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?

Just how he talks the talk and is sooo frigging corporate 😆

I'm just being cynical but these guys have it all to prove.

Bring Back Kerrea Gilbert wrote:

Just how he talks the talk and is sooo frigging corporate 😆

I'm just being cynical but these guys have it all to prove.

His hair is a disgrace as well.

I don't think we will get any indication as to what our club identity is likely to be until the new Technical Director / DoF outlines what his brief and vision is. Depending on how much work remains on and off the pitch we may not see any clarity for at least another couple of seasons.

You really think that will matter? I don’t believe Arsenal is looking to make a grand Ajax or Barcelona type statement. We just needed to be well-run like Pool or Dortmund. The noises players and agents continue to make about us suggest that we are a three ring circus sans animals. I don’t think adding a technical director will change that. Might just add complexity to the absurdity. If outsiders are confused about who runs transfers, and there is still a feeling that this Club Med, it speaks to real issues of direction, philosophy and execution. We are behind Spurs/Pool here, and can’t match City/United for the money. What’s the hope?

Claudius wrote:

You really think that will matter? I don’t believe Arsenal is looking to make a grand Ajax or Barcelona type statement. We just needed to be well-run like Pool or Dortmund. The noises players and agents continue to make about us suggest that we are a three ring circus sans animals. I don’t think adding a technical director will change that. Might just add complexity to the absurdity. If outsiders are confused about who runs transfers, and there is still a feeling that this Club Med, it speaks to real issues of direction, philosophy and execution. We are behind Spurs/Pool here, and can’t match City/United for the money. What’s the hope?

Agreed that I do not think we are looking to try to position ourselves in the same echelon of football significance as Barca or Ajax, but I do think we are looking to use Sanllehi's experience at Barca to help us to establish those structures at Barca that enable a measure of continuity.  I think BVB are a good example of what we should be able to achieve as we are a bigger club that both Ajax and BVB in terms of resources.

There was a lot of talk about KSE's investment with the Rams, not just in regards to the move but also in regards to their new management/coaching team.  I suspect that Josh's visit/fact finding mission was both a response to their on field success of the changes to their team management, and also may have been a response to the financial figures - whatever we think of them I don't think they are stupid or incompetent.  As such I think that the changes over the last 18 months on and off the pitch are their response to their Rams experience.  I also think that their decision to relocate the Rams to LA is perhaps recognition of the strength of our being located in Inner London. 

Whilst we are behind the other current top6 both on the pitch and in terms of revenues, there are still reasons for hope going forward.  
On the pitch our Home form is comparable to the top of the table - if our Away form matched the PL average these last 2 seasons we would have been challenging for the title.  
As for finances our strategy to date  has been based upon our Home gate which has resulted in our football based revenues being the highest % of the top20 clubs in the game.  Before the current TV revenues our ratio was 60/40 in favour of football based, whilst the top20 average was split 40/60 in favour of commercial sponsorship.  The only reason our ratio has changed has been directly as a result of the TV deal, which means our potential growth of our commercial revenues is something like a third of our current total revenues, which also puts us ahead of all but MC & MU.  
Whilst we have botched / blown / wasted over 500m in recent years we do not need to change our self sufficiency or self funding in order to recover, however we do need to change the way we use those revenues.  As such we have the most potential for growth on and off the pitch of any club in the PL if we actually decide to get serious, and at no point do we require a massive injection of funding from KSE, although it would not be unwelcomed.   TBH if I was KSE I'd want to be certain that I had the right structure and people in place before I invested.

Bottom line KSE are not 'bad' owners just because they have not invested directly into the team.  The issue has been their ignorance of how sports works outside the US sports franchise closed system & putting their faith in the extant club structures and decision making.  I'd be more concerned if our structure and management had not changed at this point & in some ways I'm actually glad that we are no longer run by the shareholders/BoD who are those that have placed us in this position - not KSE who are now trying to put things to rights.
We've had some harsh realities exposed over the last couple of seasons but at least we are no longer living in a bubble of ignorance.  Irony being that whilst we may have lacked the ambition to go forward previously, the actions required to fix the mess may end up having the same effect.

Claudius wrote:

You really think that will matter? I don’t believe Arsenal is looking to make a grand Ajax or Barcelona type statement. We just needed to be well-run like Pool or Dortmund. The noises players and agents continue to make about us suggest that we are a three ring circus sans animals. I don’t think adding a technical director will change that. Might just add complexity to the absurdity. If outsiders are confused about who runs transfers, and there is still a feeling that this Club Med, it speaks to real issues of direction, philosophy and execution. We are behind Spurs/Pool here, and can’t match City/United for the money. What’s the hope?

i wouldn't trust agents who are trying to flog overpriced players at exorbitant wages. they all see arsenal as a rich and easy target. talk shit about the club and the fans will put the pressure on to sign someone. that's how we end up with ozil making 350k, spineless leadership worrying about what the fans will think if he leaves on a free. hopefully raul is better than that and will tell people to fuck off. and it's clear as day that raul is running football and the technical director will be answering to him. any agent trying to talk to vinai is one who is trying to stir up shit.

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.

Pretty much! He has us firmly held in a buy and forget strategy. The club lost it's identity the very day it sold its soul to Kroenke and won't rise from the ashes until he's gone. If only the fans would protest against him like they did against Wenger. Then again, I doubt he'd even notice whilst he's on some ranch somewhere.

What do we consider our identity to be &/or what do we want it to be?

Do we want to go back to the early Wenger reign of scintillating counter atacking, power and movement, or do we want to go back to the Fabregas/Hleb/Rosicky/Nasri/Wilshere era of possession?