So, I was reading the McNulty blog*, as every week, and it
got me thinking of the Arsenal philosophy, particularly under
Wenger, which we, Gooners, value.
McNulty says, and I quote:
Arsenal chief executive Ivan Gazidis recently told Radio 5
live's Sportsweek: "For us winning is certainly important but
it is not the end objective of everything."
This is a romantic, some might say fanciful, notion that may
not be shared by, for example, Cesc Fabregas if he goes
through another season without a club honour to add to the
Euro 2008 and World Cup medals he claimed with Spain.
Sure, it is sweet to see your team lifting trophies and all,
but I would stop here for a moment and ponder how precious
it is to lift trophies every year while your team is indebted,
lacks identity because it buys highly priced employees
(rather than players who "feel the jersey"😉, develops not
a single talented young player, and, most of all,
is synonym of angry supporters asking the Arab or American
owner in turn to sell the shares.
I mean, I want to see Arsenal winning something, for sure,
but not at the price of becoming a Liverpool or a Manchester
(united or city, it is the same stuff) or, even worse, a Chelsea.
I respect Wenger and his philosophy and I like, besides the
beautiful football displayed, the healthy finances of the club.
If Fábregas leaves... so what? Let him go to Barcelona for an
awful amount of money. Wilshere is maturing quickly and he
can fill the spot. Let him go and win things. We, Gooners, aim
for something else.
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/philmcnulty/2011/03/what_next_for_arsenal_wenger.html
It's natural for people (in this case Arsenal fans) to defend their club with what they have, but I'm pretty sure that had they been in the place of these other clubs and winning then they would be defending that business model.
I certainly don't see that many "jersey feelers" in Arsenal. Nor do I find great football to collapse when the stakes are high but hammer minnows with panache. The only thing to admire from Arsenal is its financial management, but one wonders if it's out of choice or necessity.
"... they would be defending that business model."
Like the Manchester United fans waving the green
and yellow colors? My impression is, and I may be
wrong, that more and more fans are worried about
responsible ownership, as some have realized that
the permanence of a club throughout time is above
short-term achievements.
What is great football, then? Barcelona? That is so
clichéd. The famous "tiki taka" is a taste, like any
other. It's the same football played by "La Roja" and
they put not few to sleep. If the roundabouts are
sometimes interrupted by a geniality of Messi, well,
that's a one-man thing.
As for the financial stability being a matter of necessity
I just don't follow up. How can be a necessity if other
clubs have demonstrated that it is possible to get
awfully indebted, buy lots of "stars", and win some
trophies? There is no need to be financially
responsible. It is an institutional choice.
Originally posted by SeitseThe other clubs have owners that are willing to pump large amounts of money into the team, while Arsenal does not. Its ownership structure is fairly different and so I'm not sure how much of it is an institutional choice or a constraint imposed by its ownership structure.
"... they would be defending that business model."
Like the Manchester United fans waving the green
and yellow colors? My impression is, and I may be
wrong, that more and more fans are worried about
responsible ownership, as some have realized that
the permanence of a club throughout time is above
short-term achievements.
What is great football, ...[text shortened]... here is no [b]need to be financially
responsible. It is an institutional choice.[/b]
As for the green and yellow, I think the protesters are attacking the perceived use MU by the Glazers as a cash cow to deal with their own debts. I don't think they believe the club has been overspending. In fact, many were angry the club didn't seem to make good use of the money from Ronaldo's sale. So the protest is not about overspending, although it's also about ownership.
Great football is the one that wins (without resorting to cheating, obviously). It's a sporting competition, not a circus act. If a team wins via good defense that can be great football (and a great win through defensive work against a top team can be the most satisfying type of win). Entertainment is mostly important when you're a neutral.
Originally posted by SeitseLFC and ManU's tales are far removed from Chelsea and Man City's.
most of all,
is synonym of angry supporters asking the Arab or American
owner in turn to sell the shares.
I mean, I want to see Arsenal winning something, for sure,
but not at the price of becoming a Liverpool or a Manchester
(united or city, it is the same stuff) or, even worse, a Chelsea.[/b]
ManU and Liverpool fans have/had every right to be angry and demand that their owners sell/sold their shares. The debt that the Americans put on LFC was unsustainable (we were losing money) and crippled the previous manager's transfer plans and the squad strength. Utd have an even greater debt and have seen a positive net spend in their transfer budget. Their team is aging and they're not replacing those players with the ones of same calibre as they don't have the funds (that they should have without the leveraged debt). I can understand why they're supporting Norwich or whatever it is they're doing by way of protest!
There's no doubt ManU would prefer to be in Arsenal's financial situation and the model is what LFC are now trying to acheive under Fenway SG.
However, you can bet your bottom Euro that LFC will splash the cash on big name players when we need to (it's already started with Suarez and Carroll breaking the club record fee twice in January) Arsenal are a top quality side but they could be so much better with a decent keeper, CB and a ball winning midfielder which they are clearly capable of both attracting and affording. That's something I wouldn't want to see us emulating thanks.
The previous and current American owners at LFC and ManU almost ruined two great clubs. Abrahamovic and The Sheik are ruining football
Originally posted by Angry BoyAmericans !! you can't say that ,thats racist dont you know !!!
LFC and ManU's tales are far removed from Chelsea and Man City's.
ManU and Liverpool fans have/had every right to be angry and demand that their owners sell/sold their shares. The debt that the Americans put on LFC was unsustainable (we were losing money) and crippled the previous manager's transfer plans and the squad strength. Utd have an even greater ...[text shortened]... d ManU almost ruined two great clubs. Abrahamovic and The Sheik are ruining football
Hey, nice deposition, Angry Boy.
Still, those 4 clubs would rather be, financially, in
the Gunners' shoes. Also in football perhaps? That's
debatable as it is a matter of taste, I know.
The point here is, I sense it is a matter of priority:
teams which put the permanence of the club and
its image towards supporters above short-term
pearls and diamonds, naturally will struggle to
reach the silverware as there are clubs spending
insulting amounts which practically "buy a cup".
Could Arsenal do it? I guess it could. Usmanov's
hands are burning to unleash hell and burn out
the transfer market in exchange for glory. Is that
what we, fans of Arsenal, want? I don't have a
survey to say yes or no. But I can speak for
myself.
I know a few Arsenal fans, they would love to see Wenger spend the cash. They love the pretty football, but love winning more!
Most of them became Arsenal fans when George Graham was boring their way to titles, so that side of the argument doesn't really hold up.
Arsenal will take nearly 30 years to pay for the Emirates, so they have massive debts too.
The Arsenal "Business Model" is more to do with Wenger wanting VFM in the Transfer market, rather than anything else. He has had his fingers burnt when spending big, and is sticking by his current crop of players.
IMO, I think Arsenal will win the Premier League this season, and there is no need to spend big on transfers. Injuries have affected the team, yes, but Wenger's philosophy will be rewarded come May.
Originally posted by SeitseIt's amazing how little understanding of the game is exhibited in this post.
So, I was reading the McNulty blog*, as every week, and it
got me thinking of the Arsenal philosophy, particularly under
Wenger, which we, Gooners, value.
McNulty says, and I quote:
[b]Arsenal chief executive Ivan Gazidis recently told Radio 5
live's Sportsweek: "For us winning is certainly important but
it is not the end objective of everything." ...[text shortened]... * http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/philmcnulty/2011/03/what_next_for_arsenal_wenger.html[/b]
"ponder how precious it is to lift trophies every year while your team is indebted,"
United are in debt because they were bought with debt. Pre leveraged take over, United were never (rarely) in the red.
"lacks identity because it buys highly priced employees (rather than players who "feel the jersey"😉"
Anybody with even a modicum of knowledge of the Premier League would know that the majority of players Alex Ferguson buys are players with potential (Berbatov being the obvious exception). We also need to look at Arsenal and the likes of Fabregas, Bendtner, Gallas and Adebayor to see that Arsenal have the same problems as every other club. Ferguson mostly buys youthful players with big futures (Rooney, Chicharito, Smalling, Ronaldo, Nani, Anderson, Da Silva twins, Solksjaer, etc, etc, etc) with only a smattering of marquee signings, which is very similar to Arsenal and their big money signings like Arshavin.
"develops not a single talented young player"
I won't even bother listing the players who refute this, given Sir Alex's worldwide reputation for blooding young talent.
"not at the price of becoming a Liverpool or a Manchester (united or city, it is the same stuff)"
Apples and oranges and again shows very little understanding of the situation in England.
"I respect Wenger and his philosophy and I like, besides the
beautiful football displayed, the healthy finances of the club."
Arsenal are a couple of hundred million pounds in the red, which isn't a whole pile less that United (£350m net), given the huge differences in turnover. Instead of investing in the team, investments were made in property.
Having said all that, I'm glad that you as an Arsenal fan are happy with a team who can pass pass pass pass pass all day, are happy with a manager who is unable to keep a squad player happy, which means that Arsenal can never be a force due to the heavy requirement on squad players in the modern game, and you are happy that again, come the end of the season Arsenal will be trophyless.
D
Originally posted by Seitse"Still, those 4 clubs would rather be, financially, in
Hey, nice deposition, Angry Boy.
Still, those 4 clubs would rather be, financially, in
the Gunners' shoes. Also in football perhaps? That's
debatable as it is a matter of taste, I know.
The point here is, I sense it is a matter of priority:
teams which put the permanence of the club and
its image towards supporters above short-term
pearls and diamo ...[text shortened]... ns of Arsenal, want? I don't have a
survey to say yes or no. But I can speak for
myself.
the Gunners' shoes."
I don't believe Chelsea and Man City have any debt as such (all of it is to owners), Arsenal are a couple of hundred million in the red. United have a far greater turnover.
Point???
"Also in football perhaps? "
I watched Arsenal play Barcelona over 2 legs, and Barca looked on a different planet. Arsenal looked like a pub football team. Their naivete at times means that they draw/lose games in the final minutes instead of retaining possession.
D