I don't care if he's a football man or not, that's the CEO equivalent of caring if a player's "Arsenal quality" to be honest, it's just a vague category.

We can compete, we can't compete, surely the questions should be "Did we compete?" and "Why didn't we compete?"?

There isn't anything wrong with what Gazidis said but he does a lot of side tracking and talking about things which aren't relevant. But I think the reason he said what he said is to let everyone know in the transfer market that we don't have money, for negotiations.

He's a bullshit merchant.

Toss him out with Wenger.

General wrote:

I think he genuinely believes in what he is saying. He's not a football man and never will be.

Football man. This is one of those 'he doesn't belong' definitions made up by folks in British football. It's been used for Johny Foreigner footballers. It's been used to promote ensuring footballers have a path into coaching, management and administration. It's been used to suggest that certain people will be able to better understand footballers and agents. It's such rubbish. You don't have to be a football man. You need to have the right people doing the right things in your organisation. A good manager, good scouts, good negotiators, etc.

Gazidis' issues are nothing to do with the level of his footballness. He's just a low expectation having mo-fo who's happy to let Wenger feast on fourth. 

Football man is such a pointless phrase to describe a CEO.

It could just be that he knows far more about the inner workings of Arsenal than anyone here or the nethers of the internet/punditry/journalism/etc.

If he says we can't afford top players that's bad for attracting sponsorships.

On the other hand if he says we can afford top players the fans get pissed off when we don't get more than one a season.

As far as I can see, all he said was that we can't afford expensive mistakes. He followed that up by saying we will spend big when it is right to do so.

I'm really not understanding the aggro this interview has caused.

You can tell when Gazidis is lying.

His lips move.

Captain wrote:

As far as I can see, all he said was that we can't afford expensive mistakes. He followed that up by saying we will spend big when it is right to do so.

I'm really not understanding the aggro this interview has caused.

There's always aggro. Its never been about the interviews.

Claudius wrote:

General wrote:

I think he genuinely believes in what he is saying. He's not a football man and never will be.

Football man. This is one of those 'he doesn't belong' definitions made up by folks in British football. It's been used for Johny Foreigner footballers. It's been used to promote ensuring footballers have a path into coaching, management and administration. It's been used to suggest that certain people will be able to better understand footballers and agents. It's such rubbish. You don't have to be a football man. You need to have the right people doing the right things in your organisation. A good manager, good scouts, good negotiators, etc.

Gazidis' issues are nothing to do with the level of his footballness. He's just a low expectation having mo-fo who's happy to let Wenger feast on fourth. 

It's a very relevant phrase actually. I have no idea why you're linking it to these other phrases. Not everyone understands football and when your CEO refers to the game as soccer, you're in big trouble. The game is not part of his DNA, never will be and this is reflected in his modus operandi.

Soccer is the mark of a non-football man?

Man plays football for the best part of 20-25 years at least, works in it for a further 22, has no 'football DNA'. Seems reasonable.

I'm going to put it out there. He was most recently seen in the MLS.
Not a football man is synonym for hasn't come up through European professional football as a player, coach, etc. I actually find it discriminatory

It's an absurd criticism, the guy has spent more of his career in football than someone like David Gill has.

Criticise his competence by all means but half baked concepts like this should be relegated to the armchair.

Don't knock the armchair Mirth, it's comfy back here.

Captain wrote:

Man plays football for the best part of 20-25 years at least, works in it for a further 22, has no 'football DNA'. Seems reasonable.

Gazidis played football for the best part of 20-25 years , I'm sure he puts Wenger's playing career in the shade. He's nothing more than a glorified salesman. I'll stick to the simple interpretation of a football man which is someone who simply understands football at the highest level ( at a top European league mind) and what it takes to win, others can stretch it as they like, that's their hung up. He was brought in to perform a specific role and this is exactly what he's doing, I don't even have a big issue with him and his recent public declarations. His role gives some people the false belief that he should somehow be bringing a strategic shift in this club's thinking and ambitions when it's been clear from day one that he was brought in mainly to prop up the commercial side of things which is where his strengths lie. It would be funny when the pleb eventually goes and him and Stan start tripping over each other trying to steer this club on a footballing level.

That's clearly not the simple interpretation though. But whatever floats your boat.

It has neither the hyperbolic connotation that some would make you believe.