theHotHead wrote:Crimson, no I can't fault Kroenke. Lets be clear, I don't think the mandate to Wenger was any different from Peter Hill-Wood as it was fro,m Kroenke. Nobody has injected any of their own cash to further the arsenal cause, I'm fine with that, I didn't blame PHW and so similarly I can't blame Kroenke. If the objectives from the owner differ to those of the fans (and clearly they are), the manager does not answer to the fans, it doesn't mean his objectives are wrong. Kroenke has shown no less ambition than PHW and the rest of the old board, if it wasn't a problem then, why should it be now ? football has changed but Arsenal's revenues are greater than most - without cash injections from the owner as you will see below.
I don't care about what other clubs are doing, I have NEVER wanted Arsenal to be a big spending club and I don't want that now. I am baffled as to why we have no money to spend but, we have generally spent a fair amount of money over the years. The only clubs that have not had to worry about player sales were Chelsea, Man City and Man U - but even Chelsea have put a halt to spending at the rate they used to. Spurs and Liverpool have recouped money by player sales, its the norm rather than the exception.
If you look at the info posted by Swiss Ramble that shows owner financing of the Premier league clubs over the past 10 years, it shows Arsenal and Middlesborough as the only clubs to have £0 invested by the owner. But for me what is more telling is the next piece of info; from 2008 to 2017 the only clubs that have had greater funds have been Man U (£1.6bn), Man City (£1.4bn) and Spurs (£0.83bn). Arsenal are 4th with £0.75bn, then Liverpool with £0.64bn then Chelsea with £0.6bn.
The next key point of info is the breakdown of those funds:
Man U - approx 20% of their funds came from their owners (£318m)
Man City - approx 90% of their funds came from their owners (£1275m)
Spurs - approx 1.6% of their funds came from their owners (£14m)
Arsenal - 0%
Liverpool - approx 40% of their funds came from their owners (£257m)
Chelsea - approx 85% of their funds came from their owners (£520m)
Now, what stands out to me is this, for all of the whinging and complaining about how tight Kroneke is and how he is not investing in the team, are Spurs any different ? £14m over 10 years is hardly going to make any difference. But you are right, not many other clubs are following the self sustainable model, but why do we need to follow them ? And its easy to say we want ambitious proactive men running the club, but arsenal's situation was pretty unique/special - how do you go about sacking the greatest manager in the club's history, Notts Forest couldn't sack Cloughie during his decline and I dare say you will struggle to find owners that were so ruthless - apart from some of these Arab/Russian owners who have these clubs as their play things. Real Madrid are excluded because they are bonkers with their managers, look how they treated Del Bosque.
The answer to one of your questions sums up my issue with the board and owner.
You asked that Kroenke has shown no less ambition than PHW and the rest of the old board and that if it wasn't a problem then, why should it be now?
You then go on to say that football has changed. The lack of ambition is more of an issue now than before precisely because of what you have said here. The fact that he’s richer than most football club owners further adds more insult to injury.
We’re not just competing with Liverpool and Manchester United now whose history should have them over us most seasons, but the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City too. This means we should be finishing fifth at best most seasons. Kroenke and the Board have believed and continue to believe that what worked in the past will continue to work. We’ve been very fortunate to have qualified for the CL as much as we did after moving to the Emirates and I honestly don’t know how many other managers would have been able to achieve this.
Regulations does seem to finally be catching up with some other clubs but there’s no doubt that the damage has already been done to us and it will either take time or monumental changes to current policies to get us back to winning major trophies like we did before. Had Kroenke or the Board been proactive, we would most likely be much better off now. Wenger’s ability to consistently achieve top 4 four finishes combined with the Board and Kroenke’s inability to change with the times is a major reason why I’m always trying to divert attention away from Wenger despite some of his flaws.
I admit that I do like Wenger and would have liked to have seen him do great things with the club but the fact of the matter is that the Board and Kroenke were not prepared or willing to make a big move and support Wenger during his greatest time of need when they easily could have. Whether Wenger wanted change or not really is immaterial because the power was never ultimately with him as evidenced with how he left the club.
You can support Kroenke or the board if you want, but if you had the power to improve Wenger and, as a result, the club and chose not to out of fear, pride, or what have you, then you cannot be exempt from blame as far as I’m concerned.