Arsenal Thread

[Steak Bake]

It's not "easy" to win anything. I'd kill for Spurs to win an FA Cup, or any trophy for that reason

But Arsenal should be doing more than what they have been doing for last decade or so.

They have highest ticket price in the league for a start. And I don't buy into this claim that "Arsenal play amazing football". They did, for a 3-5 year period. These days I would much prefer watching Liverpool or Man City. Arsenal and sideways passing for the sake of it, Wenger hasn't developed the style enough for me.

You can spin it anyway you want - imagine Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea or Man City going 9 years without a trophy? Their owners/boards wouldn't put up with it. The problem is, Wenger is bigger than the club in some ways. This was the case with Ferguson but at least he was winning major titles and European trophies along the way.

 

[jonneymendoza]

It's not "easy" to win anything. I'd kill for Spurs to win an FA Cup, or any trophy for that reason

But Arsenal should be doing more than what they have been doing for last decade or so.

They have highest ticket price in the league for a start. And I don't buy into this claim that "Arsenal play amazing football". They did, for a 3-5 year period. These days I would much prefer watching Liverpool or Man City. Arsenal and sideways passing for the sake of it, Wenger hasn't developed the style enough for me.

You can spin it anyway you want - imagine Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea or Man City going 9 years without a trophy? Their owners/boards wouldn't put up with it. The problem is, Wenger is bigger than the club in some ways. This was the case with Ferguson but at least he was winning major titles and European trophies along the way.

Not spinning shit.

Did city United and Chelsea build a stadium and paid for it the old fashioned way?

Nope.

If Wenger was in charge of any of those teams he would win the league with a month left to spare

 

[Steak Bake]

We'll have to agree to disagree - I find that to be complete delusion!

Wenger's teams are known for being defensively dodgy and lacking bottle.

He also loses the plot himself at least once per season! You can't make claims like that!

"Oh but the stadium"

Give us a new excuse, that one is tired now!

 

[jonneymendoza]

We'll have to agree to disagree - I find that to be complete delusion!

Wenger's teams are known for being defensively dodgy and lacking bottle.

He also loses the plot himself at least once per season! You can't make claims like that!

"Oh but the stadium"

Give us a new excuse, that one is tired now!

The invincible certainly lacked bottle lol

 

[Steak Bake]

Crikey how many years ago was that? You can't use that as an example, there have been amazing Chelsea, Man Utd and Man City teams since then as well.

The simple fact is, Wenger and Arsenal have massively underachieved for the last decade, just like Spurs. You can try and spin that in as many ways as you want but they are the harsh facts.

 

[jonneymendoza]

So u expect arsenal to beat Chelsea and city to the title?

 

[beachryan]

Calling Arsenal the 6th wealthiest team in the world is seriously missing the point of football finances these days.

City/PSG/Chelsea aren't above them in the list I don't believe. Yet those 3 can happily lose money like it's going going out of business (and do).

Arsenal can only spend what they earn. As long as they're hampered by that financial reality, they can't compete at the very top of the market - because City and Chelsea don't operate in reality.

And you have to finish above both of them to win the league.

Puts what Atleti just did in context. Their budget is 20% that of Real Madrid and Barca's, yet they just one the league. But that is an exception of epic proportions, and will never (I doubt) happen again.

 

[Godotelli]

It doesnt really matter anyway, i dont really care, i personally am happy Wenger is staying and i am hoping for good things next season.

Its all subjective. I personally think the minimum that should be expected of Mancity is to win Every trophy out there for the amount of money they have invested and the players they have but you are happy with the league and league cup only.

We will see what happens next season.

The difference is that over the last 3 years, when we have been in a position to challenge for the PL, our spending has been on par with the other title winners/challengers.
People can look at the spend since the takeover and say we should win everything and I'd agree ...if we were already challenging in 09. That wasn't the case tho.
Infact, most people I read didn't think we'd win the title in 11/12, thinking it was a year too soon.

I'm also happy Wenger is staying btw. As I've said previously, it'd be too soon for the PL to lose him after losing Ferguson.

 

[beachryan]

The difference is that over the last 3 years, when we have been in a position to challenge for the PL, our spending has been on par with the other title winners/challengers.
People can look at the spend since the takeover and say we should win everything and I'd agree ...if we were already challenging in 09. That wasn't the case tho.

That's rather selective. Handily missing out the transfer fees associated with Silva, Toure, Dzeko - pretty much the players that won you the title this year. (and Kolarov, Milner etc).

If you look at the last 5 years - which is roughly the age of a squad - City has spent almost twice the closest spender net (Chelsea), and 3.5x as much as United, almost 5x as much as Liverpool and infinite times Arsenal (as they've actually made money).

Source: http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html

Listen, no one is denying City were excellent this year. You have the best team in the league, played the best football and won the league. But pretty please don't come on here and claim you did it on the same financial footing as other teams. You didn't. Not even in the same ballpark (Chelsea aside).

In the last 5 years alone you've spent enough money to buy 17 of United's - the biggest revenue earner in the league - most expensive transfer (Mata). You've spent the equivalent of 17 of those transfers!!! That is mental. (Total spend of 640m, divided by Mata's 37m price tag)

 

[Godotelli]

We were only in contention to challenge for the title 3 years ago, so, yes, selective for a reason, hence "when we have been in a position to challenge for the PL"

Last 3 years net
Chelsea 188m, Utd 157m, City 131m.

 

[beachryan]

We were only in contention to challenge for the title 3 years ago, so, yes, selective for a reason, hence "when we have been in a position to challenge for the PL"

Last 3 years net
Chelsea 188m, Utd 157m, City 131m.

That is just ridiculous. So your spend only now counts when you, presumably, deem yourself to be a title challenger?

That's perhaps the worst argument you've produced so far, in a long history pretty impressive delusions on the subject of City's spending.

Let me put some other figures out there:

Last 5 seasons, NET (gross):
City 480m (641m)
Chelsea 154m (436m)
United 129m (267m)
LFC 90m (310m)
Arsenal -4m (188m)

Last 10 seasons, NET/ (Gross)
Chelsea 578m (814m)
City 508m (708m)
United 205m (448m)
Liverpool 199m (491m)
Spurs 93m (473m)
Arsenal 17m (295m)

If your goal here is to pick an arbitrary time period when City look good (which is all you're doing) why not do the January transfer window alone? You look like a poor wee club compared to United and Chelsea in that one.

Your best players, those most influential in your season were purchased more than 3 years ago. You can't just write them off because it makes your net spend look better.

For all other folk, look at those figures, and then marvel at what Wenger has achieved. It's incredible.

 

[gerd]

Calling Arsenal the 6th wealthiest team in the world is seriously missing the point of football finances these days.

That is a poor argument.
You are deflecting the discussion. This is not about Chelsea and Manchester City and even less about PSG (how on earth could PSG stop Arsenal winning the FACup, the league CUP or the EPL ?). You hijack this discussion in order to jump on your high horse and rant about the Sugar daddies clubs. For the zillionth time: clubs like Arsenal and Man Utd made the sugar daddies clubs happen because of the glass ceiling they created.


Winning the EPL is about player wages.
Winning cups isn't necessarily. You have much more upsets in Cups,because over two matches upsets are possible.
You will counter that argument with the CL. Yes, but what did the G14 do ? They watered down the club format by putting a mini league in it. This makes upsets less probable.

In the CL, i always support Belgian clubs. They are always in the fourth pot. If one of those team hasn't won at least one of their first two matches they are virtually out after two matches because of the playing schedule. In their 3th and 4t match they have to play the best team in the group.This is not logical.

So the UEFA and the G14 have done everything to make it hard for underdogs (even more so with the way the television money is divided). If a small league club wins the CL, this means nothing for the division of the money. I've said this countless times: when Porto won the CL, they were not among the first 8 teams when the television money was divided. All the teams that were in the CL from the bigger competitions got more money than Porto. Porto was the best of the rest. To give you an example: Porto eliminated Man Utd, yet United got more money...an example of the glass ceiling.Yet the only thing that United fans mention about that CL is the fact that the Porto players dived...that is complaining about spears in a war where nuclear weapons are used...

About Wenger and Arsenal.

Like i wrote: Wenger is the most influential manager in the history of the EPL because of his methods. Once the rival clubs took over those methods (training, scouting, nutrition, fitness,...). Arsenal lost a lot of the advantage they had. It became clear that Wenger isn't exactly a tactical genius (and that is not necessarily negative, remember Chelsea in their away game against Atletico). One of the things i like about Wenger is that he prefers winning with style over winning at all costs (= Mourinho).

The new stadium and playing with youth players might have hampered them for the CL and the EPL. But not in the League Cup and the FA CUP. Clubs like Birmingham, Swansea,Wigan and Portsmouth have won those cups. That is why i'm saying that winning the FA Cup isn't such a big deal from the point of view of a neutral (who really likes Arsenal, you know that).

Of course there are much bigger underachievers than Arsenal, if Spurs would have won the FA Cup or the League Cup i would have made an even bigger deal about it, than Arsenal fans do...but it wouldn't have been a big deal either...

Don't wanted to rain on your parade, just wanted to put things a litle bit in perspective. If Brazil wins the WC, then that is a splendid performance, but it would be no bigachievement because they play at home and because they are Brazil. If England win it, that would be outstanding. If Honduras wins it, it would be a miracle and splendid for football. Like i said in another thread: i want football where Leicester, Burnley or Swansea can win the EPL next season. The difference between Man Utd, Arsenal and the Sugar daddy clubs means nothing compared to the abyss between Spurs and clubs like Villa, Sunderland and other EPL clubs.

Sorry for this long post.

 

[Rantboy]

Godo, I'd give up if I were you. You are putting on a very weak case to back the absurdity of what you're saying.

Just look at those numbers. Look at any football transfers database and financial reports on the likes of Deloitte.

In the last 5 years City makes Abramovich look poor! Your spending extravaganza began 5 years after Abramovich took over, and look - you're almost catching up with Chelsea's spending! In just 5 years!

We're not even mentioning the fact City's wages are much higher than all the other clubs - like they're in a totally different world.
Not even Chelsea match those salaries paid to the likes of Aguero, Touré and Silva. I think only Rooney's and RVP's salaries come close to that (even so, in Rooney's case they gave him the pay rise fearing he would go to Man City).

Sheikh Mansour is skewing the football market in an unprecedented way, and I think now there will be no turning back. Not if FFP carries on being the joke it is right now.

 

[gerd]

The football market was skewed up long before Mansour came along.
It all went wrong in the 90's.
You only complain because your own favourite team is outwaged by the likes of City.

90% of the professional clubs couldn't compete with the G14 long before Mansour invested in City. The problem started there and then, only you couldn't care less because your club was among the richest. Now that they aren't any more you are outraged. That is very selective.

 

[BobbyBox]

The cups have been won by other teams, but hose other teams have been in the position to prioritise the cups when they start to do well.

Arsenal even though we dont go all of the way usually get to a reasonable position in all comps they go in, hey are figjting on all fronts and have to try and prioritise the bigger comps. Just like Liverpool in the league this season, if Liverpool can mount the same charge on the Prem next Season while staying in all of the other cups then i will be suitably impressed and see the real might of the new Liverpool.

But we have underachieved, like last season when we were knocked out by Teams in the leagues below us, that shouldnt be happening i agree.

For me it doesn't lie, the more money you have to spend on players then the more chances you have to win the league/trophies

Man City have spent a ridiculous amounts and have managed to win the league twice but by a pubic hair both times.

it boils down to where i think Arsenal would have been in the last 9years without Wenger, we will never know but I am pretty sure that through that period where we couldnt spend the money, if Wenger wasnt here. I think we would easily been out of the top 4 for a very long time and withiut that money from the Champs league getting us by we would be in the shit right now.

Also everybody says if Man United, liverpool l, Man City etc didnt win anything for 9 years they wouldn't have stood for it. Well that didnt work out that great for Liverpool who changed managers alot and have only 1 league cup I think to show in 8years and no champs league footy for how long? Only now they are showing big signs of progress. Spurs replace managers willy nilly, did that help them? Etc etc

Man City Got rid of their manager that was their most successfull ever a year after the success, frankly im glad we are not like that.

It all depends on the situation, if we didnt build the stadium and we invested the money in players and hadn't won anything for 9 years or even much earlier then yes sure of course he should go, but i really dont think you can just brush over the Stadium building and the restrictions on our finances then and just say it doesn't matter, because it clearly did/does matter in the whole grande scheme of things.

 

[jonnyluvrod]

Some great quality posts in this thread recently.
Especially beachryan and gerd. Nice job buys!

 

[jonneymendoza]

well said bobby!

 

[bebo]

half a page of congrats and 3 pages of why Arsenal are under achieving...sometimes some ppl ...

I should of done a pipa and loaded pic/videos/tweets in here. Instead of these no one really care!arguments about wages/g-spots/wenger`s £8m a wk wages.ManCity bought a aquarium for 2.5b etc.

 

[gerd]

half a page of congrats and 3 pages of why Arsenal are under achieving...sometimes some ppl ...

I should of done a pipa and loaded pic/videos/tweets in here. Instead of these no one really care!arguments about wages/g-spots/wenger`s £8m a wk wages.ManCity bought a aquarium for 2.5b etc.

I congratulated Arsenal and i'm genuinely happy for the club and the fans, but it doesn't hurt to put things in perspective....


This isn't meant to be negative...or to belitle Arsenal.

Next season, take a look at the team that Wenger fields in FA CUP matches and you will understand how big a competition it is. And the argument that Bobby used for Wigan and others also goes for Arsenal. One could say they won the FA CUP because at the end of the season they were out for the other competitions...

That was also one of the reasons lots of people favoured Liverpool for the EPL, because they had not European matches andwere out of the FA Cup.

 

[Steak Bake]

Wigan Athletic have won the same amount and same caliber of trophy as Arsenal have in the last 9 years.

Perspective.

 

[bebo]

Wigan Athletic have won the same amount and same caliber of trophy as Arsenal have in the last 9 years.

Perspective.

Yes and Brummies, Stokes and Swansea! You're as colourful as a peaCock!

@ gerd Spurs/Liverpool/Everton were tough games ( maybe not spurs since it's a derby match) and we fielded a proper line up. I w'd expect you to say something more on the lines of ..Arsenal had a remarkable (home) draws. That made a difference although Chelsea kicked us out of Capital One Cup at home.

 

[gerd]

Arsenal had remarkable draws...

Sorry, couldn't resist.
I never said that Arsenal were lucky to win the FA Cup. They fully deserved this win.
But the fact that this is seen as a major win and a big trophy speaks volumes about the (relatively) decline of Arsenal.
The invincibles would have seen an FA Cup (only and FA Cup) as a mere consolation trophy...

 

[Rantboy]

Next season, take a look at the team that Wenger fields in FA CUP matches and you will understand how big a competition it is. And the argument that Bobby used for Wigan and others also goes for Arsenal. One could say they won the FA CUP because at the end of the season they were out for the other competitions...

That was also one of the reasons lots of people favoured Liverpool for the EPL, because they had not European matches andwere out of the FA Cup.

I notice some manipulation of facts in what you say here Gerd. Arsenal faced Spurs, Liverpool and Everton in the FA Cup while the Premier League and Champions League campaigns were still in full swing. It's nothing like you suggest.

And ironically enough, Wigan and Hull were much tougher than those.

As for the sugar daddies spending, we have already had plenty discussions about that.
You seem to think two wrongs make one right - when in truth, the arrival of sugar daddies only managed to create yet another subdivision in the wealth of football clubs.
Furthermore, as I said: if this 'glass ceiling' thing was a serious argument, you would contemplate why the teams that started qualifying for the CL stopped doing so. No more Newcastle, Leeds went bankrupt (even with the UEFA 'lobbying') and Liverpool dropped out for a number of consecutive years.
You conveniently single out Arsenal and Manchester United, while not looking at other variables. The mighty Man United didn't qualify for Europe at all this season, and yet we still see people clinging on to this desperate argument of perpetual dominance.

The difference is that clubs like Arsenal, Man United and Liverpool build wealth in an organic way and are accountable. You seem to completely dismiss how they are very traditional clubs and have a massive following, which generate revenue if cleverly exploited. Change a manager at these clubs though, and you'll see a very clear impact.

At City and Chelsea on the other hand, they win competitions regardless of the manager. Even Tim Sherwood would win silverware at those clubs.
In the end, pure and simple, money buys you silverware.

It's funny that you're outraged with clubs expenditure in the 90s, and yet consider billionaires playing football manager in real life as par for the course.
We're talking about spending £500m in 5 years, people!
If you can't see how Man City/Abu Dhabi are killing football, then it's useless to carry on such a discussion.

 

[YoungGun_UK]

even simpler is just look at who managed United and Arsenal during that period. we both had legendary managers who both will go down in our clubs history.

 

[beachryan]

I think Gerd just takes things to extreme. It seems to be that his local club (Genk I believe?) should have just as much 'right' or ability to win the CL as any other club in Europe. Anything that prevents that from being a possibility is skewing the game in the same way.

That's where I disagree. The only way that a Genk (or I dunno, a Fulham) could win the CL is if lightning struck about 5 times and produced 5 local lads that only wanted to play for the shirt, who happened to be the 5 best players in the world. Otherwise, most 'dominant' sports teams have to be in a big city, with a good sized stadium and a strong local following. That's just the reality of the world - you need 'bums on seats'.

So teams in London, Manchester, Rome, Madrid, Munich and so forth are always going to have inherent advantage. I can't see that as anything but natural - simple demand-driven economics. You can't expect Wigan to have a fanbase - and therefore revenue - as high as Liverpool.

And yes, I guess that is 'unfair' but it's also very natural and I can't honestly see a solution unless you introduce a single level salary cap across every single first division league in Europe. So Genk will have the same salary restrictions as Real Madrid, regardless of the revenue the two bring in. Essentially the N. American model - where Real Madrid would subsidize the rest of Europe.

The 'sugar daddys' have just changed the scale.

In 2001/02, the top 6 teams all had wage budgets within 14m of each other, and teams like Chelsea and Leeds (finishing 5th/6th) actually had higher wages than the 2nd placed team LFC, just. Things were all pretty tight.

In 2012/13 (last year of full figure) City's wage bill was 233m, Spurs (who came 6th) was 93m. So well more than double the wage bill, just in the top 6.

That's the 'distortion' of the sugar daddy clubs. I'm not saying football was inherently 'equal' back in pre-oil wealth days - it wasn't - some clubs have natural advantages of location, history, talent and so forth. But teams were a lot closer together than they are now.

All that said, Atletico just won La Liga. So maybe this only holds for the prem.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I notice some manipulation of facts in what you say here Gerd. Arsenal faced Spurs, Liverpool and Everton in the FA Cup while the Premier League and Champions League campaigns were still in full swing. It's nothing like you suggest.

And ironically enough, Wigan and Hull were much tougher than those.

As for the sugar daddies spending, we have already had plenty discussions about that.
You seem to think two wrongs make one right - when in truth, the arrival of sugar daddies only managed to create yet another subdivision in the wealth of football clubs.
Furthermore, as I said: if this 'glass ceiling' thing was a serious argument, you would contemplate why the teams that started qualifying for the CL stopped doing so. No more Newcastle, Leeds went bankrupt (even with the UEFA 'lobbying') and Liverpool dropped out for a number of consecutive years.
You conveniently single out Arsenal and Manchester United, while not looking at other variables. The mighty Man United didn't qualify for Europe at all this season, and yet we still see people clinging on to this desperate argument of perpetual dominance.

The difference is that clubs like Arsenal, Man United and Liverpool build wealth in an organic way and are accountable. You seem to completely dismiss how they are very traditional clubs and have a massive following, which generate revenue if cleverly exploited. Change a manager at these clubs though, and you'll see a very clear impact.

At City and Chelsea on the other hand, they win competitions regardless of the manager. Even Tim Sherwood would win silverware at those clubs.
In the end, pure and simple, money buys you silverware.

It's funny that you're outraged with clubs expenditure in the 90s, and yet consider billionaires playing football manager in real life as par for the course.
We're talking about spending £500m in 5 years, people!
If you can't see how Man City/Abu Dhabi are killing football, then it's useless to carry on such a discussion.

Well said

 

[Godotelli]

That is just ridiculous. So your spend only now counts when you, presumably, deem yourself to be a title challenger?

That's perhaps the worst argument you've produced so far, in a long history pretty impressive delusions on the subject of City's spending.

Let me put some other figures out there:

Last 5 seasons, NET (gross):
City 480m (641m)
Chelsea 154m (436m)
United 129m (267m)
LFC 90m (310m)
Arsenal -4m (188m)

Last 10 seasons, NET/ (Gross)
Chelsea 578m (814m)
City 508m (708m)
United 205m (448m)
Liverpool 199m (491m)
Spurs 93m (473m)
Arsenal 17m (295m)

If your goal here is to pick an arbitrary time period when City look good (which is all you're doing) why not do the January transfer window alone? You look like a poor wee club compared to United and Chelsea in that one.

Your best players, those most influential in your season were purchased more than 3 years ago. You can't just write them off because it makes your net spend look better.

For all other folk, look at those figures, and then marvel at what Wenger has achieved. It's incredible.

Not for the first time, you can't seem to follow a conversation. My initial reply was with regards to a comment that City should win everything based on money spent. Considering a large chunk of our spending was just to get into a title challenging position this argument clearly doesn't stand up.

Secondly, you say I have a history of delusion with regards to City's finances, well, out of the two of us I've clearly been on the right side of the arguments. I said we'd we profitable soon enough and we are. You laughed that off.

Thirdly, jut how can Chelsea have a net spend of 188m over the last 3 seasons and yet considerably less than that over 5?
Also, City's net spend over the last 5 years is 350m, not 480m.

In the end, it's not about making us look good nor is it about writing players off. It is about comparing money spend by authentic title challengers We were not a title challenger 5 years ago. Do you understand?

 

[beachryan]

Not for the first time, you can't seem to follow a conversation. My initial reply was with regards to a comment that City should win everything based on money spent. Considering a large chunk of our spending was just to get into a title challenging position this argument clearly doesn't stand up.

Secondly, you say I have a history of delusion with regards to City's finances, well, out of the two of us I've clearly been on the right side of the arguments. I said we'd we profitable soon enough and we are. You laughed that off.

Thirdly, jut how can Chelsea have a net spend of 188m over the last 3 seasons and yet considerably less than that over 5?
Also, City's net spend over the last 5 years is 350m, not 480m.

In the end, it's not about making us look good nor is it about writing players off. It is about comparing money spend by authentic title challengers We were not a title challenger 5 years ago. Do you understand?

*All figures from a single source, transferleague.co.uk. If you don't like their numbers, blame them not me.

Your argument is ridiculous. United are 7th this year. No longer title challengers. Therefore I'm writing off every penny we've spent to date, and will only start counting next season, when we're title challengers again. We win your war. We've spent 0 while being title contenders. Ha.

 

[Rantboy]

To think all of this started when Wenger's salary was questioned by a City fan, of all people!

 

[Godotelli]

Godo, I'd give up if I were you. You are putting on a very weak case to back the absurdity of what you're saying.

Just look at those numbers. Look at any football transfers database and financial reports on the likes of Deloitte.

In the last 5 years City makes Abramovich look poor! Your spending extravaganza began 5 years after Abramovich took over, and look - you're almost catching up with Chelsea's spending! In just 5 years!

We're not even mentioning the fact City's wages are much higher than all the other clubs - like they're in a totally different world.
Not even Chelsea match those salaries paid to the likes of Aguero, Touré and Silva. I think only Rooney's and RVP's salaries come close to that (even so, in Rooney's case they gave him the pay rise fearing he would go to Man City).

Sheikh Mansour is skewing the football market in an unprecedented way, and I think now there will be no turning back. Not if FFP carries on being the joke it is right now.

Just saying "weak case" and "absurdity" isn't an argument.

Our wage bill is not on a different planet at all when you look at the details. We've had deadwood like Kolo, Santa Cruz, Adebayor, Bridge as well as a record payout for Mancini and his staff (which usually doesn't go under wages) included in the most recent accounts.
Do we have a high wage bill? Yes but we also have a few of the best players in the world and when you compare it to the likes of Barca, Real, Utd (the latter posting a wage bill recently of 208m) it's not on another planet. Maybe to Arsenal but then when was the last time they challenged for the title? a decade ago? I can't remember.

With regards to spending and Abramovich(first of all this has little to do with the argument I made but I'll continue anyway), there are two stipulations. 1. We were 9th/10th. Chelsea were 4th/5th at the time of the takeovers. 2. We have had to work under the knowledge of FFP so have had no choice but to leg it to the drawbridge before it is pulled up. Thankfully we made it, much to the chagrin of Wenger et al.