Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,209
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
i think in terms of transfers. not wage.
Is it time to sack Wenger?
- Thread starter edwardcasbon1
- Start date
- Status
i think in terms of transfers. not wage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,152
- Location
- Surrey
If you're just going to complain about the thread then go away, it's tedious!
And as for Wenger, it's a tough call for me at the moment. Not sure who we would get to replace him, but at the same time whatever he's doing isn't working and could ultimately end up costing the club money and reputation!
Yes there is. Wenger's ideology and vision is of attacking, flowing football and the development of a side rather than buying one.
Unfortunately, his signings to augment this over the past 3-4 years have ultimately been poor.
As a I said, a huge clear out is needed IF they want to compete for titles again. It depends on whether the board think they CAN compete with the likes of Man United and Man City, or if they think battling to be the best side in the London, whilst their currently the 3rd, is achievement enough.
** WARNING **
Forum rules are being broken, I repeat, forum rules are being broken. This is a serious infraction and I will not stand for it, the forum means far too much to me. This thread should be removed instantly and I will not cease being petty and annoying until it is.
** WARNING **
Forum rules are being broken, I repeat, forum rules are being broken. This is a serious infraction and I will not stand for it, the forum means far too much to me. This thread should be removed instantly and I will not cease being petty and annoying until it is.
** WARNING **
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,209
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
yes if we clear out dead wood we have to buy proven players. not kids or else where back to square one.
Arsenal will have to spend easily 60m mimimum to replace dead wood of players.
Arsenal do not have 60 million to spend. Why do people have that much trouble understanding basic economics. As much as I hate to say it, Arsenal have one of the best stadium in the world, and it cost a lot of money to get that. Most of the money that Arsenal do have is tied up in paying off the cost of building it, and yes, the current league standings do reflect that.
Arsene Wenger has performed miracles on a very tight budget, you get rid of him, and you will drop like a stone. In fact, please do get rid of him so I can laugh at Arsenal for the next twenty years.
Arsene Wenger has performed miracles on a very tight budget, you get rid of him, and you will drop like a stone. In fact, please do get rid of him so I can laugh at Arsenal for the next twenty years.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,054
- Location
- Surrey
I say sack Wenger and appoint Jonneymendoze and DM as joint managers. Then we could have a poll as to whether they'd destroy each other or Arsenal first.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 1,913
- Location
- Alicante, Es / Wales
60m... what, so say Rosicky goes, Arshavin, Henry and Yossi go after there loans, that leaves
GK.. Almunia, Szczesny and Fabianski.
Defence... Sagna, Mertesacker, Vermaelen, Kocielny, Santos, Squillaci, Djourou, Jenkinson and Gibbs
Midfield... Diaby, Arteta, Ramsey, Song, Wilshere and Coquelin (Frimpong and Lansbury to come back from loans)
Forwards/Strikers... Gervinho, Walcott, Chamberlain, Park, RVP, Ryo, Chamakh.
What do you need to spend 60 million (Minimum) on?? maybe an extra centre back as cover but i dont think thats really needed, the central midfield is pretty stong, maybe another guy that can play on the wing and drift behind VP but I dont think thats gona make a huge difference. They just need a full team back with no injuries.
Having Wilshere, Sagna and Gibbs back will make a huge difference
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,209
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Djourou, diaby and chamakh should go too. Take those players out as well as the one syou already mentioned and our squad behond the first 11 is no good. we would need to replace 7 players with at least 3-4 decent ones. One of the replacements having to be someone that can bloody score like RVP. So all in all 60m for 3-4 proven players is doable.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 1,913
- Location
- Alicante, Es / Wales
Doable, yeah... but a very silly way of looking at it. Djourou wouldnt be missed, i agree, Chamakh isnt that bad just hard to fill VPs boots, and Diaby is a player i dont think Wenger would want to lose, i wouldnt want to lose him anyway.
Plus they already spent 52mil at the start of the season, where would this 60mil come from. Arsenal have only spent around £340 mil in the past 29/20 season, i didnt think they could manage 110mil in one season.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,209
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
we spent 52million? on who? We sold fabregas and nasri for 50m+ and we have not even used all of that .
But we need to get rid of more then the 3 players you mentioned. End of the day a decent player is worth 20m whether we like it or not especially a attacking player.
But we need to get rid of more then the 3 players you mentioned. End of the day a decent player is worth 20m whether we like it or not especially a attacking player.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 1,913
- Location
- Alicante, Es / Wales
yeah but Gervinho is in instead of Nasri and Arteta instead of Cesc. Then Oxlade, Per, thats a lot of money gone, plus like others have said, the stadium isnt cheap, once you get a fit side the squad will not look so thin, I dont think its a bad squad at all.
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
RVP will be gone next season.
Heh.
Oil money talks, but all down to if RVP is motivated by money or not. Like City would ever attract the players they have if they didn't have the money.
Nasri could have went to United and played with Evra, but again he chose the money, just like pretty much all the other players they have.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 1,913
- Location
- Alicante, Es / Wales
Nasri did pick money over joining United but he did still want to play for Man U, after Man U held talks with him he wanted to see what he could get at City, he then went back to Man U and they pretty much told him where to go. Classic case of players trying to get too much. Still tho, hes at Man City and fair play to him and good luck.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 1,913
- Location
- Alicante, Es / Wales
hmm, i think i got that backwards, he wanted to sign for man u, held talks with City first, went to united for contract talks and basically told him what man city offered and said what he expected, United then said, pretty much, get on your bike and dont start making demands so he had to go back to city with cap in hand saying he wants the contract they offered.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Again, no its not, you can't have one blinkered ideology that Wenger has been saying and fans/media/public have been attributing for Wenger for over a decade....... where there are two distinct and very different "versions" of Arsenal. The Arsenal that were a success are NOT the Arsenal we have now, we have different types of players, we have a different formation, different defence, different tactics, different style.... and we win smeg all.
People bang on and on and on about his youth program. We buy in youngsters ready for the first team, and youngsters means normally 18+, only actual top notch youth player through our system being Wilshire and Ashley Cole(been a while I think he might not have been at ARsenal for that long before hitting first team, was at Palace or somewhere?), Fabregas, Clichy, all the rest were basically bought as is and ready for the first team.
Our "winning" teams have Vieira, Pires, Henry, Edu, Campbell, Keown, Adam's, Dixon, winterburn, Grimandi, Cole, Lauren, Wiltord, Gilberto, Freddie, Overmars, Petit...... how many of those fit in with this magically all winning successful "youth based" model Wenger has had so much success with..... basically none.
Wenger had a MASSIVE shift in philosophy, style and management 6-7 years ago, and we'd been "meh" since. His signings haven't always been poor, its been his utter refusal to give game time to certain players over others who are much worse.
Arsenal DO have 60mil to spend, if you want to be taken seriously, look at cash in the bank, look at the debt, look at how it's structured and paid off, look at the profits, look at the wage spend increase.
here's a hint, our squad quality has dropped dramatically over 6 years, but we're paying 70% more....... if we didn't massively increase our spending by 50million a year.... that would be 50million in the bank every year.
You are like most people ignoring the fact that Wenger CHOOSES TO SPEND THE EXTRA ON A LARGE SQUAD OF EQUAL WAGE CRAPBAGS.
Diaby, 3million, Song, 3million, Vela 1-2million, Bendtner, 2-3million, Theo 3 million, Djourou 2-3 million, Mertesacker 4million, etc, etc. Some of these are guys who Wenger has played SO little over the past 4-5 years, some shouldn't be at Arsenal, this is a minor part of the waste at Arsenal. Remove said waste, vela maybe started 3 games a year, Bendtner is good but got no games, paying Hoyte for years despite barely being non league quality, the list goes on, for the past 10 years with dozens of players who were kept around for no reason.
Wages = money, don't spend those wages, have more money for transfers. Spurs have a better squad, doing better, that cost less in total transfer spend + wages than Arsenal have..... so we both do have money if we've spent more than them, and we aren't doing as well as a club with significantly less money...... so how are we "doing well"?
Just tosh, so if City win the title this year, and every single year for the next 20 years(they won't) then EVERY player that goes there is doing it for the money alone?
RVP would have plenty of suitors and RVP will eventually move somewhere he can win titles, its really that simple. Whichever team he moves to, Bayern, Real, Barca, City, Inter, AC and a few others all offer a better chance at trophies as well as paying him higher wages.
Rooney went from Everton to Utd, he got way more money, does that automatically make it all about the money?
Thats the umpteenth time I've seen someone suggest that moving to City could only ever be exclusively about the money...... while they sit top of the league, having won a trophy last year, with three or four trophies up for grabs for them still this season. I dislike City, I dislike their manager, their wasteful spending, but that doesn't change the fact they are going to win titles and going their to win titles is a perfectly valid reason.
Also Evra's been cack for 18 months, why on earth would anyone move to Utd just to play with Evra, and why is it okay to move to Utd with a huge wage to win a title, but its horrendous to go to City with a huge wage to win titles. I'd every time choose to win the first title at City and be part of a new exciting team than be the Utd legend who helped them win their, 1128th trophy that year.... wooo, its a bigger landmark, it means more, you would achieve something new that will be remembered for decades and decades.
Last edited:
- Status