I doubt any other manager would be content with the lack of funds though and hence leave. Should wenger resist he will in all probability be relieved of his job.
until Silent Stan has a change of heart, Hill-Wood stays - and not likely to keel over any time soon? So Wenger goes in 2 more seasons - - what then?
Well that was my point. Is he being so agreeable for personal reasons, how does that make it better? All things equal, of course, I would still keep Wenger. But he could be more pushy as far as signings go.
I know this is a ridiculous statement, and i'll be slaughtered for saying it, but maybe finishing 5th next season will be good for us in the long run, it should force the board to seriously consider their positions, and question Hill-Wood'd motives. As Piskie said, the chairman is putting his personal needs before the club's.
If the board don't change their tune and Wenger leave, then I think we're basically ****ed. I know he isn't perfect, but I think some people vastly underestimate just how much he's been responsible for keeping us in the Top 4 since the move to Emirates. I've said it before, but if we'd sacked him when their was a clamour to do so, I think we'd already be out of the Top 4. If Wenger walked, I think we'd end up like Liverpool.
Well if the things said in this thread are true, Wenger is also putting his personal needs before the club. i.e. he doesn't criticize the lack of spending due to the fear of getting sacked. Obviously I don't think that is true.
I just don't think it's Wenger's style to come out and slate his employers. We all know how coy he is about transfers and talking about his own players. He is someone who likes to do his business in private. Personally, I'd prefer that to someone like Redknapp who has no qualms about washing his dirty knickers in public.
Yes but he's been doing his business in private for years, and keeps doing it. Which means there is agreement there for the most part, or he wouldn't continue at Arsenal if he didn't believe we would start getting results with this philosophy.
To an extent maybe. But his stance over Fabregas and Nasri not being sold, only to then see the board undermine him by doing just that, suggests that they are at odds sometimes.
Piskie, I couldn't agree more with getting rid of PHW and getting DD back in, but how can we do it? We all know that there are thousands of people who would fill any spaces at the Emirates. Maybe not fans and not the same people week in week out, but the tickets would be sold until we find ourselves mid-table. Kroenke has his lap dog in charge of things at present he's not going to change that.
I think that was a case of 2 players really determined to leave. So the choice was clear: 1) Keep them till their contracts run out, and expect sub-par performances for the remainder of their conract, or 2) get something out of them while you can.
I don't know fella - When I think back, I was pleased at the time that Hill-Wood kept Usmanov out of the picture, because I believed the stories that he was a shady, murky figure and we knew nothing about his intent for the club. I thought PHW was acting in the interest of the club. But it seems that he's got nothing against shady Russian business men (as highlighted in CBs article) and the only reason PHW instigated the lockdown was because he knew that if Usmanov got a majority, he would have installed Dein as Chairman. The only difference between us and City now is that their billionaire owners are actually willing to put some of their cash into the club, whilst ours seem intent to sit back and watch their share price climb, whilst our second highest shareholder (and one who is prepared to invest) isn't even given a seat on the board. I see no value whatsoever for Arsenal having Kronke involved with our club - and the fact that PHW has overseen it all whilst dispensing with the one man who actually knew Arsenal and Wenger - is unforgivable
Sorry Piskie - i dont like Hill Wood - but this is just another excuse. Anything for it not be Wengers fault I have read the entire article and there is nothing but speculation from a supporter who clearly hates Hill Wood. The only facts used are brought together to create a wild consipiracy theory. Now all this speculation and conspiracy theory about Hill Wood is precisiely the kind of talk you have railed against, but as soon as you can jump on something to let Wenger off the hook, you take it! We're going backwards because Wenger has mis managed the squad, is tactically poor defensively and has made some very strange decisions.
Kyle can you define "terrible season", I think that changes from peoples viewpoint. For me last year was a terrible season, we were so lucky to finish 3rd, consequently so lucky to get in the CL. For Kronke if we make a profit it will have been another successful year. I'm sure that will remain the case even if we finish 5th or 6th. The one I'm not sure about is Wenger, what exactly constitutes a successful season for him, I suspect Champions League qualification
It wasn't really a terrible season but at one point was heading that way. RVP was the decisive factor in saving us and had he been injured, like he usually is, we would have scraped to 6th. We were lucky more than anything. There were a number of lucky factors that allowed us to get 3rd....
Nobody is saying that Wenger hasn't made mistakes though Jayram, you're missing the point. And whilst the article's claim is unsubstantiated. It actually makes a lot of sense. PHW had a monumental falling out with Dein, and when he saw that Dein had allied himself with a potential takeover candidate, who would likely install Dein as Chairman if he was successful - he instigated the lockdown, to protect his own position, Not to protect the club. Had Usmanov come in back in 2007, the board would have taken a very differnet approach. It's quite likely that we would have had some investment in the squad, kept players like Fabregas and Nasri and negotiated (with Dein) the services of other top players. It's my opinion that Wenger has been the one who has held this club together over the last few years, amongst the very fractious relations between board members and major shareholders.
