in the wake of the disaster in baku or wherever the fuck the match was yesterday, and really for the last few months, we've been talking about which players will stay, which will go, if the manager will stay, how attractive we are as a club, what formation we should play, and where it all went wrong. but beyond all of those individual conversations, some of which are more tedious than others, i believe the glaring issue right now is that we have no identity as a club. for years, we were the club who managed their finances better than anyone else, who bought young talent and groomed them, and then managed to build a new stadium while maintaining a team with a lesser budget, all while playing attractive, if not sometimes reckless, football. when people talked about arsenal, they immediately thought about the intricate possession play and the brilliant team goals. and for a long time, our identity was tied firmly to wenger, his longevity, and it always ended up back with the invincibles.

but now, do we even have an identity anymore? we're no longer the team with the new big shiny stadium that we're so proud of...the emirates is 13 years old or whatever. we're no longer the team everyone mentions when you say "beautiful football"....we're not lauded for our brilliant tiki taka goals, we're not praised for our brilliant counterattacking, and we're certainly not praised for a revitalization of the one nil to the arsenal days. we're no longer the team that identifies the hidden jewels and develops them. we're not known as the club of stability anymore, after what has happened in the last year with key figures (not wenger) leaving mid-season. the reality is, we have no identity at all. i supported emery for a long time, when he was getting beat up constantly...but if we are being honest, he did not create any kind of identity in this team. i understand that rome wasn't built in a day, but this season we played some of the most dreadful football i can remember, and ive been following this club, in some capacity, for close to 25 years. even after the invincibles when things started to decline, we played tons of matches where we scored a bunch of goals, and though it was frustrating how bad we were defensively at times, at least the prospect of scoring goals was there, and you often saw some spectacular team goals. this season felt like an absolute slog, with only a few actual games i can even remember off the top of my head. sure, we didn't lose 6-1 to man city or united or liverpool, but honestly, does that even matter when the footie in the other 34 league matches was so uninspiring? you'd maybe even be willing to live with pragmatic, solid football if it meant lots of 1-0 and 2-0 wins where we just handled things professionally, but we didnt even have that for much of the year. on any given day, it felt like we could concede 3 or 4 to a sunday league team.

its not like you can just flip a switch and stop caring about arsenal. this club has been a big part of my life for a long time, even as an idiot american who cant be immersed in the culture like a lot of you are. when i was in london a few years ago, i actually got to go to a game, and it was one of the highlights of my life. but if im being honest, this club has really sucked a lot of the life out of the sport for me in the last 5-6 years, even as we actually broke our trophy drought and won a bunch of FA cups. wenger stayed too long, and the culture he built at the club turned out to be toxic. but beyond that, it doesn't feel like the club is equipped to make hard decisions, to make decisive decisions, and to actually forge an identity. city may be a soulless, financially doped club, but you cant say they arent committed to what they are trying to accomplish. right now, i dont even know what arsenal football club is trying to accomplish. we're not going to spend like city, chelsea, united and liverpool. we're not committed to youth. we're not committed to trying to play an exciting brand of football. we're not committed to trying to build a rock solid defensive team that handles things professionally. in other words, we don't seem committed to giving the supporters of the club a reason to be excited and a reason to care. ive set an alarm on saturday and sunday mornings regularly for the last decade to wake up and watch arsenal, sometimes at 7am, even when its meant having to risk getting a virus on my laptop to find a stream for a game when it wasnt on tv. i've re-arranged social obligations so i could watch big arsenal matches. and for the first time, right now, im wondering why i should even bother to go out of my way to do any of that.

i was proud of being an arsenal supporter, in a country that doesn't really give a shit about football. when i encountered a man united fan or a liverpool fan or whatever else, i was proud to say i supported arsenal, a club that stood for something and was committed to playing beautiful football, win or lose. right now, im not sure what this club is committed to. i'll support the club until the day i die, because that is what sports does to me, but fucking hell, this club really needs to re-discover their mojo and figure out how to snap out of his malaise. because its been really mentally exhausting, and i think we as supporters deserve better from the club that we give so much to. if winning isnt possible, the club at least needs to have an identity, a positive identity, that fans can get behind. right now, in that sense, we feel bankrupt.

I mean, this is what selling the club to a millionaire American investor, switching stadiums, and getting rid of manager who held his job for 20-years does to you! It was all compounded by our conservative strategy being nullified by the artificial injection of resources into other clubs.

We are still the most important football club of the most important city in the most important (footballing) continent in the world.

I am happy to let Sanllehí and Emery show us what they've got next season. This one was always going to be very difficult. Off-the-field things are more complicated. Gazidis' 'arsenalisation' project was just make-up. If we really want the club to be sustainable without the Wenger-ball theatre-like displays we need to bring back the North Bank in some form. Let supporters provide some of the spectacle that players cannot realistically provide at most clubs.

If Emery does not work out, it might be worth going for someone who promises beautiful football and see where that takes us, too. There's massive risk either way. Without adequate funding, though, it will be impossible to compete.

RC8 wrote:

We are still the most important football club of the most important city in the most important (footballing) continent  in the world.
.

What do you base that on currently? Two other clubs in the same city consistently finish above us in the league and are possibly going to win both European titles this season. We're a famous club with a strong history of past success, but  very much third choice for any player with the option to play in London.

Oh I didn't say we were the best. But we remain the most important one for now. We have more supporters both locally and worldwide, which is why it's us charging the most expensive tickets and not our competitors. I reckon we would be more expensive to acquire than other London clubs, too.

invisibleman18 wrote:

Two other clubs in the same city consistently finish above us in the league and are possibly going to win both European titles this season. We're a famous club with a strong history of past success, but  very much third choice for any player with the option to play in London.

True for one club since Abramovich came in but that is an exaggeration for the other. Your parents are getting to you mate 😉

RC8 wrote:

I mean, this is what selling the club to a millionaire American investor, switching stadiums, and getting rid of manager who held his job for 20-years does to you! It was all compounded by our conservative strategy being nullified by the artificial injection of resources into other clubs.

We are still the most important football club of the most important city in the most important (footballing) continent  in the world.

I am happy to let Sanllehí and Emery show us what they've got next season. This one was always going to be very difficult. Off-the-field things are more complicated. Gazidis' 'arsenalisation' project was just make-up. If we really want the club to be sustainable without the Wenger-ball theatre-like displays we need to bring back the North Bank in some form. Let supporters provide some of the spectacle that players cannot realistically provide at most clubs.

If Emery does not work out, it might be worth going for someone who promises beautiful football and see where that takes us, too. There's massive risk either way. Without adequate funding, though, it will be impossible to compete.

I wouldn't call Kroenke an investor because he hasn't spent a cent on the club other than to buy shares to gain ownership, from which none of the revenues go to the club.
As such the football club is perhaps a consequence or outcome of purchasing the shares, and perhaps not the reason for doing so as there has been no direct investment into anything.
Little wonder that we're floundering for any identity.

As for going for someone who can produce/provide aesthetically pleasing football, I suspect that is only a concern for the fans, and is secondary to the decision makers to being able to feed from the top trough in the CL, otherwise we should have done so from the off.

An investor is exactly what he is, unlike the City owners. Investors do what they do to make money, which is all Kroenke cares about.

In regards to the OP, I suspect a big part of the lack of any identity is because AW failed to provide one during his time this calendar decade post Fabregas.

At best we've become a highlights reel club each season for reasons both good and bad - good for the sponsors and good for the PL, but nothing we could build upon or even continue with. At best I would describe us as AW & PHW described our 'product' marketing at the time of the move, as being an alternative form of entertainment to going to the movies or seeing a show or concert. Whereas we used to entertain with our style of play and our success prior to the move, over this last calendar decade we've been more akin to the Keystone Cops or circus clowns as opposed to anything like The Harlem Globe trotters we used to be.

IMO AW changed too much away from the power and pace that brought success during The Highbury Years. I also think it was a mistake to try to implement his intuitive style with a core of inexperienced players who were still learning both their game and the game it's self. I also think it was wrong to do so with a possession based style and a collective mentality where everyone does everything, because at it's worst it became tiki-taka - death by a thousand passes and possession without purpose.

Quincy Abeyie wrote:

An investor is exactly what he is, unlike the City owners. Investors do what they do to make money, which is all Kroenke cares about.

I'd have thought that an investor would invest in his asset and to have a valid interest in doing so, whereas I'd describe Kroenke as simply being an owner at best - nothing more. 

Anzac wrote:

As for going for someone who can produce/provide aesthetically pleasing football, I suspect that is only a concern for the fans, and is secondary to the decision makers to being able to feed from the top trough in the CL, otherwise we should have done so from the off.

I think its fairly important to them, when we had reputation for good football it was easy to sell corporate tickets at a good price. Thats a major revenue generator. Now we have Spurs new stadium to contend with for those corporate sales and we are less successful and without the big England stars they will be using to sell tickets.

It's just sad that we are now the 3rd best London club. 15 years ago we are by far the best.

We need to publish a book on how to ruin a club and bring them down from the top.

Qwiss! wrote:
Anzac wrote:

As for going for someone who can produce/provide aesthetically pleasing football, I suspect that is only a concern for the fans, and is secondary to the decision makers to being able to feed from the top trough in the CL, otherwise we should have done so from the off.

I think its fairly important to them, when we had reputation for good football it was easy to sell corporate tickets at a good price. Thats a major revenue generator. Now we have Spurs new stadium to contend with for those corporate sales and we are less successful and without the big England stars they will be using to sell tickets.

Fair points but if that is the case then they needed to address the rot the moment we fell out of top4, and not to give AW yet another deal after winning the FA Cup.
In terms of aesthetics we have been shite for years even before we dropped from the CL - our annual embarrassment at CL R16 being the most obvious example, along with the annual drubbing in the PL by one of the other top4 contenders.

The other point to this is that so far as entertainment and sponsorship go, the bad rewards just as much as the good just in a different way.
Every season we still have a contender for goal of the year and are involved in some of the most breathtaking games, so we continue to be given TV time for our Home games because our Home form is still title contender quality. Home TV coverage not only increases our slice of TV revenues but it also keeps our sponsor's names exposed. The helter skelter games such as high scoring draws and even the collapses still keep us in the news. To the neutral we are still great entertainment - just that we are now a comedy act.

Clrnc wrote:

It's just sad that we are now the 3rd best London club. 15 years ago we are by far the best.

We need to publish a book on how to ruin a club and bring them down from the top.

[font=Source Sans Pro]You are speaking as if we are consigned to be in this position forever. Manchester United are now the number two club in Manchester. I would have never thought that a decade ago. City are doped, as were Chelsea. For Tottenham, football is cyclical. We were fortunate to see the dominance we did for as long as we did. We are the bigger club, will be the bigger club, have won more in the last 5 years than they have won the last 50. Fuck this complex. Every club gets signings wrongs, we went downward with them too. It is more important how we respond in this new era.[/font]

Rohit wrote:
Clrnc wrote:

It's just sad that we are now the 3rd best London club. 15 years ago we are by far the best.

We need to publish a book on how to ruin a club and bring them down from the top.

[font=Source Sans Pro]You are speaking as if we are consigned to be in this position forever. Manchester United are now the number two club in Manchester. I would have never thought that a decade ago. City are doped, as were Chelsea. For Tottenham, football is cyclical. We were fortunate to see the dominance we did for as long as we did. We are the bigger club, will be the bigger club, have won more in the last 5 years than they have won the last 50. Fuck this complex. Every club gets signings wrongs, we went downward with them too. It is more important how we respond in this new era.[/font]

I'm not sure we've yet fallen far enough for there to be a change in how we do things.  

I still believe that we don't actually need a quick fix of cash investment by Kroenke (even though it would be more than welcomed)- even with our shit commercial revenues (by volume and as a % of total revenues), we still generate on a par with the likes of all but MC & MU.  The problem is how we use those revenues as we put our self sustaining finance model ahead of making those revenues count for us in terms of transfers, and as such any cash investment by Kroenke is not going to address the real core issues.

Rohit wrote:
Clrnc wrote:

It's just sad that we are now the 3rd best London club. 15 years ago we are by far the best.

We need to publish a book on how to ruin a club and bring them down from the top.

[font=Source Sans Pro]You are speaking as if we are consigned to be in this position forever. Manchester United are now the number two club in Manchester. I would have never thought that a decade ago. City are doped, as were Chelsea. For Tottenham, football is cyclical. We were fortunate to see the dominance we did for as long as we did. We are the bigger club, will be the bigger club, have won more in the last 5 years than they have won the last 50. Fuck this complex. Every club gets signings wrongs, we went downward with them too. It is more important how we respond in this new era.[/font]

You are right, I just dont have the confidence in firstly the asshole running the club. He has failed as long as he took over and is completely devoid of ambitions. 

Add our transfer targets + end of season results it's all very depressing with Saturday to come

Rohit wrote:
Clrnc wrote:

It's just sad that we are now the 3rd best London club. 15 years ago we are by far the best.

We need to publish a book on how to ruin a club and bring them down from the top.

[font=Source Sans Pro]You are speaking as if we are consigned to be in this position forever. Manchester United are now the number two club in Manchester. I would have never thought that a decade ago. City are doped, as were Chelsea. For Tottenham, football is cyclical. We were fortunate to see the dominance we did for as long as we did. We are the bigger club, will be the bigger club, have won more in the last 5 years than they have won the last 50. Fuck this complex. Every club gets signings wrongs, we went downward with them too. It is more important how we respond in this new era.[/font]

Exactly. Man United are the second best club in Manchester but still by far the bigger club. Liverpool haven't won a league title in 30 years they were never smaller or less important than Blackburn, Chelsea, Man City,etc just because those clubs bought some success for a while.

We may not be the best team in London any more but we are still the biggest.

Anzac wrote:

In regards to the OP, I suspect a big part of the lack of any identity is because AW failed to provide one during his time this calendar decade post Fabregas.  

Well, post Fabregas our identity was supposed to be the "British Core" who were both homegrown and supposed to be technically proficient. I think it was a good attempt and it fostered a genuine attachment to the club via marketable and (for the most part) well liked players.

There was also some goodwill remaining from an acceptance of our forced hand during the stadium transition. 

With all of the core gone, and their influence really sporadic (Ramsey's 2013/2014 and FA Cup wins, Wilshere's occasional peaks, etc.), we've seen very little emerge to replace the brand identity. For a moment it seemed our identity would re-emerge due to the FA Cup wins and a fairly strong squad centered around Sanchez / Ramsey / Cazorla / Ozil / Koscielny....but that faded mighty quick.

I look at Venkatesham and see a tanned Gazidis. Nothing will change unless Sanllehi is a horrible mofo.

Bring Back Kerrea Gilbert wrote:

I look at Venkatesham and see a tanned Gazidis.

Based on what?