Any c*nt that tells me I "would have taken that before the game"

[WES]

Well that would be a valid point if you wilfully ignored the utterly seismic changes to football's funding models in that period and the fact that Arsenal Football Club long resisted the types of takeover that have enormously benefitted rival clubs.

But yeah, that's AW's fault, right?

That would be a valid point if we hadn't been consistently finishing behind clubs with less money than us (Spurs, Liverpool) and Leicester hadn't won the league. The money excuse can only be taken so far when you're finishing 6th and the same distance to relegation as you are to the winners.

[Pokster]

Oh, yeah. Sorry, I meant to write Wolves - which is, if anything, rather worse.

Fúcking Wolves.

Pathetic.

Remind me how we did last season when we needed a good run to get in the top 4.... Palace, Leicester,Watford, Newcastle, Brighton... yep, we were so much better last season

[WES]

OK, what would you call someone who you have defined as 'not impressive', then?

Show me where I or anyone else on this thread said that Emery was 'not impressive'. Someone other than you, I mean.

Take a coffee break, Burney, the ole melon seems to be having a blip.

[IUFG]

And yet that is what we won and where we finished nonetheless.

My point is that your narrative of inexorable, season-on-season decline under Wenger simply isn't borne out by the facts.

2nd to 5th to 6th.

Looks like a decline to me...

[IUFG]

Well that would be a valid point if you wilfully ignored the utterly seismic changes to football's funding models in that period and the fact that Arsenal Football Club long resisted the types of takeover that have enormously benefitted rival clubs.

But yeah, that's AW's fault, right?

Lester winning the premier league . . . .

[Burney]

That would be a valid point if we hadn't been consistently finishing behind clubs with less money than us (Spurs, Liverpool) and Leicester hadn't won the league. The money excuse can only be taken so far when you're finishing 6th and the same distance to relegation as you are to the winners.

:sigh: But they didn't have 'less' money than us in real terms. In terms of available cash to spend (not to be confused with our cash reserves) pretty much all our rivals had more ready cash than us.

In seven of the ten years between 2007 and 2016, we'd have made a net loss without player sales. We repeatedly had to sell our best players just to stay in the black. So the idea that we had loads of money in that period is facile.

[Burney]

Show me where I or anyone else on this thread said that Emery was 'not impressive'. Someone other than you, I mean.

Take a coffee break, Burney, the ole melon seems to be having a blip.

If I say Object A is 'impressive' and bemoan the fact that I don't own Object A because I hung on too long to Object X, the clear implication is that Object B that I do now have by virtue of hanging on too long to Object X is not 'impressive'.

Something that is not 'impressive' is, by definition 'unimpressive'.

This is not difficult.

[Pokster]

:sigh: But they didn't have 'less' money than us in real terms. In terms of available cash to spend (not to be confused with our cash reserves) pretty much all our rivals had more ready cash than us.

In seven of the ten years between 2007 and 2016, we'd have made a net loss without player sales. We repeatedly had to sell our best players just to stay in the black. So the idea that we had loads of money in that period is facile.

How many of our rivals made a profit in that time? So saying we had less cash isn't altogether true, rivals might well have spent more than us and have gone into debt in that time nad have since recouped that money with better commercail deals or selling players at a later stage

[IUFG]

:sigh: But they didn't have 'less' money than us in real terms. In terms of available cash to spend (not to be confused with our cash reserves) pretty much all our rivals had more ready cash than us.

In seven of the ten years between 2007 and 2016, we'd have made a net loss without player sales. We repeatedly had to sell our best players just to stay in the black. So the idea that we had loads of money in that period is facile.

Look, B. I'm not a Wenger hater. AW just needed replacing.

We are a 'big club' with big wage bills, big ticket prices and big expectations amongst the fan base. The latter proably driven by youngsters who grew up on a Wenger era football-diet.

There was a decline (not withstanding the FA cups) in the premier league, the exception being the season when Spurs let us finish 2nd in a race we hadn't even entered. Whichever way you look at it, whether it be points total, points gap to champions, or whatever, we were / are in decline. That decline might actually be relative. i.e some others have simply got 'better'.

But to stand still and do what you have always done and expect something different is the definition of .... etc

The managers, UE and AW are simply different. We gave Wenger time and we should do the same for Emery. I doubt he'll get 10 years of failing to challenge for the league...

[Burney]

Lester winning the premier league . . . .

The same Leicester owned by the multi-billionaire who spent a fúck-load on players, you mean?