Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Wenger alone in theatre of absurd
Topic Started: Aug 5 2013, 04:40 AM (2,199 Views)
Gooner0893

gunnerjunkie
Aug 6 2013, 04:22 PM
santry_gooner
Aug 6 2013, 03:21 PM
On this issue the point about how much time we waited after the initial bid isn't the point. The point is that once it was publicised that Chelsea were the other bidder the deal was closed quickly because we pulled out and looked at other options. Valencia closed the deal within days. This was reported by Graham Hunter at the time. The actual point is that we can never win a bidding war with Chelsea. When we pulled out it was because we would not get into that as a waste of time.

I do believe we are not at the races when it comes to transfers with large money involved. I think that we have become old maids, and the practices that other teams are used to - particularly the big teams - has changed a lot from the time when we last had transfer money to spend. Ivan Gazidis is an expert at closing player contracts, yet this summer he was in east Asia. He was, it seems, doing more deals with sponsors and discussed country rights in a few places. Now I don't begrudge his activity. His work in the last year has secured most of the 70 million we now have. Why aren't these skills applied to getting us the new players we need?
No,the fact is that you can't get your head around Arsenal squandering a golden opportunity.Before the release clause expired,Chelsea never made a bid for Mata.

Valencia were keen to do business with Arsenal,Mata wanted to come.Mata's agent(his father) was waiting for Arsenal to contact him so the deal could be sealed.No contact and the clause expired.

Pizzy is correct in his chronological account of events.Chelsea wanted Modric.

Spendthrift Arsenal.We ended up with Gervinho,who saved us from "dizzying prices". :huh:



Junkie, the Moderators are purposely refusing to acknowledge the facts about these transfers because they don't fit with the excuses that they offer on behalf of Wenger and the incompetent Gazidis.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rw_mlite2
Member Avatar

billabog5
Aug 6 2013, 02:09 PM
rw_mlite2
Aug 6 2013, 06:30 AM
Wow. A lot of things wrong in this thread by both sides of the argument.
1) we didn't get outbid by Chelsea for Mata. We tried to get him for less than his release clause. Spurs (supposedly) tried to do the same. We let the clause expire at the end of July without agreeing a fee. Chelsea came in later (after missing out on other targets) and paid more than the clause.
2) It's not the same as the Higuain situation, but it's also not dissimilar. Once again the club's negotiating techniques drug everything out and the player eventually went to another club who was willing to pay what the market dictated (which was likely more than Wenger (or whoever) deemed the player was worth). However, the difference lies in that in the case of Higuain, I truly believe part of the reason we eventually pulled out was to go after a player who is deemed a better fit (ignoring the personal issues...obviously). The problem being, Arsenal's negotiators are showing their lack of experience/guile/whatever when dealing with big boy negotiations.
3) It's pretty well established that the club has had to sell a player or two each summer to finish in the black. I (and others) have posted the proof multiple times over. Now, that we've made a profit each year is where the problem lies. You have to sell players? Fine (though it shows a terrible lack of foresight from those involved in the stadium build as well as those involved in brokering the deals with Emirates and Nike (and whatever secondary sponsors were out there)). But at least reinvest the full amount. Cut rate deals/players are the reason we're where we're at now. Also, there's nothing wrong with taking on a bit of debt to try and improve. Of course it's easy to say as I'm not responsible for running the business.
Rw, do you not think there are other ways of 'finishing in the red " , or more cynically put, lining the pockets of the directors & shareholders ?

Utd are just as crippled by the Glazer debt as Arsenal were by any stadium debt yet despite that the money was found to strengthen the squad & to win trophies & thererfore increase income from merchandising, prizemoney & sponsorships, even in this era of supposedly not being able to compete with the money of City & Chelsea .

Again, I emphasise that Arsenals decisions not to buy top quality replacements for those who jumped ship are absolutely by CHOICE, not NECESSITY

Arsenal could have bought any player they wanted had they pursued them aggressively enough & not been so penny pinchingly tight.

Do you really think the difference between what Arsenal offered for Mata & what Chelsea paid would have seen Arsenal finish in the red ?

You do realize we're actually agreeing here on this point, but coming from different angles. I've always argued that Arsenal could've bought better players with the funds from the transfer fees...even going slightly into debt. Or, bit the bullet a bit and taken a loss for the year while holding onto our players.

But some people still refuse to believe that the club would've finished in the black without player sales. That's been disproven multiple times over.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
santry_gooner
Member Avatar

gunnerjunkie
Aug 6 2013, 04:22 PM
santry_gooner
Aug 6 2013, 03:21 PM
On this issue the point about how much time we waited after the initial bid isn't the point. The point is that once it was publicised that Chelsea were the other bidder the deal was closed quickly because we pulled out and looked at other options. Valencia closed the deal within days. This was reported by Graham Hunter at the time. The actual point is that we can never win a bidding war with Chelsea. When we pulled out it was because we would not get into that as a waste of time.

I do believe we are not at the races when it comes to transfers with large money involved. I think that we have become old maids, and the practices that other teams are used to - particularly the big teams - has changed a lot from the time when we last had transfer money to spend. Ivan Gazidis is an expert at closing player contracts, yet this summer he was in east Asia. He was, it seems, doing more deals with sponsors and discussed country rights in a few places. Now I don't begrudge his activity. His work in the last year has secured most of the 70 million we now have. Why aren't these skills applied to getting us the new players we need?
No,the fact is that you can't get your head around Arsenal squandering a golden opportunity.Before the release clause expired,Chelsea never made a bid for Mata.

Valencia were keen to do business with Arsenal,Mata wanted to come.Mata's agent(his father) was waiting for Arsenal to contact him so the deal could be sealed.No contact and the clause expired.

Pizzy is correct in his chronological account of events.Chelsea wanted Modric.

Spendthrift Arsenal.We ended up with Gervinho,who saved us from "dizzying prices". :huh:



Are you failing to keep up with the conversation. We have been operating with transfer caps and staying in the black etc. and a sell to buy control for the last number of years. At that juncture Arsenal did not have the cash from Cesc and Nasri.

Are you getting your head around the pertinent point? It is that between the Chelsea bid and its acceptance Arsenal withdrew interest sufficient for the news to be reported by Graham Hunter?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
santry_gooner
Member Avatar

rw_mlite2
Aug 6 2013, 06:10 PM
billabog5
Aug 6 2013, 02:09 PM
rw_mlite2
Aug 6 2013, 06:30 AM
Wow. A lot of things wrong in this thread by both sides of the argument.
1) we didn't get outbid by Chelsea for Mata. We tried to get him for less than his release clause. Spurs (supposedly) tried to do the same. We let the clause expire at the end of July without agreeing a fee. Chelsea came in later (after missing out on other targets) and paid more than the clause.
2) It's not the same as the Higuain situation, but it's also not dissimilar. Once again the club's negotiating techniques drug everything out and the player eventually went to another club who was willing to pay what the market dictated (which was likely more than Wenger (or whoever) deemed the player was worth). However, the difference lies in that in the case of Higuain, I truly believe part of the reason we eventually pulled out was to go after a player who is deemed a better fit (ignoring the personal issues...obviously). The problem being, Arsenal's negotiators are showing their lack of experience/guile/whatever when dealing with big boy negotiations.
3) It's pretty well established that the club has had to sell a player or two each summer to finish in the black. I (and others) have posted the proof multiple times over. Now, that we've made a profit each year is where the problem lies. You have to sell players? Fine (though it shows a terrible lack of foresight from those involved in the stadium build as well as those involved in brokering the deals with Emirates and Nike (and whatever secondary sponsors were out there)). But at least reinvest the full amount. Cut rate deals/players are the reason we're where we're at now. Also, there's nothing wrong with taking on a bit of debt to try and improve. Of course it's easy to say as I'm not responsible for running the business.
Rw, do you not think there are other ways of 'finishing in the red " , or more cynically put, lining the pockets of the directors & shareholders ?

Utd are just as crippled by the Glazer debt as Arsenal were by any stadium debt yet despite that the money was found to strengthen the squad & to win trophies & thererfore increase income from merchandising, prizemoney & sponsorships, even in this era of supposedly not being able to compete with the money of City & Chelsea .

Again, I emphasise that Arsenals decisions not to buy top quality replacements for those who jumped ship are absolutely by CHOICE, not NECESSITY

Arsenal could have bought any player they wanted had they pursued them aggressively enough & not been so penny pinchingly tight.

Do you really think the difference between what Arsenal offered for Mata & what Chelsea paid would have seen Arsenal finish in the red ?

You do realize we're actually agreeing here on this point, but coming from different angles. I've always argued that Arsenal could've bought better players with the funds from the transfer fees...even going slightly into debt. Or, bit the bullet a bit and taken a loss for the year while holding onto our players.

But some people still refuse to believe that the club would've finished in the black without player sales. That's been disproven multiple times over.
That is absolutely correct. The balance sheets always show around 10m 'to play with' and so what happens when we are in the mix for a 20m + player is that we are selling first.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
santry_gooner
Member Avatar

Gooner0893
Aug 6 2013, 04:45 PM
gunnerjunkie
Aug 6 2013, 04:22 PM
santry_gooner
Aug 6 2013, 03:21 PM
On this issue the point about how much time we waited after the initial bid isn't the point. The point is that once it was publicised that Chelsea were the other bidder the deal was closed quickly because we pulled out and looked at other options. Valencia closed the deal within days. This was reported by Graham Hunter at the time. The actual point is that we can never win a bidding war with Chelsea. When we pulled out it was because we would not get into that as a waste of time.

I do believe we are not at the races when it comes to transfers with large money involved. I think that we have become old maids, and the practices that other teams are used to - particularly the big teams - has changed a lot from the time when we last had transfer money to spend. Ivan Gazidis is an expert at closing player contracts, yet this summer he was in east Asia. He was, it seems, doing more deals with sponsors and discussed country rights in a few places. Now I don't begrudge his activity. His work in the last year has secured most of the 70 million we now have. Why aren't these skills applied to getting us the new players we need?
No,the fact is that you can't get your head around Arsenal squandering a golden opportunity.Before the release clause expired,Chelsea never made a bid for Mata.

Valencia were keen to do business with Arsenal,Mata wanted to come.Mata's agent(his father) was waiting for Arsenal to contact him so the deal could be sealed.No contact and the clause expired.

Pizzy is correct in his chronological account of events.Chelsea wanted Modric.

Spendthrift Arsenal.We ended up with Gervinho,who saved us from "dizzying prices". :huh:



Junkie, the Moderators are purposely refusing to acknowledge the facts about these transfers because they don't fit with the excuses that they offer on behalf of Wenger and the incompetent Gazidis.
Arguing with you is like the pursuit of a Guerilla army. You pitch up and beat your chest and then when crushed in the first exchange you run and hide behind people who are sometimes willing to give you traction.

Is there any chance you would acknowledge that this thread is a FAIL going back to the outset?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
billabog5
Member Avatar

santry_gooner
Aug 7 2013, 01:53 AM
rw_mlite2
Aug 6 2013, 06:10 PM
billabog5
Aug 6 2013, 02:09 PM
rw_mlite2
Aug 6 2013, 06:30 AM
Wow. A lot of things wrong in this thread by both sides of the argument.
1) we didn't get outbid by Chelsea for Mata. We tried to get him for less than his release clause. Spurs (supposedly) tried to do the same. We let the clause expire at the end of July without agreeing a fee. Chelsea came in later (after missing out on other targets) and paid more than the clause.
2) It's not the same as the Higuain situation, but it's also not dissimilar. Once again the club's negotiating techniques drug everything out and the player eventually went to another club who was willing to pay what the market dictated (which was likely more than Wenger (or whoever) deemed the player was worth). However, the difference lies in that in the case of Higuain, I truly believe part of the reason we eventually pulled out was to go after a player who is deemed a better fit (ignoring the personal issues...obviously). The problem being, Arsenal's negotiators are showing their lack of experience/guile/whatever when dealing with big boy negotiations.
3) It's pretty well established that the club has had to sell a player or two each summer to finish in the black. I (and others) have posted the proof multiple times over. Now, that we've made a profit each year is where the problem lies. You have to sell players? Fine (though it shows a terrible lack of foresight from those involved in the stadium build as well as those involved in brokering the deals with Emirates and Nike (and whatever secondary sponsors were out there)). But at least reinvest the full amount. Cut rate deals/players are the reason we're where we're at now. Also, there's nothing wrong with taking on a bit of debt to try and improve. Of course it's easy to say as I'm not responsible for running the business.
Rw, do you not think there are other ways of 'finishing in the red " , or more cynically put, lining the pockets of the directors & shareholders ?

Utd are just as crippled by the Glazer debt as Arsenal were by any stadium debt yet despite that the money was found to strengthen the squad & to win trophies & thererfore increase income from merchandising, prizemoney & sponsorships, even in this era of supposedly not being able to compete with the money of City & Chelsea .

Again, I emphasise that Arsenals decisions not to buy top quality replacements for those who jumped ship are absolutely by CHOICE, not NECESSITY

Arsenal could have bought any player they wanted had they pursued them aggressively enough & not been so penny pinchingly tight.

Do you really think the difference between what Arsenal offered for Mata & what Chelsea paid would have seen Arsenal finish in the red ?

You do realize we're actually agreeing here on this point, but coming from different angles. I've always argued that Arsenal could've bought better players with the funds from the transfer fees...even going slightly into debt. Or, bit the bullet a bit and taken a loss for the year while holding onto our players.

But some people still refuse to believe that the club would've finished in the black without player sales. That's been disproven multiple times over.
That is absolutely correct. The balance sheets always show around 10m 'to play with' and so what happens when we are in the mix for a 20m + player is that we are selling first.
Preach all you want santry, the simple truth is that Wenger & Arsenal could have bought every player they wanted but CHOSE not to, it had nothing to do with financial restraints forced on them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

santry_gooner
Aug 7 2013, 01:49 AM
gunnerjunkie
Aug 6 2013, 04:22 PM
santry_gooner
Aug 6 2013, 03:21 PM
On this issue the point about how much time we waited after the initial bid isn't the point. The point is that once it was publicised that Chelsea were the other bidder the deal was closed quickly because we pulled out and looked at other options. Valencia closed the deal within days. This was reported by Graham Hunter at the time. The actual point is that we can never win a bidding war with Chelsea. When we pulled out it was because we would not get into that as a waste of time.

I do believe we are not at the races when it comes to transfers with large money involved. I think that we have become old maids, and the practices that other teams are used to - particularly the big teams - has changed a lot from the time when we last had transfer money to spend. Ivan Gazidis is an expert at closing player contracts, yet this summer he was in east Asia. He was, it seems, doing more deals with sponsors and discussed country rights in a few places. Now I don't begrudge his activity. His work in the last year has secured most of the 70 million we now have. Why aren't these skills applied to getting us the new players we need?
No,the fact is that you can't get your head around Arsenal squandering a golden opportunity.Before the release clause expired,Chelsea never made a bid for Mata.

Valencia were keen to do business with Arsenal,Mata wanted to come.Mata's agent(his father) was waiting for Arsenal to contact him so the deal could be sealed.No contact and the clause expired.

Pizzy is correct in his chronological account of events.Chelsea wanted Modric.

Spendthrift Arsenal.We ended up with Gervinho,who saved us from "dizzying prices". :huh:



Are you failing to keep up with the conversation. We have been operating with transfer caps and staying in the black etc. and a sell to buy control for the last number of years. At that juncture Arsenal did not have the cash from Cesc and Nasri.

Are you getting your head around the pertinent point? It is that between the Chelsea bid and its acceptance Arsenal withdrew interest sufficient for the news to be reported by Graham Hunter?
No the "transfer cap" is not relevant here, the debate here is did we lose out on Mata because of Chelsea? The simple Arsenal is No. Because while arsenal was bidding for Mata Chelsea were busy chasing modric, and they didn't show any interest until it was obvious they wouldn't get modric and that arsenal weren't gonna buy Mata. So you see dear friend, arsenal failure to sign mata was our own making and not because of Chelsea.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
santry_gooner
Member Avatar

dream_team
Aug 7 2013, 03:33 AM
santry_gooner
Aug 7 2013, 01:49 AM
gunnerjunkie
Aug 6 2013, 04:22 PM
santry_gooner
Aug 6 2013, 03:21 PM
On this issue the point about how much time we waited after the initial bid isn't the point. The point is that once it was publicised that Chelsea were the other bidder the deal was closed quickly because we pulled out and looked at other options. Valencia closed the deal within days. This was reported by Graham Hunter at the time. The actual point is that we can never win a bidding war with Chelsea. When we pulled out it was because we would not get into that as a waste of time.

I do believe we are not at the races when it comes to transfers with large money involved. I think that we have become old maids, and the practices that other teams are used to - particularly the big teams - has changed a lot from the time when we last had transfer money to spend. Ivan Gazidis is an expert at closing player contracts, yet this summer he was in east Asia. He was, it seems, doing more deals with sponsors and discussed country rights in a few places. Now I don't begrudge his activity. His work in the last year has secured most of the 70 million we now have. Why aren't these skills applied to getting us the new players we need?
No,the fact is that you can't get your head around Arsenal squandering a golden opportunity.Before the release clause expired,Chelsea never made a bid for Mata.

Valencia were keen to do business with Arsenal,Mata wanted to come.Mata's agent(his father) was waiting for Arsenal to contact him so the deal could be sealed.No contact and the clause expired.

Pizzy is correct in his chronological account of events.Chelsea wanted Modric.

Spendthrift Arsenal.We ended up with Gervinho,who saved us from "dizzying prices". :huh:



Are you failing to keep up with the conversation. We have been operating with transfer caps and staying in the black etc. and a sell to buy control for the last number of years. At that juncture Arsenal did not have the cash from Cesc and Nasri.

Are you getting your head around the pertinent point? It is that between the Chelsea bid and its acceptance Arsenal withdrew interest sufficient for the news to be reported by Graham Hunter?
No the "transfer cap" is not relevant here, the debate here is did we lose out on Mata because of Chelsea? The simple Arsenal is No. Because while arsenal was bidding for Mata Chelsea were busy chasing modric, and they didn't show any interest until it was obvious they wouldn't get modric and that arsenal weren't gonna buy Mata. So you see dear friend, arsenal failure to sign mata was our own making and not because of Chelsea.
The transfer cap may be a self-inflicted wound, but it is relevant to the discussion as we offered an amount slightly below his book value and couldn't increase it. In June-July that year we had not amassed money from player sales, it was much later. The only "reluctant" thing on the part of Arsenal was to enter into a bidding war with Chelsea once, in the final week it became clear that they had offered more than us and slightly over his book value.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
santry_gooner
Member Avatar

billabog5
Aug 7 2013, 03:15 AM
santry_gooner
Aug 7 2013, 01:53 AM
rw_mlite2
Aug 6 2013, 06:10 PM
billabog5
Aug 6 2013, 02:09 PM
rw_mlite2
Aug 6 2013, 06:30 AM
Wow. A lot of things wrong in this thread by both sides of the argument.
1) we didn't get outbid by Chelsea for Mata. We tried to get him for less than his release clause. Spurs (supposedly) tried to do the same. We let the clause expire at the end of July without agreeing a fee. Chelsea came in later (after missing out on other targets) and paid more than the clause.
2) It's not the same as the Higuain situation, but it's also not dissimilar. Once again the club's negotiating techniques drug everything out and the player eventually went to another club who was willing to pay what the market dictated (which was likely more than Wenger (or whoever) deemed the player was worth). However, the difference lies in that in the case of Higuain, I truly believe part of the reason we eventually pulled out was to go after a player who is deemed a better fit (ignoring the personal issues...obviously). The problem being, Arsenal's negotiators are showing their lack of experience/guile/whatever when dealing with big boy negotiations.
3) It's pretty well established that the club has had to sell a player or two each summer to finish in the black. I (and others) have posted the proof multiple times over. Now, that we've made a profit each year is where the problem lies. You have to sell players? Fine (though it shows a terrible lack of foresight from those involved in the stadium build as well as those involved in brokering the deals with Emirates and Nike (and whatever secondary sponsors were out there)). But at least reinvest the full amount. Cut rate deals/players are the reason we're where we're at now. Also, there's nothing wrong with taking on a bit of debt to try and improve. Of course it's easy to say as I'm not responsible for running the business.
Rw, do you not think there are other ways of 'finishing in the red " , or more cynically put, lining the pockets of the directors & shareholders ?

Utd are just as crippled by the Glazer debt as Arsenal were by any stadium debt yet despite that the money was found to strengthen the squad & to win trophies & thererfore increase income from merchandising, prizemoney & sponsorships, even in this era of supposedly not being able to compete with the money of City & Chelsea .

Again, I emphasise that Arsenals decisions not to buy top quality replacements for those who jumped ship are absolutely by CHOICE, not NECESSITY

Arsenal could have bought any player they wanted had they pursued them aggressively enough & not been so penny pinchingly tight.

Do you really think the difference between what Arsenal offered for Mata & what Chelsea paid would have seen Arsenal finish in the red ?

You do realize we're actually agreeing here on this point, but coming from different angles. I've always argued that Arsenal could've bought better players with the funds from the transfer fees...even going slightly into debt. Or, bit the bullet a bit and taken a loss for the year while holding onto our players.

But some people still refuse to believe that the club would've finished in the black without player sales. That's been disproven multiple times over.
That is absolutely correct. The balance sheets always show around 10m 'to play with' and so what happens when we are in the mix for a 20m + player is that we are selling first.
Preach all you want santry, the simple truth is that Wenger & Arsenal could have bought every player they wanted but CHOSE not to, it had nothing to do with financial restraints forced on them.
I'm not preaching anything. If you want to keep on showing us into the bowels of your belief system that's nice. The facts are that Wenger operated under tight constraints for the years 2005-2011, these being set by the board.

Why would Liam Brady state on retirement recently that the club needed to "get behind Wenger and back him in the transfer market". I suppose being a "yes" man he was making it up, for his old friend etc....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
billabog5
Member Avatar

santry_gooner
Aug 7 2013, 02:11 PM
billabog5
Aug 7 2013, 03:15 AM
santry_gooner
Aug 7 2013, 01:53 AM
rw_mlite2
Aug 6 2013, 06:10 PM
billabog5
Aug 6 2013, 02:09 PM
rw_mlite2
Aug 6 2013, 06:30 AM
Wow. A lot of things wrong in this thread by both sides of the argument.
1) we didn't get outbid by Chelsea for Mata. We tried to get him for less than his release clause. Spurs (supposedly) tried to do the same. We let the clause expire at the end of July without agreeing a fee. Chelsea came in later (after missing out on other targets) and paid more than the clause.
2) It's not the same as the Higuain situation, but it's also not dissimilar. Once again the club's negotiating techniques drug everything out and the player eventually went to another club who was willing to pay what the market dictated (which was likely more than Wenger (or whoever) deemed the player was worth). However, the difference lies in that in the case of Higuain, I truly believe part of the reason we eventually pulled out was to go after a player who is deemed a better fit (ignoring the personal issues...obviously). The problem being, Arsenal's negotiators are showing their lack of experience/guile/whatever when dealing with big boy negotiations.
3) It's pretty well established that the club has had to sell a player or two each summer to finish in the black. I (and others) have posted the proof multiple times over. Now, that we've made a profit each year is where the problem lies. You have to sell players? Fine (though it shows a terrible lack of foresight from those involved in the stadium build as well as those involved in brokering the deals with Emirates and Nike (and whatever secondary sponsors were out there)). But at least reinvest the full amount. Cut rate deals/players are the reason we're where we're at now. Also, there's nothing wrong with taking on a bit of debt to try and improve. Of course it's easy to say as I'm not responsible for running the business.
Rw, do you not think there are other ways of 'finishing in the red " , or more cynically put, lining the pockets of the directors & shareholders ?

Utd are just as crippled by the Glazer debt as Arsenal were by any stadium debt yet despite that the money was found to strengthen the squad & to win trophies & thererfore increase income from merchandising, prizemoney & sponsorships, even in this era of supposedly not being able to compete with the money of City & Chelsea .

Again, I emphasise that Arsenals decisions not to buy top quality replacements for those who jumped ship are absolutely by CHOICE, not NECESSITY

Arsenal could have bought any player they wanted had they pursued them aggressively enough & not been so penny pinchingly tight.

Do you really think the difference between what Arsenal offered for Mata & what Chelsea paid would have seen Arsenal finish in the red ?

You do realize we're actually agreeing here on this point, but coming from different angles. I've always argued that Arsenal could've bought better players with the funds from the transfer fees...even going slightly into debt. Or, bit the bullet a bit and taken a loss for the year while holding onto our players.

But some people still refuse to believe that the club would've finished in the black without player sales. That's been disproven multiple times over.
That is absolutely correct. The balance sheets always show around 10m 'to play with' and so what happens when we are in the mix for a 20m + player is that we are selling first.
Preach all you want santry, the simple truth is that Wenger & Arsenal could have bought every player they wanted but CHOSE not to, it had nothing to do with financial restraints forced on them.
I'm not preaching anything. If you want to keep on showing us into the bowels of your belief system that's nice. The facts are that Wenger operated under tight constraints for the years 2005-2011, these being set by the board.

Why would Liam Brady state on retirement recently that the club needed to "get behind Wenger and back him in the transfer market". I suppose being a "yes" man he was making it up, for his old friend etc....
How are they "facts" ? How many times did we see articles saying money was available for Wenger. So you are another one who thinks 5 or so million will send Arsenal broke, because in just about all of these supposed transfer deals, thats all it needed to secure the player.

I have never blamed Wenger alone, unlike you I don't profess to know what happens behind closed doors, but it seems very unlikely that Wenger wouldn't get what he wanted & that it was purely the board telling him he can't have any spends this Summer because mummy & daddy are doing it tough
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply