Arsenal Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2017 *Warnings see OP-updated 09/05/17*

mansize

Soups123 wrote: »

We could as could any of the other big clubs, spend on managers is just like players these days all accounted and planned for. Its pittance compared to some of the player spend wastage

I think you are with overestimating Arsenal's spending power or underestimating the oil men's

Panthro

mansize wrote: »

Both of which cost money. Most clubs couldn't afford to dispose of managers in the manner Chelsea or City have- a very costly business

Costly as in... Success?

DvB

Be interesting to see how us Gooners would react to Usmanov gaining control & pumping in the obscene amounts of cash he has promised to invest if that ever happened.. if we won the PL & UCL at that stage how would the fans feel? Would we have 'bought' the trophies?

I agree with the relative opinions above that you can no longer 'buy' titles, not in the EPL anyway as there are 4 or 5 clubs willing to spend whatever it takes to maintain a challenge & actually win silverware, the anomoly being Arsenal who spend as little as possible to remain in the top 4...

At this stage I freely admit that I'd love to see what an ogliarch's money would do to the club in terms of personnel changes. If nothing else it would be different & at this stage a change is needed, even if it involves a step back in order to move forward again.

GavRedKing

mansize wrote: »

A very large cash injection into a mid table club winning them trophies they haven't seen (in years) is buying it to me.

A Roman holiday of sorts

Arsene has never had the money Roman or the sheikh pumped into their playthings

But I can see why their supporters would chose not to see it like that, makes their victories seem hollow

Ha, mid table :pac: next you'll tell me Chelsea didnt exist before Roman, ignoring that for years before Roman came Chelsea were knocking in and around the top 6 but ya, thats mid table if you want it to be.

I suppose Usmanov whos richer than Roman must be a tight arse so or is it Kroenke whos not short of cash and nearly as rich as Roman.

Fact is, Arsenal have some of the richest backers in the game but cant "buy the league", whos fault is that?

Soups123 wrote: »

When Chelsea started out 10 years back they bought the league, they were the first PL club to bring that amount of spend to the table and trophies followed.

That's said you no longer can by the league, you can spend money to get you up to the capable of challenging bracket but after that it comes down to management and signing the right players

This guy gets it, what started out as an investment is now a sustainable club thats still winning and spending big money on players and coaches because thats what football is about.

mansize

GavRedKing wrote: »

Ha, mid table :pac: next you'll tell me Chelsea didnt exist before Roman, ignoring that for years before Roman came Chelsea were knocking in and around the top 6 but ya, thats mid table if you want it to be.

I suppose Usmanov whos richer than Roman must be a tight arse so or is it Kroenke whos not short of cash and nearly as rich as Roman.

Fact is, Arsenal have some of the richest backers in the game but cant "buy the league", whos fault is that?



This guy gets it, what started out as an investment is now a sustainable club thats still winning and spending big money on players and coaches because thats what football is about.

So you acknowledge you did buy it initially? Fair enough

SlickRic

mansize wrote: »

A very large cash injection into a mid table club winning them trophies they haven't seen (in years) is buying it to me.

A Roman holiday of sorts

Arsene has never had the money Roman or the sheikh pumped into their playthings

But I can see why their supporters would chose not to see it like that, makes their victories seem hollow

Idealistic nonsense.

Arsene and the board HAVE money. They're just choosing not to spend it. Chelsea have a structure in place now that is self sustaining. Its nit a plaything. Roman has proved that he was in it for the long haul. Wenger could go out tomorrow and buy who he wants, but he and the board would prefer to run the club like a bank.

Chelsea are ruthless.
City are ruthless.
Madrid are ruthless.
Utd have tried to be ruthless as of this season.
Bayern are ruthless.

These are the clubs that just go out and get it done. I wish Liverpool's board would do similar (even though I understand we do the have the financial muscle if those). Arsenal do. The board are feeding supporters a lie by telling them that they don't have the wherewithal to compete.

You could've had Suarez, but lowballed Liverpool.

If reports are to be believed, you could've had Kanté but weren't ruthless enough. Chelsea were, even without Champions League.

Wenger and the board are playing the fans for fools.

hullaballoo

mansize wrote: »

A very large cash injection into a mid table club winning them trophies they haven't seen (in years) is buying it to me.

A Roman holiday of sorts

Arsene has never had the money Roman or the sheikh pumped into their playthings


But I can see why their supporters would chose not to see it like that, makes their victories seem hollow

You're aware of Arsenal's ownership, right?

Stan Kroenke - property developer and sports "magnate" - net worth $7.4bn.
Alisher Usmanov - metal miner and communications "mogul" - net worth $15.3bn.

Chelsea: Roman Abramovic - metal miner/works - net worth $9.2bn

The problem here isn't Arsenal's finances, whatever you say.

Quazzie

mansize wrote: »

Both of which cost money. Most clubs couldn't afford to dispose of managers in the manner Chelsea or City have- a very costly business

A good manager last year, wins us the league. Simple as that. That has nothing to do with the money being spent or anyone buying the league. Buying the league explains us not dominating, but it doesn't explain why we never won the league last year.

mansize

SlickRic wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

A very large cash injection into a mid table club winning them trophies they haven't seen (in years) is buying it to me.

A Roman holiday of sorts

Arsene has never had the money Roman or the sheikh pumped into their playthings

But I can see why their supporters would chose not to see it like that, makes their victories seem hollow

Idealistic nonsense.

Arsene and the board HAVE money. They're just choosing not to spend it. Chelsea have a structure in place now that is self sustaining. Its nit a plaything. Roman has proved that he was in it for the long haul. Wenger could go out tomorrow and buy who he wants, but he and the board would prefer to run the club like a bank.

Chelsea are ruthless.
City are ruthless.
Madrid are ruthless.
Utd have tried to be ruthless as of this season.
Bayern are ruthless.

These are the clubs that just go out and get it done. I wish Liverpool's board would do similar (even though I understand we do the have the financial muscle if those). Arsenal do. The board are feeding supporters a lie by telling them that they don't have the wherewithal to compete.

You could've had Suarez, but lowballed Liverpool.

If reports are to be believed, you could've had Kanté but weren't ruthless enough. Chelsea were, even without Champions League.

Wenger and the board are playing the fans for fools.

Ruthless just means throwing money at a problem to solve it?

Surely that proves my point???

mansize

SlickRic wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

A very large cash injection into a mid table club winning them trophies they haven't seen (in years) is buying it to me.

A Roman holiday of sorts

Arsene has never had the money Roman or the sheikh pumped into their playthings

But I can see why their supporters would chose not to see it like that, makes their victories seem hollow

Idealistic nonsense.

Arsene and the board HAVE money. They're just choosing not to spend it. Chelsea have a structure in place now that is self sustaining. Its nit a plaything. Roman has proved that he was in it for the long haul. Wenger could go out tomorrow and buy who he wants, but he and the board would prefer to run the club like a bank.

Chelsea are ruthless.
City are ruthless.
Madrid are ruthless.
Utd have tried to be ruthless as of this season.
Bayern are ruthless.

These are the clubs that just go out and get it done. I wish Liverpool's board would do similar (even though I understand we do the have the financial muscle if those). Arsenal do. The board are feeding supporters a lie by telling them that they don't have the wherewithal to compete.

You could've had Suarez, but lowballed Liverpool.

If reports are to be believed, you could've had Kanté but weren't ruthless enough. Chelsea were, even without Champions League.

Wenger and the board are playing the fans for fools.

Ruthless just means throwing money at a problem to solve it?

Surely that proves my point???

GavRedKing

mansize wrote: »

So you acknowledge you did buy it initially? Fair enough

Classic ignoring of the other points because you cant back them up.

Fact is Arsenal are a seriously cash rich club and they cant buy the league, whos fault is that? Board level or Wenger?

SlickRic

mansize wrote: »

It's not. It's all relative. He's meeting his targets tbf

He is.

My issue would be that his targets are minimal for the club's standing, and he's probably setting the targets in the first place.

mansize

hullaballoo wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

A very large cash injection into a mid table club winning them trophies they haven't seen (in years) is buying it to me.

A Roman holiday of sorts

Arsene has never had the money Roman or the sheikh pumped into their playthings


But I can see why their supporters would chose not to see it like that, makes their victories seem hollow

You're aware of Arsenal's ownership, right?

Stan Kroenke - property developer and sports "magnate" - net worth $7.4bn.
Alisher Usmanov - metal miner and communications "mogul" - net worth $15.3bn.

Chelsea: Roman Abramovic - metal miner/works - net worth $9.2bn

The problem here isn't Arsenal's finances, whatever you say.

I'm aware what they are worth, and also their investment vs Roman and the sheik

mansize

SlickRic wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

It's not. It's all relative. He's meeting his targets tbf

He is.

My issue would be that his targets are minimal for the club's standing, and he's probably setting the targets in the first place.

On what basis or evidence would you say that?

GavRedKing

hullaballoo wrote: »

You're aware of Arsenal's ownership, right?

Stan Kroenke - property developer and sports "magnate" - net worth $7.4bn.
Alisher Usmanov - metal miner and communications "mogul" - net worth $15.3bn.

Chelsea: Roman Abramovic - metal miner/works - net worth $9.2bn

The problem here isn't Arsenal's finances, whatever you say.

So what youre saying is Arsenal are funded by Usmanovs "oil" money too?

hullaballoo

mansize wrote: »

I'm aware what they are worth, and also their investment vs Roman and the sheik

The problem isn't the finances? Nothing to say?

Btw, apart from last season, Chelsea haven't finished below 6th since 1996.

mansize

GavRedKing wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

So you acknowledge you did buy it initially? Fair enough

Classic ignoring of the other points because you cant back them up.

Fact is Arsenal are a seriously cash rich club and they cant buy the league, whos fault is that? Board level or Wenger?

There the board for not allowing us to be a cash outflow club like Chelsea and city I suppose. But they run it like a business not a novelty play thing.

Getting all your money from the USSR's publicly owned oil handed to you by putin's party probably makes the spending seen less meaningful I suppose

GavRedKing

mansize wrote: »

I'm aware what they are worth, and also their investment vs Roman and the sheik

You can continue the poor mouth speil but Arsenal are far from it, they've tried to buy the league with Ozil and Sanchez but failed. Thats on Wenger.

SlickRic

mansize wrote: »

Ruthless just means throwing money at a problem to solve it?

Surely that proves my point???

You say 'throw money' like it's a bad thing. I'm not telling you to bankrupt yourselves. I'm recommending you flex the financial muscle you have.

Stop taking one tiny part of what I said, taking it out of context, and running with it.

mansize

hullaballoo wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

I'm aware what they are worth, and also their investment vs Roman and the sheik

The problem isn't the finances? Nothing to say?

Btw, apart from last season, Chelsea haven't finished below 6th since 1996.

And prior to Abramovich's money, when did they last win the league???

GavRedKing

mansize wrote: »

There the board for not allowing us to be a cash outflow club like Chelsea and city I suppose. But they run it like a business not a novelty play thing.

Getting all your money from the USSR's publicly owned oil handed to you by putin's party probably makes the spending seen less meaningful I suppose

Would that be the play thing that fans assumed Roman would get sick of and leave after a few years?

Ya still hoping for that day?

mansize

SlickRic wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

Ruthless just means throwing money at a problem to solve it?

Surely that proves my point???

You say 'throw money' like it's a bad thing. I'm not telling you to bankrupt yourselves. I'm recommending you flex the financial muscle you have.

Stop taking one tiny part of what I said, taking it out of context, and running with it.

What context should it be in? What do you mean by being ruthless???

Soups123

hullaballoo wrote: »

You're aware of Arsenal's ownership, right?

Stan Kroenke - property developer and sports "magnate" - net worth $7.4bn.
Alisher Usmanov - metal miner and communications "mogul" - net worth $15.3bn.

Chelsea: Roman Abramovic - metal miner/works - net worth $9.2bn

The problem here isn't Arsenal's finances, whatever you say.

I don't dig or read up the monies piece at all I'm not that dedicated! If the above is accurate then your 100% right.

One owner has it and will back it up

The other has it but won't spend it

The difference being one is in it for money the other is in it for success

SlickRic

mansize wrote: »

On what basis or evidence would you say that?

He decides when he leaves. That's widely known, and confirmed by people in the know at the club like Martin Keown.

If he decides when he leaves, it's not a stretch to believe there's a chance he sets his own targets.

peteeeed

before roman took over chelsea finished in the arsenal position of 4th so we qualified for the champions league

GavRedKing

SlickRic wrote: »

You say 'throw money' like it's a bad thing. I'm not telling you to bankrupt yourselves. I'm recommending you flex the financial muscle you have.

Stop taking one tiny part of what I said, taking it out of context, and running with it.

As a business Arsenal are brilliant, as a football club theyre underachieving and iof they done this theyed be a serious player every year.

They have money, the location, the squad and the stadium, only thing missing is the manager and soending in the right areas.

mansize

GavRedKing wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

There the board for not allowing us to be a cash outflow club like Chelsea and city I suppose. But they run it like a business not a novelty play thing.

Getting all your money from the USSR's publicly owned oil handed to you by putin's party probably makes the spending seen less meaningful I suppose

Would that be the play thing that fans assumed Roman would get sick of and leave after a few years?

Ya still hoping for that day?

I'd rather his mate got toppled in Russia.

As you have said the Roman factor has been tempered somewhat by others entering with $$$$

Still find it amusing Chelsea don't acknowledge that Abromovich is the main reason they won the League.

mansize

GavRedKing wrote: »

SlickRic wrote: »

You say 'throw money' like it's a bad thing. I'm not telling you to bankrupt yourselves. I'm recommending you flex the financial muscle you have.

Stop taking one tiny part of what I said, taking it out of context, and running with it.

As a business Arsenal are brilliant, as a football club theyre underachieving and iof they done this theyed be a serious player every year.

They have money, the location, the squad and the stadium, only thing missing is the manager and soending in the right areas.

How do you solve that problem? Spend a lot of money???

mansize

GavRedKing wrote: »

SlickRic wrote: »

You say 'throw money' like it's a bad thing. I'm not telling you to bankrupt yourselves. I'm recommending you flex the financial muscle you have.

Stop taking one tiny part of what I said, taking it out of context, and running with it.

As a business Arsenal are brilliant, as a football club theyre underachieving and iof they done this theyed be a serious player every year.

They have money, the location, the squad and the stadium, only thing missing is the manager and soending in the right areas.

How do you solve that problem? Spend a lot of money???

hullaballoo

mansize wrote: »

There the board for not allowing us to be a cash outflow club like Chelsea and city I suppose. But they run it like a business not a novelty play thing.

Getting all your money from the USSR's publicly owned oil handed to you by putin's party probably makes the spending seen less meaningful I suppose

Abramovic got his money the same way Usmanov did? It wasn't oil. They both played the same game and gained an advantage under the mess that was cold war Russia. They all did some messed up siht in the process but that Russia for you. A bit OT, but happy to expand with you in the History forum if you like.

mansize

SlickRic wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

On what basis or evidence would you say that?

He decides when he leaves. That's widely known, and confirmed by people in the know at the club like Martin Keown.

If he decides when he leaves, it's not a stretch to believe there's a chance he sets his own targets.

No. The board set the targets. That's widely known and accepted even disliked on
Here

GavRedKing

mansize wrote: »

I'd rather his mate got toppled in Russia.

As you have said the Roman factor has been tempered somewhat by others entering with $$$$

Still find it amusing Chelsea don't acknowledge that Abromovich is the main reason they won the League.

Whats the main reason now? or the main reason Leicester won the league?

You have to ask yourself seriously why Arsenal ahvent won the league with the money available to them if buying the league is as easy as you said. Even though Utd and City have spent obscene money in recent times and failed to win the league. Even Liverpool spent about 200m under rodgers and didnt win the league but came closer than Arsenal have in the last 12 years.

mansize

hullaballoo wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

There the board for not allowing us to be a cash outflow club like Chelsea and city I suppose. But they run it like a business not a novelty play thing.

Getting all your money from the USSR's publicly owned oil handed to you by putin's party probably makes the spending seen less meaningful I suppose

Abramovic got his money the same way Usmanov did? It wasn't oil. They both played the same game and gained an advantage under the mess that was cold war Russia. They all did some messed up siht in the process but that Russia for you. A bit OT, but happy to expand with you in the History forum if you like.

I don't want Arsenal ever to be owned by Usmanov tbf. He's no angel of that I'm aware.

mansize

GavRedKing wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

I'd rather his mate got toppled in Russia.

As you have said the Roman factor has been tempered somewhat by others entering with $$

Still find it amusing Chelsea don't acknowledge that Abromovich is the main reason they won the League.

Whats the main reason now? or the main reason Leicester won the league?

You have to ask yourself seriously why Arsenal ahvent won the league with the money available to them if buying the league is as easy as you said. Even though Utd and City have spent obscene money in recent times and failed to win the league. Even Liverpool spent about 200m under rodgers and didnt win the league but came closer than Arsenal have in the last 12 years.

Both finished 2nd. Granted they slipped up later. At Chelsea I do believe

They don't have the money now required just to buy it. You have to outspend City and Chelsea buy a good bit now. As you said, Liverpool tried that, and failed.

hullaballoo

mansize wrote: »

I don't want Arsenal ever to be owned by Usmanov tbf. He's no angel of that I'm aware.

No one who's worth billions is an angel.

Panthro

Ye won't have to go reinventing the wheel lads. Just change up who's at the helm, shed a few passengers, and add a few quality signings to the bones of already good squad.
Be grand

mansize

GavRedKing wrote: »

hullaballoo wrote: »

You're aware of Arsenal's ownership, right?

Stan Kroenke - property developer and sports "magnate" - net worth $7.4bn.
Alisher Usmanov - metal miner and communications "mogul" - net worth $15.3bn.

Chelsea: Roman Abramovic - metal miner/works - net worth $9.2bn

The problem here isn't Arsenal's finances, whatever you say.

So what youre saying is Arsenal are funded by Usmanovs "oil" money too?

Part funded yes, but by not to the same extent by any means, but you already know that

peteeeed

the thing i don't get about wenger is his best team had petit and viera in it, the most streetwise midefield partnership who would kick lumps out of the opposition when that was what was needed but now all he does is picks and buys players who can play ball but don't work or tackle

mansize

hullaballoo wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

I don't want Arsenal ever to be owned by Usmanov tbf. He's no angel of that I'm aware.

No one who's worth billions is an angel.

Certainly not. But some are less angelic that others.

mansize

peteeeed wrote: »

the thing i don't get about wenger is he's best team had petit and viera in it, the most streetwise midefield partnership who would kick lumps out of the opposition when that was what was needed but now all he does is picks and buys players who can play ball but don't work or tackle

That team wouldn't win the league now imho

GavRedKing

mansize wrote: »

Both finished 2nd. Granted they slipped up later. At Chelsea I do believe

They don't have the money now required just to buy it. You have to outspend City and Chelsea buy a good bit now. As you said, Liverpool tried that, and failed.

Theres serious scope for Arsenal to dominate giving their circumstances but they have to change Wenger, IMO. The squad, if they can keep the elite players is very good and one of the best in England.

Wenger was once the best coach in England but the longer Arsenal continue the way they have that legacy will be tarnished and no more so by the majority of his own fans who want success at any cost, like most fans.

mansize

GavRedKing wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

I'm aware what they are worth, and also their investment vs Roman and the sheik

You can continue the poor mouth speil but Arsenal are far from it, they've tried to buy the league with Ozil and Sanchez but failed. Thats on Wenger.

In different seasons, adding a high value player is winning the league??? But adding numerous isn't? Do me a favour

Arsenal aren't poor, but they haven't the cash cows City and Chelsea have

mansize

GavRedKing wrote: »

mansize wrote: »

Both finished 2nd. Granted they slipped up later. At Chelsea I do believe

They don't have the money now required just to buy it. You have to outspend City and Chelsea buy a good bit now. As you said, Liverpool tried that, and failed.

Theres serious scope for Arsenal to dominate giving their circumstances but they have to change Wenger, IMO. The squad, if they can keep the elite players is very good and one of the best in England.

Wenger was once the best coach in England but the longer Arsenal continue the way they have that legacy will be tarnished and no more so by the majority of his own fans who want success at any cost, like most fans.

There is a higher Calibre of coach now, Conte being #1

ronjo

GavRedKing wrote: »

Theres serious scope for Arsenal to dominate giving their circumstances but they have to change Wenger, IMO. The squad, if they can keep the elite players is very good and one of the best in England.

Wenger was once the best coach in England but the longer Arsenal continue the way they have that legacy will be tarnished and no more so by the majority of his own fans who want success at any cost, like most fans.

I am not sure that its that Gav.
As I have said a few times up above its the boring predictability of season after season after season.

In general for me we have been pretty rubbish this season.
Got jammy undeserved late winners versus Burnley twice and Southampton at home. We probably should be down battling with Everton for 6th place.

Leroy42

What was it, 40m each for Ozil and Sanchez. 30m+ from Granit. Mustafi 30m+. Wasn't Walcott the highest priced teenager at the time he was bought?

The problem with last night, and indeed some others games this season has nothing to do with money. If money was the cause the Utd would simply walk the league after splurging so much millions over the last few years but are currently 6th and in the EL!

A 2-1 or 3-1 loss last night would have been acceptable. Arsenal were outplayed for 30 minutes and got a lucky (IMO) penalty and then got lucky again with the rebound. So 1-1 and after that Arsenal grew into the game. Even after the break Arsenal were doing alright, Neuer had pulled off some good saves. But then Kos went off and everything went to sh1t.

That has nothing to do with money. That is heart, desire, professional standards. And its not the first time its happened so too easy to simply blame Kos going off.

As another poster alluded to, Dundalk put up a consistent fight when in the EL. They were outclassed (some of the time) but never gave up. Arsenal simply folded last night. Look at Robben, what is he 24, and when he lost the ball he ran back into position, at least showed some fight. Ozil, Sanchez were busy throwing their arms in the air to complain. Coq had a good 1/2 season, played above himself but has reverted to norm this year. Granit looks lost. No idea how a tenacious midfielder can so get hopelessly sidelined.

Given the difficulties Man Utd have had the last couple of years I can see that Arsenal are in the same boat. Losing such an influencial manager as Wenger (or SAF) will always be tough, but I simply can't see how more than 1 or 2 or the current squad is good enough to bring Arsenal up to the level that is required for EPL or UCL success. Almost an entire new squad is required at this point.

peteeeed

mansize wrote: »

That team wouldn't win the league now imho

they would get a lot closer then the team of today

mansize

peteeeed wrote: »

they would get a lot closer then the team of today

How do you finish closer than 2nd and not win??

Dolph Starbeam

Wow this thread is as big a sh*t show as last nights game.

I'm a big Wenger fan but it is now impossible to back him to stay on past the summer. If he decides to stay on, no matter what the plan is, things will only get worse.

The board, the manager and the players are all responsible for how things are going, I don't know how things are run between the board and Wenger or between Wenger and the players so I can't say who is responsible the most for the way things are going.

Couldn't care less how the season ends now, just want it to end and for Wenger to leave. If he does leave, at lease he will leave the club with a decent squad of players and in a very healthy financial position.

mansize

Dolph Starbeam wrote: »

Wow this thread is as big a sh*t show as last nights game.

I'm a big Wenger fan but it is now impossible to back him to stay on past the summer. If he decides to stay on, no matter what the plan is, things will only get worse.

The board, the manager and the players are all responsible for how things are going, I don't know how things are run between the board and Wenger or between Wenger and the players so I can't say who is responsible the most for the way things are going.

Couldn't care less how the season ends now, just want it to end and for Wenger to leave. If he does leave, at lease he will leave the club with a decent squad of players and in a very healthy financial position.

I thought there was a healthy discussion and no petty squabbling myself

Mickeroo

mansize wrote: »

How do you finish closer than 2nd and not win??

Finish 2nd and nearly win.