AW's 20 years with us. Your assessment?

[Lady Henry AKA The African Queen]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/sep/21/arsene-wenger-20-years-arsenal-incredible-journey

[Ash]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/sep/21/arsene-wenger-20-years-arsenal-incredible-journey

Nice piece, I thought. Will probably buy her book, even though it's just a picture volume. At least they got a decent writer to pen the captions.

Bloody good manager too, imo.

[Chief Arrowhead]

Nice piece, I thought. Will probably buy her book, even though it's just a picture volume. At least they got a decent writer to pen the captions.

Bloody good manager too, imo.
Amy is a trooper, love her analyses. Ironically, we have an Amy Lawrence here that has a nighttime sports talk show that I like to listen too.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Amy Lawrence is a Gooner. That's no secret. And an admirer of Arsene's.

I love the man. He gave me a joy in watching the Arsenal which I'd never really had. I enjoyed it when we won but our football was rarely that good.

Circumstances defeated him, as Amy more or less details. The new stadium and the arrival of the oligarchs had unfrtunate timings and rather than challenge Manu for the no. 1 spot we ended up celebrating the fourth place trophies. Desperate bad luck with injuries probably cost us two league titles during the barren patch.

However he is partly responsible for the cross he now bears. In refusing to change his vision and his teams' style we ended up with talentead teams who struggled to compete physically which led to the occasional mauling and was no dount partly responsible for our wretched injuries.

It is sad to see a giant, as he was for the first half of his reign, reduced like Gulliver to being baited by Lilliputians such as the black scarf ****s. For his sake he should have gone several years ago. The Kronke model of ownership means we cannot in the long term compete with more ambitious owners.

It would be great for him to have one last hurrah - another league title at least or (looks very unlikely) a Champions League. The outcome is likelier to be a season where we win nothing or maybe a domestic cup and he either leaves in the summer or (if we win something) is offered an extension to growing choruses of disapproval and a poisonous atmosphere until he either wins something big or is finally persuaded to step aside after a couple of barren seasons.

[SWv2]

A tainted legacy I am afraid.

[World's End Stella]

A tainted legacy I am afraid.

And if we win the league this year, will it still be tainted?

Arguably the best manager in the world for his first 10 years or so with the club, after that a lesson in the 'too much power in one person's hands is a bad thing' rule.

[SWv2]

And if we win the league this year, will it still be tainted?

Arguably the best manager in the world for his first 10 years or so with the club, after that a lesson in the 'too much power in one person's hands is a bad thing' rule.

Probably not as if was then to leave he would be doing so on a huge positive and high. Thing is we won’t win the League so it is a moot point.

My original statement is based on many discussions we will have had. While they were magnificent days few people immediately remember the almost unprecedented glory days of 98-2004 as they are in the past and largely speaking all the matters in football is the current. Last weekend’s result, this weekend’s result, basically this season.

He was a great manager, no argument whatsoever but his time at Arsenal has turned sour in recent seasons as is obvious by unforeseen levels of fan unrest.

Not entirely sure about the 10 year comment either. He was new, he was different, he was our manager so we loved him. The line about the prettiest wife etc. Was he really better than Ferguson as an obvious example?

[PSRB]

And if we win the league this year, will it still be tainted?

Arguably the best manager in the world for his first 10 years or so with the club, after that a lesson in the 'too much power in one person's hands is a bad thing' rule.

Harsh, I rather think his 2nd 10 years were actually better considering how the whole game changed around us (through no fault of AW) and he still has managed to keep us right up at the top. Dread to think what would have happened and where we'd be if he hadn't been Le Boss

[Sir C]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/sep/21/arsene-wenger-20-years-arsenal-incredible-journey

The achievements of the second half of his tenure, keeping us successful enough to keep the stadium full and the champions league money rolling in whilst having to make a profit on player sales, is probably even greater than the trophy-winning days.

The man should be treated like a God by anyone with any feeling for this club.

[Monty92]

Nice piece, I thought. Will probably buy her book, even though it's just a picture volume. At least they got a decent writer to pen the captions.

Bloody good manager too, imo.

There's actually a typo in the first caption of that piece :hehe:

[PSRB]

The achievements of the second half of his tenure, keeping us successful enough to keep the stadium full and the champions league money rolling in whilst having to make a profit on player sales, is probably even greater than the trophy-winning days.

The man should be treated like a God by anyone with any feeling for this club.

Great minds and all that........

[Sir C]

Harsh, I rather think his 2nd 10 years were actually better considering how the whole game changed around us (through no fault of AW) and he still has managed to keep us right up at the top. Dread to think what would have happened and where we'd be if he hadn't been Le Boss

Well said p.

[PotatoNoel]

Ultimately a career filled with what ifs. Even with the Invincibles, one of if not the best team ever to play in England, we only won 1 premier league title. We should have dominated European football for atleast 2-3 years. Then the last 10 years or so, that final in Paris, league cup defeats against Chelsea and Birmingham *shudders*.

That said, he has given us incredible moments. Not necessarily trophy wins, but still moments which never fail to make me smile when I think about them. Arshavin vs Barca, Welbeck vs Leicester, Thierry vs Man Utd.

I want him to leave and have done for some time now, but I can never bring myself to abuse the man. After the things he's done for Arsenal, despite all his shortcomings, he deserves better than to be called a ****.

[World's End Stella]

whilst having to make a profit on player sales

There is no evidence of this being true imo, Charles. In fact, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the stadium constrained his spending in the way many believe. It isn't true according to Danny Fiszman (RIP), it isn't true according to David Dein and it isn't true according to the financial statements I have read.

And you can still consider him to have performed at a high level even without it being true, I think. He was brilliant from 96-2005 and has been consistently good since then. And yes, all Arsenal supporters owe him a deep and profound sense of respect for what he has achieved.

[Sir C]

There is no evidence of this being true imo, Charles. In fact, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the stadium constrained his spending in the way many believe. It isn't true according to Danny Fiszman (RIP), it isn't true according to David Dein and it isn't true according to the financial statements I have read.

And you can still consider him to have performed at a high level even without it being true, I think. He was brilliant from 96-2005 and has been consistently good since then. And yes, all Arsenal supporters owe him a deep and profound sense of respect for what he has achieved.

Well, given that we didn't spend a great deal of money on players, and given that we regularly sold our best players, and given that this led to the club now being in a sound financial condition, I'd say you're probably incorrect.

[Luis Anaconda]

There is no evidence of this being true imo, Charles. In fact, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the stadium constrained his spending in the way many believe. It isn't true according to Danny Fiszman (RIP), it isn't true according to David Dein and it isn't true according to the financial statements I have read.

And you can still consider him to have performed at a high level even without it being true, I think. He was brilliant from 96-2005 and has been consistently good since then. And yes, all Arsenal supporters owe him a deep and profound sense of respect for what he has achieved.

:hehe: Still banging on about that. You really do talk utter *******s, you know

[World's End Stella]

Well, given that we didn't spend a great deal of money on players, and given that we regularly sold our best players, and given that this led to the club now being in a sound financial condition, I'd say you're probably incorrect.

How do you know we didn't spend money on players because Wenger believed in the young players he had purchased and he didn't want to limit their opportunities? Or perhaps because he thought the market was temporarily inflated by Chelsea and City and that with FFP coming it might be wise to hold off?

Regularly sold our best players, because of the financial constraints of the stadium? I don't think we sold Fabrergas and Nasri because we had to financially, I think we sold them because they wanted to leave a team that wasn't winning trophies and they wanted to increase their salaries. But neither of us really know, do we?

[World's End Stella]

:hehe: Still banging on about that. You really do talk utter *******s, you know

How about - and this will be a novel idea for you, I know - you present a counter argument rather than merely insulting someone who has a different opinion than you?

Or are there no valid opinions that you don't agree with?

[Pokster]

:hehe: Still banging on about that. You really do talk utter *******s, you know

To be fair to WES (can't believe I am saying that), our report and accounts over that time showed we did have money to spend, and the fact we are a PLC and the board members said the same, if this wasn't the case the board were breaking a lot of Stock Exchange rules imo

[Sir C]

How do you know we didn't spend money on players because Wenger believed in the young players he had purchased and he didn't want to limit their opportunities? Or perhaps because he thought the market was temporarily inflated by Chelsea and City and that with FFP coming it might be wise to hold off?

Regularly sold our best players, because of the financial constraints of the stadium? I don't think we sold Fabrergas and Nasri because we had to financially, I think we sold them because they wanted to leave a team that wasn't winning trophies and they wanted to increase their salaries. But neither of us really know, do we?

Well, we know that by not spending a great deal of money, and that by cashing in on our best players, we have ended up in this situation, with a healthy financial position. If we had spent lots of money and hadn't sold our best players, we wouldn't be in this healthy financial position.

I can quite see how this complicated financial stuff is confusing, but look at it this way. If you have two pennies, and you spend them on sweets, tomorrow you will have no pennies but, and this is the crucial part, if you don't spend the two pennies, tomorrow you will have two pennies. And we currently have the two pennies.

Do you see? :thumbup:

[Burney]

Well, we know that by not spending a great deal of money, and that by cashing in on our best players, we have ended up in this situation, with a healthy financial position. If we had spent lots of money and hadn't sold our best players, we wouldn't be in this healthy financial position.

I can quite see how this complicated financial stuff is confusing, but look at it this way. If you have two pennies, and you spend them on sweets, tomorrow you will have no pennies but, and this is the crucial part, if you don't spend the two pennies, tomorrow you will have two pennies. And we currently have the two pennies.

Do you see? :thumbup:

It is humbling to see two fine financial brains such as yourself and WES hammering this sort of thing out, I must say. All over my head, of course.

[Sir C]

It is humbling to see two fine financial brains such as yourself and WES hammering this sort of thing out, I must say. All over my head, of course.

It is complicated, isn't it? I suspect counting must be different in Canada, because WES appears to believe that if you spend money, you still have it.

[Luis Anaconda]

How about - and this will be a novel idea for you, I know - you present a counter argument rather than merely insulting someone who has a different opinion than you?

Or are there no valid opinions that you don't agree with?
We've had the argument countless times so little point :shrug:

[SWv2]

Well, we know that by not spending a great deal of money, and that by cashing in on our best players, we have ended up in this situation, with a healthy financial position. If we had spent lots of money and hadn't sold our best players, we wouldn't be in this healthy financial position.

I can quite see how this complicated financial stuff is confusing, but look at it this way. If you have two pennies, and you spend them on sweets, tomorrow you will have no pennies but, and this is the crucial part, if you don't spend the two pennies, tomorrow you will have two pennies. And we currently have the two pennies.

Do you see? :thumbup:


I am not sure how this confectionery analogy works in this respect.

For example during the perceived by some lean years, if we had 2 pennies and deliberately chose not to spend the 2 pennies then perhaps that may have been a factor in reduced success which in turn did result in certain players leaving as Wes has alluded to.

If we never had the two pennies, which surely is what you and your sort claim, then the analogy is irrelevant.

An important factor to remember in this debate is that no person has ever suggested or championed reckless spending beyond our means (may as well say this now before some fool comes out with the inevitable line about the next or new Leeds …). The counter argument or belief to the one which you hold is that we had money but simply for reasons known to none of us simply chose not to spend it. As indeed is the 100% right of the club and manager.

[World's End Stella]

Well, we know that by not spending a great deal of money, and that by cashing in on our best players, we have ended up in this situation, with a healthy financial position. If we had spent lots of money and hadn't sold our best players, we wouldn't be in this healthy financial position.

I can quite see how this complicated financial stuff is confusing, but look at it this way. If you have two pennies, and you spend them on sweets, tomorrow you will have no pennies but, and this is the crucial part, if you don't spend the two pennies, tomorrow you will have two pennies. And we currently have the two pennies.

Do you see? :thumbup:

I promise not to be as condescending to you as you have just been to me. And as I work in quantitative research for one of the largest investment banks in the world, I'm not convinced you should be lecturing me on finance.

I can't be bothered tearing apart your point above but let me at least point out one example. Do you remember the summer of 2009 when we sold Adebayor and Toure (presumably two of our best players?) for 41mil and bought only Vermaelen for 10mil netting a 30mil profit? It's an example used by many (like Ian Harvey) as to the constraints that Wenger was under.

Well here's an article from that summer with quotes from PHW confirming Wenger had money to spend. If I could be bothered there is a BBC article with a quote from Wenger confirming money was available. So please read below and then explain to me why we made a 31mil profit that summer, was it because of the stadium or some other reason? And if you like, I could extend this example to other summers, like the one in which we sold Cesc and Nasri.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/arsenal/5289493/Arsene-Wenger-promised-transfer-funds-for-Arsenal-squad.html

[World's End Stella]

We've had the argument countless times so little point :shrug:

I've never has this argument with you in my life. And to be honest, I'd just as soon not. Ta.

[Sir C]

I promise not to be as condescending to you as you have just been to me. And as I work in quantitative research for one of the largest investment banks in the world, I'm not convinced you should be lecturing me on finance.

I can't be bothered tearing apart your point above but let me at least point out one example. Do you remember the summer of 2009 when we sold Adebayor and Toure (presumably two of our best players?) for 41mil and bought only Vermaelen for 10mil netting a 30mil profit? It's an example used by many (like Ian Harvey) as to the constraints that Wenger was under.

Well here's an article from that summer with quotes from PHW confirming Wenger had money to spend. If I could be bothered there is a BBC article with a quote from Wenger confirming money was available. So please read below and then explain to me why we made a 31mil profit that summer, was it because of the stadium or some other reason? And if you like, I could extend this example to other summers, like the one in which we sold Cesc and Nasri.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wenger+money+to+spend+2009&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=nZzjV7jfEarAgAax-q3ADg#q=wenger+money+to+spend+2009&start=0

If life has taught me anything, old boy, it is to take precisely no notice whatsoever of bankers when they make the mistake of trying to understand actual real-world money and business. Don't for one second consider me condescending - I'm sure you're excellent at playing with your little Excel programme.

Your rather rambling argument about the summer of £31 million is... pointless. If we hadn't made £31m that summer, we'd now be £31m down, wouldn't we? And whilst we might now look at the figures and see that we could afford to be £31m down, perhaps the directors of the business were keen to err on the side of caution and leave a cash buffer between the club and, you know, bankruptcy, in the case of things not turning out as planned?

[Sir C]

I am not sure how this confectionery analogy works in this respect.

For example during the perceived by some lean years, if we had 2 pennies and deliberately chose not to spend the 2 pennies then perhaps that may have been a factor in reduced success which in turn did result in certain players leaving as Wes has alluded to.

If we never had the two pennies, which surely is what you and your sort claim, then the analogy is irrelevant.

An important factor to remember in this debate is that no person has ever suggested or championed reckless spending beyond our means (may as well say this now before some fool comes out with the inevitable line about the next or new Leeds …). The counter argument or belief to the one which you hold is that we had money but simply for reasons known to none of us simply chose not to spend it. As indeed is the 100% right of the club and manager.

You have no idea what level of spending would have constituted 'reckless' spending during the period in question; we rely on the directors of the business to make those decisions, with their attendent legal requirement to act in the best interests of the company. :shrug: I rather think they were better informed than you as to the degree of spending which was in the best interests of the club. They may have been more cautious than you would prefer, but, you know, they're in charge.

[World's End Stella]

To be fair to WES (can't believe I am saying that), our report and accounts over that time showed we did have money to spend, and the fact we are a PLC and the board members said the same, if this wasn't the case the board were breaking a lot of Stock Exchange rules imo

Yes, and would have been liable to prosecution had they done so.

The financial reports were clear, the stadium cost us 19mil per year for 25 years and at the end of it we own it. Given that the club was generating revenues in the region of 200mil+ throughout this time and paying salaries of over 100mil+ annually, I'd be curious to know how someone could justify the claim that Wenger's spending was significantly restricted by the stadium. Are they aware that the same revenue streams that supply money for transfers also supply money for wages?

I think the whole 'why didn't Wenger spend money?' question is much more complicated than everyone thinks. I expect it was impacted by an inflated market, the possibility of FFP, an inflated wage bill (certainly considering the age of the players receiving the wages), a commitment to his 'youth experiment' and possibly a personal/philosophical objection.

But the financial statements make it clear that to say we didn't spend because of the stadium, is a nonsense.

[World's End Stella]

If life has taught me anything, old boy, it is to take precisely no notice whatsoever of bankers when they make the mistake of trying to understand actual real-world money and business. Don't for one second consider me condescending - I'm sure you're excellent at playing with your little Excel programme.

Your rather rambling argument about the summer of £31 million is... pointless. If we hadn't made £31m that summer, we'd now be £31m down, wouldn't we? And whilst we might now look at the figures and see that we could afford to be £31m down, perhaps the directors of the business were keen to err on the side of caution and leave a cash buffer between the club and, you know, bankruptcy, in the case of things not turning out as planned?

Perhaps the extra 31mil allowed us to pay relatively young players who had never won anything wages that no one else would.

And in that case the reason we weren't spending was because of Wenger's managerial decisions, not because of the stadium. Had you considered that in your (unbelievably) superficial financial analysis?

[Pat Vegas]

Nice piece, I thought. Will probably buy her book, even though it's just a picture volume. At least they got a decent writer to pen the captions.

Bloody good manager too, imo.

I might have slagged him off at times but I love him.

One of the key contributors to turning the Premier league into the global product it is now.
Nobody played football in England like we did under Wenger. It was a joy to watch and exciting times.

[Burney]

You have no idea what level of spending would have constituted 'reckless' spending during the period in question; we rely on the directors of the business to make those decisions, with their attendent legal requirement to act in the best interests of the company. :shrug: I rather think they were better informed than you as to the degree of spending which was in the best interests of the club. They may have been more cautious than you would prefer, but, you know, they're in charge.

Surely where this sort of financial analysis of football clubs breaks down is in the fact that almost uniquely in business, big football clubs do not purchase their most significant capital assets (i.e. top-class, proven players) with a view to achieving a financial return on investment? Such returns sometimes occur, of course, but usually most 'top, top' players are purchased at a significant loss. Indeed, the more successful they are on the pitch and the longer they stay with you, the more of a loss they become, since you recoup less money (or none) through resale.

This means that, in order for such business to stay in the black and not be reliant on player sales for player purchases, it must constantly retain a significant cash reserve to allow for the possibility of further such loss-making investments. Given which, not spending that cash reserve simply because it's there would seem to me to be responsible thing to do, wouldn't it? The fact that there may be 'money to spend' is not a sensible argument for it being spent. Thus, any argument about what 'financial constraints' we did or didn't have has to factor in the necessity of holding onto cash to give one flexibility and security against an uncertain future, surely?

[Sir C]

Surely where this sort of financial analysis of football clubs breaks down is in the fact that almost uniquely in business, big football clubs do not purchase their most significant capital assets (i.e. top-class, proven players) with a view to achieving a financial return on investment? Such returns sometimes occur, of course, but usually most 'top, top' players are purchased at a significant loss. Indeed, the more successful they are on the pitch and the longer they stay with you, the more of a loss they become, since you recoup less money (or none) through resale.

This means that, in order for such business to stay in the black and not be reliant on player sales for player purchases, it must constantly retain a significant cash reserve to allow for the possibility of further such loss-making investments. Given which, not spending that cash reserve simply because it's there would seem to me to be responsible thing to do, wouldn't it? The fact that there may be 'money to spend' is not a sensible argument for it being spent. Thus, any argument about what 'financial constraints' we did or didn't have has to factor in the necessity of holding onto cash to give one flexibility and security against an uncertain future, surely?

This seems to me clear and apparent. Our friends in the banking industry seem untroubled by caution, however. Which is odd really, post 2008. You'd think they'd have learnt something.

[World's End Stella]

Surely where this sort of financial analysis of football clubs breaks down is in the fact that almost uniquely in business, big football clubs do not purchase their most significant capital assets (i.e. top-class, proven players) with a view to achieving a financial return on investment? Such returns sometimes occur, of course, but usually most 'top, top' players are purchased at a significant loss. Indeed, the more successful they are on the pitch and the longer they stay with you, the more of a loss they become, since you recoup less money (or none) through resale.

This means that, in order for such business to stay in the black and not be reliant on player sales for player purchases, it must constantly retain a significant cash reserve to allow for the possibility of further such loss-making investments. Given which, not spending that cash reserve simply because it's there would seem to me to be responsible thing to do, wouldn't it? The fact that there may be 'money to spend' is not a sensible argument for it being spent. Thus, any argument about what 'financial constraints' we did or didn't have has to factor in the necessity of holding onto cash to give one flexibility and security against an uncertain future, surely?

Partly correct, partly not. I haulage firm will purchase a truck and then might amortise the cost over a 5 year period at which point it will be replaced using cash reserves which the corporation planned for as part of its cashflow analysis. Arsenal will account for and pay for players in the exact same way. The truck is an investment which allows the firm to make money, in the same way that a top class player might attract additional commercial revenue to the club or increase the likelihood of a payout in the CL or PL (something else Charles neglected to consider in his analysis).

And the question isn't whether it is sensible to spend the money you have or not, it is whether we had the money in the first place. Some people believe that we had to sell players in order to maintain a high cash balance and that this is entirely down to the costs of funding the stadium. The financial records of the club, and no small amount of common sense, indicate this isn't true.

[SWv2]

Surely where this sort of financial analysis of football clubs breaks down is in the fact that almost uniquely in business, big football clubs do not purchase their most significant capital assets (i.e. top-class, proven players) with a view to achieving a financial return on investment? Such returns sometimes occur, of course, but usually most 'top, top' players are purchased at a significant loss. Indeed, the more successful they are on the pitch and the longer they stay with you, the more of a loss they become, since you recoup less money (or none) through resale.

This means that, in order for such business to stay in the black and not be reliant on player sales for player purchases, it must constantly retain a significant cash reserve to allow for the possibility of further such loss-making investments. Given which, not spending that cash reserve simply because it's there would seem to me to be responsible thing to do, wouldn't it? The fact that there may be 'money to spend' is not a sensible argument for it being spent. Thus, any argument about what 'financial constraints' we did or didn't have has to factor in the necessity of holding onto cash to give one flexibility and security against an uncertain future, surely?

It's all a massively pointless argument anyway as neither you nor I, nor Sir C nor Wes, sit on the board and as such know what was needed and what was not, if we were over cautious and conservative or not, what levels of spending or otherwise were enforced on Wenger and/or what freedom he had.

[Burney]

Partly correct, partly not. I haulage firm will purchase a truck and then might amortise the cost over a 5 year period at which point it will be replaced using cash reserves which the corporation planned for as part of its cashflow analysis. Arsenal will account for and pay for players in the exact same way. The truck is an investment which allows the firm to make money, in the same way that a top class player might attract additional commercial revenue to the club or increase the likelihood of a payout in the CL or PL (something else Charles neglected to consider in his analysis).

And the question isn't whether it is sensible to spend the money you have or not, it is whether we had the money in the first place. Some people believe that we had to sell players in order to maintain a high cash balance and that this is entirely down to the costs of funding the stadium. The financial records of the club, and no small amount of common sense, indicate this isn't true.

No, I'm sorry, but saying 'we had the money' is not the point. You only 'have the money' if you consider it feasible to spend it within the terms of the model of financial prudence under which you operate. Personally, I don't for a moment believe we needed to sell our top players in order to maintain a cash balance, but I also believe that that was the case in no small part because we were prudent in not spending what cash reserves we had.

[World's End Stella]

It's all a massively pointless argument anyway as neither you nor I, nor Sir C nor Wes, sit on the board and as such know what was needed and what was not, if we were over cautious and conservative or not, what levels of spending or otherwise were enforced on Wenger and/or what freedom he had.

Indeed, so people should stop saying that we didn't spend money because we didn't have it, which was the original point.

Especially when the financial statements of the club, which are a matter of legal record, indicate it isn't true.

Hopefully, we all agree now. :-)

[PSRB]

No, I'm sorry, but saying 'we had the money' is not the point. You only 'have the money' if you consider it feasible to spend it within the terms of the model of financial prudence under which you operate. Personally, I don't for a moment believe we needed to sell our top players in order to maintain a cash balance, but I also believe that that was the case in no small part because we were prudent in not spending what cash reserves we had.

There is also the point that we could not compete with the wages being offered by the clubs where the players went, that wage structure is certainly the board's doing not AW

Was there not a little recession going on as well?

[World's End Stella]

No, I'm sorry, but saying 'we had the money' is not the point. You only 'have the money' if you consider it feasible to spend it within the terms of the model of financial prudence under which you operate. Personally, I don't for a moment believe we needed to sell our top players in order to maintain a cash balance, but I also believe that that was the case in no small part because we were prudent in not spending what cash reserves we had.

I meant that that was the point that was originally debated.

But you're sort of making my point for me. Specifically, that the financial position we ended up in was because of the decisions taken by the manager, it was not something that was forced upon the manager.

[World's End Stella]

There is also the point that we could not compete with the wages being offered by the clubs where the players went, that wage structure is certainly the board's doing not AW

Was there not a little recession going on as well?

That would very much surprise me, I would firmly expect that Wenger controlled the wage structure. The board should only care how much money is spent on football, how it is allocated (salaries, transfers, structural upgrades etc) I would expect to be solely determined by Wenger.

[Burney]

I meant that that was the point that was originally debated.

But you're sort of making my point for me. Specifically, that the financial position we ended up in was because of the decisions taken by the manager, it was not something that was forced upon the manager.

Well that depends what you mean by 'forced'. Could he have spent it? Almost certainly. Would other, less scrupulous managers have spent it regardless of the effect of doing so on the welfare of the club (Harry Redknapp, I'm looking at you)? Yes. However, not being that sort of manager and caring deeply about the long-term future of the club and knowing what pressures were operating on it, AW looked at the larger picture and clearly decided it would not be in the best interests of the club if he spent that money.

That's not him being 'forced', it's simply him taking account of the circumstances as he understands them and acting accordingly. In other words, his hands weren't tied, but neither were they entirely free given those other considerations.

[redgunamo]

Amy Lawrence is a Gooner. That's no secret. And an admirer of Arsene's.

I love the man. He gave me a joy in watching the Arsenal which I'd never really had. I enjoyed it when we won but our football was rarely that good.

Circumstances defeated him, as Amy more or less details. The new stadium and the arrival of the oligarchs had unfrtunate timings and rather than challenge Manu for the no. 1 spot we ended up celebrating the fourth place trophies. Desperate bad luck with injuries probably cost us two league titles during the barren patch.

However he is partly responsible for the cross he now bears. In refusing to change his vision and his teams' style we ended up with talentead teams who struggled to compete physically which led to the occasional mauling and was no dount partly responsible for our wretched injuries.

It is sad to see a giant, as he was for the first half of his reign, reduced like Gulliver to being baited by Lilliputians such as the black scarf ****s. For his sake he should have gone several years ago. The Kronke model of ownership means we cannot in the long term compete with more ambitious owners.

It would be great for him to have one last hurrah - another league title at least or (looks very unlikely) a Champions League. The outcome is likelier to be a season where we win nothing or maybe a domestic cup and he either leaves in the summer or (if we win something) is offered an extension to growing choruses of disapproval and a poisonous atmosphere until he either wins something big or is finally persuaded to step aside after a couple of barren seasons.

What about Leicester City?

[redgunamo]

Well that depends what you mean by 'forced'. Could he have spent it? Almost certainly. Would other, less scrupulous managers have spent it regardless of the effect of doing so on the welfare of the club (Harry Redknapp, I'm looking at you)? Yes. However, not being that sort of manager and caring deeply about the long-term future of the club and knowing what pressures were operating on it, AW looked at the larger picture and clearly decided it would not be in the best interests of the club if he spent that money.

That's not him being 'forced', it's simply him taking account of the circumstances as he understands them and acting accordingly. In other words, his hands weren't tied, but neither were they entirely free given those other considerations.

I doubt I'll ever forgive Him for encouraging football supporters to think more about money than they do about the game itself. In fact, even thinking about the game itself is bad enough.

Otherwise, I think He's done alright.

[SWv2]

What about Leicester City?

Leicester City could be seen as a blot on the copybook of every manager in the Premier League so as such we prefer to simply ignore them and let them return quietly to whence they came.

[redgunamo]

Leicester City could be seen as a blot on the copybook of every manager in the Premier League so as such we prefer to simply ignore them and let them return quietly to whence they came.

Indeed. They did expose alot of their bull.

And Wenger seemed to talk more b than most, possibly because He does it in a French accent.

[World's End Stella]

Leicester City could be seen as a blot on the copybook of every manager in the Premier League so as such we prefer to simply ignore them and let them return quietly to whence they came.

How about Arsenal from 96-05? 3 league titles and 4 FA Cups while competing against a club with far more resources. Which sort of proved that provided you made the right footballing decisions, you could compete with a much wealthier club.

[redgunamo]

How about Arsenal from 96-05? 3 league titles and 4 FA Cups while competing against a club with far more resources. Which sort of proved that provided you made the right footballing decisions, you could compete with a much wealthier club.

I agree with you 100%, the money-thing was always a McGuffin. But we needn't be too harsh on Wenger over it because that's just football. Not winning is as much part of the game as winning.

[Lar d'Arse]

How about Arsenal from 96-05? 3 league titles and 4 FA Cups while competing against a club with far more resources. Which sort of proved that provided you made the right footballing decisions, you could compete with a much wealthier club.

Totally disagree with that. 96-05 was a period where if you managed to be ahead of Manchester United you were likely to win the League. 03 was it(?) when Abramovich bought Chelsea (who were about to do a Leeds) and the English football landscape changed forever.

That Wenger managed to keep us competitive throughout the period even if the trophy haul dried up somewhat is something to be marvelled at.

Wenger has always said that he will only spend money on players if he thinks they are worth it and will add to the squad. I think it's fair to say that none of us (even those experienced in finance) have the slightest clue about what financial constraints the club was or is under. It isn't just money that determines whether a player comes or goes (or stays) and I include wages as well as transfer fees in that. For some that is a big factor (convinced Nasri eg went for the dosh at Citeh) - for others not so much (Fabregas probably a decent example - he never hid his desire to go to Barca).

I look at the Wenger era very simply. Did he win trophies? Yes and more than any other manager we have had. Have I enjoyed the ride? You bet. Will he leave the club a better club than it was when he arrived? Undoubtedly. Have there been ups and downs along the way? Of course, welcome to the world of being a football fan.

Happy Anniversary Arsene and thank you!