Should Arsene Wenger and Arsenal part company?

greendom

symbolic wrote: »

I'd be thinking the decision was - manage the difficult years but in the long term it'll be worth it to have the stadium.

Exactly, and this is what is causing the frustration. Everyone believed we would be serious challengers once the Emirates was paid for, and it now looks like we'll be waiting for at least another season for that to happen.

Drexel

Bridge93 wrote: »

Another thing. When building the Emirates did those in charge not know it would mean less finance for the team or know and not care? Guessing stadium plans were in places years beforehand. Plenty of time to work out the best financial route to take and how to divide money.
If fans are using the Emirates as a reason for finances being tight (they arent that tight but sure) then why not build a slightly less expensive stadium?

Are you really trying to say that the club should have managed the stadium move better money wise? What exactly did they do wrong.

Stupidest comment ive read on here in a long time.

GavRedKing

Gbear wrote: »

Come off it Gav.

There's a difference between spending money the club earned through natural growth and some (incredibly dodgy) fella coming in and buying them several teams over the course of a decade.

Its all relative to "buying a league"

It also has to be noted that arsenal arent financed by paupers, Kroenke is worth about 5 or 6 billion and if he wants out, Usmanov is worth about 15billion and waiting in the wings.

I commend Arsenal for building a stadium and staying fairly competitive though, its something, given Chelseas location that cant happen, a stadium move/ build that is, even though we need to increase match day revenue due to FFP it wont happen within the next decade at least.

Skylinehead

GavRedKing wrote: »

Its all relative to "buying a league"

It also has to be noted that arsenal arent financed by paupers, Kroenke is worth about 5 or 6 billion and if he wants out, Usmanov is worth about 15billion and waiting in the wings.

I commend Arsenal for building a stadium and staying fairly competitive though, its something, given Chelseas location that cant happen, a stadium move/ build that is, even though we need to increase match day revenue due to FFP it wont happen within the next decade at least.

We're not financed by Kroenke, or Usmanov for that matter.

greendom

Skylinehead wrote: »

We're not financed by Kroenke, or Usmanov for that matter.

The reverse, in fact

GavRedKing

Skylinehead wrote: »

We're not financed by Kroenke, or Usmanov for that matter.

Forgive my ignorance but who does finance Arsenal as it stands?

JPA

GavRedKing wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but who does finance Arsenal as it stands?

Arsenal finance Arsenal. Difficult concept.

byrneg28

GavRedKing wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but who does finance Arsenal as it stands?

Is it not a combination of merchandise, sponsorship, match day revenue etc.?

Hence self-sustainability?

efb

byrneg28 wrote: »

Is it not a combination of merchandise, sponsorship, match day revenue etc.?

Hence self-sustainability?

Arsenal have to be self sustainable no sugar daddies here.

If you thing Chelsea would have won their trophies without Abramovich's millions your having a laugh

efb

GavRedKing wrote: »

Its all relative to "buying a league"

It also has to be noted that arsenal arent financed by paupers, Kroenke is worth about 5 or 6 billion and if he wants out, Usmanov is worth about 15billion and waiting in the wings.

I commend Arsenal for building a stadium and staying fairly competitive though, its something, given Chelseas location that cant happen, a stadium move/ build that is, even though we need to increase match day revenue due to FFP it wont happen within the next decade at least.

Chelsea could have moved to battersea no?

byrneg28

efb wrote: »

Arsenal have to be self sustainable no sugar daddies here.

If you thing Chelsea would have won their trophies without Abramovich's millions your having a laugh

I was answering the question that was asked about Arsenal???? :pac::pac::pac:

efb

bucketybuck wrote: »

How many times are we going to hear about Chelsea and City having sugar daddies in this thread?

Chelsea being rich are not the reason Wenger didn't sort his defence in the summer, they are not the reason he only had Giroud as a striker last season, they are not the reason Arsenal have flattered to deceive for the best part of a decade.

I'm glad Fergie didn't curl up and moan in the face of the sugar daddies millions, and I think people should stop using it as a catch all excuse for Arsenals problems.

Fergie didn't exactly leave much being him did he, he got the most out of an ageing squad, but left them in tatters

efb

byrneg28 wrote: »

I was answering the question that was asked about Arsenal???? :pac::pac::pac:

Sorry quoted wrong person

brianregan09

No

Bridge93 wrote: »

Crazy levels of hypotheticals being thrown around here.
If Chelsea hadn't been taken over and Arsenal hadn't built a new stadium. Two pretty large events to take out.
Personally I think using Chelsea's money as a contributing factor to Arsenal falling off a bit is clutching at straws to the max.

Another thing. When building the Emirates did those in charge not know it would mean less finance for the team or know and not care? Guessing stadium plans were in places years beforehand. Plenty of time to work out the best financial route to take and how to divide money.
If fans are using the Emirates as a reason for finances being tight (they arent that tight but sure) then why not build a slightly less expensive stadium?

That last line in itself is ridiculous, Build a smaller stadium ? Are you even for real like with that statement sure if thats the case we should have just stayed at Highbury

Chucky the tree

No

Currently Arsenal's wage bill is higher than Chelsea's so it's not like they are living off scraps.

ahnowbrowncow

efb wrote: »

Arsenal have to be self sustainable no sugar daddies here.

If you thing Chelsea would have won their trophies without Abramovich's millions your having a laugh

Why does it matter where the money comes from?

United spending hundreds of millions is no different than Chelsea, in my opinion.

efb

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Currently Arsenal's wage bill is higher than Chelsea's so it's not like they are living off scraps.

This season for the first season in 10 years, and the season isn't over, Chelsea offloaded a few high earners that's all that happened. The reports at the end of the season will give the real figure

GavRedKing

efb wrote: »

Chelsea could have moved to battersea no?

No, the put in an offer but a Malaysian bid was accepted.

Main problem with moving away from the Bridge is a company called Chelsea Pitch Owners (C.P.O) own the naming rights to the club, basically they got together and bought the free holding that Stamford Bridge is on so any move away would either

a) need them to vote in favour of a move
or
b) move and lose the name Chelsea F.C.


There was a C.P.O vote back in 2012 or early 2013 about moving, around the time Battersea was looking for bids and it was shot down by the C.P.O. mainly because Romans company was trying to buy up shares to get the vote through and pi**ed people off.

Various plans have been drawn up for expanding at the Bridge but its not viable as it stands as the council wont allow it with the over and underground lines and the club had a figure of about 300million for an extra 10-15k seats, the Bridge is pretty restricted in where it currently sits.

So thats why I applaud Arsenal for going out and spending the money on a new stadium and adding an extra 20k seats to their match day revenue, I'd love to expand the Bridge but its highly unlikely, IMO.

efb

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Why does it matter where the money comes from?

United spending hundreds of millions is no different than Chelsea in my opinion.

Man United didn't buy a proven manager and squad in two years to win the league in fairness to them

efb

GavRedKing wrote: »

No, the put in an offer but a Malaysian bid was accepted.

Main problem with moving away from the Bridge is a company called Chelsea Pitch Owners (C.P.O) own the naming rights to the club, basically they got together and bought the free holding that Stamford Bridge is on so any move away would either

a) need them to vote in favour of a move
or
b) move and lose the name Chelsea F.C.


There was a C.P.O vote back in 2012 or early 2013 about moving, around the time Battersea was looking for bids and it was shot down by the C.P.O. mainly because Romans company was trying to buy up shares to get the vote through and pi**ed people off.

Various plans have been drawn up for expanding at the Bridge but its not viable as it stands as the council wont allow it with the over and underground lines and the club had a figure of about 300million for an extra 10-15k seats, the Bridge is pretty restricted in where it currently sits.

So thats why I applaud Arsenal for going out and spending the money on a new stadium and adding an extra 20k seats to their match day revenue, I'd love to expand the Bridge but its highly unlikely, IMO.

Arsenal had those problems for years with Highbury, it may include buying them out, but match day revenue isn't as critical for Chelsea

GavRedKing

efb wrote: »

Arsenal had those problems for years with Highbury, it may include buying them out, but match day revenue isn't as critical for Chelsea

It is in the days of FFP.

We've, I think the 8th biggest ground in the league, now ticket prices are more expensive than say up in Sunderland but when your rivals have the following,

Utd have 78k
Arsenal 60k
City 45k - soon to be 55k
Liverpool 42k - upgrading too
Spurs 36k - upgrading too

Ya have to do something, I think I seen that Arsenal, for example are making about 2million, give are take a few hundred K's, more per home match than Chelsea, so 19 league games, at least 3 UCL games and maybe a cup run puts that at around 25 home matches which means 50million more on match day revenue over the course of a season, that will catch up to any team.

The CPO shares held by fans and Romans company and friends tried to buy them out but theyre very selective as to who they sell them too so the only other option is to ask them to vote to drop the free holding lease to allow us to move and offer the shre holders a package, season tickets or some incentive.

efb

GavRedKing wrote: »

It is in the days of FFP.

We've, I think the 8th biggest ground in the league, now ticket prices are more expensive than say up in Sunderland but when your rivals have the following,

Utd have 78k
Arsenal 60k
City 45k - soon to be 55k
Liverpool 42k - upgrading too
Spurs 36k - upgrading too

Ya have to do something, I think I seen that Arsenal, for example are making about 2million, give are take a few hundred K's, more per home match than Chelsea, so 19 league games, at least 3 UCL games and maybe a cup run puts that at around 25 home matches which means 50million more on match day revenue over the course of a season, that will catch up to any team.

The CPO shares held by fans and Romans company and friends tried to buy them out but theyre very selective as to who they sell them too so the only other option is to ask them to vote to drop the free holding lease to allow us to move and offer the shre holders a package, season tickets or some incentive.

Everyone has a price

bucketybuck

No

efb wrote: »

Fergie didn't exactly leave much being him did he, he got the most out of an ageing squad, but left them in tatters

So, he still got them there, instead of just ticking along for a decade and pointing to the sugar daddies as if they are some unbeatable entity.

hullaballoo

Wenger is a top manager that any team would do well under. His brief has been very particular over the past decade and it has been a money-making one. He's managed that very well.

I don't think he can shoulder the blame for players he's bought coming in and not really making up for their price tag. That happens in football and the reality is that Wenger has probably bought more young prospects through to being very decent (or better) players than any other EPL manager.

Gbear

No

bucketybuck wrote: »

So, he still got them there, instead of just ticking along for a decade and pointing to the sugar daddies as if they are some unbeatable entity.

They're at opposite ends of the spectrum.

In terms of sustainable success a middle course might be in order - buying top quality players but in positions where you need them (rather than doubling down on your strengths in attack and leaving your defence and CM go to ****).

efb

bucketybuck wrote: »

So, he still got them there, instead of just ticking along for a decade and pointing to the sugar daddies as if they are some unbeatable entity.

He had more cash then Wenger - remember the board sold RvP to United against Wenger's wishes

efb

Fair play to Jose though for letting United think they were pulling a fast one when he offloaded Juan Mata. I like Jose

Augmerson

efb wrote: »

Fair play to Jose though for letting United think they were pulling a fast one when he offloaded Juan Mata. I like Jose

I'd say Wenger is no fan of Jose.

efb

Augmerson wrote: »

I'd say Wenger is no fan of Jose.

He's a rival, I'm sure they have a glass of red together

keith16

That_Guy wrote: »

I feel that he's taken Arsenal as far as they can go personally but I would like to think that he would make that call rather than be forced out.

I think a lot of what you say is reasonable with the possible exception of the above.

Why do I say that? You say has far as they can go. Not "as far as he can take them". I'm not sure if that's deliberate on your part, but even so, who is a genuine candidate to bring them further?

I've only seen Ferguson / Mourinho / Pep mentioned. Says a lot about what he has done with the club.