were in the Gooners' position? So, just to visualize it, if Tottenham Hotspur were the third biggest club in the land, with the third biggest trophy cabinet, the third most fans (worldwide as well as at home), the third-most income (possibly even second-highest income), the second-largest stadium, having just won back-to-back FA cups and signed superstars like Ozil and Sanchez, and with a legendary manager at the helm who's led us to an unbeaten season (the only one in the history of the modern game in England) and is our most decorated coach, and who's assuredly happy with the backing the board gives him (although he doesn't use it)....

....if we were in that situation, would I accept an idealistic pursuit of glory in a sustainable manner (conducted purely due to idealist impulses, not through necessity)? D'you know what, I'm not sure. A considerable amount of my current dissatisfaction stems from where we are fundamentally compared to where we were: whatever the circumstances (Chelsea, City, et al), we've lost ground on our competitors just in terms of titles and trophies won, and have slipped from being arguably the fourth largest club in the land at the beginning of the 1990's to the 6th largest club now, having only won two puny League Cups between 1991 and 2015. We have a board which (seemingly) provides insufficient backing to manager after manager even when the opportunity is there for us to really progress, and which then sacks them when they inevitably underperform (although that last bit is changing now). We have had a succession of managers come and go, our most successful one of modern times being chucked, his replacement storming out after the sale of his best player and a disastrous reinvestment of the proceeds into players he claims he largely didn't want, and now the current incumbent who's far more sedate and seemingly content to float around (having been offered the job security to do so) than his predecessors were. And we have a stadium that's been in the works for a decade, and will likely take another three or four years to complete, and that's before even starting the process of paying it off and building a cash reserve to hedge against income disruptions down the line.

In that light, it's easy for me to grouse about our lack of daring, our self-defeating cautiousness and slowness when faced with opportunity, our parsimony and supreme unwillingness to extent ourselves whenever fate deigns to offer us a chance to claw back our former status. But if we were already successful as can be, having suffered no great fall from grace and regularly playing in the CL as well as having a semi-regular stream of trophies and big signings to make up for our relative underinvestment throughout the lean years after the construction of a stadium (2006 to about 2012)...would I grouse about idealistic self-sufficiency as opposed to a bit more daring in our approach to securing trophies and signings?

Like I said, I'm not entirely sure.
 
Last edited:
hon hon hon hon! Ze Joke, eet is on you, I think: for really, I was Wenger all along! Oui, I was only here to turn you all against zat, 'ow you say, zat leetle pest Levy and his dangerous ambitions of improving your pathetic club. Merde, if zat infernal stadium is built, my legacy ,it will only have been to leave l' Ar5ena1 in a smaller stadium zan her rivals!

Come, Monsieur Rorschach, mon ami. Join ze dark side. Join me in undermining that Bâtard Levy, and I can promise you all ze sexy one-touch football and footballing integrity your 'eart desires.

wenger670afp.jpg



It is, 'ow you say....'your destiny'.






Ahem.....yeah, Wenger, great guy and all. :p
I will never join ze dark side!!!

For some reason I read your post in an 'Allo 'Allo accent in my head. :D
 
Zut Alors! Pat, get off ze internet, ze posters, sacre bleu, zey are aware! :p

True, but a) the trophies they've won recently and the big signings they've made have somewhat softened the reality of the situation, and b) even though he is their icon and longest-serving manager.....I think the prices are set by the board, not him. This is the same guy who advocates budget and wage caps for every team in the division, in a manner similar to the US: I find it hard to believe that he'd also advocate charging prices waayyy in excess of what is necessary to run the club and its transfer business, as is happening now. My suspicion is that he doesn't agree with it, but that the huge salary he gets and the (undoubted) need to maintain a cash reserve to hedge against income disruptions (and they do need to maintain a large one given their long-term debt) have combined to keep him constrained when it comes to speaking out over board policy. That, however, is just my opinion.

He's got the cushiest job in football? Perhaps now he does, but I doubt that was the case when his team routinely came within inches of being turfed out of the top four by....Harry Redknapp/Andre Villas Boas' Tottenham Hotspur. Looking back now at his sustained achievement of finishing 4th ahead of us, it seems like an easy enough thing to achieve: but back when we were actually ambitious on the field and came within a point or so of turfing them out (often taking it down to the last day), I'd say his place was looking far more insecure. Whether he would have stayed had we achieved a top four spot at Ar5ena1's expense is one of football's great what-ifs, imo.

Would I accept idealism, if we were in the gooners' position? I'm tempted to just shout expletives and profusely deny it, but, having thought about it a bit, it seems more complicated than it first appears.

Would I accept idealism if we were in the Gooners' position? So, just to visualize it, if Tottenham Hotspur were the third biggest club in the land, with the third biggest trophy cabinet, the third most fans (worldwide as well as at home), the third-most income (possibly even second-highest income), the second-largest stadium, having just won back-to-back FA cups and signed superstars like Ozil and Sanchez, and with a legendary manager at the helm who's led us to an unbeaten season (the only one in the history of the modern game in England) and is our most decorated coach, and who's assuredly happy with the backing the board gives him (although he doesn't use it)....

....if we were in that situation, would I accept an idealistic pursuit of glory in a sustainable manner (conducted purely due to idealist impulses, not through necessity)? D'you know what, I'm not sure. A considerable amount of my current dissatisfaction stems from where we are fundamentally compared to where we were: whatever the circumstances (Chel53a, City, et al), we've lost ground on our competitors just in terms of titles and trophies won, and have slipped from being arguably the fourth largest club in the land at the beginning of the 1990's to the 6th largest club now, having only won two puny League Cups between 1991 and 2015. We have a board which (seemingly) provides insufficient backing to manager after manager even when the opportunity is there for us to really progress, and which then sacks them when they inevitably underperform (although that last bit is changing now). We have had a succession of managers come and go, our most successful one of modern times being chucked, his replacement storming out after the sale of his best player and a disastrous reinvestment of the proceeds into players he claims he largely didn't want, and now the current incumbent who's far more sedate and seemingly content to float around (having been offered the job security to do so) than his predecessors were. And we have a stadium that's been in the works for a decade, and will likely take another three or four years to complete, and that's before even starting the process of paying it off and building a cash reserve to hedge against income disruptions down the line.

In that light, it's easy for me to grouse about our lack of daring, our self-defeating cautiousness and slowness when faced with opportunity, our parsimony and supreme unwillingness to extent ourselves whenever fate deigns to offer us a chance to claw back our former status. But if we were already successful as can be, having suffered no great fall from grace and regularly playing in the CL as well as having a semi-regular stream of trophies and big signings to make up for our relative underinvestment throughout the lean years after the construction of a stadium (2006 to about 2012)...would I grouse about idealistic self-sufficiency as opposed to a bit more daring in our approach to securing trophies and signings?

Like I said, I'm not entirely sure.

You see I see the similarity as being Arsenal were the invincibles, they were consistently challenging for the league and are now challenging for third. They've lost ground on Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project.

As for the holding a cash reserve to "hedge" against the bond, give over. It does not need to be that large this soon. It is due for repayment in a number of years time, by which time they can either refinance or pay back at that time. They don't need to have practically the entire debt in cash now for a debt that they are going to pay back in no less than 5 years time.
 
I think EVERYBODY can understand this concept, and probably most on here still don't understand then why you laud Arsene Wenger and Ar5ena1 as highly as you continually do.

So can i ask simply: if Ar5ena1 basically always finish in a position where they should relative to their spend compared to others in the league, what exactly is it that makes Wengers such a great manager in your eyes?

football management is about managing your resources properly, so that long term that club will be in the best position possible. wenger does this better than anyone. arsenal being the best of the rest is largely down to wenger having managed arsenal's resources excellently over the last 10 or so years. the consistency with which arsenal have maintained their best of the rest position is exceptional too.
 
I'm not sure that it is all that dissimilar. The only point that I wanted to make was that they have accepted their place and are unwilling to allocate the considerable resources at their disposal to improve which is a criticism that some level at Spurs, which is the similarity.

Hypothetical situation and I think you may have answered this already: if we were in the gooners' position, would you accept the idealism over pushing ourselves to be better?

i think its this mentality that has allowed both arsenal and tottenham to rise above most other clubs. short term, it might not seem so great, but long term i think it works really well. swansea are another example imo. however the "problem" with this is that the only way to beat the heavily subsidised clubs is to heavily subsidise yourself.
 
Chelsea - Arsenal
Tottenham - Arsenal
Leicester - Arsenal
Arsenal - Olympiakos
Arsenal - Manchester United

Shame they didn't have Bayern next. Oh well, if only Carlsberg made decent beer and so on.
 
Sure, Ar5ena1 have DMs but not of the calibre that they can afford. The reason why they should do this is precisely the point that Raz is arguing i.e. to be the best football club that they can be. i.e. they have accepted their place and are unwilling to use their resources to go that extra.

If Forbes are saying they are worth $1bn then I don't understand why they would go for twice that. No person is going to buy them for that amount of money with a valuation of $1bn unless they can see the club doubling its value. And no, profits of £20m are not unreasonable but are if you are of the opinion that they should be trying to be the best football club they can be.

arsenal could probably afford messi if they wanted too. and i doubt their long term future would be put in much jeopardy. they are probably in a position where they feel they are maxmising profits, so why should they deviate from this position? buying a better dcm is unlikely to yield a return either short or long term.

when clubs the size of arsenal are sold, they seem to go for significantly more than what forbes value them. also what forbes values them at, and what the real world market would value them at are two different things.

20m profits really might not be a bad thing even if they are trying to be the best club they can be. for one, it is perhaps a sign that the long term future of the club is in good standing. businesses (and that is what all clubs are) usually exist for a long time if profit levels are healthy. if they were to spend the kind of amounts fans are suggesting they do, profit levels would not be at a "healthy" level, thus putting the future of the business at risk.
 
Back