Actually the cost of the new stands at Highbury was an immense investment at the time. Of course things have changed but the point is simply that Arsenal have appointed unexpected managers before. If you want to dismiss that by saying that actually, no, football was invented by Sky in 1992 so nothing that happened before is relevant then so be it.
The problem is that, in financial terms, football very much did begin in 1992 when the Sky money came rolling in. That is absolutely the watershed moment when the scruffy, parochial game played on mudheaps we all grew up with ended and the gleaming, international game we all now pay Sky a small fortune for started. You could say the 1990 World Cup was the turning point, but in real terms, the Sky deal changed everything. The English game before and after that point are so dissimilar as to not even be worth comparing.
Nope. Just because there is more money in the game now doesn't mean that back then it was frivolous and amateur.
Anyway, to rewind to the original point; are you suggesting that Arteta was never under serious consideration for the role? Because if he was, and if only missed out because he came second to a better candidate, then the whole argument unravels a bit imo - if this 'professional' board nearly did appoint a bloke with no experience of the job.
I didn't say it was frivolous and amateur (although in some ways it was both, of course), simply that the difference between then and now is the difference between a corner shop and Tesco.
And no, I don't think he was, really. He was an ex-player, a good chap, well thought-of and he signalled his interest. Out of courtesy we gave him an interview and let the papers talk, while talking seriously to the person we really wanted.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."