I am not Arsene Wenger, we are different. I want to win!

Well thats not true, there is a reason he should continue to sacrifice his image...its called loyalty and love for what has now become, his club.

The Franchise wrote:Well thats not true, there is a reason he should continue to sacrifice his image...its called loyalty and love for what has now become, his club.

That's a nice sentiment but from where I'm standing the feeling isn't mutual amongst all Arsenal support. Arsenal fans aren't showing him the same loyalty and love, at least not as much as they should.

There will come a point where Wenger will be chased out if he doesn't step down (he will never get fired). It won't be pretty and then we'll all ask why he didn't just leave and manage a top club somewhere else.

Well sure, but you cant blame the guy for trying..all im saying is, there is a reason.

I remember when I was in school, Arsenal were staying in a London hotel close by before a CL game. Me and some Arsenal friends of mine waited outside the hotel in the Febuary cold untill the team came out to get on the bus to the game. When they came out, even I joined in chanting for Wenger and his team..he gave us a raised hand in thanks.

That feeling he must of got, I can only imagine...but stuff like that...how can he just give up? Stuff like that has probably happened many many times over his years...and I would imagine even recently despite the lack of titles.

Dont get me wrong, I aint deaf, I can see and hear more disgruntled fans than before...but when Wenger leaves, the majority of people will be very sad I imagine...the smart ones mostly too.

I dont think he will ever be chased out...fans are not that upset. He aint Mourinho and they arent Madrid.

The problem is Wenger has become part of Arsenal because of his longevity.

Well my best guess is that Wenger must feel indebted to Arsenal what with them taking a gamble on some Frenchie coming in from Japan of all places.

As for the Mourinho comparison, well at the very least you have to admit Jose is much better at making career choices than Wenger. At least that's how I see it. Wenger has done everything he can for Arsenal, there has to come a point where he calls it a day and start fresh. Arsenal fans won't hate him for it, so why stick around and see his legacy tarnished even further?

I could see us going for him if it were to happen. It's be interesting to see what he could do with our resources although he'd have to deal with more bullshat in exchange.

Wenger is a company man... he's said it himself. He doesn't believe in burning bridges. The opposite is Mou who blames everything but himself when things aren't going well.

He's held the fort, taken the heat and kept Arsenal competitive despite lack of resources.

If you hand Mancini the squad Arsenal has had the past 2 years and he wouldn't make the top half of the EPL.

Money buys you the best players and the best players win games. You have exceptions... but not very many. You look at the CL champions over the past 10 years and even the "underdog" winners had big teams.

The other option is to hit a golden generation with your own youth and they stay loyal. In this world... highly unlikely that happens.

I'll also comment on the "spend what you earn" concept. Most companies who see upside invest in growth because you can't realize the potential unless you invest in it. If you're at a startup or early stage, you get private investors or bank loans. If you're big enough to be public, you can go to the capital markets for equity or debt. Only once you reach a certain level maturity, you expect to "spend what you earn".

The message from the Arsenal board is one or several of the following:
- Arsenal is a mature venture without growth opportunities
- They do not want to invest in growing Arsenal even if growth opportunities exist
- They are satisfied with the status quo because it meets their investment objectives

Zealous wrote:Well my best guess is that Wenger must feel indebted to Arsenal what with them taking a gamble on some Frenchie coming in from Japan of all places.

As for the Mourinho comparison, well at the very least you have to admit Jose is much better at making career choices than Wenger. At least that's how I see it. Wenger has done everything he can for Arsenal, there has to come a point where he calls it a day and start fresh. Arsenal fans won't hate him for it, so why stick around and see his legacy tarnished even further?

I could see us going for him if it were to happen. It's be interesting to see what he could do with our resources although he'd have to deal with more bullshat in exchange.

At this point today, more likely, or at least they should, Arsenal and Arsene should feel mutually about each other. Both gained a ton.

Career choices? I disagree. You can only do you, whats good for your career.
Wenger doesnt coach for accolades, he doesnt coach for legacy..thats not his main goal..how he looks when its said and done.


So whats good for Mou isnt good for him and visa versa. I was not comparing them anyway, I was merely pointing to a example.

And I dont think Wenger would ever coach you, I never did even in his "prime"...far too much interference from various places.

people can't say Mancini is shit in Europe and then big up Wenger on that.

Both of them are pathetic in Europe...let's get that right.

and I don't care if Arsenal fans go gunghu, 16 years, only 1 semi- and 1 final is NOT good enough in Europe.

What's pathetic is spending half a billion quid on players and being eliminated in the group stages two years in a row

Lex wrote:What's pathetic is spending half a billion quid on players and being eliminated in the group stages two years in a row

Lex wrote:What's pathetic is spending half a billion quid on players and being eliminated in the group stages two years in a row

+1 - This.

I think Mancini's failure in the CL just shows his ineptitude as a tactician.

What's more is he should probably devote more time to thinking about how to overcome the 12 pt deficit to ensure he keeps his job. Not kick a man when he's down.

Not classy but, perhaps a bit true from Mancini.

If Arsenal were in the groups City were in they could just as easily have been knocked out as well.

Not defending Mancini, City should still have made it out of the groups in at least one of it's last two attempts but let's not pretend his groups included the Victoris Plezens, Bates and Montpelliers of the world.

Assemble one of the most expensive teams in history = fail to win ONE game in the group stages of the Champion's League

I don't care who the opposition were, a team made up of half a BILLION British pounds worth of talent couldn't win one game out of six. Even APOEL managed to win 2 games in a relatively difficult CL group, beating Porto and Shaktar.

And we're not just talking about any team, we're talking about the champions of England. Aren't champions supposed to thrive on pressure, battle on through adversity and rise to the occasion?

You keep quoting the numbers but you, I and everyone here knows that City's squad is not actually worth that much. Their real value would be a lot less in a different world.

City have to pay a higher price because no one would join them otherwise. As time goes on though they will gain legitimacy and as a result won't have to shell out 30 million just to sign Milner.

City's CL run has been a massive failure I agree, regardless of price of assembly the Champions of England should at least win one game against Ajax. But they were in the same group as the Champs of Spain and Germany, leagues with arguably more talent right now (going by their National teams and level of football) Even then Ajax are the champs of Holland. Them knicking a draw was always a possibility.

Last year they went up against Bayern and Napoli who were playing fantastically. All these teams are/were playing at an elite level, City are still finding their feet by comparison.

I'm not even going to bring up the fact that football in England is tactically inept and in decline

City can do better than Mancini for sure but they're not bothered. They won the league last year, will come second this year. As far as I know City fans appreciate Mancini since he "rescued" them from Mark Hughes and won their first league title in a fairy tale domestic season. Ordinary fans don't care about the numbers, they'll barely remember them and I'm pretty sure no one at the Etihad was talking about Aguero's price tag when he scored THAT goal last season.

TLDR ; Mancini isn't all that but City fans probably don't care that much since he coached a league winning team for City.

Disagreed Zeal. The transfer fee is irrespective of their standing: Atletico doesn't care if Aguero goes to City or Swansea so long as they get their 40M. Where you do see that they have to shell out more money is on the wages, because Aguero would want to be paid more to play for Swansea than for City.

That makes sense but do you really think that clubs are not going to try to milk City for all their worth when negotiating with them? Since everyone knows they can pay.

As champs (Expensive ones at that) of England they represented the country like flops and couldn't beat the same Ajax team that steaua Bucharest knocked out of Europe.

Zealous wrote:That makes sense but do you really think that clubs are not going to try to milk City for all their worth when negotiating with them? Since everyone knows they can pay.

City flaunt their money when it suits them, muscling in on other team's negotiations, so why shouldn't teams take advantage? They made their four poster, gold embroidered bed, they have to lie in it sometimes

I'm not blaming clubs for taking advantage of that. Like you said they made their bed and now have to lie in it but that doesn't mean they don't overpay for players, because they most certainly do.

I'm just pointing out that the "LOL 1 Billion pound team rofl" argument is flawed. City clearly don't have a squad actually worth anything near 1 billion pounds.

I'd wager most top team squads are worth less than the sum of their transfer prices. Madrid would be a great example of money not completly reflecting quality (although we're definitely better than City in that regard)

That was one point I was going to bring up.
The amount City paid doesn't/shouldn't reflect the quality of the players. Not factor into rating not winning a group stage match with a " billion" squad or whatever. I'm sure many here would agree on that aspect regarding certain players City bought.


Considering they were only ever really competing in the Europa League up till last season. And even that they only got to the quarter finals in 08/09 then R16 the next two seasons. Then was group stage exit last season.

Their record in Europe isn't that impressive

Zealous wrote:I'm just pointing out that the "LOL 1 Billion pound team rofl" argument is flawed. City clearly don't have a squad actually worth anything near 1 billion pounds.

Half a billion

And it's not like teams hook City in with one price, then raise it once the representative is in the building. Say Atletico set Falcao's price at £50 mil. Only two/three clubs can realistically meet that price. It's down to whatever personal terms are also being offered by each club and, surprise surprise, City have no trouble shelling out £120k p/w wages to anyone and everyone.

Zealous wrote:You keep quoting the numbers but you, I and everyone here knows that City's squad is not actually worth that much. Their real value would be a lot less in a different world.

City have to pay a higher price because no one would join them otherwise. As time goes on though they will gain legitimacy and as a result won't have to shell out 30 million just to sign Milner.

This is bollocks.. City actually "have" to pay the bare minimum, because the players want to go for the ridiculous wages + the fact its EPL, it may be true that smaller clubs will get a little extra something on the side through negotiation, however that applies to any major club in Europe.

See list of transfers over past few years, to me they are getting exactly what they pay for - nothing looks out of the ordinary to me at all. No doubt, the cost of footballers is getting absurd (as aided by clubs like Man City), but if Arsenal were to sign any of these players, on their form at the time of purchase - I would expect to pay the same.

12/13
Jack Rodwell £15,000,000
Scott Sinclair £8,000,000
Matija Nastasic £12,000,000
Maicon £3,000,000
Richard Wright Free
Jave Garcia £16,000,000
Godsway Donyoh Free
Kieron Courtney Dyer Free

11/12
Stefan Savic £6,000,000
Gaël Clichy £7,000,000
Sergio Agüero £38,000,000
Costel Pantilimon £3,000,000
Samir Nasri £22,000,000
Owen Hargreaves Free

Clichy - a steal

10/11
Jerome Boateng £11,000,000
Alex Henshall £250,000
Yaya Toure £24,000,000
David Silva £25,000,000
Aleksandar Kolarov £17,000,000
Mario Balotelli £24,500,000
James Milner £26,000,000
Edin Dzeko £27,000,000

09/10
Gareth Barry £12,000,000
Roque Santa Cruz £17,500,000
Gunnar Nielsen Free
Stuart Taylor Tribunal
Carlos Tevez £25,500,000
Emmanuel Adebayor £25,000,000
Kolo Toure £16,000,000
Sylvinho Free
Joleon Lescott £22,000,000
Patrick Viera Free
Adam Johnson £7,000,000

2008/09
Jo £18,000,000
Tal Ben-Haim £5,000,000
Vincent Kompany £6,700,000
Shaun Wright Phillips £9,000,000
Leandro Glauber Undicslosed
Pablo Zabaleta £6,500,000
Robinho £32,500,000
Wayn Bridge £12,000,000
Craig Bellamy £14,000,000
Nigel De Jong £16,000,000[2]
Shay Given £8,000,000[3]
Sam Williamson Free

For me... these are barely inflated prices.. The only ones that are are British. Which we all (I hope) understand has nothing to do with what you are saying.

City sign highly sought after, in-form, huge-name players. I literally believe many talented football manager players could manage this team with some success as there appears to be very little insight or inspiration in any signings. There's no evidence of any sort of meticulous planning with any of them. It looks more a case of who is the best possible player we can get in position [X] who we can sign. Irrespective of their style of play, mentality, etc etc. I have seen no evidence that Mancini has instilled any sort of philosophy for Manchester City, whats his Mantra? For me it seems to be nothing more than "spend, bully, win."

You see you listed a bunch of guys but when you barely use a guy even if you signed him for 10 million he'd be overpriced. That's the case with Adebayor, Nasri, Dzeko, Balotelli etc those transfers fees are ridiculous for players who are not sarters. In fact Nasri, Milenr Dzeko and Balotelli combined for almost 110 million euro. That's just four players that City could arguably do without. That's not mention guys like Sinclair and Rodwell who are barely used at all (They combine for 24 million alone). City squad is simply not worth their transfer fees so I would stop judging them based on that. That's the only point I'm trying to make regarding that.

Look I'm not defending Mancini, I said that City can do better than him but still. The guy won a league title and can point at a tough group stage as an excuse for failing in Europe.

You can harp on about money all you want but last season City were playing some fantastic football and were good for their league win. Mancini had a hand in that and while some of your criticisms are on point you can't take that from him.

I think having too big a trasnfer budget can be a bad thing. When you have a smaller limit you are more careful with your signings and only go for the less risky signings (that are still high profile) United walk this line perfectly imo. They spend money but they make sure it's not wasted.

But you are valuing them based on how City have utilised them... which aside from being .. wrong.. just aids my argument.. there's no point crying foul that your signing quality players for 10mil+ and then not starting them.

Too bigger transfer budget is not a bad thing at all.. you don't HAVE to blow your entire budget.. Granted he may have pressure from above to make a lot of these signings. Who knows.

Credit for success at a club is subject to apportionment.. Mancini for me gets less than most who have led a team to the title.
Mourinho also had a massive budget at his disposal yet no-one ever questioned his quality. There's plenty of good reasons for that.

Anyway to point, if a good manager gives it to AW somewhat tactfully, well played sir. If someone like Mancini who in my opinion has hardly proven himself to be a world-class manager gives it to him, it just comes across as disrespectful and tactless. Sometimes I feel like he tries to emulate JM so he comes across as contrived.