New 2 year contract for Arsene

['Neg]

and £70m to spend in the summer.

So say SSN :hehe:

[Peter]

Actually go through a whole summer without being in profit on transfers.

It could happen.

[Rich]

[Bergkamp's Brain]

:hehe:

[Rich]

Bizarre.

['Neg]

[Hillary]

[Peter]

[Peter]

Virtually unheard of.

Of course, if you told them we cant afford it they might understand why we dont do it. Hardly a puzzle to work out that if you constantly tell supporters that thereis money availble they are going to expect you to spend at least some of it.

['Neg]

to the extent where the aim would be to break even over a number of year (akin to FFP). Arsenal seem to be taking things too far, trying to maximise profits.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

A lot of people will want to metaphorically suck his cock when we put in a decent performance v Bayern.

Saturday and other such incidents of ****e will be nothing more than a distant memory.

[Rich]

Would you be happy with them putting themselves in a position exposed to greater risk just to buy some new machinery/new property/more staff or would you rather they kept doing what they were doing very well and maximised profits to ensure the stability of the company in a very tough market?

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

With the exception of that Ivorian ******** every one of our players is top drawer.

It's the manager I tell thee. Time to go.

[Monty91]

weakened one that, there were 6 players £10 million or more, plus our new (back up?) left back who cost £8m :shrug:

['Neg]

imo

[Peter]

What about the risks involved with investing nothing, falling behind a competitor, falling revenues?

Your description is of a cautious, slow moving, complacent business that is very happy where it is and has not real ambition to grow.

[Monty91]

spending money doesn't guarantee getting you where you need to be. Wenger's method, so far, has.

So the evidence is not in your favour, so far.

[Peter]

In the team. Transfers pay for themselves.

Which is fine of course. Except......when your squad is in decline and your board claim there are millions to spend, the consequences of repeatedly not spending any of it are always going to be confusion.

[Monty91]

on a direct replacement. Was that a lack of ambition?

We sold Van Persie and bought two highly regarded internationals to replace him. I'm not sure how you can call that a lack of ambition.

[Peter]

We won stuff and were good.

Since the money was taken away we have won f**k all for 8 years and are getting progressively worse.

That evidence is actually pretty overwhelming.

I think we all know that if you give 100 million to an idiot he will make you worse. Nobody is suggesting that though. We are suggesting giving it to arsen who has proven to be an exceptional judge of a player when he is able to get the one he wants.

[modd]

the champions league or not, is buliding something speical with likes of theo, jack, luis,sandi,giloud, gibbs , jenkinson. add another five or six players and we up in title race next year.

arsene knows best. :bow:

[Peter]

And why go with one example when you have years of history to look t? United spend plenty, always have had.

And lat summer we actually sold van persie and song and spent less than we goton their replacements. Which is kind of the point.....

[redgunamo]

I'm not sure what you're asking for here.

[Monty91]

£16 million. Now (including Nacho), we've spent £8 million. Are you saying £8m is the difference between winning stuff and winning nothing?

[Peter]

Im not sure i want to know.

[Monty91]

this season.

[redgunamo]

[Hillary]

[Peter]

Still won the league though.

You are being ridiculous. You are comparing the spending on a squad that is easily good enough to win the league with spending on one that is barely good enough to finish fourth.

And, again, you are referring to one short period when there is actually 15 years of data to look at. If you are trying to suggest that we spend plenty of money, it is demonstrably untrue- net.

[Peter]

[Peter]

[Yesterday Once More]

[redgunamo]

I suppose the issue is the "right" players, rather than the cost of them.

[Bergkamp's Brain]

If other team assemble better squads, your squad looks worse...

All that being said, this squad should be good enough to finish in the top 4 imo. Whether they do is a different matter.

[Monty91]

extremely large transfer fees (the fact that this means you're regularly losing your best players is another discussion).
I think it's more important to look at what you spend gross.

[Peter]

City and chelsea spend loads so we spend less in response to it? It doesnt work for me.

It is true that thy hve inflated the market but, in city's case, we have actually enefitted hugely from it, with inflated prices for adebayor, toure and nasri.

And again, someone inflates the market so you decide to spend less? I cant see that being the reason.

[redgunamo]

We never have the best squad, on paper. When did we last kick off a season as overwhelming favourites?

[Hillary]

pretty much accepted. But then again I don't really take any notice of the press releases that come out of the Emirates.

[Monty91]

[Hillary]

Who are you and what have you done with the real redgunamo?

[Peter]

From selling valuable players. Which means they need to be replaced. Which means you need to spend the money on that.

You also have to look at where you are. If you are brilliant, and winning the legue, your spending is working.

The crucial point here is what happens when your team is getting worse, you are falling further behind the top teams and your best players keep leaving. When that happens, and each year, a t best, you spend what you raised and, each year, it doesnt turn things around, some are going to start questioning why you dont dip into the 150 million tht is apparnetly sitting there.

If we are spending plenty, and the squad is getting worse, then the only answeris to get rid of the useless c**t of a manager.

[Monty91]

gives no guarantee that you're going to get where you want to be.

Wenger's transfer policy has proven that.

[Hillary]

[Peter]

Ok, maybe not overhwelming favourites but hugely, hugely fancied.

We had at least four world class players you see, argubly four of the best ever to play in the premiership.

[Monty91]

I think we've pretty much plateaued for the last few years.

And plateaueing behind three of the richest clubs in the history of the sport is not a bad place to plateau :shrug:

[Hillary]

[redgunamo]

[Peter]

Highly confusing.

Or is it that city and chelsea have conclusively proven that spending doesnt guarantee success by spending and then witihn three years winning their first league titles in half a century?

At leat you do seem to be accepting that we spend less. Tht is a start.

[Peter]

Come on, we must have been fancied :hehe:

[Hillary]

f**king Bolton.

[Peter]

Some people are going to believe it.

It makes wenger's job ten times harder.

[Hillary]

[Monty91]

where you want to be. Wenger's policy, in contrast, has.

[Peter]

And we are not sat comfortably ehind three rich clubs, we are also behind spurs.

Last season was argusbly our worst under wenger, this one looks like beig even worse. We had a good squad developing around song, cesc, nasri, van persie but we couldnt get enough strength around them and it wasnt enough for them.

I dont think you can compere the current sitution with three years ago. I dont think you can genuinely argue that we are arent slipping.

[Monty91]

give us any more chance of improving than our existing policy.

S

[Peter]

I must have missed a memo. But now it does make sense at least. Cheers m :-)

[Monty91]

Short of being able to spend United levels, there is evidence that we are better off sticking to our policy.

[Peter]

We could st least f**king try it once, if only to shut people up*

*yes, people like me.

[Monty91]

then yes, consistent qualifiers for the champions league is precisely where we want to be.

That we are facing challenges ever season from other clubs for that remaining spot is no surprise, not an indictment of our policy.

[Monty91]

[redgunamo]

are told Wenger needs to spend, we wouldn't actually need Wenger anymore, would we.

After all, any manager can spend money.

[Peter]

You trying it.

Give wenger 30 or 40 million to buy a couple of players. If it doesnt work, f**k it, sell them, cut your losses and dont do it again.

Realistically, wht are the odds that if you let him bring in two quality players he WONT improve the squad? The guy is a brilliant judge of talent.

Just once. I just want to try it once.

[Hillary]

[Peter]

There is some evidence that it has worked in the past.

[Monty91]

six different names in it tomorrow night, had 7 players bought for around the £10 million mark (including two centre backs!!!)

Presumably they were bought because Wenger considered them good players.

[Peter]

[Monty91]

That's a very specific numerical request. You must be better at this than I give you credit for.

[Peter]

Lets assume we finish a distant fourth and nobody wants to leave.

In the summer we can either do nothing, nd stick with a squad that might scrape fourth again, or buy two highly regarded players for a bout 20 million each to strengthen the squad.

Would you e up for tht? Wenger's choice obviously- we cant pick the signings for him, we hve to trust the gaffer.

Come on, just do it. Give it a go. Come on monty :-)

[East Upper for Supper]

Expect another key player to be sold per season until that changes. Might be more than one should CL qualification not be achieved.

[Monty91]

I think you'd be surprised how few players there are around who could improve the squad at that kind of price, though.

And you forget the fact that existing players become "£20 million players" if you allow them to. Wilshire is already there, maybe Giroud next season?

[Monty91]

without knowing how much we could spend if we wanted to push the boat out.

My suspicion is that what we could spend would not necessarily do anything to bridge the gap, and could even increase it, because it would be to the detriment of Wenger's existing policies.

[Peter]

We might want to consider using some of the money we apparently have.

Of course, maybe we dont want to strengthen the squad without a guarantee of success.

[Peter]

Argument. That is a good one, i quite like it.

But, in theory, were it possible, you wouldnt specifically object to giving it a go?

[Monty91]

You can scoff at my 'players not available at the price we can afford' line, but can you disprove it?

[redgunamo]

[Monty91]

I feel I'm doing most of the legwork here. Are you able to up your game or is this as good as it gets?

[Peter]

[Peter]

It also relies on an intepretation of 'what we can afford'. None of us really know what that is.

[Monty91]

is to utterly simplify the discussion.

It ignores the potential for organic strengthening, just for starters.

And of course it lacks names. You cannot be considered credible without putting forward names and taking me through precisely how they would be worked into our transfer and salary budget. Without this information laid out for me, how can I possibly take your unwaivering belief that we're getting it all wrong seriously?

[Monty91]

It does seem that we at least try to strengthen the squad. It's not like we let our players go and never replace them. Perhaps it's Wenger that you need to be angry with for letting us slip from fourth to...errrr....fifth (for now)?

[Peter]

Sling in the rest in terms of strengthening if you wish but it is patently absurd to attack me for sticking to the point.

And you want names? You want me to pick the team now?

Dont be a c**t. You know we are talking about spending, and why we do what we do when it clearly isnt working/ is working but could work better/ is working so well that we should almost insist that we get worse.

[Peter]

Of more than fourth place. Remember?