honestly - its all true. the only debatable thing is the kronke taking money out, but the rest is FACT as rafa would say.
Printable View
honestly - its all true. the only debatable thing is the kronke taking money out, but the rest is FACT as rafa would say.
That's always been his approach. I do think you need to be a bit circumspect here, surely you realise "leaders" is just another abstract term thrown out there by the same people constantly banging on about 'passion' and 'pride'.
Sanchez's dip can be attributed to the sheer amount of football he played, the Copa America last summer didnt help. As for Ramsey, the injuries this season have far from helped.
I get what youre saying but come on, some more critical analysis would be nice.
Except that for equivalent seats, and taking into account the number of games we get on our ST, our prices are roughly that same as Spurs and Chelsea - in other words the going rate for the Capital.
I agree with you about having a decent striker though. We'd have won the league easily with Harry Kane up front imo, and while such quality is hard to come by, it suggests to me that this team of Wenger's isn't quite a bad all round as it sometimes seems. Erzl has created about 157 chances this season. Better finishing and we wouldn't be worried about defensive errors or midfield stagnation.
I actually think it's the other way around; if we had better finishing, he wouldn't need to create so many chances.
Because I'm not a football coach, I would always build a team from the front. to the back. No-one particularly cares who plays behind the MSN, for instance.
Coaches could never make a living that way though, so they always tell you you must get the defence right first.
Hang on, Kroenke taking money out IS a fact, it's just he's taken 1m out for every year he has owned us, which is absolutely nothing.
Is there any point at which you might not cheer the man on for taking money out? Presumably if he pulled a Glazer you'd still have no problem with it. If he could asset-strip the club to death and still make himself a profit would that also be ok?
Do I have to do the entire schpeel about how football isn't the same as other business and not subject to all the same market mechanisms ... again?
"sack the board" innit.
hmmmmm, WHO is actually going to do this 'sacking' I wonder ?
We he's legally entitled to take whatever dividends he wants, he hasnt.
He has charged two lots of Consultancy Services against the club for 3m a piece in the last two years, which are pretty valid after a cursory glance at their justifications at the last couple of AGMs.
Place this against something like the Glazers who take around £36m a year from united for 'services rendered' on top of loading the club with leveraged debt - on which servicing the intrest costs tens of millions a year - plus a consultancy fee for each and every financial restructuring.
Love or hate the Wiggy Walmart Heir you have to admit it's small beans. The main issue people have is that he isnt backed by a massive sovereign wealth fund and isnt pouring it into the club. I think Roman even charges his 'investment' back as loans. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Hold on, hold on, just because you wish that football 'isn't the same as other business' doesn't make it true. He owns the majority of the shares, making him, in effect, the owner, and in accordance with the laws governing any business, football included, he can do what he wants with it. :shrug:
The pragmatism of my view on this surprises some people, I know, but seriously all things are relative, no? Relatively speaking we're very well placed for an absentee foreign owner.
Stan's game is extracting the value out of his investment upon sale, it's a different model from an asset stripper.
Yes, it's a spectacular misunderstanding of corproate governance
He's got terrible hiccups imo
We don't switch teams like we switch other products, and staff in other businesses are not subject to weird feudal-style ownership arrangements. These are two ways in which football are not, as I said subject to 'subject to all the same market mechanisms'. This is nothing to do with what I wish. These are facts.
I'm not questing Stan's legal rights to his goods and chattels, and his entitlement to do with them as he pleases. Just saying that we don't have to like it.
Can I ask what it is that he is doing that ‘we’ don’t like?
I neither cheer him nor boo him. He's simply doing what he is entitled to. And he's not 'taking money out', he's paying himself for his investment.
And anyway, OK with whom? With you? With me? With the shareholders? With the law? What the **** do we imagine we have to do with it?
No, he's actually paying himself for services rendered, he's not just topslicing cash, he's linked us to all sorts of US sports club networks which are helping us explore new commercial models. It's not a dividend.
For the record I don’t want Wenger sacked, but equally I do not want to hear this summer that he has had his contract renewed for another 3 years.
Sacked? He does not deserve to be sacked. He has brought a period of relative success to the club, allowing for all people’s definitions of that term. I am in no personal doubt all the same that his legacy is currently tarnished.
His players have let him down, he chooses the players, he sanctions their signings, their new deals, their place in the overall ahead of others. His actions, or specifically his in-actions, last summer bordered on gross negligence for a manager of a very top level football club.
I think we should have won the league this season, though I am sure supporters of various other sides feel the same. In this sense I feel he has failed in his job. Despite not winning the title in over a decade not many times before would I have accused him of failure.
I find us very boring at the moment, extremely difficult to watch in play and depressingly predictable in how things pan out. Football should be exciting.
If an outstanding candidate was available this summer and his appointment required Wenger to stand aside, then assuming agreement from all parties I would applaud that.
I accept that this change may be difficult and who knows what will follow, we may dream of the type of so-called success that AW has brought. That’s a risk. Life indeed is a risk. None of it will change my support for the club.
In summary, Wenger out.
"Football should be exciting"?
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files...329_1_2327.jpg
The "he's linked us to all sorts of US sports club networks which are helping us explore new commercial models" bit.
I'm not defending it, I remain a skeptic of the septic, but they've been quizzed at the AGM over it and it does sound valid that KSE did that. Of course, tooling up our lacklustre commercial department will serve Stan in the long run but, to quote Welsh trubadour Tom Jones, everyone's a winner, baby-ah.
To completely dismiss GG as boring is a massive generalisation and a massive error, also not a statement I would expect to hear or read from a real student of our club.
I know, right! I mean it's almost as if he wants us to believe he owns profitable US sports franchises, right?!
My original point was that, even if it is bull****, it's not exactly like he's asset stripping, it's the ticket revenues from one home game.
As if I'd do that, I still consider the man my footballing Dad, I learned almost everything I know about the game watching his team and he gave me the happiest moment of my (I'm contractually obliged to insert arsenal) life.
I quite like "boring" football though, I've always loved a bit of Serie A and remain partial to the continental posession game. GG's teams werent boring, especially the 91/92 team who scored 92 goals that season. I was playing with a common trope and you, of all people, I would expect to know that.
You can still bank **** fans' money, reg.