Last 10 years of arsenal

[Ash]

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.

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.

[Ash]

Tell that to Uncle Stan's accountant. Businessmen spend money in the hope of making money. Should the purchase of a football club be a charitable venture?

And actually, given our turnover, what he has taken out of the business is peanuts.

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?

[SWv2]

Can I ask what it is that he is doing that ‘we’ don’t like?

[Ash]

Can I ask what it is that he is doing that ‘we’ don’t like?

In your case, not sacking Wenger. Elsewhere, I'm talking Glazerish hypotheticals.

[Burney]

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?

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?

[The Jorge]

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.

[SWv2]

In your case, not sacking Wenger. Elsewhere, I'm talking Glazerish hypotheticals.

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.

[The Jorge]

"Football should be exciting"?

[Ash]

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?

With you. What would you think (beyond saying that he is legally entitled to do as he pleases) if he did a Glazer?

And yes indeed, what the **** do a club's supporters have to do with the club?

[Ash]

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.

Which services?