We also spend big - massive wages. We also brought in 9 players this summer and spent over £60m. We just can't hold on to our best players. Your logic of just looking at who spends most as to where people should finish doesn't make much sense. Why are Liverpool not challenging? Why are Chelsea below Utd? Why have Spurs not done better? Money of course gives you an advantage - which Wenger has held over most clubs also - but it does not define success. IN addition, we could have spent a lot more than we have but have decided not to in order to follow a different strategy. To suggest that Wenger is not under achieving is frankly laughable. We have not only not won anything, but we've been miles behind in the league. Excuses reign it seems with some.
We spend but clearly not as much as others. Liverpool are not challenging because they have a **** manager and spent their money so badly. United are where they are because they still spend a lot and have Fergie. Wenger is not under achieving given the tools he is working with. Liverpool and even Chelsea in terms of the league are. United and City have solid/outstanding managerial set-up and that with the money they have is why they are first and second.
Hmm So, Utd have a good manager and are doing well, so money doesn't matter as much. Liverpool have a **** manager and are doing badly, so money doesn't matter as much We don't win anything or get close to the title - and it's all about money, not the manager
United have one of the best if not the best manager ever PLUS the money. Liverpool have a donkey in charge on the field and a Donkey taking care of the transfer dealing. They are so **** it's untrue. Thankfully they did not get even a half-decent manager. We would have been overachieving if we got first or second.
Your argument is that the manager is the over riding factor. I agree with that. Ours is not good enough it seems. Money is not, and never will be, the over riding factor when it comes to winning. At the highest level the difference between players is wafer thin. Man management, coaching, tactics, and character are the over riding factors at the top level. Not whether a club pays £135m (us) or £175m (City) on wages. As I said, excuses. We could go on. How did Porto win the CL? How did Inter Milan win the CL? Why are we currently above Chelsea? How come Spurs are above us currently? Why didn't City qualify for the Cl group stages and go on to win it?
Inter Milan spent loads and that is a cup competition. In the league, we are not underachieving if we get third.
Milan did spend, but not as much as others. Perhaps it was their manager - back to man management, tactics, coaching, and character. I see - so money only matters in the league (presumably not a mini league like the CL stages then, where City lost to Napoli) So, why did we win titles when competing against Utd in the late 90's and early 00's? That presumably was over acheiving and now we're just 'achieving' (or did we actually have the best players then playing the best football, despite spending less???) But hang on, Utd continue to over achieve, and Liverpool are under achieving . Why oh why is everyone not just 'achieving'! Maybe this money thing is not the be all and end all? Your argument basically says - lets look who spent the most and if you do better than your spend position you are over achieving. Absolute garbage. There are many many more factors. Try telling Ferguson he is over achieving if they win the league. If it were all about money, then why is Andy Carroll not the top scorer? Perhaps the money wasn't spent wisely? Hmm. That means that money spent is not really a barometer of where a team should finish. Unless you think that Andy Carroll is worth £35m and is just under achieving???. Perhaps money spent doesn't mean you have the best players?
It was only us and United back then. Like I said there was no City or Chelsea back then. We still spent loads of money in those years and had probably the second biggest wage bill. And that was the order of things. Back then if we did not get into the top two, then it would be seen as us under achieving. Not getting into the top 2 this season is not.
I added to the post above... Your argument has so many holes in it is untrue. It assumes a perfect relationship between money spent and talent/character/motivation received in return. I would suggest that when we beat Utd for the title we had the best players playing the best football - despite having less money. Care to argue that point? Lets go back to Carroll - how come the £35m spent on him has not translated to league success for Liverpool - they are 15 points below us. What about £20m for Downing??? How much was Milner? What about Adebayor??? All this money, by your argument buys you the best players, so are you saying Carroll is better than RVP? Is Adebayor twice as good as RVP (he is on double his wages).???? Money is, and has always been an excuse.
They didn't play well at all, I don't think they'll get third, they might nick fourth but they were lucky, very lucky.
Agreed. They were lucky, but they are getting lucky at the right time and building momentum. They are only 2 points off top 4 now. We gave everyone below us a huge boost last week by not trying as hard as QPR did.
Liverpool have spent their money horribly, as I pointed out. You can't compensate for that level of failure. Liverpool are the biggest failures in the league for a reason. Heads should roll if they had any sense. Money is not everything and I have not said it is. But it's a massive factor. Us finishing third is not underachieving. City have shown that they have a solid managerial set-up and they are able to spend the money they do on squad players like Milner. If we finished them, with our resources compared to theirs then it would have been unreal. Just like Newcastle potentially finishing above Chelsea is. Third, for us in not underachieving. Arsenal and United back in the day had the strongest squads in the league and competed with each other. But even then United went and won the league for three years in a row. We came back after spending well and building a great squad thanks to our shrewd buys and being ahead of the most of the teams in the league in terms of scouting. Now it's different. Teams have caught up. Just look at Newcastle for that. Arsenal no longer have that type of hold over the rest league. It was us and United back then, now others have joined by some, by financially doping their way to the top. Spurs and Arsenal are two great example in this league. Both have stayed within budget and both in the top four as things stand. I say again, third for us is not underachieving. On the individual players, that works both way. You get horrible management (Liverpool,again) and you get rewards for having the resources. David Silva,Toure and Aguero have been some of City's key clear players this season. The wages and transfer fee paid for them is something we can't match. If Wenger spent that much and more, then getting third would be underachieving, no doubt. But sadly, he does not have those resources.
Your argument makes no sense. You are listing out a whole set of factors that make finance less important, yet believe that it is the most important factor. Money in itself does nothing, it has to be spent well. You say we can't compete for players as good as Silva - yet we have Wilshere that has cost nothing. Wilshere is already in Silva's class. RVP is better than Aguero. I could go on. Success comes not from how much you spend, but by gelling top players into a team who work for each other (and there are plenty of top players to go round). The idea that City have more money so we can't compete is so far off the mark. Arsenal can afford 24 top players that when compared to City's we'll have a few who are better and a few that are not as good. If you don't believe me, take a look at our current squads and show me this massive difference that £40m a year extra on wages buys, and £500m on fees. The difference will come down to the things I have spoken about - coaching, tactics, team play, and character. Not money. You can spend £10bn if you want, but you will only need 20-25 players in a season. For instance City are paying £5m + of their wage bill on a player not even playing for them. Comparing spend is nonsense at the highest level - Arsenal compared to Scunthorpe I would agree (not because of money but because no top player would go to Scunthorpe, whilst we can attract top players, good enough to compete with anyone)
Yes and City and United have on the whole spent it well. They have two great squads. So they have the money plus a very good managerial set-up. I love Wilshere but he is not in Silva's class. Even then they are different players. We can't compete with City for top players. If we went for Silva and City offered better wages, how do we compete with that? You can't. Who was the last 'top player' we attracted? We do not. As it stands none of our players even earn over £100K a week, You can't attract top players in this wage system. A structure that was brought in after we moved to the Emirates and went for a long term plan of developing and forming a team that was full of young players. But it failed and we have to change it. But the change will not be swift. So it's not easy to attract top players at the moment. Once the debt eases and we start to ship the deadwood it's possible.
oh dear, i see this has deteriorated into an argument where neither party has completely understood the other's argument. i think jayram is trying to say that money is not the biggest factor, that the manager is, and thus we are underacheiving superjackwilshere, i think ur trying to say that money does play a big role, and in that sense we are at the level that we should be at. maybe i've misunderstood it, but if i'm right, this should help solve ur argument.
Sort of - I would say the manager in the sense that he needs to get the right players, get them playing together with the right motivation and tactics. Most importantly the difference between spending say £50m vs £100m is minor in reality because once you get to the top players the difference in quality is minor. It's just some clubs splash more cash. That extra cash should not be the factor that dictates expectation. Liverpool spent £40m more than us in the summer, but we got better players. Take a look at City's squad - ignore the transfer fee - and line them up against Arsenal's. Now compare how much they cost. Is the difference the same? Despite hundred's of millions, the difference in quality in our top 24 is pretty minor. This is why SAF is able to best them - it's not because he is god and is 10 levels above the next best manager. If it was all money, SAF would have no chance, and there is no way that Utd will be over achieving this year if they won the league. As Arsenal fans we need to stop using excuses and start setting expectations high. I even heard one fan call this season brilliant. If expectations drop, our team will fall away.
Don't get me wrong but I hope City win for our sake, however I think Arsenal have less pressure on them and will win 2-1.
City are bottling it under pressure. Arsenal score goals but can't defend. I'm going for 2-2. Of course i want City to win though to deny scum!
I am afraid there is a lot of players who think that 4th place will do. Paradoxically Chelsea yesterday win may help. I think QPR complacency might have been due to the fact that Chelsea was far behind and 4th looked almost certain. Now all of a sudden it is not.
