It's based on Arsenal's actions, their actions are not of a club that has a real intention to make a go for the league, but actions of a club who seeks to maintain their 4th spot, which they're also getting bad at.
Their spending policy? Sorry for all the questions, I just want to get to the bottom of your point of view.
Their policy on letting our best players go, and the amount of sub par players that have been brought in.
Their hands were tied in the case of Cesc, Nasri and RVP by both the desire of the three players to leave and the fact that the money was needed (the club revenue has been stagnant since the Emirates move). In the case of the last two players it could have been a case of keeping them for a year, paying a good £10m in wages for the pair of them, then losing out on the £50m their sales generated. As for the signings, then it's hard to disagree that there have been plenty of disappointing ones in recent years. Do you think this has been disproportionate in comparison to Man Utd, Chelsea and City?
Yes to point 2. Much more. Would those teams ever realistically sign players like Squilachi, Santos, Gervinho etc? Not even Spurs would. United will make a **** signing like Bebe, then get RVP.
Squillachi was a French International at the time and many fans were saying he was the "old experienced CB" we needed. He proved otherwise Santos was ok, but has gone off the boil big time lately Gervihno is not as bad as some people make him out to be and I'll wait till post-AFCON before rendering judgement on him
Louis Saha? Pienaar? Crouch for £10m and 12 goals for 73 league games? Bassong for the same price as Squillaci? Gomes? Bentley for £15m? Pavlyuchenko for £14m? Robbie Keane's return for £10m? Giovani for £5m?
Many of these players I consider quality, but simply not working out. The players we sign, I don't consider quality, but merely average, and their performances are an indication of that. That's the difference for me. Bentley and Pav can be considered stupid ones.
So when another team signs a player who flops it's just that it isn't working out for the player at the club but if Arsenal sign a player who doesn't do well then the player is just crap? Gervinho and Squillaci have both done well at other clubs before comming to Arsenal. For whatever reasons players don't do well at a new club/league/country, but the players we sign have done well in order to get a transfer to us. All clubs make signings that don't work. We currently have alot of deadwood due to our pay structure more than the amount of poor signings. Luckily alot of there contracts are up soon and we seem to moving most of them on. I expect by next season most of the players the fans want out will be gone. But i don't think Gervinho or Ramsey are on that list and Santos may stay as well (he is a good player but has been poor this season). Considering the last 3 players we signed are Podolski, Cazorla and Giroud. And that we have tied most of our key players to long contracts. And add the fact most of the deadwood are on there way out. With our new strong financial position, i'm feeling confident that we will go forward adding quality players to the squad.
Why? Pavlyuchenko had an excellent record at Spartak and David Bentley was riding high at Blackburn before he signed. Was it a fluke that either did well at their respective clubs before they signed?
I would say that Wenger is still the best manager in the EPL at signing players when he is in fact willing to spend. Carzorla Nasri Adebayor Vermaelen Arteta Podolski (Walcott and Oxo too) Were all still top signings IMO. Wenger still great when he spends the money. All managers make a few dodgy signings(sometimes they take the risk because the player is cheap and fills a gap in the squad.)it's not ideal but it happens.
