The Emirates Move

[Salibatelli]

Does anyone else wish we'd never moved to the Emirates stadium, prior to moving there we were a top team with top players who were winners, we experienced success and champagne football, we seemed to be going places and were on our way to competing with the very best.

Post moving to the Emirates, the football became repetitive, dull and predictable, success dried up, Wenger tried to build a team from young players from around the world and failed miserably, we sold all of our best players and we gradually dropped down the table and became less and less competitive, experiencing regular thrashings and yearly collapses, on top of that we suddenly seemed to suffer from injuries left right and centre and wasted money on sub standard players. Then of course there was also Kroenke buying the club and Dein being forced out.

Had we never moved Kroenke probably would have never come on board, in fact Abramovic who was looking to buy a club and was put off buying us by the stadium debt could have bought us, we could have also moved to a new stadium further down the line.

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had we never moved, it's fair to say that since we did it's been nothing short of a disaster in every sense, with the club becoming focussed on finances and no longer being overly interested in on the pitch success.

[StLGooner]

If we didn't move, we'd probably be doing even worse.

[Salibatelli]

Would we though, seems to me it was the beginning of the end, once we moved it was downhill from there, we could have moved later on anyhow like other clubs have.

For me there's not been a lot we've done right since the move, the focus on finances was particularly driven by this.

[Dejan]

If we didn't move, we'd probably be doing even worse.

Probably this

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G935F met Tapatalk

[StLGooner]

Would we though, seems to me it was the beginning of the end, once we moved it was downhill from there, we could have moved later on anyhow like other clubs have.

For me there's not been a lot we've done right since the move, the focus on finances was particularly driven by this.

Yes probably. We needed more revenue, hence the new stadium with more seats. We wouldn't be able to compete financially and we still barely can now. Old news. Next topic!

[Salibatelli]

Would we though, seems to me it was the beginning of the end, once we moved it was downhill from there, we could have moved later on anyhow like other clubs have.

For me there's not been a lot we've done right since the move, the focus on finances was particularly driven by this.

Yes probably. We needed more revenue, hence the new stadium with more seats. We wouldn't be able to compete financially and we still barely can now. Old news. Next topic!

Spurs pretty much kept up and improved without a new stadium, yes finances certainly help, but money from stadiums these days isn't the be all and end all, CL qualification maes a huge difference as does success.

Not convinced myself, like I said, Kroenke would have never come onboard, had he not things might have turned out differently, as mentioned Abramovic may have even bought us (or another billionaire who likes football), the self sustaining model is a pipedream these days, the big clubs usually have rich ambitious owners. We had one of course in Usmanov, but he never had any power.

[jayramfootball]

If we didn't move, we'd probably be doing even worse.

Probably this

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G935F met Tapatalk

Spurs managed to bypass us whils they were at WHL and we were in our spanking new 60k seat stadium. They gained CL football at our expense, almost won the league and got to the CL final.
So I don;t see why we could not have been competitive at Highbury.
As it stands our stadium is no longer special - on top of which it just attracted corporate types. We have zero atmosphere at most games - unless something has changed in the last few years since I refused to go any more.
It was a huge waste of time and effort - and failed miserably in it's purpose.

[Ach]

It's not worked out how we wanted it to. Newcastle have a massive stadium. They are shit. West Ham likewise

Chelsea and Liverpool have smallish stadiums and look at them.

Wenger and the board were intent on going one way and being self sufficient which meant we had to move to a bigger stadium to try and compete. Staying at Highbury, we'd only e able to compete if we were taken over by a billionaire willing to put money in for players like the Russian or the Arab and not the yank we got.

Football moves on and we always seem to be a step or 2 behind. When clubs were spending 30m on players, we stuck to 10m. When we decided to spend 30m on players, other clubs were already spending 60m. Now we are doing that, other clubs are spending 80m+

That shows on the pitch. We're stuck in a rut which started a decade ago.

I asked the question then and it's relevant now. When aguero moved to city, why weren't we in for him? It was 30m. We were top 4 for years. I was told by other fans that we couldn't afford him. If spending 30m on one player was such a hassle then what's the point of the stadium?

[StLGooner]

Would we though, seems to me it was the beginning of the end, once we moved it was downhill from there, we could have moved later on anyhow like other clubs have.

For me there's not been a lot we've done right since the move, the focus on finances was particularly driven by this.

Yes probably. We needed more revenue, hence the new stadium with more seats. We wouldn't be able to compete financially and we still barely can now. Old news. Next topic!

Spurs pretty much kept up and improved without a new stadium, yes finances certainly help, but money from stadiums these days isn't the be all and end all, CL qualification maes a huge difference as does success.

Not convinced myself, like I said, Kroenke would have never come onboard, had he not things might have turned out differently, as mentioned Abramovic may have even bought us (or another billionaire who likes football), the self sustaining model is a pipedream these days, the big clubs usually have rich ambitious owners. We had one of course in Usmanov, but he never had any power.

We kept up too until the last two seasons. Plus Spurs just moved, they were good before they moved. I think you're just going by coincidence too much. Without extra revenue we'd be worse off and without the plans to move, I guarantee you Kroenke wouldn't have even been interested. Or he would have just moved us himself. Plus you're not making much sense. Are you saying that it was some kind of jinx once we moved? You either have a billionaire owner or you try to self sustain. We had neither so had to try something. We were already heading toward this, which the club saw, so they tried to be a self sustaining club and still are. We aren't far off, it does help to have a rich owner though. But we're not City, or Chelsea.

[Rockape]

Arsenal are a business and as such cannot 'stand still', but have to keep progressing. At some point in the future, our new stadium will be outdated and need to be replaced.

It does make me wonder where football will be at the highest level in 50 years time. As our national game and the 'world game', its sure to be popular still, but will it continue to pay its players such vast sums at the expense of the supporters?

[Marsbar100]

In hindsight we could have weighted but we never knew how big the the TV deals would get.

[Salibatelli]

It's not worked out how we wanted it to. Newcastle have a massive stadium. They are shit. West Ham likewise

Chelsea and Liverpool have smallish stadiums and look at them.

Wenger and the board were intent on going one way and being self sufficient which meant we had to move to a bigger stadium to try and compete. Staying at Highbury, we'd only e able to compete if we were taken over by a billionaire willing to put money in for players like the Russian or the Arab and not the yank we got.

Football moves on and we always seem to be a step or 2 behind. When clubs were spending 30m on players, we stuck to 10m. When we decided to spend 30m on players, other clubs were already spending 60m. Now we are doing that, other clubs are spending 80m+

That shows on the pitch. We're stuck in a rut which started a decade ago.

I asked the question then and it's relevant now. When aguero moved to city, why weren't we in for him? It was 30m. We were top 4 for years. I was told by other fans that we couldn't afford him. If spending 30m on one player was such a hassle then what's the point of the stadium?

Spot on and totally agree about Aguero, I really wanted us to sign him and we were nowhere to be seen, what a bargain he turned out. That was our problem though, we wouldn't pay the going rate for quality and instead went cheap in the hope wed find a gem, in the end we probably spent more bringing in a few players who we never good enough when we could have bought someone top class and even got our money back and more.

[jayramfootball]

In hindsight we could have weighted but we never knew how big the the TV deals would get.

The fans were lied to.
We were told it was because we needed it to compete withe biggest clubs in the world.
In the end we did the opposite.
Whether the TV money came along or not would have made no difference.
The big mistake was believing that Financia Fair PLay would be properly enforced - we banked on it when it was pretty obvious that corruption was so rife in the game that it was nothing more than football governing bodies using the threat of punishment/ giving themselves more tool for control to solicit more back handers - much like VAR.

[Power n Glory]

If we didn't move to the Emirates but still kept Wenger in charge we'd probably be worse off, The stadium wasn't the problem.

Wenger had a vision of how to play football and what a modern day club should look like. The principles he had were always there. He'd never spend massive amounts in the transfer window and he was never the type to go for star players. He'd always gamble on unknown players and we signed a lot of duds but back then but back then you could spend £500k on a player and end up with an Anelka or Toure.

[StLGooner]

In hindsight we could have weighted but we never knew how big the the TV deals would get.

The fans were lied to.
We were told it was because we needed it to compete withe biggest clubs in the world.
In the end we did the opposite.
Whether the TV money came along or not would have made no difference.
The big mistake was believing that Financia Fair PLay would be properly enforced - we banked on it when it was pretty obvious that corruption was so rife in the game that it was nothing more than football governing bodies using the threat of punishment/ giving themselves more tool for control to solicit more back handers - much like VAR.

That wasn't a lie though. It's true. Without a big sugar daddy, that is the only way we were going to have a chance. That's all that was promised, a chance to keep competing with the money giants.