You keep claiming I'm wumming (the irony of which is staggering coming from you) yet you still can't tell me what Jol and AVB did that made them managers who 'go against the board'
Some chairmen do and it generally doesn't work particularly well, unless the manager's successful, in which case there's no reason to sack him. The best thing that a club can do is hire appropriate managers and stick to a long-term aim with an established style of play. Swansea have done this, in my opinion. They sorted out various off-field problems, invested in infrastructure and tried to create stability. They still had to change managers fairly often, as people either didn't do well, clashed off the pitch with important people or quit. They selected people who coached a relatively similar game though, so they didn't have to keep clearing out whole chunks of their squad. The players that the have are roughly what each of their managers would want. My overall point is that the club should have their overall vision sorted out and then pick the right manager. Repeat if necessary. Sticking with one man is nice if you're in a position to do so, but many clubs aren't. Barcelona haven't and it's hardly held them back.
Barca aren't really a good note of comparison though as they can simply buy the best players in the world to get them out of trouble. But I do agree that the vision for the club needs to be paramount. I guess any Chairman worth his salt is able to appoint the right man to undertake that task, rather than the 'throw as much mud at the wall and see what sticks' approach.
I've already answered this. No one knows what went on. The point I'm making (and I am writing this slowly so you have a chance of getting it) is that it is more reasonable to assume that Levy sacked Jol, Redknapp, and AVB for differences that developed between the manager and the board/squad, rather than to assume that Levy acted capriciously out of a delusion that these managers should have delivered a top 4 slot, when that is something that we've only ever attained once in Prem history.
You can be smug about that, now, but I am looking forward to the day when Wenger goes (or is pushed), and your board ends up with its fair share of AVBs, Hodgsons and Moyes. There is a day of reckoning coming for Arsenal, and it isn't going to be pretty when it arrives.
That's why virtually every team in the league has had multiple managers in the last decade... If a lot of teams hire a very good manager, then he'll be poached by teams with more money. If they hire one who's got potential, then he might have a slow start and get crucified by the press, then lose the dressing room and the fans. A club can get in exactly the right man, then get done over repeatedly in the market, leaving a frustrated coach.
Hugely speculative to assume that there was simply something that 'went on' behind the scenes (and convenient to try and suit your non argument). If something of that sort of significance was happening behind the scenes with so many managers (It wasn't just Jol, Redknapp and AVB) then surely people would have been questioning the one common denominator in it all, Levy. It reminds me of the people who change jobs endlessly, blaming the job, their manager, colleagues, environment etc for their problems, when in fact the problem stems from themselves.
I take pride in the fact that Arsenal have stuck by Wenger for all of these years and that he has for the best part, delivered exactly what we would have hoped. But I do see that it is not the norm. I just think that if a chairman is taking the time to scout and appoint, then he also needs to give that manager time to deliver and ignore the press etc.
Wenger won't be pushed and I don't think we'll take the short term approach of hiring and firing. It won't be easy replacing Wenger, but I'm confident that our board will engage Wenger in the process and take their time to ensure that they get the right man. As PNP says, it's about eschewing the vision of the club first and sticking to that philosophy. If there's one thing Arsenal do well, it's sticking to their philosophy in the face of media / pundit / fan criticism. There were plenty of times over the last decade where we could have gone off on a tanget and either sacked Wenger, changed tact, brought in a sugar daddy and ploughed a billion into the squad. But we stuck to our approach and it's starting to pay off.
Wenger's had everything he's needed to succeed and he's failed to mount a significant title challenge for years. He can't even beat Mourinho once, despite having about 14 or 15 attempts at it. You were in a similar position to United under Ferguson and utterly failed in comparison. The board have backed him because he's earning them a ****-ton of money and they're not that bothered about silverware or titles. The other thing that you've not taken into account is the changing ownership of a lot of clubs. New owners often have lofty aims for their acquisition and think that bringing in their own man will do wonders. We've all seen how that can go. Managers also do stupid ****, like upset the fans or make utterly ridiculous comments. Leicester's fans probably didn't want their manager to go, but his son was a dick and you can see where he got it from. Alienating the money men will see you out the door, almost 100% of the time.
We've fallen short of the title true, but it's not true to say that we've failed to mount a significant title challenge. Wenger has his flaws, but given the circumstances at our club since the move to the Emirates, I'd say he's done well to keep us in contention and in the Champions league every season. Ferguson had cash to spend when we didn't. When our clubs were roughly on a par financially, Wenger had the measure of Fergie. The last point about the board not being bothered about silverware or titles is simply bollocks.
You've had tons of money. You also had a supposedly world class youth set-up, which seems to have disappeared, bar the odd poached Barca player. Someone that's had stability, money, board backing, time and a lot of support should've done far better.
For me, Wenger's biggest fault is his own arrogance - certainly that he's right. Over the years, many of Arsenal's deficiencies have been glaringly obvious to everybody, except Wenger. What funds have been available, or not, seems to be a matter of speculation. A tip-top side is all about balance - like so many things in life. Wenger seems to have missed that in his quest for doing things "his way", IMO. He even seems to have "tripped over" the D.M. He's so long needed, by accident!
Not everybody can win the league, only one team can do that. Since Chelsea and City started spending indiscriminately it's made that task that much harder for everybody else. Since we moved to Emirates, the club took a stance where they would only spend what they had earned and not get into debt, that meant selling our best players and developing youth players, it wasn't a title winning philosophy, but it got us top 4 and Champions league every season. A feat that most clubs would give their eye teeth for. Also, it was a long term plan which has now paid off, to pay off the stadium and have the financial muscle to compete with the likes of Chelsea and City. In the last two seasons we've spent big again and in the last two seasons, we've won major silverware again.
Especially after buying Fellaini for more than his buy out clause fee. The writing was on the wall then, although Woodward's relentless pursuit of unachievable targets was the main problem.
You spent top 3 and got top 4, basically. You're massively complimenting Wenger for doing the absolute minimum, despite the time he was given. In the last couple of seasons you've outspent the likes of Chelsea, done worse than them and got nowhere near challenging for the title. Who were these youth players that you've been developing, by the way, because they mainly seem to be people you've bought for large sums? Gibbs and... er, I think I'm out. I thought this was supposed to be Wenger's strength? Your own academy chief slagged it off last year.
