Kroenke/Gazidis/Wenger out!: Page 257 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Kroenke/Gazidis/Wenger out!

Burnwinter

Have a feeling it was when Ferguson announced his retirement that the plan to spend big crystallised.

I suspect Wenger has probably, consciously or unconsciously, viewed his own progress from that perspective.

y va marquer

😆
Bouncing back with a vengeance.

Captain

I give them a 6/10 for this window; they have failed to get us necessary defensive cover and a high quality striker for no apparent reason.

Ozil speaks for itself and Flamini and Viviano are adequate additions.

Burnwinter

What would you have called last summer Captain?

y va marquer wrote:
😆
Bouncing back with a vengeance.

Pretty much. "Fuck zis, ze old coot az fuckéd oeuf, give me ze numberr oeuf evehry agent on ze continent - maintenant!"

Captain

Burnwinter wrote:
What would you have called last summer Captain?

Player purchases were good but they failed to address key issues once again.

Burnwinter

So another 6/10?

Biggus

lagos wrote:
y va marquer wrote:
They wanted to show ambition and £42m on a top class player certainly shows that, particularly seeing that until this summer they were more concerned with selling that class of player.

Is it a one off or a new policy? Too early to say really.

The mad thing is that Gazidis wasn't lying when he said new tools were available to Wenger, madder still that Wenger accepted that a player was worthy of that kind of money

Gazidis and those before him have never lied, when you take 27 players off your wage bill and you don't really notice it on the feild as well as free up 500k in wages, what it shows is that money has always been available but Wenger chose to spend it on cheap transfers and WAGES.

500k in wages is 25 million a year in addition when all you get for 27 players is 7m it means you've lost all the money you had spent in transfer feesfor those 27 players. and yeah I know most are kids.

I'll say it again the Emirates move was profitable from day 1

Indeed, and it just shows all the crap that Wenger was spending wages on.....Okay every manager even at big clubs has bought players that don't work out for one reason or another but Wengers roll of dross is astounding- No wonder the turkey was wary of spending too much when he had to feed worthless cunts like Almunia and Bendtner 50k p/w Chamakh and Arshavin 75k p/w and god knows about the rest of them.
Top class manager and financially prudent my hole.

Captain

Yes, mostly because we didn't sign a replacement for Vanpersie. Maybe the market was less open last year and I'm being harsh but specifically this year, half of Spain and Italy appeared to be open for business and there is no excuse for not going in and getting someone other than Sanogo.

Don Pacifico

Captain wrote:
I give them a 6/10 for this window; they have failed to get us necessary defensive cover and a high quality striker for no apparent reason.

Ozil speaks for itself and Flamini and Viviano are adequate additions.

Fuck, I agree with you on something. How times have changed. 😉

Burnwinter

@Biglosia You guys seem inclined to discuss our profitability after Ashburton Grove was opened as if the stadium debts didn't exist and didn't need to be retired. Why?

Biggus

Fair play Capi I had you pegged as a jerker just waiting for conditions to be more favourable before re-emerging but you're not easily fooled.
This transfer window has really reshuffled the old paradigm, what with record amounts paid for a player, large bids for players many of us hated and would never have accepted and the return of Matt Flamini a very unWenger like player that Wenger nonetheless likes.
I've had to explain to fellow Wenger outs why I'm so happy- We're all shook up, perhaps we should all just settle down and see what happens between now and January.

Biggus

Burnwinter wrote:
@Biglosia You guys seem inclined to discuss our profitability after Ashburton Grove was opened as if the stadium debts didn't exist and didn't need to be retired. Why?

Speaking as an elder of the Biglosian council, for better or worse everyone knew that there would have to be a period of belt tightening for maybe 5 years till debt returned to manageable levels.
Now Wenger made a choice to build a team from scratch with youths, I personally disagreed with this as I'd have preferred the Fat Sam Bolton method- Pay mercenaries like Anelka and jay jay Okocha high wages and back them up with solid journeymen grafters, we might have lifted a cup of two, this would have been cheaper than having unsellable cunts and leeches on our books for years, but we would have missed the big bonuses of selling the likes of Fabregas and RvP (and didn't that money make us feel good).
Then when we were in a more financially advantageous environment we could refine our style and get better players in.
Now Wenger had every right to choose his way- You could argue it either way before- But in the end it was a fucking disaster- We failed to win a thing in what will be 9 years!
So you can only argue it one way now.

Captain

Biggus wrote:
Fair play Capi I had you pegged as a jerker just waiting for conditions to be more favourable before re-emerging but you're not easily fooled.

"re-emerging"?

I average 19 posts a day and account for six percent of the forum's content. 😆

Biggus

Burnwinter wrote:
@Biglosia You guys seem inclined to discuss our profitability after Ashburton Grove was opened as if the stadium debts didn't exist and didn't need to be retired. Why?

Speaking as an elder of the Biglosian council, for better or worse everyone knew that there would have to be a period of belt tightening for maybe 5 years till debt returned to manageable levels.
Now Wenger made a choice to built a team from scratch with youths, I personally disagreed with this as I'd have preferred the Fat Sam Bolton method- Pay mercenaries like Anelka and jay jay Okocha high wages and back them up with solid journeymen grafters, we might have lifted a cup of two, this would have been cheaper than having unsellable cunts and leeches on our books for years, but we would have missed the big bonuses of selling the likes of Fabregas and RvP (and didn't that money make us feel good).
Then when we were in a more financially advantageous environment we could refine our style and get better players in.
Now Wenger had every right to choose his way- You could argue it either way before- But in the end it was a fucking disaster- We failed to win a thing in what will be 9 years!
So you can only argue it one way now.

Biggus

Captain wrote:
Biggus wrote:
Fair play Capi I had you pegged as a jerker just waiting for conditions to be more favourable before re-emerging but you're not easily fooled.

"re-emerging"?

I average 19 posts a day and account for six percent of the forum's content. 😆

Hey settle down tiger, I said I got you wrong.

Burnwinter

Thing is, I think everyone's agreed on the basic dynamic. We spent money on a very well justified (and, in the end, executed) stadium investment, we had to endure significant financial constraints before we could spend heavily on the squad again.

I also think everyone agrees the squad investment could've been brought forward. At the very least, I don't think even a hardcore fiscal conservative would argue we shouldn't have just broken our transfer record! And most would say we should've done it years ago.

The differences are of degree - how much spending, on which targets, during which window, etc. And are speculative in relation to what we imagine the alternative history could have been - the alternative to, as you correctly point out, going on nine barren trophyless years.

I just want to corral the debate within realistic parameters, where we don't debate across some mindless pretence that because we were "profitable" after the Emirates move, we didn't have the retirement of the large debt we took on as a big priority for the good of the club.

Burnwinter

Captain wrote:
I average 19 posts a day and account for six percent of the forum's content. 😆

Stats can lie. Your average post is about five words. 😉

Biggus

Well what do you want to discuss? This is the Wenger out thread.
We bought and paid for this big ass stadium to separate us from the Spurs of this world, (Spurs are the best comparison to Highbury us so forget about all the Leeds and Portsmouth bollocks).
If we didn't go down this route where would we be now? Would a kindly sugar daddy have bought us out and sacked Wenger for under performance- Who knows.

Burnwinter

Biggus wrote:
Well what do you want to discuss? This is the Wenger out thread.

It's not the subject matter but the rhetoric which frames discussion that bothers me.

As far as "well what if we'd scuttled the club financially, dropped to mid table, sacked Wenger and then been rescued by an oligarch who made Fabio Capello manager?" - you can talk about that sort of "what if the Nazis won WWII?" shit if it floats your boat, but it seems like such a substantial deviation from actuality that it's all rather academic.

We've talked long enough to know that we agree on the broad brush strokes of empirically observable reality, so let's not pointlessly chivvy each other back and forth with misrepresentations like a blinkered insistence that "we were profitable so we should've spent more" at such and such a time, accompanied by an omission to mention the hundreds of millions of pounds of additional debt we all know we had affecting our financial position, in what later proved to be uncertain times.

It's all just a bit disingenuous for my taste.

CitizenNo9

Burnwinter wrote:
@Biglosia You guys seem inclined to discuss our profitability after Ashburton Grove was opened as if the stadium debts didn't exist and didn't need to be retired. Why?

I'll use the example I have used countless times in the last 8 years:

If you invest in a buy to let and have a mortgage of 800 but receive rental income of 1000, The mortgage is not the reason you can't afford to take the kids on a vacation is it, because the reality is that rather than be a burden, the mortgage has actually increased your disposable income because you are servicing the loan with change. Emirates stadium was generating 15m over and above the cost of the loan every year. If you choose to spend your extra income on a vanity project, bloat your squad with mediocrity on table average wages, constantly allow players to run down their contracts and lose your capital investment, t's not the debt that's the problem is it? I have been saying that a club with real money problems will not allow as many players to leave on a free as has occurred since we moved.

Granted there was a year where we chose to pay down a significant portion of the debt, which by the way was primarily from the highbury redevelopment. But please tell me players fees increased, tell me we decided to see if the youth policy would work, tell me the sugar daddies changed the market dynamics, anything but that it was because of the stadium!, that's lame and a myth and it constantly amazed how often people cite the Emirates and our debt as a burden.

« Previous Page Next Page »