posted Oct 25, 2008

It's not really a problem to be honest - it's only due to the fact that he's the captain and that the central defence happens to be our most vulnerable area at present - could all be coincidence of course and most probably is but he should really have known better - of course the papers were gonna have a field day!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 25, 2008

"Arsenal have a different philosophy and method of managing their club. We may not have won for 4 or 5 years but when we do it will be a victory we have earned, not bought. And that is the difference."

Trying to make an exception for yourself? Well go and win it, then, if that is the concrete, wholehearted difference. Because when the books are looked on for title winners, nothing is stipulated about money or players, it shows who during a particular season won the title. Matters little how you get there, be it via money, air, tea, Easyjet, last season and the season before Man Utd won it. Talk about 'earning' it to the cows turn red, books will say they won it and nothing else matters.

Consider that a team may play excellently but lose; another may play mediocre and yet win. Doesnt matter how you play, if you get the three points, that's all that matters and that's the difference.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 25, 2008

LiverBirdMate,

"Trying to make an exception for yourself?"

An exception to what? The secret rules of how every club should approach the running of their team? I fear those secret rules exist only in your head (and the heads of several other 606er's including the writer of this article).

The way you talk anyone would think your club had actually won the Premier League title before.


I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself son, and come the end of the season you may well be agreeing with me.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 25, 2008

"An exception to what? The secret rules of how every club should approach the running of their team? I fear those secret rules exist only in your head (and the heads of several other 606er's including the writer of this article)."

What???

"The way you talk anyone would think your club had actually won the Premier League title before."

What???


"I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself son, and come the end of the season you may well be agreeing with me."

What???????

TGOTH, read the comment I referred to properly and get the gist, yeah? Before laughing your head off. Comment was from a Gooner talking about the likes of Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool gaining the title by money whereas if or when Arsenal gain it it will be down to sheer grit and hard work, team effort and the rest. What are you on about? You've missed the point completely.

The point I was making, which was clear, was the title or any other achievements are won by virtue of one team being the winner. The record books do not concern themselves with whether the winner had money or numerous fans or a wondeful ground or a superb tea lady.

So in saying Arsenal would have properly earned it because they haven't used vast sums of money to spend on new players is a weak point. Whoever win the title, the FA Cup, the League Cup or the Champions League, they are the winners outright, whether they spent cash or not.

As for getting ahead of myself, that's your wild commenting and nothing to do with my actual thoughts on our progress. I cant see where I said anything to suggest I was getting ahead of myself. You just made it up to raise it as a point.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

"Arsenal have a different philosophy and method of managing their club. We may not have won for 4 or 5 years but when we do it will be a victory we have earned, not bought. And that is the difference."

No, there actually is no difference. Fabregas, Eboue, Van Persie, Walcott, Song, Diaby, Nasri, Adebayor, Djourou, Denilson, Ramsey, Bendtner, Eduardo, Toure, etc. - just because they played, or have started playing, for the Arsenal team at a young age, does not make them any less 'bought'. All of them were developed in other teams' academies before being poached and polished by Wenger between the ages of 16 and their early 20s. All were undeniable talents before they arrived in Britain - just because Arsenal acquired the majority of them before they broke through into first-team football elsewhere, and saved themselves a massive amount in transfer fees, does not mean that Arsenal haven't indulged in a similar policy to the rest of the big four. Buying top talent at an early age does not mean it wasn't bought. Does this mean that Man Utd can take all the credit for Rooney, Ronaldo, Nani, Anderson and other? They were purchased at a very young age, so obviously Alex Ferguson developed their skills and their formative teams had nothing to do with it. What about Kalou and Joe Cole when Mourihno was at Chelsea? Agger, Babel and Lucas with Benitez at Liverpool? Countless others at clubs the world over whose services have been purchased at a young age because they have recognised talent?

Wenger's team is a triumph of scouting and talent spotting, and he has done a terrific job of finding great young players who either fit his football philosophy, or whom he can mould to fit it. Nothing wrong with that. But trying to claim that his title, should he win it, will not have been bought, is false. All Wenger did was buy ready made products and apply the finishing touches.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 28, 2008

aml

Disagree.

AW works on a budget and transfer similar to teams in the middle of the premier league. All teams in the top leagues around the world buy in players - so then you could say any team has 'bought' their championship.

My point is Manchester United and Chelsea (let's ignore Liverpool - they're not a good example as they have never won the PL and don't spend as much as the other two) spend SO much more than Arsenal. The players you mention probably cost about £50/£60 million combined - that's 14 players you listed. £60m is what Man U and Chelsea would spend on two players - one of which would be on the bench.

You're right, Arsenal buy in players like any other club but surely you can't say they would have bought the championship like Chelsea or Man U?

Also, as you say - AW takes potential and polishes them whereas Man U and Chelsea just buy in the finished article. That is such a massive difference. It's like one kid buying an airfix model aeroplane kit, putting it together and painting it and another spoilt kid being bought one ready made. He 'bought' it in rather than earned it.

Perhaps you took my use of the word 'bought' too literally?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2008

firstly Newsflash for the composer of this thread; man U didn't win the league for 4 years and no one said Fergie had lost it because of that.

secondly, aml you're wrong. the talents were not undeniable to everyone. Fabregas was not recognised as some amazing bright spark, It took the keen eye of AW to spot it.

The examples you gave (Rooney, Ronaldo, Nani, Anderson) were all recognised internationally as being among the brightest new talent from their respective countries.

And fabulousredsreds; you really think a team comprised of England internationals would drop two tiers in as many seasons?! Proof why most people who support their local team don't listen to anything Man United 'fans' say...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2008

"Consider that a team may play excellently but lose; another may play mediocre and yet win. Doesnt matter how you play, if you get the three points, that's all that matters and that's the difference."

Seems you have forgotten the purpose of professional football: entertainment. It matters not who wins the title, all that matters is that teams try to play the most delightful football to watch. Who cares if Man Utd get a few more points than the others? All that gives them is bragging rights.

If your team gets enough points to go to Europe that is essentially the same thing as winning the Premiership. You still get to watch the same entertaining football.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2008

Seems you have forgotten the purpose of professional football: entertainment. It matters not who wins the title.
------------------------

Tell that to the players.

They play to win - its not about entertainment its about win bonuses.

Football is tribal, fans need the wins as much as they need oxygen to live.


If a team doesn't win, or god forbid gets relegated - no matter how entertaining the football - the crowd disappears and the loyal fans who follow for wins are left.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 24, 2008

since arsenal were last successful a few years back, times have changed. money is and was usually required to bring titles, however the amounts being spent have inflated greatly.

yes, arsenal have spent less on transfer fees, and for whatever reason recently they have done well with the resources spent, so yes, arsene wenger is a good manager for being cost-effective, but sadly in the record books this doesnt count for a lot, when fans want and expect trophies.

however, arsenal, now with their financial clout etc etc, surely now want a successful manager in the modern title-winning way, rather than in a player developing way, as wenger seems to have become.

arsenal have been successful for the resources spent, but football is not a profit-earning game (except for the players); it is win at all costs sometimes, which nowadays includes the costs of buying top class players

add comment | complain about this comment