Quote:eduardo
I could give two f ucks what le grove or anyone thinks, I believe the guy who told me, I know who his source is at the club and see no reason why he would make it up. Any info got from him in the past has been spot on.
Quote:Simon68
I think the one mistake that people have been and are making is in the assumption that things are absolute. That Chelsea came in and bought their way to trophies and assumed 'big club' status, which they did, is undeniable, although the latter is true only insofar as they have an owner with almost unlimitless funds, football wise. Arsene Wenger knew that we could not compete against this model and therefore took an almost diametrically opposite view and acted accordingly. Long-term, new stadium, organic growth, sustainable business model etc. Abramovich instructed Kenyon to have Chelsea breaking even (on a seasonal basis) by 2010. Complete pie in the sky. However, it appeared Abramovich did have some effect, as they had only posted a £43m loss in 2010 (I think).
If things had remained the same, the fact that we hardly had a pot to p*ss in from 2003 onwards, and hadn't won a pot to p*ss in from 2005 until 2009 wouldn't have mattered. Success would have followed, without us having to make signings for Berbatov money. However, with the advent of the Middle Eastlands takeover, the landscape totally changed.
From the transfer market settling down in relative terms, apart from one or two big money signings, it was blown apart by ManCiteh who have spent fortunes on players, paying twice their worth for many of them, just as Chelsea did when Abramovich saved them first from liquidation and then went on his spending spree.
Probably more important than the transfer fees themselves are the wages that go with it. Do you think for a minute David Silva, Tevez or Yaya Toure would have gone there if they hadn't been offered £180k to £220k pw as is largely accepted they do earn? Who was it who said the other day that on top of that ManCiteh are paying the £1m yearly rent on Toure's house?
So what have Chelsea and ManU done in response? Straight out of the window have gone the improved good housekeeping money rules and straight into spend spend spend keep up with the Arabs mode. What other business could announce the equivalent of signing two players for a combined cost of £73m while on the same day announce a yearly loss of £70m as Chelsea did? On top of that Torres is quite likely to be earning a basic of approaching £8m per year and Luiz another £5m. They have signed an unproven 18 year old for £18m and are after Modric for £30m and appear to be signing Mata for another £30m or so. ManU have signed £55m worth of players, two of which are relatively unproven and are prepared to pay £35m for Schneider.
While the rest of the World and its economies go to sh*t, football clubs are going mad.
When UEFA announced it's FFP initiative, everyone was in agreement (including UEFA) that Arsenal, above all other top clubs was in the best position as the best run, most self-sustaining club.
Now it appears, and I hope I am completely wrong, that the rules are not worth the paper they are written on.
These are the changing scenarios that Arsene Wenger and Arsenal have to put up with.
1) To attract new players of top quality, the parasite agents demands for extortionate wages have to be satisfied. 2) To attract new players of top quality, the selling clubs inflated prices have to be met.
3) To keep top players, see 1) above.
Do we swim with the prevailing tide and give in to these demands or do we battle on against them in the vain hope that someone, somewhere will seize power and take a stand against the greed and corruption amongst officials, owners, agents and players?
If it's the former, where does the money come from? Stan won't fund it, so do we just raise ticket prices or raise the money from the issue of a bond scheme. Or any of the other ways that ManU have done to keep up with ManCiteh and Chelsea on the spending front and try to catch up with the debt laden Barcelona on the playing front?
Wenger wants 'super quality' players. The Board won't, it seems, pay the fee and wages price. Wenger doesn't want to pay over the odds for squad players. We want players in. Anyone it seems. Any signing.
I want players in to improve our match day squad and be excellent replacements for the many injuries and spurious sendings off we incur, which are seemingly inevitable. If we signed Cahill, Jagielka or Samba are they going to displace TV5 or Kos? Not in my opinion. So why spend so much of the transfer and wages budget on overpriced reserves? Do we need an attacking central midfielder of top quality? Yes. Should we pay what is necessary? Yes. Should it have been Mata? Probably, from what I've heard about him. Do we need a centre forward like a Benzema? Yes. Do we need a reasonably priced, experienced centre half not in Squillaci mould? Yes.
But it all costs money. We have some, but when, as we well know, other clubs follow what players we are looking at and have the capability to offer twice what we can, whether wage wise or transfer fee wise, or both, because money means nothing to them, then what chance do we have?
It's all very well saying sack the Board, but who is the Board? Stan Kroenke is the Board. Just him. No-one else matters. Whose going to sack him? Himself? Why doesn't he pay off what remains of our debt and just pay himself back over the same period, interest free? And when he sells Arsenal in the future, have an agreement that he is paid back the balance in full by the new owner? That would release more funds for use on the playing side. Why won't he do this? Because it's not in his interests to, that's why. He's got billions at his disposal potentially from the Wal-Mart empire, but have we seen a bean on the playing side? No, because it's not in his interests.
The way it is currently I'm afraid, what with Liverpool one day getting it right having spent loads of money with debt seeming to be just an occupational minor inconvenience, is that unless our youth policy comes up trumps we are facing a future watching other clubs buy success without giving it a thought while we watch great football without trophies to show for it.
Maybe there is method in Wenger's apparent madness in signing AOC, Ryo, Campbell and Jenkinson, as he sees the writing on the wall and that buying players young is the only option.
Quote:RadioFreeArsenal
And that is how we should want to win the Champions league - when the best teams are banned from it? How gallant and sporting is that? It's one thing to beat a lesser light in the final because the better teams were knockjed out earlier but if that is something to be proud off winning a watered-down competition that is a sad commentary on how far ambitions have really fallen since 2004.
As for being able to spend more there is no doubt we could spend more if the wage structure did not impede us doing so, and maybe that is exactly what the re-designed wage strcuture of the past few years was specifically designed to do - allow the Club to falsely claim it was ready to spend more more money without having to prove it by actually spending it?
After all, having that cash banked away decreases our net debt which increses interest in the Club by outside investment which increases our share value - but allows the Club to insist the money is available to spend the whole time, even if they would rather stick their fingers in electrical outlets than actually spend it.
Quote:Thetruthis
Its hardly the champions league though, is it mate? 3 non-title winning teams from each big super league get to compete each year (bar the fourth placed team has to do one QL - but it is rigged in their favour so that team is a cert anyway).
Should it not be the team that won their domestic league that are the only one's allowed to compete in this crooked cometition? (The way it used to be).
I hate the CL nowadays - its a money spinning joke.
If there was fairness as you mention, then should Shamrock Rovers from my native country or Copenhagen from Denmark etc not have automatically qualified for the competition group stages and not have to do play offs that they have no hope of winning as soon as they meet the 4th placed team from a large league. Where is the fairness in that? How invaluble would that qualifying money be to the smaller countries teams who are CHAMPIONS outright. Why should Man City or Inter or real be given automatic starting berths when they are not champions of their own leagues.
The whole proposed UEFA Fair Play Rules are a joke - there is no such thing as fair play in this competition. I've lost my passion for the game in the last few years due to FIFA and UEFA corruption. Their cancer has spread like wildfire into the game. Our beautiful game is being taken from us one greedy piece after another.
![[:wor kid:]](../phorum-5.1.15/mods/smileys/images/13.gif "[:wor kid:]")
Quote:RadioFreeArsenalQuote:Thetruthis
Its hardly the champions league though, is it mate? 3 non-title winning teams from each big super league get to compete each year (bar the fourth placed team has to do one QL - but it is rigged in their favour so that team is a cert anyway).
Should it not be the team that won their domestic league that are the only one's allowed to compete in this crooked cometition? (The way it used to be).
I hate the CL nowadays - its a money spinning joke.
If there was fairness as you mention, then should Shamrock Rovers from my native country or Copenhagen from Denmark etc not have automatically qualified for the competition group stages and not have to do play offs that they have no hope of winning as soon as they meet the 4th placed team from a large league. Where is the fairness in that? How invaluble would that qualifying money be to the smaller countries teams who are CHAMPIONS outright. Why should Man City or Inter or real be given automatic starting berths when they are not champions of their own leagues.
The whole proposed UEFA Fair Play Rules are a joke - there is no such thing as fair play in this competition. I've lost my passion for the game in the last few years due to FIFA and UEFA corruption. Their cancer has spread like wildfire into the game. Our beautiful game is being taken from us one greedy piece after another.
Talking far too-big picture for little ol'me today
But actually agree pretty fully with you here especially about the "Champions" League...I just get no rise about only winning it when the rules keep bigger and better clubs out. Like to have a bit more ambition that that lol
. He's still knocking around. He was on an RTE sport radio programme a few months back.
Quote:I never knew that.Padre Pio
Good points rodeo, but dont forget Usamanov Worlds 2 nd richest man
Quote:Simon68
And besides, I heard it wasn't just about the extra £5k pw, it was also about Cole's agent wanting Arsenal to pay him £750k for negotiating the new contract and Arsenal telling him to get it off his client if he wanted it as it was nothing to do with them.
Quite right too and good riddance to Cole and his agent.
It's p*ssing me off that some people are forgetting what a little toe rag Cole is and the damage Dein has done to us.
Next thing people will start saying Josef Fritzl was a good family man.
Quote:You actually took the pains to explain this Simon. I stopped teaching babies long ago because they infuriate me alot when they wouldnt understand common sense, i'm very impatient with them.Simon68
TTI.
When the CL was The European Cup and all the teams in it each season were all champions of their respective leagues, to be quite honest it was a pretty p*ss poor competition. Only about 4 teams were realistic contenders each year. The UEFA Cup had far more depth of quality.
The CL may be a money spinning bonanza (not least for UEFA), but the standard of football is the best in the world and that includes international football and the World Cup. And the number of clubs that have a good chance to win it is about 8 each season.
