Power n Glory wrote:After 2005 Wenger stopped treating the FA Cup like a top tier competition @Crimson. You remember the 'Top 4 is like winning a trophy' quote from Wenger of course so looking at the money we spent and correlating it to money is misplaced. Objectives changed because of the amount of noise the fans were making about the lack of silverware, FA Cup being one of them and it was no longer acceptable to field a weakened team and get knocked out to the likes of Blackburn, Stoke and Sunderland or decide to bench our new signing on a hot streak when we've drawn Utd.
You've also contradicted yourself by saying we have gotten worse under Kroenke but then go on to admit we did better once Wenger had more money to spend. Which is it?
Getting better in one area is not directly related to heading backwards in a specialized sense.
1. My comment about seeing improvement was wrt your comment about seeing the same results. We saw improvement in that Wenger was delivering results on the pitch that he was not doing for some time.
2. It was clearly a subjective statement when I said it looks like we were heading backwards. I want Arsenal to win the PL and CL but it felt like we were moving further away from that objective in general. The reason will differ from person to person but seeing a repeat of poor money management and decision making from the past is one. Seeing no urgency to reach that objective is another. Not to mention, fans just growing more unified with their displeasure is a good indicator of what I’m talking about.
Power n Glory wrote:Also, bear in mind, after Wenger had more money to spend and had been able to retain players and boost wages, we still failed to win the title when it was between us, Spurs and Leicester City. I don't agree with this idea that he needed more support financially. When you still lose out to clubs that are way behind us on talent, finances, infrastructure, name it, it shouldn't take another £100m to pip them in a title race. That's financially doping and would have shown it was money that got us the title and not the manager. A lot of fans and the Board included are/were delusional about Wenger's capabilities as manager.
Maybe if Wenger had unlimited funds and was given even longer to build a team he would eventually win a title. But all credit for that sort of feat goes to the club/ownership and players. I'm sure if Ranieri had stayed with Chelses for much longer he would have eventually won a title if Abramovich allowed it. Same goes for Hughes at City. There is a reason why most on here don't rate the less popular managers with titles at PSG, Barca, Real and Bayern that highly. Heck, Wenger would constantly rant against financial doping. He was against it and even made a blunder when he said he sometimes had to calm Gazidis down when he was hyping up our transfer intentions. He wasn't the type of manager to spend his way out of trouble because deep down he knew it would have been the money talking and not his own skill. Wenger was also deluded when it came to his own assessment.
Wenger needed to go for his own failing you won’t get any complaints from me there. My issue is with the ownership and if they’re doing what’s needed to provide what’s best for Arsenal. It doesn’t have to be an extra 100 mil to buy players but a similar gesture wouldn’t go unnoticed. A simple change to outdated policies would have been nice. Prioritizing the club over other assets would be appreciated. A modicum of ambition would be welcomed. I do not get the feeling with the ownership that they’re serious about the club achieving the highest honors.
theHotHead wrote:Crimson your post stating the club as going backwards under Kroenke is a massive oversimplification. Lets look at how the football landscape changed under Wenger.
When Wenger joined the main clubs always challenging were Leeds, Man U and Liverpool. Then our main rivals became Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea. It was these 4 clubs for a while, Arsenal had a wage bill in the top 3 at this time.
Kroenke had a large stake in Arsenal but not full ownership, in 2011 he made the step to become majority owner.Then Man City made it a top 5. At this time Premier League TV deals were becoming mega. In 2013 Man U lost Fergie, Liverpool seemed to be in permanent transistion under various managers as were Chelsea.
In 2010/11 Arsenal spent £20.7m on players, after Kroenke became majority owner we spent £58.9m in 2011/12, £50.4m in 2012/13 and £44.3m in 2013/14 and £107m in 2014/15. At this point Spurs have become a real competitor, it is a top 6, another bumper TV deal has come into play and the landscape of football has changed yet again.
So like I said, you oversimplify your analysis that we have gone backwards under Kroenke, that is not Kroenke's fault. We are investing far more now in wages and player transfers and we have actually won some silverware. But more clubs are competitive and more clubs have the financial clout of that of Arsenal and for some, considerably more.
Even if that’s the case, that’s just picking out one issue to debate over. I want what’s best for Arsenal and I want the ownership to not only want the same but to be capable of delivering that to the utmost of his abilities. One of the reasons we are where we are now is because we are not the priority and that is unacceptable.
EliteKiller wrote:CrimsonGunner11 wrote:Why could Kroenke sacking Wenger not have happened sooner? Most on here wanted Wenger gone before he actually left. But still, even if the majority of Arsenal fans did not want Wenger gone, the final decision rests with Kroenke. He needs to know what's best for his investment and the fact that it took him too long to make a decision that a good portion of the fan base knew was right is cause for concern. I mean the Wenger out signs appearing in the stadium should have clued him in about the situation at the club and I guarantee that were he living in the country instead of doing whatever he does overseas, he would not have delayed his decision.
I wholeheartedly agree with you ... I was very much Wonger out from around 2013 when top four became the 'target' and the embarrassing European hammerings began ... but I can show you a stack of coverage by pundits, other managers, players and journalists galore who all went to bat for
"the greatest manager of the decade" .... sure the Wonger out signs had begun but back then it was still a tiny minority ...
Would being in the UK have made a difference? maybe ... but as not many EPL owners are in the UK there's little evidence to support that ...
Kroenke is an absent owner, of that there's no doubt, but who knows if him coming and making all the decisions would be any better? A billionaire Yank hands on running a soccer club? just how fecked might we be then?
Living in England might not have changed anything but he needs to be more involved with the club's affairs is what I was hinting at because doing so would enable him to make better decisions for the club. All of what is happening now could have been prevented by Kroenke and if nothing changes in this regard, we should not be surprised if we see more costly decisions in the future.