The all new Arsenal thread

[Dr Markus]

[Diamond Dog]

It's abundantly clear that Wenger has been over-ruled re Oxlade-Chamberlain (and probably Sanchez too). Having made such a big point last Friday about how he wanted to build the team around players like AOC, how he had a responsibility to the club etc etc.....and five days later is sold. If the same happens with Sanchez, it's clear Stan The Money Man has stepped in and said that the club isn't losing upwards of £100 million for 9 months of (potentialy) half hearted and disruptive play from two players that obviously have had enough.

Interesting that there has not been a single rumour around Ozil - maybe no one is even considering him, because of his piss poor performances of the past 18 months or so.

The issue being for Arsenal fans that, yet again, they are scrambling in the last 24 hours of a transfer window to find replacements for quality players. It's bizarre that no one at the club appears to understand how the transfer window works.

[Diamond Dog]

A really good piece by Jonathan Northcroft in the Sunday Times yesterday regarding Wenger/Arsenal/Transfer Policy etc etc.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/was- ... -zl80j0j6s

It seems that Wenger was tipped off about N'Golo Kante and dispatched Gilles Grimandi to see him in Ligue 2 with Caen. Grimandi came back with a 6/10 report. Wenger was pressed again by his friend, Grimandi was sent again....came back with an even more sceptical report. Wenger passed him over. Once he'd joined Leicester, Wenger realised how good he was and tried to sign him but was put off by the people around Kante, who seemed more concerned about making money for themselves rather than the footballing side of things. The friend is quoted as saying "Arsene is old school. He knows N'Golo is a good person but it's important the company a player keeps"... Wenger dithered, Chelsea scooped Kante up for (what seems now a deal-of-the-decade) £32 million, and the rest is history.

This is offered up as an example of how out-of-touch Wenger has become - how a well known agent says they "Wouldn't go there in a million years (to Arsenal). That place is nuts".

The Oxlade-Chamberliain deal is particularly illustrative - he was a player Wenger really liked and backed him throughout injury issues. But AOC became disillusioned at how his career was going at Arsenal and when he was asked about extending his contract (with only 18 months left on it) he was aware Liverpool were interested in him. Arsenal offered to give him a raise from £57k to £80k per week at that time. AOC told them that his decision would not be based on money - and didn't sign. The club then offered him more more twice - and he didn't change his stance, saying it would be about football, not the money. Throughout this time, of course, Wenger continued to play him at right wing back, knowing that the player wanted a more central role. Two weeks ago Arsenal offered him close to £180k per week. He was amazed at the offer but felt that it was abundantly clear that no one had actually listened to what he had been saying. Finally he had a heart-to-heart a week or so ago with Wenger, where he reiterated his belief that his career would be better developed elsewhere. It was only at that point that Arsenal looked to sell him. He will earn £15 million less at Liverpool than he could have by staying put but is, apparently, absolutely over-the-moon with the move to Liverpool.

The Sanchez saga is another example given. Arsenal consistently saying he wasn't for sale, but then agreeing a price of £60 million with Man City over the last 48 hours of the transfer deal. With the proviso that Lemar would be coming to them from France - for an agreed £92 million price tag with Monaco. Trouble is, no one from Arsenal had actually thought about asking Lemar how he felt about the deal, and the whole sorry saga fell through around half an hour before the deadline when Lemar made it very clear he wasn't interested in Arsenal.

They also couldn't shift Mustafi although Wenger wants shot of him. They still have Debuchy on the books. Joel Campbell - who Wenger clearly has no time for at all- has been bundled off on another loan deal. But Arsenal have a financial problem - EPL clubs can only raise their wage bill by £7 million in 17-18, unless external revenue rises accordingly. But Arsenal's is falling because of the lack of Champions League money - so they can't bring in new players unless they get shot of unwanted baggage. The problem is, as Northcroft says, that Arsenal seem to have as much problem selling players as in buying them! Oh and Ramsey has just entered the last two years of his contract - and, as such, not a word has been said about renewal. ...... plus ca change....

To be honest, it's grim reading for Arsenal fans. The club does look as though it's perched on the precipice and could totter over at any time. And having just heard that Wenger is publicly doubting whether he was the guy to turn the club around (in a French TV interview) one has to wonder whether someone is actually going to show some leadership at Arsenal and do what is necessary. Otherwise they may just find it's too late and the decline is terminal.

[The Modernist]

[Diamond Dog]

Not a pretty read is it G?

[KeithPratt]

Cheer up guys, you had 20 years in the Champions League and a team that I think should have won the Champions League back in 2004/05, plus arguably the most flamboyant and pleasing side to watch in the Invincibles. You had your glory years and you got a spanking new football stadium without going into debt, so long have you supped at the trough of the elite.

Just be thankful you don't support either Newcastle or West Ham.

[Geezee]

Cheer up guys, you had 20 years in the Champions League and a team that I think should have won the Champions League back in 2004/05, plus arguably the most flamboyant and pleasing side to watch in the Invincibles. You had your glory years and you got a spanking new football stadium without going into debt, so long have you supped at the trough of the elite.

Just be thankful you don't support either Newcastle or West Ham.

Or Man Utd.

[The Modernist]

Just be thankful you don't support either Newcastle or West Ham.

Except Arsenal were always much a bigger and more successful club than either.
I get fed up of reading (although I'm not saying you've said this) this idea that Arsenal only became successful under Wenger. It's real revisionism. 5 Arsenal managers previous to Wenger won the title.

[Geezee]

Just be thankful you don't support either Newcastle or West Ham.

Except Arsenal were always much a bigger and more successful club than either.
I get fed up of reading (although I'm not saying you've said this) this idea that Arsenal only became successful under Wenger. It's real revisionism. 5 Arsenal managers previous to Wenger won the title.

Generally, I don't think the feeling is that Arsene brought unparalleled success to Arsenal. But the way the club was perceived changed like night and day. When I came to the UK in 1990, Arsenal were the most boring team in the world. Which is not fair for sure - players like Merson and Limpar of course were very talented and unique - but they did tend to suck the life out of the game, and the reputation didn't come from nowhere. To turn that into the Invicinbles is one of the most remarkable turnarounds I think I've come across, because in many ways it did something even more difficult than create a successful club, which you can do with money - he completely overturn the whole culture and mentality of the club. Sure, the flipside of that mentality has perahps become evident in the last 6-7 years, but I can think of few parallels in world football beyond maybe Rinus Michels.

[The Modernist]

Just be thankful you don't support either Newcastle or West Ham.

Except Arsenal were always much a bigger and more successful club than either.
I get fed up of reading (although I'm not saying you've said this) this idea that Arsenal only became successful under Wenger. It's real revisionism. 5 Arsenal managers previous to Wenger won the title.

Generally, I don't think the feeling is that Arsene brought unparalleled success to Arsenal. But the way the club was perceived changed like night and day. When I came to the UK in 1990, Arsenal were the most boring team in the world. Which is not fair for sure - players like Merson and Limpar of course were very talented and unique - but they did tend to suck the life out of the game, and the reputation didn't come from nowhere. To turn that into the Invicinbles is one of the most remarkable turnarounds I think I've come across, because in many ways it did something even more difficult than create a successful club, which you can do with money - he completely overturn the whole culture and mentality of the club. Sure, the flipside of that mentality has perahps become evident in the last 6-7 years, but I can think of few parallels in world football beyond maybe Rinus Michels.

Or any of the other great managers and coaches in the history of the game (do I have to name them all..there are quite a number).

There is some truth to what you say, but it is an exaggeration. The 90-91 title winning side was actually quite attacking and fun to watch. But Graham became incredibly defensive in the seasons that followed and that has somewhat fixed the perception of him, especially when contrasted with Wenger.
What Wenger achieved was fantastic, I have no desire to argue that one. His great period only lasted five or six seasons, but it was certainly great. All a long time ago now of course.

[Rayge]

Just be thankful you don't support either Newcastle or West Ham.

Except Arsenal were always much a bigger and more successful club than either.

This is not exactly true in the case of Newcastle, but granted that was 100 years ago. And West Ham did win an FA Cup before Herbert Chapman arrived. But yeah, I'm picking nits.
Carry on

[KeithPratt]

Just be thankful you don't support either Newcastle or West Ham.

Except Arsenal were always much a bigger and more successful club than either.

This is not exactly true in the case of Newcastle, but granted that was 100 years ago. And West Ham did win an FA Cup before Herbert Chapman arrived. But yeah, I'm picking nits.
Carry on

No, the Hammers golden period was 64 to 80, with a total of three FA Cup wins. We lost the 1923 final to Bolton Wanderers.

[The Modernist]

I reckon you were robbed Toby if it's any consolation!

[Rayge]

No, the Hammers golden period was 64 to 80, with a total of three FA Cup wins. We lost the 1923 final to Bolton Wanderers.

Yes you did, apologies. But they lost to Bolton before Arsenal lost to Cardiff...

[KeithPratt]

His great period only lasted five or six seasons, but it was certainly great. All a long time ago now of course.

This should obviously be tempered by the fact that Arsenal had to become a selling club in order to finance their stadium. I'm sure that in the future the fact that Arsenal's lack of direct foreign investment during this period will stand out as a good thing.

Put it this way - most clubs are lucky to have two or three seasons of something resembling greatness. Arsenal have sustained two decades of playing at the highest level with some of the game's most extraordinary players gracing their team. When I hear Arsenal fans whingeing about the fact that their side is in a state of decline, I just think it sounds like sour grapes to be honest. As Geezee articulated very well, Wenger has completely transformed the perception of Arsenal as a club where good football is played. That is why they were able to attract the likes of Ozil, Sanchez and Lacazette despite the decline in results. It may still continue.

[The Modernist]

His great period only lasted five or six seasons, but it was certainly great. All a long time ago now of course.

This should obviously be tempered by the fact that Arsenal had to become a selling club in order to finance their stadium. I'm sure that in the future the fact that Arsenal's lack of direct foreign investment during this period will stand out as a good thing.

Put it this way - most clubs are lucky to have two or three seasons of something resembling greatness. Arsenal have sustained two decades of playing at the highest level with some of the game's most extraordinary players gracing their team. When I hear Arsenal fans whingeing about the fact that their side is in a state of decline, I just think it sounds like sour grapes to be honest. As Geezee articulated very well, Wenger has completely transformed the perception of Arsenal as a club where good football is played. That is why they were able to attract the likes of Ozil, Sanchez and Lacazette despite the decline in results. It may still continue.

Actually we've sustained ten decades of playing at the highest level.
The three players you mention came for the money and two of them are desperate to get out.
Arsenal fans don't want' to see this decline (which is hardly recent and has been evident for a good five to six years), you think they should just shut up and pay their money? It seems everyone can make criticisms of Arsenal except their own fans. I find that a deeply patronising attitude.

[KeithPratt]

No, I just think the criticisms are misplaced, that's all. The club hasn't sold itself to Mammon like City, United, Chelsea or even Liverpool. True, youth investment hasn't yielded much in the last few years, but I think the heart of the club is still there and not just a vacuous, corporate entity like the others.

I guess what Arsenal probably want to be is like Borussia Dortmund, but the problem is that their fanbase is now mostly an urban, relatively wealthy middle-class crowd.

[Diamond Dog]

There is of course a very solid argument that if Arsenal had been more realistic about their repayment schedule for the new stadium, they wouldn't have suffered the loss of players they did and/or lack of recruitment of new players. Question is, why did they repay the debt so quickly, knowing the effect it had to have?

Was that another case of financial concerns outweighing football?

[The Modernist]

There is of course a very solid argument that if Arsenal had been more realistic about their repayment schedule for the new stadium, they wouldn't have suffered the loss of players they did and/or lack of recruitment of new players. Question is, why did they repay the debt so quickly, knowing the effect it had to have?

Was that another case of financial concerns outweighing football?

Arsenal were operating the third highest wage bill in the division then. So whilst it is true that Wenger faced real constrictions in the transfer market, which he did very well to overcome ( for a while), we weren't quite the paupers that is sometimes suggested. We still had a real financial advantage over most teams.

I can't really answer the debt question btw (at least not without some research...which I can't be bothered to do ).

[Diamond Dog]

I know they faced potentially crippling repayment penalties if they didn't meet the incredibly tough schedule they imposed on themselves (with the help of the financiers). I just wonder if they had spread the payments out longer, paying more in total but less per season, would they had been able to compete in the transfer market as they had done previously?