What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:06:18:35:36 by Padre Pio.

the question has been asked before, what can Ivan do to Wenger, after all Arsene had the final say in his appointment, yeah thats right, Arsene had the say so in who got the job of being his direct boss(on paper)

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

So if Gazidis is wenger's appointment then he needs to go with him, they are in it together

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

aw is said to have had final say who got the job of CEO, ivan had to meet arsene to discuss the position, and aw gave the ok on his appointment, that sounds like an interview to me.

Ivan does not get along with Arsene, has not since summer 2011, so yes padre one or both has to go, and if its only one of them it has to be wenger

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

A CEO is appointed for the good of the whole club, bot the good of the manager, he has covered for Wenger, but they can hang together or swing separately I dont care who goes first

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

I would have no problem with ivan going, but only if its with wenger, sack ivan and have arsene pick the next CEO changes nothing, sack Wenger and have Ivan help pick the next manager is how its meant to be done

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

Quote:

eduardo

Ivan does not get along with Arsene, has not since summer 2011, so yes padre one or both has to go, and if its only one of them it has to be wenger

how do we know this?

that is what my source revealed back then, the club did not take kindly to AT revealing it either

other got the same info around that time too, including a couple of high ranking AST memebers, and a couple of popular bloggers too, and I'd think they have different sources than mine

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:01:21:36:10 by eduardo.

It is time for Wenger to go. I say this with enormous sadness. But in the cold light of day, it all come down to the numbers. As it stand the previous directors have made a fortune when selling their shares.
Arsenal tickets is among the most expensive in the world. The club continues to make substantial profit in the transfer market. The performance of the club on the pitch continues to decline based on the latest stats. Many clubs in the premier league are making significant stride and making wise choices in the transfer market. It hurt to say that Tottenham is now playing more interesting and exciting football. Wenger has had to rely on Lady Luck to finish in the top four but this it appears that even Lady Luck has had enough. The fans who believes that Wenger is still the man who can save the day are simply deluding themselves and they live in the same imaginary world as Wenger. It is time for the club to have a fresh start. Arsenal was here before Wenger, we continue to survive with Wenger and I accept we had some good times but I believe without Wenger we will continue to survive and have great hope that we can be successful again. I would like to meet a fan who strongly believes that Guardiola would be the wrong manager for Arsenal.

Quote:

eduardo
aw is said to have had final say who got the job of CEO, ivan had to meet arsene to discuss the position, and aw gave the ok on his appointment, that sounds like an interview to me.

Have you some evidence to support this?

Quote:

eduardo
that is what my source revealed back then, the club did not take kindly to AT revealing it either
other got the same info around that time too, including a couple of high ranking AST memebers, and a couple of popular bloggers too, and I'd think they have different sources than mine

why do you think, after a year and a few months, that this is still the case then?

We cannot have a manager and a director of football/CEO/whatever he is in a tug of war!?!?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:01:21:54:22 by Gunners R Us.

its not a tug of war, its a wee bit of a ivan wanting the power a CEO should have and Wenger not wanting to release any of the power he has, I'm told the main issue is Wenger's way with transfer targets got Ivan's goat up, especially when he faces fans and they accuse him of not being good with transfers,
Wenger's way on transfers is, he has certain targets, and not till they are totally ruled out for a move, will he even consider naming an alternative target, he is prepared to wait and do without, quicker than bring in someone down a list.
Take the left back issue in summer 2011, clichy sold, ivan asked for name of replacement targets, arsene told him gibbs and traore deserved the chance to step up, then into the season and arsene agrees to the sale of traore and can then name Santos, ivan had him signed within a few days of aw naming him, he had never been mentioned up till sale of traore agreed.

when arsene wants a player, thats it, no list of one to five in order of preference, he has always been like that, and has always been willing to wait to get him man, henry, pires, Cazorla, chamakh
some reports even suggest that wenger does not even tell his coaches who his targets are, in some cases only when bid made. yes he will discuss about what players he likes, etc but he likes to keep moves a secret

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

Bloodbath at NFL after close of season and onto play-off.

7 coaches sacked and 5 general managers sacked.

Of course PHW will say: "We do want that kind at Arsenal FC".

Kroenke is not daft and if it affected hsi cashflow, he and Gazidis will do "something".

Quote:

aw is said to have had final say who got the job of CEO, ivan had to meet arsene to discuss the position, and aw gave the ok on his appointment, that sounds like an interview to me.

eduardo, that is the biggest load of krap that's ever been stated on this forum. "AW is said to have final say", said by who? What are your sources? Wenger picks the CEO? This is nonsense. Since when does a manager of a Premier football club get to pick the CEO of the club? Are going to say that Wenger also had a say in choosing Kronke as the owner?

I believe there are 3 managers in the prem which have near enough total control of what happens in and around the club:

Fergie
Wenger
Moyes

Hg its said by several high ranking ast members among others. But hey don't worry your little akb head about it, even if wenger himself says so you will only claim he is doing so to cover for his bosses.

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

eduardo, I'm no journalist and neither are you but when some journo comes with a story with unnamed sources than you take it with a grain of salt.

Gazidis is a marketing expert recruited directly from the NFL. He is obviously Kroenkes choice as the man to make money for him.

If Wenger was so powerful he would have insisted that David Dein was appointed CEO rather than Gazidis.

Plonky is right, rumor has it that Wenger was given right of veto over applicants, but he didnt choose the applicants

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

So Padre, you're now an expert on rumors? Since when do rumors has substituted facts?

Reluctantly, I am with Padre and Eduardo on this.

Previously I have explained that I have been an Arsenal fan for over 50 years and the best times in my memory were the early Wenger years. Therefore I do not light-mindedly call for him to go. But we have seen what I describe as

"the slow decline of the A.rse"

which refers both to Arsenal and to Arsene himself over the last four/five years. The team and their performances are overall slowly but unmistakenly getting worse. And Arsene's judgement and recruitment of players, recognition of the deficiencies in the team, are all becoming less consistent and accurate.

He is sadly past his best and the team, despite some ups and downs, will continue to decline with him in charge.

I suspect he will go at the end of his current contract in 2014, or if we are lucky, at the end of this season when we have won nothing and probably missed out on a Champions League place for next season - the symbol of his success over the years. He has often said that he will leave if and when he is convinced he is no longer the best person for the job. I hope he recognises that soon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:02:11:06:32 by Padre Pio.

Quote:

NobleTrojan
It is time for Wenger to go. I say this with enormous sadness. But in the cold light of day, it all come down to the numbers. As it stand the previous directors have made a fortune when selling their shares.
Arsenal tickets is among the most expensive in the world. The club continues to make substantial profit in the transfer market. The performance of the club on the pitch continues to decline based on the latest stats. Many clubs in the premier league are making significant stride and making wise choices in the transfer market. It hurt to say that Tottenham is now playing more interesting and exciting football. Wenger has had to rely on Lady Luck to finish in the top four but this it appears that even Lady Luck has had enough. The fans who believes that Wenger is still the man who can save the day are simply deluding themselves and they live in the same imaginary world as Wenger. It is time for the club to have a fresh start. Arsenal was here before Wenger, we continue to survive with Wenger and I accept we had some good times but I believe without Wenger we will continue to survive and have great hope that we can be successful again. I would like to meet a fan who strongly believes that Guardiola would be the wrong manager for Arsenal.

You're spot on there NT. As I said in another thread, fans that believe in Wenger think he is God and of course Wenger knows he is God.

So djarse, you believe that Wenger chooses the owner, chooses the CEO, and signs the checks? In other words, Kronke, Gazidis, and PHW have to answer to him. I'm sorry but this is just an exercise in naivete or you must live in la la land like eddy.

The decline started when Dein introduced Kroenke and then Usmanov.

What has Gazidis done wrong? He's changed the commercial staff to increase the income from sources other than matchday. As you can well see that has shown huge benefits.

I've seen people on here have a go at the amount he earns. Well, as CEO's of major businesses in this country go the about £1.5m is not a huge amount in relation to others and is far less than many players in the EPL who aren't even in their clubs' starting elevens. Chamakh and Arshavin for instance earn twice if not more than Gazidis, but what do they contribute to the Club?

Gazidis to go? Behave.

Wenger to go? We've drawn a match after 4 wins. F*ck me, what a disaster. F*cking wake up would you? When did we EVER have a divine right to win matches? When exactly did you decide Wenger should be working miracles against clubs who spend 10 times the amount we do without it even bothering them? He can't work miracles? What a pr*ck he is. Go on Wenger, f*ck off for being so inadequate.

Mancini is a decent manager, no more, yet wins the EPL etc. How? Spending 10 times more money. Di Matteo. Average manager, wins Champions League. How? Luck and a squad costing a fortune. Ferguson? Horrible bloke, great manager, yet still has to spend 5 times as much as Wenger to win (or not win) things.

Is Wenger the best manager in the world? No, he's not. He makes mistakes that p*ss me off no end. However, name anyone else who would have been able to keep Arsenal where they are with, in comparison to the other top clubs, or those that have bought that status, f*ck all to spend for the past 8 or 9 years.

Di Matteo? Benitez? Mancini? No chance. Not even Ferguson I don't think. The only manager who would have a chance of keeping us up there these past 8 or 9 years is possibly Mourinho. And he would have done it in such a way that everyone would hate us.

And what good exactly would Wenger and Gazidis going do? Who would replace them?

Answers please, no more of this kneejerk cr*p.

Oh please go away Simon. What utter rubbish. Exactly how much more money have Bradford, Southampton or Norwich got than us and yet we can't beat them.

Arsenal have vast resources compared to every club in the league except for City and Chelsea so you'd expect them to finish at least third, or fourth owing to the fact that Fergie is a far superior manager to Wenger.

Any decent manager could have achieved what Wenger's done in the last eight years and probably won a cup, perhaps against the mighty Birmingham a few years ago.

All this myth-making of Wenger really needs to cease. Your post is as weak as that silly link you put up last week to some site where a Wenger apologist totally misread the sums to suit his agenda.

Funny how Norwich beat ManU then isn't it? Or Sunderland beat ManCity?

Or was I just imagining it?

And you think we have vast resources compared to ManU?

Stop making a fool of yourself.

I don't know why I'm even bothering responding to your idiocy.

Arsenal have vast resources compared to every club in the league except for City and Chelsea so you'd expect them to finish at least third, or fourth owing to the fact that Fergie is a far superior manager to Wenger.

And by the way you moron, we DID finish third after the last complete season.

Yes Norwich beat Manu but which to premier ship team with a full squad has ever lost to a League 2 side?

We couldn't beat Villa away and yet Spuds put four past them. Spuds beat Fulham away and yet we couldn't beat them at home. Liverpool put five past Norwich away.

Do you want more examples?

Wenger has been on a downward slide for at least five years. RVP saved him last season. Wonder who will this season?

You talk a lot of rubbish as usual. And yes we have vast resources compared to every other club bar the obvious two or don't you know about Manu's debt?

Difference is Manu act like an ambitious football club and we don't.

Simon your defence of a sinking rat is touching, mean while the ships are pulling out. I wrote a far longer reply and hit the wrong key. so I will restrict myself to just one point.
This is no knee jerk it is based on Wenger's record for the last two years, last nights game was just another example amongst many that illustrate the decline of the team under wenger.

Bradford was the canary in the coal mine, its a warning we must heed, the fans will not be united around Wenger, so its time for him to go.
It happens to a lot of managers, Wright, Mee, Howe, Neil, and Graham all reached their sell by date no one questioned who their replacements should be.

Now its Wenger's turn to go, a good CEO will have a replacement lined up, wouldnt Guardiola be worth a try?

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

I'd take Moyes in a heart beat over Le Prat.

He is achieving equally as much as Wenger every year, also on a shoe string. 4th place isn't really a trophy either before anyone says it is.

Difference is Moyes does it without the funds, Wenger has funds but either doesn't spend them or wastes them on utter rubbish.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

- Albert Einstein

Happy New year Simon, nice to see you remain nothing more than a propagandist for those doing harm to the Club.

Blaming David Dein is just more disingenuous dishonest@#$%&to cover the betrayal of this beloved Club by those trusted never to do that since they assured they had no reason nor need to do so.Nothing more.

How did David Dein make one shareholder sell one share of stock to anyone? Grow a pair and answer this question for once.

Why didn't he sell his shares to Stan Kroenke, or why didn't Stan kroenke offer to buy them? Answer this one now.

Why did Lady Bracewell-Smith sell her shares back to Stan Kroenke after she was pushed out of the Club by Dan Fiszman even though she could have gotten more elsewhere and why did she sell them the very same day Mr. Fiszman's attorneys sold the majority of his holdings to Mr. Kroenke? Come on Simon I'm sure you can answer so why don't you for once?

Or why did Richard carr sell to Stan kroenke after all he left his seat on the Board in solidarity with Lady Bracewell-Smith and neither of them could have been happy at how he let Dan Fiszman treat her, no? Or does almost 200 million pounds profit on zero pounds invested make up for that? Again have a go for once and answer this too.

Blaming David Dein is just more disingenuous dishonest@#$%&to cover the betrayal of this beloved Club by those trusted never to do that since they assured they had no reason nor need to do so.Nothing more.

How did David Dein make one shareholder sell one share of stock to anyone? Grow a pair and answer this question for once.

Why didn't he sell his shares to Stan Kroenke, or why didn't Stan kroenke offer to buy them? Answer this one now.

How many times do I have to answer this before the penny drops? Grow a pair? Do f*ck off.

For f*cks sake why don't you bother reading what I say instead of just making it up?

So, here we go again.

David Dein introduced Kroenke to Arsenal by getting him to buy the 9.9% shares owned by ITV. He did it behind the Board's back so that answers that one, yet again.

And, yet again and read carefully and slowly:-

Dein tried to sell his shares to Kroenke. Kroenke refused. Why? Because Dein wanted control of the Club on a day to day basis, having been ousted because of the ITV deal and trying to get Nina Bracewell-Smith to sell to Kroenke as well.

Why would Kroenke have refused Dein's shares when he was trying to buy into the Club? Not anti-semitism as he bought Fiszman's later. Or was it because he doesn't like orange? You've never come up with a plausible reason RFA, have you? I don't even think you've tried even though you have come up with many crackpot theories about other stuff in your own little parallel universe.

So maybe you can explain why Nina Bracewell-Smith sold to Kroenke and not Usmanov (another who kicked out Dein after Dein introduced him to Arsenal by dint of selling his shares for £75m, making Dein's total shareholding sale worth more than £86m for a stake of just £292,000) particularly as it is well known that she wanted £15,000 per share and sold for less than £12,000? Why didn't he buy Dein's when offered? He bought Richard Carr's. Why didn't he buy Dein's when offered? He bought Fiszman's. Why didn't he buy Dein's when offered?

Why didn't Nina B-S sell to Usmanov to spite Fiszman and Hill-Wood? Why didn't Carr do the same? When they could have got more money as well?

Dein was the one who betrayed Arsenal. If it wasn't for him none of this would have happened and I and others wouldn't have to put up with your complete and utter cr*p.

So let's get this straight - David dein brought in Stan Kroenke behind the Board's back but without his knowledge and Stan kroenke didn't want to buy the Club and refused to buy David Dein's shares, and just decided out of the blue just a couple of years later he would buy the Club out of the blue?

because that is exactly what you are suggesting and it;'s simply pure dishonesty solely designed to defend the repuattion of the Custodians which means more to you I sense than the well-being of the Football Club.

Frankly you have as much credibility as a your average right-wing conspiracy theorist.

You ignore the main point but that is to be expected from you since honesty is impossible - which is that no one ever had to seel a share to anyone no matter what David Dein or anyone else did or did not do.

They wanted to sell the Club and planned to sell the Club and deliberately lied to us about it and you would rather stand up for them no matter what damage they did to the Club simply for even more wealth for themselves. These are grownups with free will. David Dein didn't brainwash them or bully them into choiosing to do what they did.

Obviously they love money more than they love Arsenal. Apparently you love them more than Arsenal. Just admit for once.

Oh and another question your false reality raises is how sincere the Board's resistance to a takeover every really was.

After all surely if David Dein did offer his shares to Stan Kroenke and had the offer rejected than surely Stan kroenke knew about M. Dein's plans.

Only two conclusions then can be drawn

One is he was happy to conspire with Mr. Dein and kept quiet about Mr. Dein's plans which would seem to make no sense if he turned down the chance to buy Mr. Dein's shares - if he was not a willing conspirator why would he not speak up about mr. Dein's plan.

Which leads to the second conclusion.

Which is that in fact Stan kroenke did speak and warn the board of Mr. Dein's plans. Only problem with that is why would the Board thank with the savage personal attacks and comments about not wanting "his sort" involved with Arsenal?

As usual you like other board defenders rely on the universe being run entirely by counter-intuitive logic or on us mere supporters believing that so you may continue to delude yourselves about how the Board is every bit as special as the Club is.

I think supporters like you should take your advice above. I think you know what I am referring to since you wrote it. I want to give you the benfit of the doubt but frankly you seem more interested in promoting the Board's interests than standing up for the Football Club or its Supporters which you are one of after all.

Your first post is just nonsense. Dein put ITV and Kroenke together. The Board were totally unaware of this as they were unaware at the time of Dein trying to sell his 14.5% to Kroenke.

Your second one is almost as bad. What "savage personal attacks" were there?

It's obvious that once Usmanov was involved via Dein that the Board would choose Kroenke over Usmanov.

I don't and never have put forward the notion the Board is, was or has been 'special'. Where do you get that from? Oh yes, I know, another of your delusions to go with so many that have gone before.

All this stuff about the board is just rubbish. The Club has never been run any differently, in essence, to the way it is now. As I've said before, I don't know why you have this agenda. What difference does it make who runs the Club, unless it is someone who milks the Club for cash as the Glazers have done at ManU or make them a grubby little club as Abramovich has at Chelsea or bankrupts them as Risdale did at Leeds?

I guess manipulating the club's finances to push up the share price to sell for massive personal profits on minimal or in many non-existant personal investment is honourable behavior then, eh? Nothing at all like milking the club for cash even though how its different is byond me.

You arer engaged not in nonsense but propaganda and deception frankly.

Again you avoid the question - what does anything David Dein did or did not matter if as the Club's chairman insisted not one board member had any interest in making a penny from Arsenal Football Club? And I guess you would say they did not make that 400 million from Arsenal football Club though I would like you to explain how they made it then. Selling off silverware sets on Ebay?


The Board chose to sell on their own for personal profit. No one made the other members of the Board sell because according to the Chairman of the Board they did not need to and none of them wanted to either. They chose to sell and wanted to sell and no one made them do that. Their greed made them do it. Stop making excuses for that greed for once.

And I guess the Board welcomed Mr. Kroenke with open arms straight away then and all those reports particularly those featuring Peter Hill-Wood were all fabrications.

As I say you'd have been a good right-hand man to any dictator whose last name begins with a letter because you would defend the board no matter what the same way say Chemical Ali defended Saddam Hussein. I'm being nice. I could have picked a couple of other names. But that is what you do.

You defend the Board at all costs with little regard to facts or truth that I have seen in my dealing with you at all. Is it a class thing? Is it nationalism gone even more badly than usual? Is it just being incapable of distinguishing between the Football Club and the people who run it?

I hope its the latter really not only because the first two are far more distasteful but because you can still correct the third.

It's clear that padre has been overdoing the port during the festive season beacause this IS a mean, bad tempered, spectlative, and yes, knee-jerk piece of bollox.

Yes, the team were crap, but this was new years day for fecks sake. It comes after a winning run, and it wasn't a loss, it was an away draw! Yet the leading piece of Arsenal Times, YET AGAIN is calling for the manager to be sacked.

Sorry if you had a@#$%&christmas padre, but this is an irresponsible piece of anti arsenal bullshite. Whether you like it or not, we are still a team that's reconstituting, that does mean some inconsistency, get over it.

What is my "agenda" as you so cynically put it?

Simple I am Gooner who loves this club through good times and bad. And I don't like the idea that a historic run of success was not interrupted as much as deliberately brought to a halt so some already wealthy people could make themselves even wealthier by using our club as aplatform to that additional wealth. I don't like that being a possibility let alone a reality.

I'm older than I like to admit and every team I support in every sport has been to the mountaintop and back to valley and even back to the mountaintop again in my lifetime, some even back to the valley yet again. But to have to leave the mountaintop just so some already fitlhy rich people can become even filthier richer is just not something anyone who loves this club should happily accept.

That is my "agenda" how about sharing your agenda now?

@Seanski, what's new year's day got to do with it? Was that the same day Manu put four past Wigan?

There's been a lot of exceedingly average performances this season, a few high scoring games against either ten man teams or out of form teams does not excuse the woeful displays against Sunderland, Norwich, Bradford, Manu and Swansea. That's far too many ordinary performances for a team to merit any consideration for any trophy whatsoever.

Simon, lol, give it up! Fuc.king last call for Wenger and as well as Gazidis and I'm sure still they aren't going to do much.

Great write up Padre.

Thanks Sandy

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

Well, if Arsene Wenger is a man of his words, and he is certainly an honorable man, he will resign on a mutual aprting in summer 2013 if this TEAM cna't make it into Top-4.

As he said before s few years whne he was hectored during Shareholder Meeting (where he also made that infmaous statement of winning a piece of sivlerware within 2 years and informing that "he could have joined Real") beofre he signed his present contract extension:

"I would let the players made me signed the contract extension. If I foudn that I cannot bring this team further and cannot improved it further, I will leave behind a firm foundaiton for the enxt manager to carry on."

That is why I believe he will buy big to continue this rebuilding process of his 3rd TEAM, as it is his "Last CHance Saloon" to retain Top-4 sttaus...and continue the rebuilding process of his 3rd TEAM with Brit Pack during 2013/14 season as well.

Wenegr still beleive in his youngsters, and again, it is up to them to play to their full potential that he saw in them, to persuade him to stay on.

I can understand people wanting to get rid of Wenger if he isn't doing a good job, I really can. Personally I wouldn't be too upset if Guardiola were to come in at the end of the season (and we are his preferred choice apparently), particularly if it meant we had to act then or risk losing him.

Wenger has made some strange choices in his signing of players recently and possibly even stranger ones in the type he hasn't signed.

Players he signed who have been next to useless have been Arshavin, Chamakh and Gervinho. I'm not including the likes of Squillaci as he didn't come with high hopes attached.

And the stubbornness in trying to shoehorn them in for so long despite evidence to say they should be got rid of long before now p*sses me off no end. I've also thought the same about Walcott on a number of occasions and then changed my mind.

However, Wenger is still a very good manager, competing against 'financial doping' as he put it (and at the same time that we had hardly any money at all let alone a normal amount) and just plain greed.

Apart from Guardiola, I can't see another manager that could do a better or even equivalent job at Arsenal than Wenger. Maybe Klopp at Dortmund would be good, but it still represents a risk. No-one from this country would come even close.

What I find really puzzling is what Gazidis is supposed to have done wrong. At the risk of repeating myself, he has changed the staff, bringing in a much more professional approach to the non-football activities. The complaint has always been about how far behind we've been in respect of commercial revenue (even though we all know, but some refuse to acknowledge, we had no choice but to accept deals done purely to re-start the work on the new stadium when we ran out of money). Gazidis has overseen deals that will double our commercial revenue with much more to come in the next couple of years by the looks of it.

He is also a very acceptable face of the Club. Would you want Cook or Marwood as ManCity had? Or Kenyon as Chelsea and before that, ManU had? Or that muppet at Liverpool? Or Buck at Chelsea? Or Levy at Sp*rs?

So, why the hostility towards him? Why want him out?

Oh, and RFA. This paragraph:- "And I don't like the idea that a historic run of success was not interrupted as much as deliberately brought to a halt so some already wealthy people could make themselves even wealthier by using our club as aplatform to that additional wealth. I don't like that being a possibility let alone a reality."

Seriously, seek some help.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:03:12:30:50 by Simon68.

Simon I can see your point of view, and I agree with many of them but Gazidis has presided over a lack of vision, where or how is the next trophy coming from? Where is the inspirational signing coming from? Why all these contract mess ups?
Why the amount of money wasted on duff players.

I was there when he boasted how they had given long term contracts to wonderful assets like Diaby, Bendtner and Djourou et al. We have been lumbered with overpaid and weak players, and lost the best ones.

When Wenger arrived I didnt have a clue who he was, most fans didnt. It was Dein who scouted him out, now I have no brief for Dein, he is yesterdays man, but a CEO should know who the next manager is. he should have a list of candidates.

Change is always worrying, but it has to be made nonetheless. We had Rioch before Wenger, that wasn't a disaster, it helped get over the past and was a bridge to a better future. In particular the buying of Bergkamp, and he was right that Ian Wright was too central, even Wenger knew that.

Its time for change, sooner will be better than later.

Happy new Year mate and hope to see you down at the ground soon.

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

Well I can see why people thought I was Simon, as I do totally agree with him.

He talks more sense than the vast majority of people on here, in my opinion.

Yes, it was a poor performace against Southampton and it wasn't the first of the season either.

However, I believe Wenger is attempting to rebuild the team again after his main stars became impatient and abandoned ship. The only one I understood leaving was RVP, at his age and realising what Wenger's next steps would be. Selling him to Man Utd stuck in some peoples throat but if they and City were the only ones meeting the asking price...

Wenger is trying to build this team how he knows best, with a mix of youth and experience and this time with a mainly British core.

The club can't really do it any other way as there is not the free cash that some people believe and we can't compete with City, Chelsea or United in the transfer market.

We have had the Stadium debt for the last few year which is close to being paid off, according to some reports. If that's the case, that is no mean feat as it would have been paid during one of the worse financial crisis the World has ever known.

This along with trying to get the infrastructure of the club correct explains to me, at least, as to why we haven't had the money to buy top stars.

Wenger is not perfect by any means but in years to come, the job he had done, guiding the club through these difficult times, will only then be fully appreciated by people.

Arsenal have 100 million in surplus cash, this is as per their own admission.

Why anyone would say

'The club can't really do it any other way as there is not the free cash that some people believe '

is completely beyond me.

Perhaps I should have put it as "not as much free cash as some people believe"

But while I won't dispute there is some cash available for transfers, it's not money that is going to compete with Chelsea, City and United.

Plus, they will not and should not spend all that 'surplus cash' as you put it.

Arsenal have a tiny mortgage £15 million a year, easily manageable. To pay it off quickly would cost more than paying it back over ten years.
Wenger has underspent his transfer fund, and he has a war chest, not rumour Gazidis has said so on the record.
So stop buying rubbish

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

After 8 years, it amazes me that people still call reactions like Padre's "knee jerk". That must be one arthritic knee...

Yes, it's Diabys.

Of course it amazes you superrob, but then ur not the sharpest tool in the box r yer?

And you are a genius Seanski.
You cant be right if you think this is a knee jerk, or perhaps you haven't bothered to read an AT feature before

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

Quote:

seanski
Of course it amazes you superrob, but then ur not the sharpest tool in the box r yer?

Yes. I am.

great answer though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:03:16:34:47 by SuperRob.

Fair enough mate, sorry.

Quote:

celine dion
Arsenal have 100 million in surplus cash, this is as per their own admission.
Why anyone would say

'The club can't really do it any other way as there is not the free cash that some people believe '

is completely beyond me.

Worse yet it calls their credibilty into much further question given their assurances that it would have no impact and the football team and the manager's ability to build the best team he could as he had done from 1998-2005. And had we reatined our wage structure prior to 2005 that assurance could have been kept by a combination of keeping some players a contract longer and then being able to replace them more adequately without spending beyond our means.

Though I do believe more cash is available as some of the cash reserves are simply collecting interest and that money could be tapped into if necessary so in fact its closer to 170 million at our disposal if needed.

Whether we need to use most or a even half of that is uncertain. What is certain is we are reaching a point where we will need to use much more of it than we ewver would or should have had to had we been less penny-wise and pound-foolish earlier.

Quote:

Padre Pio
Arsenal have a tiny mortgage £15 million a year, easily manageable. To pay it off quickly would cost more than paying it back over ten years.
Wenger has underspent his transfer fund, and he has a war chest, not rumour Gazidis has said so on the record.
So stop buying rubbish

And Richard Nixon said on the record "I am not a crook" and Bill Clinton said on the record "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinski"

Saying something does not make completely accurate let alone true at all.

This whole saga is a joke. Both AW and IG have shortchanged us all. They should be ashamed at the way things have been handled.
It is an insult to us all that they still feel they are leading the club in the right direction. No more investing my hard earned money in a club that continues to take us for a ride. TAXI FOR MR WNGER AND MR GAZIDAS!!.

Quote:

mallyx68
Perhaps I should have put it as "not as much free cash as some people believe"
But while I won't dispute there is some cash available for transfers, it's not money that is going to compete with Chelsea, City and United.

Plus, they will not and should not spend all that 'surplus cash' as you put it.

Here's the thing though - again you make this false suggestion people are saying we should spend every penny. I have said multiple times we should simply have spent another 10-12 million each season or even every other season( which would have been easier had we simply gone one contract further with our players assembled as of 2005.

This might mean we would only have 30-40 million in cash reserves now, but it would also mean we had a better team that much longer were able to maintain that team that much longer and still be well ahead of the threat of bankruptcy all along as we continued repaying the stadium loan.

The only problem there might be well, the Club's share price may not have skyrocketed contnually as it did from 2005-2011 though it would have still increased fairly significantly and given many shareholders never risked a penny of their own money they all still would have done pretty well for themselves.

So the Team is more successful the Club is financially stable, and the Board still makes 125-200 million for themselves on 10 million invested (almost entirely by Dan Fiszman) - is that such a nightmare scenario?

One more thing on the available cash - you and others have suggested we weren't spending it in case we didn't qualify for Champions league Football.Two big problems there.

What you would call an insurance policy by doing this is in fact more of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as not investing some more makes not qualifying more likely and insures having to spend much more of that money being saved to avoid that worry rather than saving some more of it by never reaching that crisis point.

And the other problem is simple - by waiting till we reach that crisis point we will end up as suggested above spending double immediately what we could have spent over time to avert even appraoching that crisis.

Lose CL football and some players here that are important to this side's success will surely put in transfer requests and not only will we have to sell some of those players but at lower prices because clubs will know they will want to leave, Leaving us even weaker before we begin to strengthen than we are now and less money to strengthen with

As a result every player we will look to buy will cost even more than they normally would because clubs will know how desperate we are and jack up transfer fees , and their agents will know the same thing and jack up wage demands once we can negotiate terms with the players.

And how do you sell Arsenal to these players we all can offer is no chance to win major silverare, no CL football , and lower wages than most big clubs will offer you?

So either our short-term refusal spend forces to club to spend far more than it ever should have had to and maybe more than it can afford, or we drop to mid-table and maybe below as supporters tire of paying ridiculously high prioces while money continues to go unspent and the team continues to decline.

So how much sense does not spending some of that money a bit sooner make then? You were saying....

I agree that putting money aside in case we dont qualify for CL is a self fulfilling prophecy. But I dont believe the club is so strapped that its either or

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

Quote:

Simon68
I can understand people wanting to get rid of Wenger if he isn't doing a good job, I really can. Personally I wouldn't be too upset if Guardiola were to come in at the end of the season (and we are his preferred choice apparently), particularly if it meant we had to act then or risk losing him.
Wenger has made some strange choices in his signing of players recently and possibly even stranger ones in the type he hasn't signed.

Players he signed who have been next to useless have been Arshavin, Chamakh and Gervinho. I'm not including the likes of Squillaci as he didn't come with high hopes attached.

And the stubbornness in trying to shoehorn them in for so long despite evidence to say they should be got rid of long before now p*sses me off no end. I've also thought the same about Walcott on a number of occasions and then changed my mind.

However, Wenger is still a very good manager, competing against 'financial doping' as he put it (and at the same time that we had hardly any money at all let alone a normal amount) and just plain greed.

Apart from Guardiola, I can't see another manager that could do a better or even equivalent job at Arsenal than Wenger. Maybe Klopp at Dortmund would be good, but it still represents a risk. No-one from this country would come even close.

What I find really puzzling is what Gazidis is supposed to have done wrong. At the risk of repeating myself, he has changed the staff, bringing in a much more professional approach to the non-football activities. The complaint has always been about how far behind we've been in respect of commercial revenue (even though we all know, but some refuse to acknowledge, we had no choice but to accept deals done purely to re-start the work on the new stadium when we ran out of money). Gazidis has overseen deals that will double our commercial revenue with much more to come in the next couple of years by the looks of it.

He is also a very acceptable face of the Club. Would you want Cook or Marwood as ManCity had? Or Kenyon as Chelsea and before that, ManU had? Or that muppet at Liverpool? Or Buck at Chelsea? Or Levy at Sp*rs?

So, why the hostility towards him? Why want him out?

Oh, and RFA. This paragraph:- "And I don't like the idea that a historic run of success was not interrupted as much as deliberately brought to a halt so some already wealthy people could make themselves even wealthier by using our club as aplatform to that additional wealth. I don't like that being a possibility let alone a reality."

Seriously, seek some help.

This is pretty much my thinking now but better illustrated than I would have done,I have come to the conclusion its best be careful what you wish for.My family are Wolves fans and would take Mick Macarthy back in a shot.

PS I would take David Moyes if AW went.

Quote:

Simon68
I can understand people wanting to get rid of Wenger if he isn't doing a good job, I really can. Personally I wouldn't be too upset if Guardiola were to come in at the end of the season (and we are his preferred choice apparently), particularly if it meant we had to act then or risk losing him.
Wenger has made some strange choices in his signing of players recently and possibly even stranger ones in the type he hasn't signed.

Players he signed who have been next to useless have been Arshavin, Chamakh and Gervinho. I'm not including the likes of Squillaci as he didn't come with high hopes attached.

And the stubbornness in trying to shoehorn them in for so long despite evidence to say they should be got rid of long before now p*sses me off no end. I've also thought the same about Walcott on a number of occasions and then changed my mind.

However, Wenger is still a very good manager, competing against 'financial doping' as he put it (and at the same time that we had hardly any money at all let alone a normal amount) and just plain greed.

Apart from Guardiola, I can't see another manager that could do a better or even equivalent job at Arsenal than Wenger. Maybe Klopp at Dortmund would be good, but it still represents a risk. No-one from this country would come even close.

What I find really puzzling is what Gazidis is supposed to have done wrong. At the risk of repeating myself, he has changed the staff, bringing in a much more professional approach to the non-football activities. The complaint has always been about how far behind we've been in respect of commercial revenue (even though we all know, but some refuse to acknowledge, we had no choice but to accept deals done purely to re-start the work on the new stadium when we ran out of money). Gazidis has overseen deals that will double our commercial revenue with much more to come in the next couple of years by the looks of it.

He is also a very acceptable face of the Club. Would you want Cook or Marwood as ManCity had? Or Kenyon as Chelsea and before that, ManU had? Or that muppet at Liverpool? Or Buck at Chelsea? Or Levy at Sp*rs?

So, why the hostility towards him? Why want him out?

Oh, and RFA. This paragraph:- "And I don't like the idea that a historic run of success was not interrupted as much as deliberately brought to a halt so some already wealthy people could make themselves even wealthier by using our club as aplatform to that additional wealth. I don't like that being a possibility let alone a reality."

Seriously, seek some help.

i would agree with much of that simon, in fact had wrote a bit on what I agree with and what I disagree with but it failed to post and I can't be arsed to write it all up again at this time.

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

Do you mean 10-12 million on player transfer fees? Does that include agent fees? Player wages?

What would spending that extra 10-12 million each season have gotten us?

The title? Unlikely, possibly but unlikely.

A top 4 finish? Well we achieved that anyhow, while keeping the extra £10-12 million in the bank.

It's very easy with hindsight to say if we'd have spent Y on player X we would have won a trophy. Because you will never be proven wrong.

And the stadium debt is £15 million a season is it? That may have been the minimum repayment but how long would that have taken to pay off?

Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Stadium debt almost paid off or at least the vast majority of it? That would be in what? 6/7 seasons? During a very iffy financial climate.

Sounds like Gazidis has earned his cash to me.

mallyx don't waste your time, he will ignore any point you make that does not suit him while accusing you of doing that to him, will accuse you of being liar, he will refuse to answer many question you ask or will answer a different question than the one asked, or simply just rehash his same old nonsense over and over, he is a WUM and the sooner you realise this the less nonsense you will have to put up with.

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:03:19:41:10 by eduardo.

That extra 10-12 million got us Three Premiership Titles as well as five runners-up finishes from 1998-2005 four FA Cup Trophies two League and Cup Doubles and possibly the greatest single season in Premiership History and perhaps the greatest Arsenal Team ever (in 2002) from 1998-2005.

Would it do exactly the same now? Probably not but one Premiership trophy and two FA Cups would be more than enough really for any of us.

As for our debt it is scheduled to be paid off by 2031 and there are no current plans to pay it off any sooner at this time. More importantly not one penny from redeveloping Highbury has been used to repay any of the Emirates Stadium debt. Look at the annual reports and this is undeniably clear. The debt dropped from about about 330 million to 200 million in 2010 when the Highbury Square debt was paid in full, and all the profits from that project sit in the Club's accounts and Ivan Gazidis had said publicaly there is no plans to use any money from those profits to pay off the stadium debt ahead of schedule.

from goonerholic

Time To Get Back To The Deli, Arsene
Jan 1st, 2013 by 'holic
“If you eat caviar every day it’s difficult to return to sausages”

Arsene was forced to defend his champions after a frustrating 1-1 draw against Middlesbrough in 1998 and the words he chose resonate even more today. In the short term he had a point then, and one could argue it is valid today. Three consecutive wins have been followed by an incredibly poor performance at Southampton. There is a danger of over-reaction to one disappointing display when set in that context, but this is a trend that is repeating too often.

This one disappointing display comes three weeks after the one disappointing display at Bradford. Ten days before that we had the one disappointing display at home to Swansea. Villa Park, Old Trafford, Norwich, home to Chelsea. Need I go on? Yes I am fully aware that in between times we have put six past the team who should have beaten us this evening. I was as thrilled as anyone by the seven goals at Reading, the five against the little lot up the road, five more at Reading, and seven against Newcastle.

The truth is though that for every good performance there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is football, I hear some say. To an extent they have a point. My life has gone full circle. This is the Arsenal side I grew up with in the sixties, and I have only just made the glaringly obvious connection. When we get our attacking game going we can dismantle any opponents, but a lack of belief and determination when the going gets tough display themselves all too often. I’ve got MY Arsenal back.

In 1963/4 we scored 90 goals, just two less than champions Liverpool. We put four past Bolton, Fulham, Tottenham, Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, and Birmingham (twice), five past Blackpool, and six past both Ipswich and Everton. Joe Baker and Geoff Strong both scored 31 League and Cup goals in the season. So we must have been top four, right? No, we finished eighth, having lost fourteen games, including fixtures against sides that finished below us in the table. Wolves, Leicester, Aston Villa, Forest and Sheffield United all finished in the bottom half of the table but defeated us at least once.

That Arsenal side could enthral one week, and stink the place out the next. Did I say full circle? Where does the desire and application go in between the weekend demolition of Newcastle, and the lifeless display we witnessed earlier? How can a midfield so effective against sides of the quality of Newcastle and Tottenham be completely overrun by Southampton, Swansea, and Norwich. Admirable though these opponents were they should not all be able to embarrass a club with the resources available to us. After all, is it not a question of resources that prevents us from competing with the oil barons? You can’t have it both ways, surely?

This morning we had nine points from the last nine, and a clean bill of health aside from our second choice goalkeeper. We were going into the new year with spirits rightfully raised. Then came that complete no-show. The one positive to come from St Mary’s is the affirmation that this is a squad that needs supplementing, and as luck would have it the transfer window is opening. I won’t drag over all of the arguments about what we may or may not spend, and who may or may not be available, for that just creates further division.

I think there would be a significant groundswell of opinion though that would concur if I suggested we spent the next thirty days offloading some of our sausages and stocking up on just a little bit more caviar.

What say you?

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

Quote:

Simon68
Oh, and RFA. This paragraph:- "And I don't like the idea that a historic run of success was not interrupted as much as deliberately brought to a halt so some already wealthy people could make themselves even wealthier by using our club as aplatform to that additional wealth. I don't like that being a possibility let alone a reality."
Seriously, seek some help.

I have a jolly idea - why don't you take me on as a patient? I mean guiiven your expertise in psychoanlaysis surely you're some sort of accredited doctor of psychiatry,no?

After all you so brilliantly analyzed me and Tigerline as having the behavioral traits of mass murderers once upon a time, even supplying gun sound affects to drive your analysis home. Why don't you come visit Newtown sometime, it's only a copule of hours from my home. My brother-in-law is deputy police chief in the town he serves in he could set it up I'm sure.

You're just a classless idiot who will say anything to avoid saying the truth. Ignorance, insensitivity,inaccuracy, and evasiveness wholly sum up your character as far as I can read though I I am not so qualified as you to actaully determine one's mental health, so I shan't make that attempt.

And don't think I noticed you again ducked my questions as usual. What is your agenda?

I say did he read my footnote on the sixties being as he has just remembered the comparison.
But his point is right actually I will give a better way of summing it up, no doubt it will get pinched, but then I nicked it off an old bloke who has been dead for a while now.

In 1998 a bad result was success punctuated by the occasional failure, now its failure punctuated by the occasional success.

For the Invincibles a big win was the rule, now they are the exception. Yes there have been a few of this exceptions - but against who? Ten men, a team already relegated, and a team depleted by injury and tiredness (Newcastle).

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

Eduardo's definition of a WUM - anyone who doesn't accept his staus quo where our Board's behavior is always proper and impeccable and beyond reproach.

By the way its pretty rich for you total about accusing people of lying given your belief anyone who questions the board's integrity is lying automatically. Remember the Cole Investigation - they were liars too since they didn't conclude what you want to believe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:03:21:12:27 by RadioFreeArsenal.

Could you stick to the topic RFA, your little cameos of vitriol against Eduardo and Simon keep confusing the argument.
I would hate to be in an army led by you, most of the time would be spent shooting at your own men.

People are entitled to change their minds, or even have a different view point, if they didnt this forum would be very boring

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:03:22:05:41 by Padre Pio.

You've done it now Padre. He's going to go off on one against you now you've mentioned him shooting people.

Well it was a metaphor, otherwise shooting is off topic

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

I'm not the one initiating the ad hominem attacks because cannot back my arguments honestly Padre.

Eduardo insists on misrepresenting me as a WUM. I am sure you won't do anything about it, but I am also sure you won't deny it . Same thing with Simon - he is the one who when he can't defend his views honestly suggested I need psychiatric help and who earlier made the remarks implying I was a dangerously violent person earlier. I am re you won't tak3ee them to task again but I am also sure you won't claim they did not say those things.

So I will try to keep it on-topic - even though I really have as much as possible all along moving forward - but would suggest but I don't think I should be held accountable for others refusing to do so. You have more time than the refs do to decide who acted first on here. At least that is fair for all parites.

He doesn't understand metaphors. Nor irony I wouldn't have thought, being American.

RFA those who live by the sword also die by it. You are quite capable of throwing the first stone. I am here to moderate, not stop name calling.
Now if you never, and I mean never, name call I would have some sympathy.
You make some good points but you cant resist settling old scores.

Forget the old scores, keep your argument brief, keep to the point and you could even find yourself with some friends on here.
Some of your very best points get lost because you alienate people.
Happy New Year RFA

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

Nice job keeping it on topic Simon, but then you have every interest in distracting people from honestly discussing all this as you simply don't want anyone doing that.

Oh and I do Understand metaphors. I also understand that some metaphors aren't simply inappropriate but frankly irresponsible and those seem to be the ones you like using most. And as I said I am no psychiatrist by any means but that tells me a bit about what kind of human being you choose to be.

Now let's do as Padre asks and get on topic - answer for once the simple question - how come any Arsenal shareholder had to sell any shares of their stock if they neither had any desire nor pressing financial need to so?

and Before you answer let me remind you of the Chairman of the Board's words on this question:


"These people love Arsenal, they don't need the money and they have no interest in selling," Hill-Wood said. "The club has been run for the benefit of supporters, staff and players, and the shareholders would prefer to stay in control than sell out to some stranger without the years of support they have"

"They are independently wealthy and do not need the money," he said. "[Having a few extra million pounds in the bank is of no interest to them. We're here for Arsenal Football Club, not to make a few bob. We would be horrified to see it go across the Atlantic."


Peter Hill-Wood, 2007.

So if they didn't want to and didn't need to sell how could they be made to sell as you insist? You still haven't answered this once in any way even approaching adequately. So I'll offer you another chance.



Link to article with quotes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2007/apr/18/newsstory.sport



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:03:22:32:52 by RadioFreeArsenal.

No probs padre - I give as good as I get as you say often times I give first. I won't claim otherwise. I just think you should show a bit more consistency just as you want any ref to do when we are playing. It's not different when some people do it from when I do it. If it's wrong when i do it fine, but its just as wrong when others do too, isn't it?

As to be people letting personalities dictate how they interpret facts that is regrettable if and when that happens but on those who choose to do that I can't deny facts because I don't like the person stating them, only if in fact they are not facts.

Hopefully that's puts a bow on this.

oh and you've been drafted Padre.

Radio how did danny f dying alter the share holding position, answer that and you have most of the answer. Now answer these few questions why would stan be party to a scheme that would in effect see the cost on him buying arsenal rise massively. Same with usmanov, was he part of this scheme or are both he and stan that stupid they got fooled. Why did lady nina sell for less than she could have. Do you believe dein was part of some kind of scheme to raise share price

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

You miss the whole point.

Read Mr. Hill-Wood's words again. Nobody had any desire nor need to sell. Why does someone who has no personal desire or practical need to sell something have to sell it?

It's no different than say you owning a really cool record that I might want and be willing to buy at a good price.Do you have to sell it to me or anybody else if in fact you like it so much you do not want to lose it, and have no pressing financial need selling it could address? Of course not.

The only reason either Dan Fiszman's death or David Dein's selling to Alisher Usmanov could impact who they sold to is in fact Peter hill-Wood was lying and they in fact wanted to sell their share solely to increase their wealth.

If they didn't want to sell their shares in the first place neither event could impact their decision.

As usual you can't or wont answer the questions, funny that as its your favourite remark to others and you act suprised i call you a wum.

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

Nice try Eddy - the questions you ask have no relevance unless you concede that the Board was looking to sell the Club and deliberately misleading supporters about that and you have yet to acknowledge the possibility that either is in fact true.

Unless in fact that is the case there is no reason to even debate the questions you asked. It reduces them to this level of relevance and reality

video: [url][/url]

Come on Eddy, you were nearly arguing nicely together. However the topic is Wenger and Gazidis out, not who had the money or sold shares. We need to move this argument on. We cant change what happened to the shares, even if we can agree what happened, I prefer RFA version, but we cant live in the past.
Now if we all agree, well apart from Simon and Seanksi, that its time for change we need to move on. This is the only website that has issued a clear call on the issue, we need to get more to do so.
So lets move on and work out how we move forward

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

But what change is needed padre?

I think whatever is recommended or ultimately done only has meaning if we revisit and revise the wage structure to enable any manager including the current manager have access to a greater pool of proven talent to recruit to the Club.

Short of that any change is cosmetic only and we're well past needing merely that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013:01:03:23:29:11 by RadioFreeArsenal.

Padre, good article, totally agree.

if we agree we need change...

The options as I see it are
1) change the manager
2) change the CEO
3) change the owner
4) change 2 or more of those

I'll start with option 3
It is the most difficult to achieve of all the options because there are barely any people in the entire world who can afford to buy a football club. Two of them are already shareholders and neither seem like a good option to me. For me stan is probably the least bad of the 2.

On option 2
In this case where there is barely any separation in ownership and control, the CEO is basically a day to day manager to implement the owners medium to long term strategy. So changing the CEO without changing the owner is pointless.

Finally the difficult part
if we assume that Arsenal is currently not reaching it's core goals (which as football fans we have to assume are success on the pitch, although many people will conclude the main goals have become financial ones), the only questions in terms of the costs of the club, are related to the transfer and wage policy.

a) Is it the best strategy Arsenal could possibly have to achieve it's goals?
b) If it isn't, who is responsible?

And this is where the arguments start.

Then we have questions about the revenues side as well such as ticket pricing and commercial revenues.
c) Are they the best we could do?

you could argue these are less of a contributing factor to the decline of the team than the cost side I think. Or if you argue that the differences between our revenues and the big clubs is the main factor then you are probably looking for a sugar daddy owner because short of this, there is little the club can do to make up the difference.

Then we have the questions about the football.

d) Do the results reflect the best possible outcome with the players in the team?
On this question it's much easier to work out who is responsible.

My Answers:
a) No
b) Wenger
c) yes
d) Maybe, probably yes with the current team, probably not in years gone by. I still think the invincibles should have dominated the league like utd did in the 90's and was capable of winning the CL. And the team of around 08 (the Cesc generation) was capable of at least 1 trophy.

So from my answers I would have to take option 1. Option 4 is tempting but the risks are high and the potential benefits over option 1 are small, even in the best case scenario.

What did Gazidis did wrong?

He and Tom Fox are growing the commercial sides of Arsenal Holdings plc; and that is his main responsibility as a CEO - to grow the business and generate profits for teh shareholders.

Football side of business?
That si Arsene Wenger's jurisdiction and his respnsibility and has nothing to do Gazidis like an organisation:

Treat Arsenal Holdings as a professional club like NFL:

CEO to take care of overall operation to grow the business

GM to help out the Head Coach on player matter and sourcing fro players as requested by Head Coach.

And why is Arsene Wenger wearing two hats as "General Manager" and "Head Coach" wher there is only so many hours in a day adn it is impossible for him to coach as well as sepnding time to determine and decide what players he wanted and conduct the final negotiations as well.

And so why did Arsene Wenger did not reqeust for a "General Manager" or "Director fo Football"?

Maybe Stewart RObson si right afetr all as Wenger is dictatorial and refused to delegate and share "ower" on the football side of business.

When Gazidis was appointed CEO the club stated he would be taking over responsibility for player negotiations (transfers and wages) to take the strain off Wenger/Friar. Since then he has failed to tie our best players to long term contracts and even worse has sold them to our direct rivals.

His commercial deals have been dwarfed by the those at Chelsea and ManCity which is stunningly awful when you consider we have a much larger fan base and market share than those two clubs.

He has been an unmitigated disaster for The Arsenal.

well put on Gazidis plonky, which is why away fans regularly sing "Ivan Gazidis what do you do, what the feck do you do?"

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

Rob the problem is what you are advocating is essentially change for change's sake which is just as wrong-headed as spending for spending's sake.

You have said in the past if I am not mistaken as have several others at least then we'll find out for sure who is to blame. The problem with that is when will we know for sure? A year? Two years? Or five years as One Gooner insisted back in 2007?

What has been accomplished then - extending our misery by another five years?

No change on its own without a change in the wage structure will achieve anything really except to allow the poisonous cycle to persist that much longer while we debate its existance and then its source as we are now.

We need to change the wage structure and pressure the Club on why it was changed in the first place and demand an answer to that question and also an answer to how it actually benefitted the football club and the football team as opposed to the wage struture in place prior to 2005.

Only pressuring them on these matters (which is part of why the sale of the Club and why it happened still matters Padre as the Chairman of the board does not want to be immortalized as a fraud who aided and abetted the betrayal of his family's club for as he famously pout it "a few bob".) will lead them to take the needed changes in that fatally flawed footballing policy and only when that policy is jettisoned in full (within reason of course a wage structure more like we had from 1998-2005) can we then assess what other changes can or need to be made.

plonky just a simple question, what would you do with players who refuse to sign a new deal two years from end of their contracts

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

There no simple questions Eddy. If there were don't you think the Club would be out of this mess by now?

This is where the wage structre currently in place has killed us. It has made that much more difficult to properly award those players who have grown and developed at Arsenal since 2006 because we choose to overpay too many players who simply have not grown and developed nearly the same way if at all.

Combine that with this wage structure making it even more difficult to sign players similar to those we have sold as we used to do with regularity from 1998-2005 with a more realistic wage and competitive wage structure which would make selling players like these far less damaging to the team's development and upsetting to its supporters.

This is exactly why the current wage structure must go and go now. It would both avoid the situation you refer in most cases in the first place and allow us to replace the players who still go in the remaining cases.

as usual radio you answer a different question, it is a simple question, what should the club do when a player refuses to sign a new contract when he has two years left on his contract

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

I don't think you've understood my post radio. I am in complete agreement that the wage structure is the main problem.

I answered "no" to my first question (this is about the clubs spending on transfers and wages ) and I hold Wenger responsible. Therefore wanting to change the manager is not change for the sake of change, it's changing the person I think is responsible for this failure.

I don't know for certain that I'm right that Wenger is the problem and I'm the first to admit that. But I have my opinion from the things that people from the club say and what seems sensible.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your opinion on who is responsible for the wage structure seems to be that the board refuse to pay individual players high wages (but don't mind the overall wage bill being high) so that we are forced to sell our best players so that they can enrich themselves by hoarding the cash in the bank. This to me just seems far fetched and illogical. Mostly because as I have explained, there are far more effective ways to increase the share price. Not to mention the fact that the guy running the show since 2009, has always been wanting to buy more shares, so only has incentive for the share price to decrease in the short term.

Frankly, thinking that the manager is a stubborn ideologue who is trying to prove everyone wrong is much more likely than this massive corporate conspiracy of yours.

Answered it right there in that post - if you decide to sell buy a proper replacement. Instead of basically replacing a high-quality piece of the foundation with a lower-quality piece.

We did that from 1998-2005 with regularity and thus not only did the team not collapse inward on itself regularly but supporters did not lose faith in what we were doing or why.

far fetched and illogical, i take it rob you have not seen radio posts before

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

Funny how RFA can quote The Guardian when he wants to make a point yet totally dismissed The Guardians Senior City correspondent when I quoted him (the City correspondent) when he said that Kroenke had turned down Dein's offer to sell him shares.

He accused the Guardian City journalist of making it up.

Ask him an awkward question he ignores it.

Tell him something he doesn't want to hear he dismisses it.

Why would you dismiss that as illogical Rob when that is exactly what has resulted? Would you dismiss that series of events resulting from it as mere coincidence? By the same token would you dismiss the fact that a lot of very rich people made even more money as mere concidence?

Indeed you seem happy to believe not in a conclusion based on logic but entirely on counter-intuitive logic.

First you are saying that Arsene Wenger suddenly became a ideologue after nearly a decade at the club and not only worked against the Club's interests but his own interests and undermined both the Club's success on the pitchnd his own personal and professional reputation to pursue this ideology he choose not to pursue for nearly a decade prior?

That is logical?

Second you are saying that in spite of their manager going rogue and pusuing his own agenda and ignoring the wishes of his employers that the Board chose to let him pursue this new course and then to take no action to end his idelogical crusade even though they did not support it at any point?

That is logical?

The idea that what you choose to believe is more logical than the natural results and causes and effects from the wage structure is startling to say the least. You are not automatically wrong. No one here is.

But the idea that you would dismiss what I am saying as conspiracy theory and call what you believe perfectly logical frankly makes me wonder if you know what the meaning of logical really is. No offense but it sincerely does.

No Simon I did not accuse the journalist of making it up. be honest just once. I questioned the honesty of his sources absolutely and did so fairly and rightly in my mind given the lack of specific information and detail and the lack of sense that scenario really makes given what we do know and you will no doubt ignore.

See you can't argue honestly on behalf of what you want to believe and want everyone else to believe so you come up with more dishonest efforts because you want to discredit my views by discrediting me. Which is pathetic and shows how desperately devoted to the board and protecting its reputation you are.

Quote:

plonky
When Gazidis was appointed CEO the club stated he would be taking over responsibility for player negotiations (transfers and wages) to take the strain off Wenger/Friar. Since then he has failed to tie our best players to long term contracts and even worse has sold them to our direct rivals.
His commercial deals have been dwarfed by the those at Chelsea and ManCity which is stunningly awful when you consider we have a much larger fan base and market share than those two clubs.

He has been an unmitigated disaster for The Arsenal.

His commercial deals haven't been dwarfed by Chelsea and ManCity. For a start ManCity have got a massive stadium sponsorship which must have been one hell of a tough one to negotiate.

Man City CEO: "So, Sheik Mansour, to satisfy FFP rules, how do we get around the massive amount of money you are pumping into the club?"

Sheik Mansour: "What if we sponsor the stadium for, say, £400 million?"

Man City CEO: "Great idea. Shall we call it the Etihad Stadium?"

Sheik mansour: "Perfect. Let's have lunch."

As everyone ought to know, the commercial deal for kit sponsorship already in place years before he arrived was dwarfed by the one Chelsea have in place but now dwarfs Chelsea's. And the kit deal with Nike was also in place years before he arrived, again as everyone should know, and will be renegotiated next year to our great benefit, I've no doubt. He's also put in place several other deals to the Clubs benefit.

And as for players contracts, there isn't a lot you can do when another club offers a player 3 times their current earnings and twice what we are able to offer as part of a contract extension. Or do you think we should be paying players £250,000 per week? I don't.

At least we got about £50m for van Persie and Nasri.

When Dein was in charge he let the contracts of Edu, Kanu, Wiltord and Flamini run down and we got.....£0, nothing, nix, nada, f*ck all.

And Padre, I'm surprised at you. You know better.

Quote:

Simon68
And Padre, I'm surprised at you. You know better.

Oh dearie - is Simon your mum then?

Perhaps we are all looking at it wrong!!
Gazidis is doing a good job on the commercial front, in support He needs a manager who can at least turn in a top 4 place every season, of course from a commercial point of view a league title would be even better. However commercially speaking top 4 and Champions difference commercially isn't that huge. Maybe Gazidis doesn't want AW but so long as he ticks the 1st box He cannot move him.
Think back to what Ken Friar said at the AGM about AW spending 30 mil on a single player and if we didn't win a title his job would then be in jeopardy. The only way we will see the end of AW's era is failure to land 4th spot ( as he is unlikely to take the bait and spend 30 mil).
Personally I would like to see IG stay beyond AW, if I am correct he would still be good at his job, we could then appoint a manager who would try harder to build a better team by taking greater personal risk and maybe just having more hunger.

But Essex how will any manager improve this team if still weighed down by the most counter-productive wage structure in English or European Club football?

And if they are willing to make that change with a new manager why were they unwilling to make it for the current manager?

and if the reason was Mr. Wenger refused to pay players more realistically for ideologicla reasons then sh=urely the Club and board know this and could have taken some sort of action say four or five years ago. And since they didn't doesn't that say they didn't want that improved wage structure put in place?

And if they didn't want it then why should they want it now?

What they want is a team that can earn the success they need commercially and so far they have got it, that won't change (unfortunately)
However a new manager won't have the history that Aw has and will need to win something, my point is the board will not look at anything different until AW's way fails (not what we call failure, thats already here) at the moment if you was on the board you too would be laughing all the way to the bank, financial success and a manager doing it on a shoe string. Aston Villa money spent by O'neill still hamstrings new managers, to some extent the same at Liverfool, will be at Newcastle. Yet at Arsenal so far Aw has denied the critics and the finances are good, when he goes I see wholesale changes, the problem is as I already have said 4th place isn't success to us but it is to the board so long as he can do it why would you change it.

I can agree with much of what you say but the question is dom they really believe we need to win something under any manager so long as we put no real pressure on them and sell out the stadium every week?

I am not calling for a boycott, but asking how short of an actual boycott we can expect the Club to change anything under any manager so long as we continue to fill the stadium and say nothing at all?

Quote:

eduardo
plonky just a simple question, what would you do with players who refuse to sign a new deal two years from end of their contracts

No reason to wait until 2 years before a players contract is up Ed. If you’ve got a hot property such as RvP then you offer them improved terms at the market rate asap. If they won’t sign up you sell them to a club of Arsenals choosing. If they won’t go you put them in the stiffs for the remainder of their contract. Do you think that RVP would have stuck it out in the reserves for 2+ years at the peak of his career?

Sell with two years to go and buy a quality replacement

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

A player can buy themselves out of contract, especially if you dump them in reserves for non football reasons, do you think rvp would have accepted it, do you think fans would accept a top player been benched for two years if results poor. Jeez alot of you winge like little girls that he was sold with a year to go

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

Put him in the team and then if he doesn't perform stick him in the reserves.

Try to make up your mind

*Signing Ozil is a signing Bergkamp type moment for Arsenal. It changes things utterly.*

Ed you do what you have to do in order to get some control over events. There is no blueprint for dealing with these negotiations and none of us know the details behind them.

Perhaps we should stick with our standard practice of making the malcontents team captain and then caving in and selling them to our rivals the following year.

"Perhaps we should stick with our standard practice of making the malcontents team captain and then caving in and selling them to our rivals the following year."

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

Quote:

plonky
Ed you do what you have to do in order to get some control over events. There is no blueprint for dealing with these negotiations and none of us know the details behind them.
Perhaps we should stick with our standard practice of making the malcontents team captain and then caving in and selling them to our rivals the following year.

Excellent point and points up the problems of a too-strictly adhered to business model and a too-inflexible and uncompetitive wage structure.

They combine to almost annually weaken the team competitively no matter what. In the end they make it impossible to keep our best players and impossible to sign comparable proven quality to replace them on top of that.

The result is that we are not merely a player or two away from regaining prominence and dominance every season but more accurately we begin each year another player or two away from that and that explains how really the gap has widened so much since 2008 once again. Amnd not simply in the first eleven but in the squad as awhole as our problems coping with injuries have betrayed .