y va marquer wrote:

Biggus wrote:

Certainly not he's not a slave.
But I take your point about him being a bit strange, if you feel so strongly about something why take the queens schilling?

That's my question too.
I genuinely don't get it, seems very superficial to me.

Working within a country doesn't mean you have to agree with said country's national identity or support expressions of nationalism when they clash with your own. This wasn't McClean making a scene to air his political beliefs. It was him taking a stance at being celebrated as an Englishman to God Save The Queen while he has friends and family who are sons and daughters to people who died during Bloody Sunday.

It's ridiculous to play a national anthem during a club game to begin with, let alone a friendly in another country. It's even more ridiculous to get hung out to dry by your manager for turning your back on the flag when said manager has like two English players in his starting eleven.

Good on McClean. Anything to poke a hole in England's burgeoning "rainy fascism island" tendency and (separately because he refused to wear a poppy) the sick pretence that World War I was universally approved by people of the time.

The way Australia's going I look forward to a sportsperson turning their back on our flag, then we'll see whether the right to free speech really means anything, or is just a mirage to serve racist and imperialist bigots.

Sounds quite bigoted to me to imply that people who are proud to be English are potential fascists.

@ Klaus - nowhere did I say that he had to [size=medium][font=Source Sans Pro]agree with the national identity or support expressions of nationalism, but his obvious antipathy towards the nation for me calls into question just why he would want to live and work in England.[/font][/size]
[size=medium][font=Source Sans Pro]As I mentioned to qs there are many people who had relatives murdered during the troubles, including English citizens who had their children blown up on the street.[/font][/size]
[font=Source Sans Pro]We strive towards a lasting peace on this island, we don't forget the past but we look at ways to move on, not reopen wounds.[/font]
[font=Source Sans Pro]For me displays such as McClean's drag us back to darker days.[/font]

y va marquer wrote:

Sounds quite bigoted to me to imply that people who are proud to be English are potential fascists

Did McClean stop anyone from being proud of their country? Did he insist they stop? No he was just trying to act like a free citizen in a free country.

I was responding to Bw post qs in which he applauded McClean for poking a hole in England's burgeoning "rainy fascism island" tendency.

Why is it being interpreted that I am saying he should not act like a "free citizen"?
I'm not, what I am questioning is the argument here that his not facing the flag should be accepted without comment or analysis.
I also question why somebody who so clearly and completely identifies with a fundamental republican background would want to play for an English club that brings him into situations that conflict with his personal beliefs.

Sp hypocritical to earn a living in the USA and accept dollars as their pay.

To my eyes, given the current circumstances of Catholics in NI versus black Americans in the 60s, that is in no way comparable qs.
I feel slightly under attack here given the tone of the replies so I'm going to leave this discussion behind.

Just as a last point myself on this, McClean wrote a letter to Dave Whelan about the poppy and I think think the same thing applies here too. It addresses respect and claims he hates Britain etc.

Mr Whelan, for me to wear a poppy would be as much a gesture of disrespect for the innocent people who lost their lives in the Troubles – and Bloody Sunday especially - as I have in the past been accused of disrespecting the victims of WWI and WWII.

It would be seen as an act of disrespect to those people; to my people.

I am not a war monger, or anti-British, or a terrorist or any of the accusations levelled at me in the past. I am a peaceful guy, I believe everyone should live side by side, whatever their religious or political beliefs which I respect and ask for people to respect mine in return. Since last year, I am a father and I want my daughter to grow up in a peaceful world, like any parent.

What strikes me about all this is that he is a no mark footballer who has never and will never make headlines other than for these reasons.

y va marquer wrote:

We strive towards a lasting peace on this island, we don't forget the past but we look at ways to move on, not reopen wounds.

I definitely get that, but peace is not the same thing as assimilation. It's built on respect from both parties, and the English columnists I've read seem unable to respect where McClean is coming from in this situation.

If this had been an international game between Northern Ireland and England I can't imagine that McClean would have turned his back against the English flag. But honestly, what did people think would happen when they started to salute him as if he was a servant of England? It taps directly into the heart of the conflict.

If Pulis and West Bromwich had half a braincell between them they would have foreseen this, and either scrapped the ceremony or at least made sure that McClean wasn't on the field if they had a problem with him quietly rotating 180 degrees to his right and lowering his head. Instead they created a situation where they made one of their own players a target for ultranationalists. When McClean refused to wear a poppy seed on his shirt last year hundreds of people sent death threats towards his one year old daughter. I expect the same thing to happen now. Nationalism can bring out a lot of the ugly in people.

Klaus wrote:

If Pulis and West Bromwich had half a braincell between them they would have foreseen this, and either scrapped the ceremony or at least made sure that McClean wasn't on the field if they had a problem with him quietly rotating 180 degrees to his right and lowering his head. Instead they created a situation where they made one of their own players a target for ultranationalists. When McClean refused to wear a poppy seed on his shirt last year hundreds of people sent death threats towards his one year old daughter. I expect the same thing to happen now. Nationalism can bring out a lot of the ugly in people.

That seems to have been what Martin O'Niell did when Ireland played England earlier in the summer. If it was a competitive game I'd have some sympathy for Pulis but now.

This whole situation is just weird. If McClean hates the British so much why did he spent almost his entire life living and working in England?

I believe wherever you go, no matter how strong your views about some political situations are, you don't intentionally show disrespect to a country flag. He did not even have to look up or sing to the flag. He just had to turn and face in that direction. What he did was deliberately showing disrespect in a meaningless friendly game and trying to create news.

Unlike Americans, we are not hung up on national flags/anthems bollocks.
We used to laugh at Alf Garnett types, 40 years ago.

This is such a non story, he respectfully (and understandably) refused to acknowledge the English flag. Big fucking deal.

Bold Tone wrote:

Unlike Americans, we are not hung up on national flags/anthems bollocks.
We used to laugh at Alf Garnett types, 40 years ago.

Sadly there seems to be a media effort in Britain to rile people up into just that.

Tam wrote:

What strikes me about all this is that he is a no mark footballer who has never and will never make headlines other than for these reasons.

Most footballers are no marks by your definition then. Most professional footballers don't make headlines.

I respect what he did.

I wouldnt mind if a professional footballer did that in my country against my anthem. Its his business.

Qwiss! wrote:

Sp hypocritical to earn a living in the USA and accept dollars as their pay.

Thats a completely different situation, those athletes were amateur's and not "earning a living" they were competing in the Olympics  and as  Americans would be "expected" to respect their flag/anthem but of course are entitled to their political opinions too.

Tam wrote:

What strikes me about all this is that he is a no mark footballer who has never and will never make headlines other than for these reasons.

Thats not the issue here and trying to demean a players achievements in the game is irrelevant.

Hahahahaha! The nerve of Moron! He truly is a nasty prick.

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-boss-jose-mourinho-accuses-arsenal-manchester-united-and-city-of-trying-to-buy-the-premier-league-title-10416580.html

Bear in mind not all of them have managed for 10 years straight.

Wenger has nearly spent as much as Ferguson.

That's outgoings only ya big mug.

It says spendings.

Although Ferguson supposedly spent that over 9 years whereas Wenger supposedly spent it over 10 years.
Of course Ferguson has a lot more to show for it.

shrug We know Arsenal has spent a hell of a lot less nett than any side that has won the league since the Invincibles.

Ferguson's stats will always be somewhat flattered by the £65m he turned around on Ronaldo, but he was a big spender.

Here's the last five years incidentally, we're gaining on the field and spending a lot more now than during the "youth project" era:

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons

Thats always the qualifier isn't it, United's balance only looks better because of Ronaldo Chelsea's because of Luiz and Sp**s because of Bale, can't see how it changes the point.

Well what is the point then? The actual cold hard facts are:

1. We have spent less than United, less than City and less than Chelsea
2. The infographic above is spurious because it records gross, not nett spend, and it counts fees across multiple clubs for the likes of Mancini and Mourinho.

I don't see much mealy-mouthed qualification here.

Unless you're referring to the tortuous misrepresentation required to contrive any wisp of a hope of a dream of a thought of a semblance that we've rivalled the nett transfer and wages expenditure of clubs that have actually won the Premier League during the period 04-14. 

:ffs:

outgoings is relevant because if you spend 400m and have to sell your best players then you're either going to at best run in place or get worse. the team that spends 400m but has a net spending of 200m should have more talent in the squad than the team that spends 400m in the same period but has a net spending of 0 or in the negative. i'm sure you know that though.

I can understand Biggus' logic. It doesn't matter what the nett transfer is if you're looking at what kind of quality you bought. However, the main flaw in that perspective is that players going out represents loss of quality from the club- and when that quality are the likes of Cesc, Nasri, RVP, Hleb etc the difference is telling.

Biggus wrote:

Wenger has nearly spent as much as Ferguson.

True - but let's actually spend some time to think things through.

Wenger's maximum spend has come within the past two years, post Ferguson - his total over 10 years is €428 or £303. Prior to the summer of 2013, our highest transfer fee was around 16m and we very rarely spent more than 30m a summer.

Meanwhile, over 10 years, Manchester United as a club have spent £542m or €764. Source: http://metro.co.uk/2014/12/13/liverpool-have-spent-more-transfer-money-in-last-10-years-than-manchester-united-but-are-still-lagging-behind-red-devils-4985566/ (This does not take into account the current summer)

This would make Manchester United managers/coaches the third biggest spenders on the list.

The difference between Arsenal and United is therefore around £230m/€336 which is similar to the gap between Ferguson and Pellegrini/Mancini.

The fact that van Gaal's name is in there despite spending most of his time managing the Netherlands national team and AZ Alkmaar (where is resources have been limited) sums it up.

I know you mistrust stats and numbers, and it's easy to see why if you're not willing to look at the context behind them.

It's easy to see why you'd mistrust stats and numbers if your first instinct when faced with some straightforward facts about our overall level of spending is to try to massage the numbers to make it look like we're up there with United.

Burnwinter wrote:

It's easy to see why you'd mistrust stats and numbers if your first instinct when faced with some straightforward facts about our overall level of spending is to try to massage the numbers to make it look like Arsene was, is and will continue to be a flop with no excuse at all.

Fixed for ya.

Burnwinter wrote:

Well what is the point then? The actual cold hard facts are:

1. We have spent less than United, less than City and less than Chelsea
2. The infographic above is spurious because it records gross, not nett spend, and it counts fees across multiple clubs for the likes of Mancini and Mourinho.

I don't see much mealy-mouthed qualification here.

Unless you're referring to the tortuous misrepresentation required to contrive any wisp of a hope of a dream of a thought of a semblance that we've rivalled the nett transfer and wages expenditure of clubs that have actually won the Premier League during the period 04-14. 

:ffs:

Of course it is tabloid and simplistic and I make no claims  as to its truth.
You know my views well enough by now Burnsy- Spending like a drunken sailor never guarantees success- I reject that notion and i commend Wenger for his caution, however he has taken a virtue too far and it has hardened into a dogmatic dictum.
The reason he appears to have spent so much is that he has spent much of it on his projects, which were by and large 50/50.
I believe money is a secondary issue in the ability of a club to gain success, the history of the game is built on teams who time and again punch above their weigh due to the genius of their manager.
Wenger was one such manager 10 years ago but as they say time and tide wait for no man.

Game has been all about money for the last decade at least. There won't be a Nottingham Forest in a CL final, a Southampton winning the league, or anything like that anytime soon. Money and Bosman.

Look at Southampton and the players they have produced in the last decade; they have had players coming through like Bale, Walcott, Chambo, Lallana, Schneiderlin, Clyne, Shaw and Chambers. There are more good players too actually. 15-20 years ago they would have been able to keep most of those players around, and they would have most likely have been a top PL side for it. That doesn't happen anymore. Any half decent player is bought by a bigger club as soon as he shows a bit of promise, and earning triple the amount the smaller club can offer certainly helps. Before Bosman, clubs also got a transfer fee for a player sold whose contract had run out.

Biggus wrote:

The reason he appears to have spent so much is that he has spent much of it on his projects, which were by and large 50/50.

Twisting it nicely. 

Wenger has spent "so much" (ie significantly less than our rivals) because that's the requirement to achieve the results we've achieved. In the post-Abramovich era our league position, and every other top club's has been closely consistent with expenditure. We've been over this dozens of times so I'm not going to cite chapter and verse, just look it up. 

It's true a fraction of our overall outgoings could be reasonably traced back to "project" players. Perhaps a greater fraction than that of our rivals, since after all the difference has been that they've been spending more money on the same size squad and have consequently signed older, more expensive and more established players.

To win the title you absolutely have to buy it, the only question is how efficiently you can do so. 

I've had it with this by the way, the above will be my last post on that stupid infographic. Apologies for the grouchiness, it's all just so very old hat.