Is it time for Arsene Wenger to go?

super_furry

Where do Arsenal go from here? They can't keep their best players, can't compete financially with the biggest clubs and no longer look to be a team molded by Wenger. If they do replace him, its hard to see how anyone can do any better, the resources and squad just aren't there.

Would the Arsenal of today be able to sign and hold onto the likes of Bergkamp, Henry, Overmars and Vieira for more than one or two seasons?

MUSEIST

Nay

I don't know why wenger is taking flack. You will not win trophies if you keep selling your world class players (RVP and Fabregas) and I believe thats the boards fault and not wenger.

eugeneious

Nay

When Walcott leaves in January or in the Summer he'll be the 6th first team player to leave in 2 years. None have been adequately replaced imo yet Wenger still has them challenging for the Champions League places and imo will once again deliver CL football ahead of clubs backing their manager with huge money. Arsenal are a Champions League team because of Wenger and without him and with the any of the realistic alternatives they would not be imo.

markesmith

super_furry wrote: »

Where do Arsenal go from here? They can't keep their best players, can't compete financially with the biggest clubs and no longer look to be a team molded by Wenger. If they do replace him, its hard to see how anyone can do any better, the resources and squad just aren't there.

Would the Arsenal of today be able to sign and hold onto the likes of Bergkamp, Henry, Overmars and Vieira for more than one or two seasons?

The resources are there alright. Arsenal have spent a lot more in wages than Spurs. The whole 'financial strait jacket' is a misnomer - Podolski, Cazorla, Vermaelen et al aren't getting paid peanuts.

One could argue that Van Persie, Fabregas & Nasri left because the club seemed to lack ambition under Wenger in his latter career.

Blatter

eugeneious wrote: »

When Walcott leaves in January or in the Summer he'll be the 6th first team player to leave in 2 years. None have been adequately replaced imo yet Wenger still has them challenging for the Champions League places and imo will once again deliver CL football ahead of clubs backing their manager with huge money. Arsenal are a Champions League team because of Wenger and without him and with the any of the realistic alternatives they would not be imo.

Arsenal are the 4th highest spenders in the league when wages are taken into consideration.

When you look at things closely, attaining 4th place consistently isn't punching above their weight or the managerial miracle it's made out to be.

Red Crow

Actually it is considering they are constantly adapting after their best players are sold season after season.

Arsenal most certainly are punching above their weight.

Blatter

Eli Manning wrote: »

Actually it is considering they are constantly adapting after their best players are sold season after season.

Arsenal most certainly are punching above their weight.

Adapting somewhat after selling star players doesn't equate to punching above their weight.

Chucky the tree

Eli Manning wrote: »

Actually it is considering they are constantly adapting after their best players are sold season after season.

Arsenal most certainly are punching above their weight.

Most clubs outside the top 4 have to deal with losing their top plays. Also none of them have the financial power of Arsenal.

greendom

markesmith wrote: »

The resources are there alright. Arsenal have spent a lot more in wages than Spurs. The whole 'financial strait jacket' is a misnomer - Podolski, Cazorla, Vermaelen et al aren't getting paid peanuts.

One could argue that Van Persie, Fabregas & Nasri left because the club seemed to lack ambition under Wenger in his latter career.

He has never spent more than he earned in transfers. No other manager has achieved that. it's a phenomenal record but it just couldn't continue with those financial constraints

I think the board lacked ambition - I don't think you could ever accuse AW of lacking ambition.

Having said that his time has come. he gave the board far too easy a time for too long. Let Mourinho at them and see how long their purses remain shut.

The_Kew_Tour

Who would do better job though? Realistically they ain't going to get dream manager they pray for. It's all well and good saying he has to go, but there is a much bigger picture to this which nobody who wants him out has answered.

greendom

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Most clubs outside the top 4 have to deal with losing their top plays. Also none of them have the financial power of Arsenal.

And they all have a significantly higher net spend than Arsenal.

Sugarlumps

Nay

Wenger’s a great manager and Arsenal would be in dire straits without him, pity he’s such a bad loser.

Leiva

If I was a gunners fan I would worry that Wenger might be the only thing holding things together and if he was to move on it could be a sloppy slope for a while.

I think he is class but is either not getting the money backing or is as tight.

greendom

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Who would do better job though? Realistically they ain't going to get dream manager they pray for. It's all well and good saying he has to go, but there is a much bigger picture to this which nobody who wants him out has answered.

I think Wenger sold the board a dream that Arsenal could compete without spending at the same level as their competitors. This has been found wanting.

intellectual dosser

Surely any Arsenal fan would give him to the end of the season to at least start threading wins together, maybe even a cup run?

Also, I think Walcott should be sold while they can get money for him. Generate some funds and bring in a player(s) worthy of the attention.

The_Kew_Tour

greendom wrote: »

I think Wenger sold the board a dream that Arsenal could compete without spending at the same level as their competitors. This has been found wanting.

Maybe so, but he still has brought through some fantastic footballers through the club. Not sure few 100 million would of made huge difference in this instance

It was this time last year that the Wenger out crowd were noisy wasn't it?

You're 2 points off 4th and still in the CL. Calm down.

greendom

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Maybe so, but he still has brought through some fantastic footballers through the club. Not sure few 100 million would of made huge difference in this instance

it would have made a huge difference

Drexel

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Maybe so, but he still has brought through some fantastic footballers through the club. Not sure few 100 million would of made huge difference in this instance

:pac:

summerskin

Nay

damn, just clicked yes in the poll when i meant no.

i'm useless in the mornings.

Blatter

greendom wrote: »

And they all have a significantly higher net spend than Arsenal.

It's all well and good pointing towards net spend in terms of transfers, it's somewhat of a safeguard for Wenger that deceives a lot of people.

Looking at the wage bill is far more important and Arsenal are and having been spending a lot of money there. They are simply not attaining value for money here and Wenger must take a lot of the flack for that. The likes of Chamakh, Squillaci, Arshavin, Gervinho, Djourou, Santos, Diaby and Gibbs are getting paid too much for what they contribute and then you have enigmas like Bendtner, Denilson and Park Chu-Young still contracted to the club.

That isn't good.

wandatowell

summerskin wrote: »

damn, just clicked yes in the poll when i meant no.

i'm useless

Is that you Gervinho?

GavRedKing

Question to the Arsenal fans, who would you want to replace Wenger if he went right now?

I presume the hope would be to persuade Pep to take over.

GavRedKing

summerskin wrote: »

damn, just clicked yes in the poll when i meant no.

i'm useless in the mornings.

wandatowell wrote: »

Is that you Gervinho?

Gervinho would have missed the poll! :pac:

The_Kew_Tour

greendom wrote: »

it would have made a huge difference

For what exactly? Its grand saying spend 100 million, but would they have won the league or CL in that time? I dont think they would.

Wenger scouting network and youth program have done fantastic job down the years. Its not all about spending big money. Just ask Mancini.

klose

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Surely any Arsenal fan would give him to the end of the season to at least start threading wins together, maybe even a cup run?

Also, I think Walcott should be sold while they can get money for him. Generate some funds and bring in a player(s) worthy of the attention.

Hes in the last 6 months of his contract, they wont get alot for him. Crazy how they raised and nurtured him from a kid into a very good player and now because they left his contract situation wittle away he could be sold for peanuts, crazy.

Gringo180

GavRedKing wrote: »

Question to the Arsenal fans, who would you want to replace Wenger if he went right now?

I presume the hope would be to persuade Pep to take over.

Joachim Low for me

rarnes1

rarnes1 wrote: »

It was this time last year that the Wenger out crowd were noisy wasn't it?

You're 2 points off 4th and still in the CL. Calm down.

Pretty sure it was earlier last year, this time last year we were off the back of 7 wins in 8 in the league and had cruise through the CL group.

SantryRed

whippedcream wrote: »

Hes in the last 6 months of his contract, they wont get alot for him. Crazy how they raised and nurtured him from a kid into a very good player and now because they left his contract situation wittle away he could be sold for peanuts, crazy.

Paid 10m for him too.

greendom

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

For what exactly? Its grand saying spend 100 million, but would they have won the league or CL in that time? I dont think they would.

Wenger scouting network and youth program have done fantastic job down the years. Its not all about spending big money. Just ask Mancini.

He was so far ahead of the field when he started at Arsenal. His French scouting network was better than anyone else's - but then the rest of the Premier League saw what he was doing and replicated it and extended throughout Europe and beyond. To keep ahead of the field he needed more money. The stadium build prevented that and now everyone has caught up. A few hundred million would have made a massive difference

AdamD

Nay

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

For what exactly? Its grand saying spend 100 million, but would they have won the league or CL in that time? I dont think they would.

Wenger scouting network and youth program have done fantastic job down the years. Its not all about spending big money. Just ask Mancini.

We could have in the 2010/2011 season, we were challenging til quite near the end when the team completely collapsed. 'A couple of players off' seems to be quite a common saying...


Ask Mancini? He won the league whilst being a pretty poor manager, because he was given hundreds of millions..

The_Kew_Tour

AdamD wrote: »

Ask Mancini? He won the league whilst being a pretty poor manager, because he was given hundreds of millions..

Yet has failed to get out of 2 CL groups with squad in excess of £350 million.

Celtic got out of group with best team on planet with £15 million.

if proof was needed................

AdamD

Nay

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Yet has failed to get out of 2 CL groups with squad in excess of £350 million.

Celtic got out of group with best team on planet with £15 million.

if proof was needed................

Arsenal got out of a group with Montpellier, Olympiakos and Schalke, great.

City and their hundreds of millions won the league

The_Kew_Tour

AdamD wrote: »

Arsenal got out of a group with Montpellier, Olympiakos and Schalke, great.

City and their hundreds of millions won the league

Have Arsenal got this type of money to spend?

Chucky the tree

greendom wrote: »

And they all have a significantly higher net spend than Arsenal.

I doubt it, maybe Liverpool but Spurs wouldn't have a much higher one. While Arsenal would have had a bigger spending on wages than all the clubs bar Liverpool for two years.

greendom

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I doubt it, maybe Liverpool but Spurs wouldn't have a much higher one. While Arsenal would have had a bigger spending on wages than all the clubs bar Liverpool for two years.

I don't doubt it - I've seen the figures

cson

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I doubt it, maybe Liverpool but Spurs wouldn't have a much higher one. While Arsenal would have had a bigger spending on wages than all the clubs bar Liverpool for two years.

Our wage bill is high in my opinion due to a policy that appears well guided but essentially hamstrings you if it goes wrong. We decided to pay young talented players with potential big money on long contracts because we simply could not compete with the oil money or legacy money for the big players. The thinking being that these players realise their potential, turn out to be ~world class and we get a team that can compete but who are also tied down on contracts that turn out to be good value. The flip side of this is that if it doesn't work out, you can't shift them (Bendtner, Denilson et al).

You take a punt on proven Internationals and have to pay them commensurately high salaries because the bigger clubs will do it otherwise, they don't work out and you're left with Squillaci, Park and Arshavin. With regard to the former, Seb Squillaci was a proven French International centre half and had been a first teamer in two solid Champions League teams, Sevilla and Lyon. For £3.5m it looks like a really good signing - experience at the back, which we were lacking. Turned out he couldn't deal with the pace in the Premiership and now we're lumbered with a player seeing out his 40k a week contract because no one else will pay it. I don't blame the likes of Squillaci for doing it, a career is short enough.

Once you get the likes of Squillaci/Chamakh/Arshavin/Park/Bendtner off the wage bill, you're probably freeing up 300k/wk or more.

---

Although I think we're slightly missing the point here, the fact is that we are underperforming. The issue in my mind is reliance on a core group of players to the fact that we are not getting value out of the squad. We essentially do not have a squad; we use the same 15/16 players. You cannot do that and expect to compete in every competition. The team has shown elements of being burned out, being spineless and being unable to close out games. Its nothing new, these particular traits have been afflicting the club for years now. The manager has to take responsibility at the end of the day.

So is it time for AW to go? Not now I think. Certainly the end of this season will need some serious and careful review about whether Arsene is the person to take the club forward. I said earlier in the year in this thread that we should be coming into more money between the commercial deals and getting the high earners off the payroll. So there should be a lot of money available to completely gut and rejuvenate the squad. Arsene has earned the chance to do that but I have to say, my confidence in him being able to carry that out successfully has taken a serious dent this season.

We'll see.

speedboatchase

A genuine question for people who think Wenger shouldn't go - not now or at the end of the season: What is your breaking point? What realistically has to happen for you to decide that he should resign/be sacked?

Chucky the tree

greendom wrote: »

I don't doubt it - I've seen the figures

Show them then.

Red Crow

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I doubt it, maybe Liverpool but Spurs wouldn't have a much higher one. While Arsenal would have had a bigger spending on wages than all the clubs bar Liverpool for two years.

Yes they do. Arsenl=al have made a profit on player transactions and are 8th or 9th in terms of net spend and are 5th in terms of wages. They most certainly are punching above their weight.

greendom

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Show them then.

I'll do a search this evening - busy atm - you could try looking yourself

The_Kew_Tour

speedboatchase wrote: »

A genuine question for people who think Wenger shouldn't go - not now or at the end of the season: What is your breaking point? What realistically has to happen for you to decide that he should resign/be sacked?

Well not getting CL football for a start. Then there is fact of actually getting somebody who may do better job, and will the Arsenal fans be happy to see there team maybe having to play less attractive football for the future for them to progress. But what happens if results dont go the way at the start for the new manager?

Chucky the tree

Eli Manning wrote: »

Yes they do. Arsenl=al have made a profit on player transactions and are 8th or 9th in terms of net spend and are 5th in terms of wages. They most certainly are punching above their weight.

Who's 4th?

The_Kew_Tour

One thing I dont know about much is Arsenals finances.

Would they be able to spend 100+ million in a transfer market like few seem to be saying? Just curious.

Red Crow

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Who's 4th?

Edit: Arsenal are 15th! 4th are Manchester United.

Red Crow

Blatter wrote: »

Adapting somewhat after selling star players doesn't equate to punching above their weight.

'somewhat' - That's very wishy washy.

you made this point initially:

Blatter wrote: »

Arsenal are the 4th highest spenders in the league when wages are taken into consideration.

When you look at things closely, attaining 4th place consistently isn't punching above their weight or the managerial miracle it's made out to be.

They might be 4th highest spenders, even though they aren't - they're 6th. But more tellingly they're 15th in terms of Net Spend and have lost arguably their best player and sometimes players each of the past number of seasons.

When you actually look at things closely, Wenger has done a remarkable job at Arsenal.

Chucky the tree

Eli Manning wrote: »

Edit: Arsenal are 15th! 4th are Manchester United.

I mean who's 4th highest in terms of wage bill. How long do your figures for net spends go back?

Red Crow

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I mean who's 4th highest in terms of wage bill. How long do your figures for net spends go back?

1992 and Liverpool are 4th according to the latest financial figures.

greendom

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I mean who's 4th highest in terms of wage bill. How long do your figures for net spends go back?

Put yourself out of your misery and go and have a look yourself

Chucky the tree

Eli Manning wrote: »

1992 and Liverpool are 4th according to the latest financial figures.

Arsenals wage bill was £143m last year, considering Liverpools was £129m in 2011 and they have made efforts to reduce it I'm pretty sure arsenal are 5th. The last five years there is an £80m difference in net spend between Arsenal and Spurs in net spend but Arsenal have spend about £311m more in wages compared to Spurs.