I have to say that I do agree with A87 here. Winning cups is a sensational feeling, no matter how much or how little it is valued by people. But the landscape of football has changed entirely. As A87 rightly states, would the likes of Oezil & Sanchez come to us if we had no Champions League football but won the occasional FA/League Cup? Highly unlikely. The money we get from European football far exceeds what you get from the FA cup and League Cup, even if we qualify for the Last 16 and get knocked out. The reality is that if we want to be a competitive side in the long run and compete for the big trophies, Champions League football is extremely important for us to offer competitive wages and attract the higher calibre of players. One of the gripes I've had with AFC is that we haven't always attracted the calibre of players we perhaps should and could have done, despite sustained Champions League qualification. A87 is also right in that we have the resources and the foundations to qualify for the CL whilst getting far in knock out cup competitions. The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive and a club of our stature should be trying to get CL every year whilst competing for trophies. I don't feel we've done that enough over the past decade or we haven't made it count at the final hurdle, which is where it matters most. Football has changed and money has a massive influence over how competitive each club is.
He's one of our own please log in to view this image Previous Next [img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9WJWbQCcAAwwcp.png" alt="Embedded image permalink" width="603" height="517"> 9:00 AM - 9 Feb 2015 · Details ' data-tweet-id="564695281124392961" data-disclosure-type="" data-has-native-media="true" data-has-cards="true" data-card-type="photo" data-you-follow="false" data-item-id="564695281124392961" data-screen-name="MailSport" data-user-id="111556576"> MailOnline Sport@MailSport 4h4 hours ago Tottenham hero Harry Kane pictured celebrating #AFC's
Kane the Gooner should come back into the fold instead of whoring himself out to the spuds. #hesoneofourown
Don't even rate him anyway. About the same level as Giroud. But he's English, therefore hailed as our saviour by the press.
Went back a few pages and have to say I agree with the old fogies. I'm not saying Arsenal87 doesn't have some points but it's a bit depressing when even fans are looking at football from almost solely business side of things. Personally I'm always interested in the financial side of things but that's because I'm a weirdo that likes that kind of stuff. Still, I don't buy into this whole "CL football attracts better players" stuff. Money is usually the main factor and it wouldn't surprise me if it's often the only factor, CL football just provides a convenient excuse for players. I don't think Rooney would've been handing in a transfer request to play CL football if Ludogorets had bid for him in the summer and I don't think Vertonghen was conflicted when he was forcing a move from Ajax to us. Carragher and Gerrard were Everton fans, Wilshere was a West Ham fan and Kane and Bale were Arsenal fans. I don't see the problem it's not like Kane was holding back in the game or refusing to celebrate, same with the other players listed. Well currently he's performing better than Giroud has at anytime since signing for Arsenal, he's matched his season best of 22 goals and is 4 off his best league total with 14 games to go. That's not to say he's better than Giroud but he is younger so it's pretty impressive. Funny you mention Giroud actually as I've compared the 2 before on the Spurs board. I think they're similar in that they can score brilliant goals but miss sitters and they also are more skillful than your typical number 9(which they tend to be stereotyped as). I actually rate Giroud and have always felt he doesn't get the credit he deserves from Arsenal fans at times. I'm guessing the comparison wasn't supposed to be flattering though so I'll move on
Giroud 7 in 12 Kane 12 in 20 Pretty much identical. He's younger yes, but is this his norm or a storming season that will tail off when he's 'known'? Both very similar in style. I both rate as quite good, nothing special, not world beaters but quite useful. And please don't try and make a serious comment about goal scoring and strikers and include Europa League goals. #EuropaLeague #helpingbangaveragestrikersboosttheirscoringratiossince1999.
With all due respect, that comparison is not very good. Ludogrets? Obviously not because they are playing in a league full of crap sides and don't have as much money to fund the theoretical transfer and wages. But the United comparison is moot. They generate a ridiculous amount of money because they have had unparalleled success for nearly 20 years. They have dominated English football and have one of the largest global fan bases in the world. A one-off season for a massive club is different in comparison to going to an entirely different country with a team no one has heard of which has virtually no chance whatsoever of competing amongst Europe's elite. You're right in that money is a key contributor but you still need to have had periods of sustained success to keep those players, unless you're going to be bankrolled by the club owners or external benefactors. I guess you can argue that the circumstances for each club are different but for the reasons I stated previously, I still maintain that if we finished 5th, it would be very difficult to keep hold of Ozil and Sanchez unless we offered them an inflated wage increase to stay - which is what happened with Rooney essentially. The issue is players who have developed world class reputations will want to be winning trophies and earning big money simultaneously. Arsenal have won 1 trophy in 9 years and they don't have the success or the finances that United have to keep hold of all their star players if things go pete tong, even for one season. If, say, Bayern, Madrid or possibly even PSG came in for Sanchez, I just can't comprehend that he would want to stay at Arsenal (unless the club block the move and force him to stay), when the aforementioned clubs have a better opportunity to compete for trophies and can offer higher financial incentives. The main reason why I say Champions League is important is mainly because of the revenue it generates, so in one respect you are right. But star players can get disillusioned if the team aren't performing to the levels they expect. Sanchez is a match-winner. They are invaluable. Even if you lose just one player of that calibre, it can affect the morale and attitude of your team - just look at Liverpool. Giroud has improved a lot this season in general play. His finishing still needs a bit of work as it still isn't as sharp as I'd like it to be, but he's a good player. Unfortunately I still do not think he is good enough to lead the front line regularly. There's a mixed view on Giroud, to be honest.
Btw continuing on this discussion, a very good illustration of why UCL football is important etc is to just look at the 2 Milan clubs, Inter and AC, two massive clubs, two clubs with massive success, and yet look at them now....Look at what happened to them with just a few seasons of no UCL football, they can no longer attract top talent, been stuck in mid-table for a few seasons running now and no longer relevant to football as they used to be, both locally, and in Europe.
He certainly needs competition as I think there's a gulf between him and Welbeck, who's pretty one dimensional and either the game suits him or he's poor. Might be interesting to see whether Walcott gets some game time upfront now that you're playing a quicker game. My point with the CL stuff is that on it's own it's nowhere near enough to attract and keep top players, hence the rather exaggerated Ludogorets comparison. On the otherhand there are numerous instances where money has been the key factor. Even lack of CL money hasn't hindered Liverpool or United from spending big, CL money would be huge for a club like ourselves but it's a small contribution in comparison to sponsorships for clubs like United. Even yourselves would be just fine without the CL money. The teams that spend the most inevitably do the best that's why our first CL qualification wasn't followed up with a run of trophies like it was for City and that's why you guys and Liverpool haven't pushed on to winning titles lately, despite some promising seasons. You have to be very, very good in the market to outdo the ones that can afford to spend a lot more than you and even then it's only likely to be a temporary improvement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...remier-League-title-win-10-year-old-2004.html This may cheer you folk up, though you probably already know this....
I think it's quite difficult for teams (that don't have huge spending power) to have a squad deep enough to challenge for all the major trophies. It's no surprise that clubs like Chelsea and City have had the success they have, as they also have the most expensively assembled squads.
True. We tried that last season though. Sold one important player and made 7 signings, plus the likes of Townsend and Rose returning. On paper we had very strong depth everywhere other than left back, it was a sort of Chelsea/City-lite really. Obviously in the end there proved to be lots wrong with the assumptions about how quickly players would settle, whether they fitted what we needed and whether the manager was up to it. The big difference maker clubs like ours can have is the academies, Chelsea and City both totally ignore theirs and so then putting together a whole squad becomes a lot more expensive. For the money you put into academies it can reap huge benefits and that's the only area we seem to have an advantage over either of them. At the moment it looks like the top sides are set into their own mini-tiers. It's not the "big 4" anymore so much as the big 3 with City, Chelsea and United comfortably able to outspend everyone to the point where they're the only realistic contenders for the forseeable future. After that it's you guys, capable of upsetting 1 or 2 of the big 3 but anything more than that seeming unlikely. Then there's us and Liverpool, capable of upsetting 1 or 2 of the ones above them in the pecking order but generally just challenge and nothing else most seasons. After that there's the rest, Newcastle had a great season and fell away, so did Villa and Everton have a few times too. It'd be nice to think Southampton can make it work but in all liklihood they'll join the rest of the one season wonders or at best replace one of us or Liverpool long enough to be able to establish themselves in that position. Man, I'm depressed after writing that
Charity is good, no matter The problem with that reasoning is it doesn't account for teams who have challenged the big spenders and grabbed the biggest honours. Teams like Athletico and Dortmund are examples of teams that when you get the right manager and everything else right, it is very possible to win the league. This season has shown that on the right day, any one of the top teams in the EPL can beat each other. Chelsea has been more consistent but aren't significantly better than the rest. Arsenal have looked poor at the beginning and suddenly picked it up until they lost at WHL. Spurs looked poor at the beginning but are now looking very good. Spurs always needed the time to bed in but was never given it. Yes too many players were brought in at the same time but not one manager has been given a proper go. On paper Spurs has a pretty good team and its no surprise that they are playing some good football. Do i think that Arsenal can win the league, of course, on paper. We do have the players and depth to do it in my opinion, but we've never had a fully kitted out squad of significant depth, but now we have. Other than the DM position, we are looking the best in ages and have a very good chance.
Well the obvious question first off is where are Dortmund now? If you look at what their challenging meant, it was what, 2 league titles? Then the odd cup that you'd expect them to challenge for and after that a CL final. Very impressive but are they going to bounce straight back from this awful season or will the lose players faster than ever and drop away? I guess we'll but I don't think they've ever challenged for both the CL and league in one season so I'm not sure they ever reached the level of what Bayern are about. Same with Atletico we'll have to wait to find out where this gets them but they wouldn't be the first Spanish side to briefly upset the odds and then drift away. They're different leagues though and Dortmund in particular have done the kind of things I've been talking about as a way to make a difference. Firstly they've produced a number of top players from their academy in recent years and secondly, for awhile at least, they spent very, very well in the market. They're tough to sustain though, there are acadamies across Germany churning out quality at the moment so to stay significantly ahead of the rest they'd need to be producing a Gotze every couple of years. Smart buys in the transfer market are difficult to sustain too. I'd say one of Atletico's advantages over say a side in England is the third party ownership. It's allowed them to get in demand players like Falcao and top talents like Aguero without paying the big fees that they usually command. If it turns our badly then the risk is less and whilst you don't have the control you'd like over the player's future, who realistically does these days(apart from the very biggest spenders). What they are assured of is that when these players do leave, the part owners with the control have the exact same objective they do, getting the most money possible. Money doesn't necessarily translate across the leagues anyway, what I was saying was focused on the PL and in it's current state. It's not impossible but I do think there's a lot more ground to make up than we generally appreciate.
That's why Wenger and the Arsenal management have sought to change the establishment by creating a self sustaining system that can challenge the best. Yes its taken a while but we are starting to reap the rewards by bringing in big time players. But money can only get you so far and there is no substitution for a good team unit with a top manager. Apart from Dortmunds freaky season, they have consistently performed at a high level and Athletico have out-performed both Barca and Real with their unlimited resources. Athletico just duffed up a Billionaires Real Madrid 4-0 at home. Simeone's Athletico also includes out-performing a Maureen Real Madrid too. This is what a top manager can bring to the table. Of course the big teams will win more than the rest but by having a good system in place narrows the playing field a great deal.
Really? I don't think there's much between them (Giroud and Welbeck) at all. Obviously they have different styles and strengths but in terms of ability (which I appreciate is subjective), there's not much in them at all. In fact, what both players have in common is that they aren't particularly ruthless, clinical strikers. They are capable of scoring some majestic goals but someone like Costa, who isn't as easy on the eye as the aforementioned players, would be far more beneficial to our side. On a personal level, I don't think either are particularly great. Giroud scored 23 goals last season but he actually had one of the lowest conversion rates in the division. Judging by your post, I don't think we are disagreeing that much but here is one area I do think we don't agree on. The revenue Champions League money brings in is pretty fantastic hence why I do believe it is important in attracting to players - it allows clubs to pay competitive wages to attract higher quality of players whilst competing alongside Europe's best. Obviously some clubs are in positions to still attract players without Champions League football, but this I believe is due to the amount of money others have invested into the club (City and Chelsea) or prolonged periods of domination (Manchester United). For other clubs, it is a lot harder, in my view. That remains to be seen. I'm aware of the strong position we are in financially but there are 3 clubs still on better financial footing than us. Personally I do feel it would make it difficult to keep the likes of Ozil and Sanchez as a consequence of this. United's blip can be excused because they've had a long period of success in the last 20 years and generate obscene amounts of dosh as a result of that success and the marketable brand. These I feel are exceptions.
Personally I think the biggest thing about the CL is that as it allows you to attract some of the best players without paying over inflated wages, it means it is continually easier to compete for the league/CL or build the large enough squad you need to compete for the cups AND league/top 4. The problem with losing CL is that to improve the next season/keep pace with the other competitors your choice of exceptional players is limited (unless you find a diamond in the rough CL teams don't want). You need to pay significantly over the odds on long term contracts (or even worse quite short term ones) for players you may not exactly want (see Man U with Mata and Falcao), you are then tied to these players (while they drain a decent amount of your wage bill) until their contract runs our/you sell them. That's if they get you back into the CL places within 1 year, but for every year you don't, the more ground you lose on your competitors, the more over-inflated wages you have to pay to 1. sign players that will improve your squad and 2. keep your best players, which further limits your ability to sign key players. If you have to sign players on over inflated wages/bonus, then that could affect your budget for the next 3-5 years (depending on how long they stay/renegotiate their contract), and maybe longer if it means you break your wage structure and all your best players want more money. That then will affect who you can sign for that period (3-5 years) even if your back in the CL.
