No I'm not. 1) Mata cost £17m for example had we bid for him to trigger his clause. I have said it so many times, we can afford good players from £10m to £25m comfortably. We don't need to compete with the wages of the others because plenty of good players are within our pay scale. Look at Spurs, they have VDV and Modric on wages within their wage scale, you can't tell me either player wasn't good then they were first bought ? These players change games. 2) This is linked to point 1 - the argument that we can't afford £40m players is used to trot out that dead excuse that we can't match the big spenders, but we don't need to and I already proved in leagues across the Europe that clubs haven't needed to either. 3) We are NOT challenging for trophies, your idea of challenging and mine are entirely different. We are competitive to a point but certainly NOT challenging. How many finals have we been in in the last 6 years to say we are challenging ? 3 ? 2x Carling Cups and the CL. 4) No Jenkinson is NOT a good player and I have no idea what makes you say he is. He has not had a good game yet. Just because he is not as bad as he was in his first few games that doesn't make him good. Purlease ! 5) Gazidis is a tool because he is spewing the same rubbish as Wenger and Hill-Wood. His most recent comment about Man City highlights this.
(1) I agree that we could have done more to get Mata. I think we should have moved for him when his £17m buy out clause was still active. (2) If we can't (and shouldn't) be spending £40m on a player, then why use it as an example? (3) 3 finals in 6 years is making a final every other season, not a bad record at all (4) Jenkinson has demonstrated that he's a decent back up to Sagna, especially at £1m (5) Gazidis made a good point about being in more comps than City, despite their obscene spending.
Nonsense ! Nobody has ever said that we need to go down the route of City or Chelsea, YET AGAIN you make my point for me, going to extremes as usual. History has proven that it is not the team that spends the most that always wins the league. To make your point you make out that us REALISTS want us to spend like Chelsea/City. Nonsense. Like I said, if we can bloody well spend £13m on OXO we can spend £17m on Mata ! But we didn't. Furthermore Mata and OXO would've cost £30m - still well within our reach. WE spent over £50m this season. Arsenal have NOT decided to go down a sustainable route - we ALWAYS have. What are we doing now that is any different to what we did at Highbury ? Did Wenger not seek out youngsters there ?? Your arguments are full of contradictions, they don't make sense
Makes you wonder where all that money is ACTUALLY going ! PISKIE - I used that as an example of what your lot say when we say spend some damn money .. your lot say we can't afford to spend £30m or £40m on one player. Hows about we spend £30m or £40m on 2 players ??
I've said, I agree we should have done more to get Mata. But the £50m we did spend was used to strengthen LB, CB, LM, RM and CM - all areas that we needed players in.
I too find it laughable when people say Jenkinson is good. So lets get one thing straight; We are ARSENAL FC ! WE battle the likes of Juventus, Inter, AC Milan, Barcelona, Roma, Real Madrid, Valencia Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea .. some of the biggest clubs in the world, playing against some of the best players in the world and ..... you think Jenkinson is good enough for us and what we aspire to be ?? I will add that I think Jenkinson "might" get there, but to suggest he is there now or even close is ridiculous.
1) Mata would have cost 17M, IF the reported release clause was correct AND there was no other club that wanted him. As we know Mata subsequently went to Chelsea for 24M that wasn't the case. 2) Don't know what this is. I think you are getting at the people who are trying to point out the futility of bidding against a club that has an unlimited budget. It really doesn't matter what the number is, it is always more than our bid. 3) And the top 4 of the league every year. Certainly challenging more in the CL than the team that finishes 4th in the PL. I think that this is the strongest argument you have, and I think the root of most of the unhappiness among the fan base. You might say I am more forgiving than you, but I just think it is a heck of lot more difficult to win trophies at the moment than you do. 4) Good is a very difficult rating. You can argue over the term endlessly. I think the jury is still out on this guy. I would say he proved he could be capable of playing Arsenal-level football. 5) I honestly don't see what he said that has got you lot stirred up. Is it because you are worried that if Man City fail to win a trophy, it will prove that anyone, who says we would have won a trophy if we had spent money, is the tool and not Gazidis?
No, people like him because he is a battler, has good positional sense, is good in the tackle, is willing to get forward and has a good cross on him. I'd say that they are decent attributes for a fullback. Don't forget that Sagna is our first choice and as good as any RB in Europe.
Adams didn't get his 'Donkey' tag for no reason. But he became one of the best ever I think Jenkinson looked out of his depth to start with, because he was. He was thrown in right at the deep end, along with our other new signings, all together due to injuries - right at the start of the season. It's no wonder they (and the team) struggled. However, I think he's a decent back up to Sagna, and with time, he's likely to improve on what I would say, is a solid foundation.
However you also sold a LB, RM, and 2 CM to raise the money. With the CM surely being better and the LB arguably being better too. So strengthen is a bit on the point of view. This is a bit old btw and not sure if its much use but this guys seems to know what he is talking about with Arsenals finances: http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/10/arsenals-finances-21-questions.html?utm_source=BP_recent
This doesn't have anything to do with trophies, for some maybe, but I think the majority of us just want us to be competitive.I couldn't care less if we don't win trophies, we have no divine right to win them but we expect to be competitive and I don't expect us to be fleeced by the club and fed a load of bull shine by Gazidis and co.
It has been said before but I will at the risk of repetition post it again and it is that United proved that another model works. Invest for success. I appreciate that they have an enormous following but we are also building up a very lucrative Far Eastern market. I like to see where it shows we cannot emulate Utd's model, sticking instead with the one our CEO expounds endlessly. It is sad but clearly in the realms of a lack of ambition and sporting cowardice. Not in the blood of our great club since he clearly is not of this great club.
Well, I think the problem at Manchester is there for all to see right now. They are up to their eyeballs in debt and are not signing too many more than we are right now. To stay competitive in the way you suggest, they are going to have to spend loads this summer. There is absolutely no doubt that their boss is one of the best, but their best hope right now is their youth system as well. However their turnover is 280M+ wheras ours (without one off property deals) is around 150M. Of course (and this seems so obvious to me) in order to adopt a strategy that exploits Arsenal's massively superior income, Arsenal would have to somehow have a massively superior income, which we don't. No doubt, this failure to accept reality on your part, will somehow be portrayed as a failure to accept reality on my part.
Arsenals turnover was around 220m last season on the football side. Bout 70m lower than Utd. Arsenal also have Kit and sponsorship deals renewable in 2014. So tbh Arsenal are not miles away from Utd. But there really isn't any excuse other than not meeting standards when you think Tottenham are ahead of Arsenal. This wouldn't be the case if Arsenal stopped selling top players and brought in quality to add to them. I posted it earlier but this article has a lot of good information: http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/10/arsenals-finances-21-questions.html?utm_source=BP_recent
Yeah sorry, my maths failed me. But we are smaller right now by a far margin. What the club are trying to do is get the club onto an even footing, as you point out. Where are these quality players of which you speak?
Obviously this becomes pure speculation. However being linked with Mata in the summer is a big one. Beyond that personal opinion comes into it. However i don't think many people ever thought Jenkinson and Park were of the quality required. But you can't tell me there is no quality out there.
Cym my friend, with respect, that post goes back to August 2010. Since then and sadly, with the performance of our club flattering to deceive, perhaps it is not unlikely that the originator of that post has re-evaluated his viewpoint. TTFN PS - anyone seen SupaMcgooner these days?
I probably can't with any authority, but will you listen to Sir Alex. http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/69/t...son-rules-out-move-for-chelseas-frank-lampard Sir Alex also moved to quash rumours of any signings in the winter window, insisting the quality of players available at this time of year is not up to United's standards. "What can you get in January? The players we'd like, we can't get," Sir Alex said. "If the alternative is to sign a second-rate player, we don't want to do that. "Our injuries have led to fans wanting us to sign someone but I don't want to sign a player who won't get a game when everyone's fit because he's not good enough."
