Re: R&W's letter to the board

[Jay29]

Very good article that by and large sums up my own thoughts on the matter.

‘No! No! How can we lose him?’ they cry like giddy, teenage Justin Bieber fans. They demand ‘Wenger must answer for this — or go!’, summoning up all their ignorance and parading it on Twitter. These people are cretins. They should be ignored.

The problem at Arsenal lies all around Wenger. He is beseiged by squabbles in the boardroom, ungrateful whelps in the dressing room and idiotic comment in the chatrooms.

Here here.

He has no right to tell Wenger how to run the club. The Arsenal manager gave him his chance when Feyenoord dumped a young Van Persie on the transfer list for being a cocky pain in the backside.

The Dutchman has now repaid that debt by effectively trashing the quality of Wenger’s summer signings, Germany striker Lukas Podolski, a 27-year-old striker with more than 100 caps, and the France international and Ligue 1 top scorer, Olivier Giroud, for a combined total of £24million.

By any measure, that’s great business. And it is also worth reminding everyone at this point that these excellent acquisitions have been added to a squad that finished third in the table last season.

That’s right, poor Arsenal. They finished ‘only’ third in the most lucrative and competitive league in the world, behind a Manchester City that spent more money than Croesus to claim the title.

The things that most fans have conveniently forgotten in all this mess.

[Raptorgunner]

Some typical Hill-Wood quotes on the situation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/06/peter-hill-wood-arsenal-alisher-usmanov?CMP=twt_gu

The Arsenal chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, has staunchly defended the running of the club against the vitriolic criticism levelled against the board by the 30% owner, the Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov. Hill-Wood maintained that Arsenal's policy of spending only what they earn is correct, as is the stance that the American majority owner Stan Kroenke, and former shareholders such as Hill-Wood who made millions selling their shares to Kroenke, should not be expected to put money into the club. Hill-Wood described Usmanov's attack on this approach, which Arsenal call a self-financing model, as "not at all helpful".

The chairman, who made £5.5m selling his shares to Kroenke, said the club provides Arsène Wenger with as much money as possible for players, but cannot compete with Manchester City's Abu Dhabi-backed wealth. At the end of a week in which Arsenal's captain, Robin van Persie, announced he will not sign a new contract, citing a lack of ambition for success, Hill-Wood said: "We don't have the same oil wealth that [City's owner] Sheikh Mansour has. He is prepared to pay astronomical figures for players; we cannot pay that sort of money, and we can't compete."

In his open letter to Arsenal's board on Thursday, Usmanov was scathing about the self-financing model, arguing it was, in effect, engineered by the former English shareholders, including Hill-Wood, to make personal fortunes. The owners' policy of not investing their own money in the club, Usmanov argued, meant Arsenal borrowed to build the Emirates Stadium (£260m), charge supporters very expensive ticket prices, yet still leave Wenger short of money to retain and sign star players.

"The self-financing model … allowed the major shareholders of the time … to benefit from [an] increase in the value of their holdings," the letter said. "All of these shareholders and board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits."

Alongside Hill-Wood pocketing £5.5m, the longstanding shareholder Richard Carr made more than £40m selling to Kroenke in 2009. Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith, who also inherited her Arsenal shares, made £116m selling them to Kroenke last year. Danny Fiszman, who bought into Arsenal in the 1990s, first with a portion of the former vice-chairman's David Dein's stake, made £160m, the final sale to Kroenke made just before Fiszman died last year.

Hill-Wood said making so much money from selling his shares was "nice", explaining: "You wouldn't say no to a few million pounds." But he rejected as "complete and utter rubbish" the accusation that the club was run deliberately to increase the value of his and the other owners' shares, at the expense of supporters and a robust budget for Wenger.

"It was nice to make that money, but I was never involved in Arsenal for that reason," Hill-Wood said. "I was involved because I have been brought up to love Arsenal and that is my only concern."

Of Usmanov's intervention, the Arsenal chairman said: "I do not know what is trying to do really, I don't think he is right."

Arsenal's summer has been disrupted by Van Persie's public announcement that he does not intend to renew his contract after, he said, being left unconvinced by the club's plans to compete for trophies. The departures of Gaël Clichy and Samir Nasri last summer to City, where they did win the Premier League, and of Cesc Fábregas, the previous captain-talisman, have left Arsenal looking like a selling club in the age of big-spending plutocrat owners. Usmanov argued that the owners should invest by paying off the stadium debt, which was still £98m and cost £15m in interest last year.

However Hill-Wood argued, as does the chief executive, Ivan Gazidis, that the financial penalties due for early repayment make that unviable.

"It's simple to say we should put some money in, but it doesn't make any sense," Hill-Wood said. "We can't pay off the debt without huge penalties, and putting money in for any other reason doesn't make any sense at all. We give the manager as much money as we possibly can, and all we can do is continue. We have run the club sensibly, and we haven't done badly; it's not as if we have been relegated."

Usmanov, with whom Kroenke does not communicate, is also critical of the executive team, who brought in £33m commercial income last year, £70m less than Manchester United. He points to the board too, saying it would benefit from younger people with more football and major sports club experience. Gazidis, 47, is Arsenal's youngest director; Kroenke is 65 this month, Hill-Wood 76, Sir "Chips" Keswick 72, Lord Harris of Peckham 69 and the long-serving administrative stalwart Ken Friar is 78.

Hill-Wood acknowledged: "It would be good to have some young people on the board, but it is not as easy for young people who have full-time jobs to do that now as it was when I was a young man. However I do not think there is anything different we can be doing in the running of Arsenal."

Hill wood is a joke, is this the boards respond to usmanov letter?

We have run the club sensibly, and we haven't done badly; it's not as if we have been relegated."

[Raptorgunner]

What you do you think?

Simbo
Well what can one say about arsenal and present level of support for a club. 4 years ago i was 47000 on the waiting list for a season ticket and yesterday i was offered a ticket. We are losing support due to our lack of investment and no trophies. Soon the ground will be less than full

Leedsgunner

Honestly… I wouldn’t pay PHW any notice. He’s just an embarrassment. If the response of the Board to the Uzbek’s letter is PHW’s statement… it just shows what an out of touch, bunch they really are. With IG and AW continually talking about how the club’s vision is to be the best in the world and not spending the money to do it is… pathetic.

Whether it is AW’s reluctance to spend, the Board’s refusal to sanction the spend, the result is the same. The club is being bled dry from the inside. Our best players are leaving. This will affect results on the pitch, which will affect how we can attract the best players, which will lead to our best players leaving… etc. So the circle of BS continues…

If the club spent say £15M to £20M a year for the past three years on solid proven talent we would not be in this mess. Before anybody corrects me and says we don’t have that kind of money to spend, I ask thee, how many pros do we have our books? Didn’t we pay £12M for Theo and the Ox each? What’s the use of buying good young talent if they are going to p*** off once they are entering their best years? How is that taking the club forward?

How many millions have we lost to paying fringe players like Diaby, Gibbs, Denilson, Vela, Bendtner, Chamakh, Squillaci, and Almunia? (just on the top of my head). Imagine instead of Diaby, Vela, Bendtner and Chamahk, we spent all their transfer fees and wages accrued so far on one player, say, Hazard or Goetze… what a difference it would make to the quality of the squad. I know hindsight is 20/20 but surely you get my drift?

It’s not about crying what others have! It’s about using what you have effectively. We are the top London with one of the best stadiums in the world. We have a passionate global fanbase. We have a great legacy. As I’ve been saying for ages now… first and foremost if AFC is to reach the pinnacle of the EPL again, we need a change in attitude, attitude, attitude. The club has to initiate change and not wait for UEFA or FIFA to “level” the playing field for them; because if won’t. The big clubs are too valuable to them… they are ultimately conflicted out. That’s why relying on FFP will never work.

Honestly… I wouldn’t pay PHW any notice. He’s just an embarrassment. If the response of the Board to the Uzbek’s letter is PHW’s statement… it just shows what an out of touch, bunch they really are. With IG and AW continually talking about how the club’s vision is to be the best in the world and not spending the money to do it is… pathetic.

Whether it is AW’s reluctance to spend, the Board’s refusal to sanction the spend, the result is the same. The club is being bled dry from the inside. Our best players are leaving. This will affect results on the pitch, which will affect how we can attract the best players, which will lead to our best players leaving… etc. So the circle of BS continues…

If the club spent say £15M to £20M a year for the past three years on solid proven talent we would not be in this mess. Before anybody corrects me and says we don’t have that kind of money to spend, I ask thee, how many pros do we have our books? Didn’t we pay £12M for Theo and the Ox each? What’s the use of buying good young talent if they are going to p*** off once they are entering their best years? How is that taking the club forward?

How many millions have we lost to paying fringe players like Diaby, Gibbs, Denilson, Vela, Bendtner, Chamakh, Squillaci, and Almunia? (just on the top of my head). Imagine instead of Diaby, Vela, Bendtner and Chamahk, we spent all their transfer fees and wages accrued so far on one player, say, Hazard or Goetze… what a difference it would make to the quality of the squad. I know hindsight is 20/20 but surely you get my drift?

It’s not about crying what others have! It’s about using what you have effectively. We are the top London with one of the best stadiums in the world. We have a passionate global fanbase. We have a great legacy. As I’ve been saying for ages now… first and foremost if AFC is to reach the pinnacle of the EPL again, we need a change in attitude, attitude, attitude. The club has to initiate change and not wait for UEFA or FIFA to “level” the playing field for them; because if won’t. The big clubs are too valuable to them… they are ultimately conflicted out. That’s why relying on FFP will never work.

[urbaNRoots]

We have run the club sensibly, and we haven't done badly; it's not as if we have been relegated."



van Persie has every right to leave.

[abirking]

Srigooner, the board is against selling equity to get rid of the debt because it dilutes the shareholding of the existing investors.

Diluted shareholding means less stake in the club and hence lower potential value of the existing holdings.

I would like to add that,
The board could decide to sell a different class of equity shares which will exclude the control that ordinary shares have. I think Manu are planning something like this with their NYSE IPO.

Additionally the board may fear that additional issue of shares may give R&W holdings a chance to increase their shareholdings and that is why they do not want to do it.

Amy lawrence has written a piece in the guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jul/06/arsenal-progress-dysfunctional-owners

Its worth a read.

[Mudcat]

Very good article that by and large sums up my own thoughts on the matter.

‘No! No! How can we lose him?’ they cry like giddy, teenage Justin Bieber fans. They demand ‘Wenger must answer for this — or go!’, summoning up all their ignorance and parading it on Twitter. These people are cretins. They should be ignored.

The problem at Arsenal lies all around Wenger. He is beseiged by squabbles in the boardroom, ungrateful whelps in the dressing room and idiotic comment in the chatrooms.

Here here.

He has no right to tell Wenger how to run the club. The Arsenal manager gave him his chance when Feyenoord dumped a young Van Persie on the transfer list for being a cocky pain in the backside.

The Dutchman has now repaid that debt by effectively trashing the quality of Wenger’s summer signings, Germany striker Lukas Podolski, a 27-year-old striker with more than 100 caps, and the France international and Ligue 1 top scorer, Olivier Giroud, for a combined total of £24million.

By any measure, that’s great business. And it is also worth reminding everyone at this point that these excellent acquisitions have been added to a squad that finished third in the table last season.

That’s right, poor Arsenal. They finished ‘only’ third in the most lucrative and competitive league in the world, behind a Manchester City that spent more money than Croesus to claim the title.

The things that most fans have conveniently forgotten in all this mess.

And Wenger managed that third place finish despite the craziest injury crisis I can recall in a season that began in turmoil. Granted, Robin Van Persie carried the team on his back at times during the season and for that I'll always be grateful. But he had to carry the team on his back because while he was staying healthy for the first time in eight years, everyone around him was dropping like flies. Losing him does not mean Arsenal can't be competitive at the very top.

And the most important point of the column to me was when Des Kelly said that RVP does not have the right to tell Wenger how to run the team. No player does. I don't care if it's frickin' Messi. When a player starts to think he's too big for the team, I want him out. I'm tired of seeing this crap happen. You see it in the NBA all the time and to some extent in other sports. The star players decide who will coach the team and even who their teammates will be. It's a poisonous situation.

[Eman]

Am I the only one who, upon seeing that R&W has said something, doesn't read a single line without suspicion? They focus all of their efforts on people's emotions and IMO come off as quite shady.

As for RvP, I've always loved him, but I love Wenger more. I don't know what about Wenger's future plans RvP doesn't agree with, but surely van Persie is overreacting by thinking he knows better. Whether we keep him or send him packing, I've never wanted to rub success in someone's face so bad - we must win something next season!

[A Gunner]

This isn't good after the good early start in the transfer market you'd think we had a perfect start ... guess again!

[6unner]

Kind of an interesting read. Not sure what to think of it though. Just found it interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2170609/Arsene-Wengers-taste-medicine--Martin-Samuel.html?ITO=1490

[Raptorgunner]

Kind of an interesting read. Not sure what to think of it though. Just found it interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2170609/Arsene-Wengers-taste-medicine--Martin-Samuel.html?ITO=1490

I agree very interesting.
-------------------------------------------
It is Schumpeter's Gale that is blowing right up Wenger's passage and has been for several years. Football's new money, most particularly at Chelsea and City, is wreaking creative destruction on established businesses such as Arsenal and Liverpool, the way iPods have overtaken Walkmans.

The difference is that in football, unlike any other industry, this is perceived as unfair. If Robin van Persie is the latest to depart Arsenal for City there will no doubt be a fresh round of outrage that foreign wealth is messing with the fabric of the English game.

Yet Chelsea and City do not poach players from Manchester United; not even from Tottenham Hotspur in the past year. Schumpeter's Gale most drastically affects Arsenal, because Arsenal have fallen behind.

Indeed, why should Arsenal's monopoly - a Champions League appearance for 15 consecutive seasons and counting - be artificially protected? Nobody saved Sony when their technology was overtaken by Apple. Nobody rushed to protect Polaroid as it was being swept away by Nikon and Minolta.

The reality is that Arsenal's sustainable business model is not as special and altruistic as they would have us believ


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2170609/Arsene-Wengers-taste-medicine--Martin-Samuel.html#ixzz2088wUruF

[Raptorgunner]

[quote]David Dein: "All I would hope for the stability of the club is that, whether he [van Persie] stays or goes, it happens quickly."[code]

[RealGunner]

martin samuel lol

[Jay29]

It is hard to take someone who thought Stoke could get into the top four seriously.

[Raptorgunner]

It is hard to take someone who thought Stoke could get into the top four seriously.

[6unner]

Some typical Hill-Wood quotes on the situation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/06/peter-hill-wood-arsenal-alisher-usmanov?CMP=twt_gu

The Arsenal chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, has staunchly defended the running of the club against the vitriolic criticism levelled against the board by the 30% owner, the Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov. Hill-Wood maintained that Arsenal's policy of spending only what they earn is correct, as is the stance that the American majority owner Stan Kroenke, and former shareholders such as Hill-Wood who made millions selling their shares to Kroenke, should not be expected to put money into the club. Hill-Wood described Usmanov's attack on this approach, which Arsenal call a self-financing model, as "not at all helpful".

The chairman, who made £5.5m selling his shares to Kroenke, said the club provides Arsène Wenger with as much money as possible for players, but cannot compete with Manchester City's Abu Dhabi-backed wealth. At the end of a week in which Arsenal's captain, Robin van Persie, announced he will not sign a new contract, citing a lack of ambition for success, Hill-Wood said: "We don't have the same oil wealth that [City's owner] Sheikh Mansour has. He is prepared to pay astronomical figures for players; we cannot pay that sort of money, and we can't compete."

In his open letter to Arsenal's board on Thursday, Usmanov was scathing about the self-financing model, arguing it was, in effect, engineered by the former English shareholders, including Hill-Wood, to make personal fortunes. The owners' policy of not investing their own money in the club, Usmanov argued, meant Arsenal borrowed to build the Emirates Stadium (£260m), charge supporters very expensive ticket prices, yet still leave Wenger short of money to retain and sign star players.

"The self-financing model … allowed the major shareholders of the time … to benefit from [an] increase in the value of their holdings," the letter said. "All of these shareholders and board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits."

Alongside Hill-Wood pocketing £5.5m, the longstanding shareholder Richard Carr made more than £40m selling to Kroenke in 2009. Lady Nina Bracewell-Smith, who also inherited her Arsenal shares, made £116m selling them to Kroenke last year. Danny Fiszman, who bought into Arsenal in the 1990s, first with a portion of the former vice-chairman's David Dein's stake, made £160m, the final sale to Kroenke made just before Fiszman died last year.

Hill-Wood said making so much money from selling his shares was "nice", explaining: "You wouldn't say no to a few million pounds." But he rejected as "complete and utter rubbish" the accusation that the club was run deliberately to increase the value of his and the other owners' shares, at the expense of supporters and a robust budget for Wenger.

"It was nice to make that money, but I was never involved in Arsenal for that reason," Hill-Wood said. "I was involved because I have been brought up to love Arsenal and that is my only concern."

Of Usmanov's intervention, the Arsenal chairman said: "I do not know what is trying to do really, I don't think he is right."

Arsenal's summer has been disrupted by Van Persie's public announcement that he does not intend to renew his contract after, he said, being left unconvinced by the club's plans to compete for trophies. The departures of Gaël Clichy and Samir Nasri last summer to City, where they did win the Premier League, and of Cesc Fábregas, the previous captain-talisman, have left Arsenal looking like a selling club in the age of big-spending plutocrat owners. Usmanov argued that the owners should invest by paying off the stadium debt, which was still £98m and cost £15m in interest last year.

However Hill-Wood argued, as does the chief executive, Ivan Gazidis, that the financial penalties due for early repayment make that unviable.

"It's simple to say we should put some money in, but it doesn't make any sense," Hill-Wood said. "We can't pay off the debt without huge penalties, and putting money in for any other reason doesn't make any sense at all. We give the manager as much money as we possibly can, and all we can do is continue. We have run the club sensibly, and we haven't done badly; it's not as if we have been relegated."

Usmanov, with whom Kroenke does not communicate, is also critical of the executive team, who brought in £33m commercial income last year, £70m less than Manchester United. He points to the board too, saying it would benefit from younger people with more football and major sports club experience. Gazidis, 47, is Arsenal's youngest director; Kroenke is 65 this month, Hill-Wood 76, Sir "Chips" Keswick 72, Lord Harris of Peckham 69 and the long-serving administrative stalwart Ken Friar is 78.

Hill-Wood acknowledged: "It would be good to have some young people on the board, but it is not as easy for young people who have full-time jobs to do that now as it was when I was a young man. However I do not think there is anything different we can be doing in the running of Arsenal."

I keep reading parts f this because it is everywhere and every time I get to this quote and can not get over it.

"We have run the club sensibly, and we haven't done badly; it's not as if we have been relegated."

I just don't know if it was a poor choice of words or if he is serious. Either way I think it shows that the boards ambition is to try for CL football and hope that they can win something.

[6unner]

It is hard to take someone who thought Stoke could get into the top four seriously.

Not sure if anyone should take anything seriously or not. I just thought there was a few parts of it that were very interesting. There were parts of it when talking about Schumpeter's Gale and how certain entities can be left behind do to not wanting to grow with time. Then parts of it when talking about FFP and that Arsenal are just middle men. We tend to ignore FFP when we are buying all of our youth from smaller teams not creating them but polishing them. Then want to talk about FFP when other teams want to treat us the same way buying our polished players.


"Sometimes your work is destroyed by others,' said Wenger at the weekend. 'I am a victim of that. I lost Samir Nasri, Gael Clichy and Cesc Fabregas at an age when they should have been playing their best football."

Our entire starting X1 have been purchased from other teams. Think those coaches ever thought of themselves as victims.

[Jay29]

His comparison between clubs and real life companies is made invalid, though, once you realise that these football clubs - Chelsea and City in particular - have had access to a huge amount of money through no effort of their own, while real life companies seldom receive the same luxury.

He's basically saying that Arsenal's business model is old and nothing special because other clubs have come and left them behind. But those clubs don't really have business models. Rather, they have access to a huge amount of money that someone had just decided to dump on them. Essentially, he's saying Arsenal need to go the same way in order to catch up.

You just cannot compare football to business. They're two very different worlds that play by different rules.

Also, his point about us just "polishing" certain players is highly debatable, if not outright disrespectful to Wenger and Arsenal. We did more than just "polish" the raw talent of Kolo Toure, Gael Clichy and Cesc Fabregas.

We tend to ignore FFP when we are buying all of our youth from smaller teams not creating them but polishing them. Then want to talk about FFP when other teams want to treat us the same way buying our polished players.

We're not complaining about teams coming in and buying our players. We're complaining about teams coming and buying our players and paying them with money that they've acquired from a wealthy owner. We're complaining about teams being able to pay players considerably more money than we can because they have the luxury of a sugardaddy funding their spending.

Yes, we do throw our financial muscle to purchase youngsters from other clubs, but we've gotten into this position purely on our own merits. FFP will not make any difference to our ability to sign these young players. Furthermore, the clubs we buy them from do not complain about it because ultimately the money they get for their talents is worth more than the talent himself.

And again, we're doing more than just polishing these players. A lot of them are bought at 16/17/18 years of age, and it takes a lot of work to get them ready to play for the first team. Don't underestimate the work that goes into developing these players.

[Raptorgunner]

Why are the Arsenal Board scared to invest in the club?

ARSENAL FC by Ozzy AFC,

Why do the board and Wenger fear spending money and allowing Investment from Usmanov? And why do they allow us to be the laughing stock of the premier league??

There have been countless articles on here about the on going Kroenke / Usmanov debate and this in turn leads to the RVP saga and back even further to Samir Na$ri and beyond. I am well aware that I run the risk of being shellacked by many of you on here for bringing this up and highlighting the negatives rather than being blindly positive and hoping for the best.

However of all the articles I’ve read on here regarding this subject I have never heard anyone bring up the most important issue of all and that what are the Board and Wenger scared of regarding their financial situation? And why are the Board and AW allowing us to become an absolute laughing stock in the eyes of the footballing world?

Firstly let’s address the first issue, we are constantly told by mostly pro Kroenke supporters and occasionally by the board that the clubs current financial plan is in place to avoid the possibility of being dependant on one super rich investor who may potentially walk away and leave us deeply in debt and even more deeply in trouble. The argument for this cites the rivals we have in the premier league I.e. Chelsea and more recently Man City and the FFP rules that FIFA have been promising to bring in over the last few years.

However we have to look at this in a real sense and know that the likes of Roman Abramovich are about as likely to walk away from Chelsea after so much investment as Stan Kroenke is likely to put any money into our club. He has been at Stamford Bridge for a number of years now and shows no signs at all of wanting to desert the club especially now that they have won the champions League. The investors at City are of an equally stoic persuasion and are hardly likely to invest millions and then just pull away without warning. Why then would AFC be soooo scared of One Alisher Usmanov doing just that? When clearly he is a dedicated Arsenal Fan?

Or is it that the current Board made a huge sum of money for their personal fortunes by allowing Stan Kroenke onto the board as majority share holder and now have to block Unmanov as he is in all reality a major rival of Koneke’s and would also be able to “see the books” and any improprieties that have gone on??.

The so called FFP ruling that FIFA have been promising for so long will be a watered down “easy to bypass” set of half rules that the fianancial giants that run the likes of PSG and Barcelona will easily sidestep in order to carry on as usual. So why is the Arsenal Board apparently so scared of both of these issues?? Are they really that naïve? Or is it down to a different internal issue? After all Peter Hill-Wood once said that they would not sell out to foreign investors and then blocked Usmanov and allowed Kroenke in – well why is an American any less foreign than an Uzbek??

Secondly and probably more importantly why are we the fans, the ones who make the club what it is, the ones who pay the bills by buying the shirts and spending the money on the season tickets, and all the other stuff etc. We’re the ones who season after season have to endure the ridicule of other fans who mock us for being a feeder club to other bigger investors, and for showing no ambition and no will to win. We are constantly berated in the press and even our old guard who achieved such glory have come to realise that our current policies will take us nowhere. Why there is no concern and no information coming out that can alleviate this??

For the proud fans of our glorious and historic club?? How long do they think this will be allowed to continue?? And why do they not realise that globally the Arsenal brand is coming to represent lies, mistruths and disinformation – rather than honesty, good investment and successful footballing campaigns. Wenger’s policies worked once but that was before big investment negated his skills and efforts. The day has passed where Wenger would have bought in the likes of Eden Hazard for a few million and turned him into a super star because now Wenger only has to look at a player and every other club with bigger wallets now buy these players! Is Arsene Wenger not a victim of his own success??

If the board fear a financial global meltdown in the footballing world, what good would it be to be the last Club standing?? If there is no clubs left to play? Likewise how will it benefit the likes of City if they have every top class player in the world and no one can compete with them? The Arsenal Board is trying to stop the destruction of football as we know it but by doing so they run a very real risk of destroying their own club in the process.

Tradition and history are built on success not on mediocrity……

http://justarsenal.com/why-are-the-arsenal-board-scared-to-invest-in-the-club/14600

[Sri]

What a lousy excuse for an article.

Simply asking redundant questions without any insight what so ever. Waste of time.

[Sponsored content]