http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17702180 Wenger has responded to Campbell's comments that he doubts the club's ambitions and urged them to sign proven quality if they are to challenge for trophies next season (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17690468). Wenger's response was "Sol Campbell has a lot of money, his gifts are welcome. If he gives us money, we will spend it, believe me. The best way always to give advice is to show example. Give your own money and we will spend it." "What has not changed at all is our policy - that we will be ambitious as ever and spend the money we have available," "We'll always spend money because we are very ambitious for top-class players and if we look at the history of our last 15 years we have always had top-class players and, incidentally, Sol Campbell is one of them. "People forget we had a terrible start to the season down to the fact that we had injuries and transfers. "Our ambition is in tact - to win the championship - and it depends now how we finish the season to decide how much we need to buy to have a good chance to win the championship next season."
Are you saying that you know the amount of money in Arsenal's bank account? That is illegal you know. All the "estimates" that people make are just that, guesses. I'm not sure how "ambition" ties to spending. Must you persue a spending strategy, that has been proven to be an utter failure, by Liverpool and Manchester City, in order to have ambition? If we go out and buy 10 players that never make it to the pitch, like Park, does that mean we have ambition? Manchester United spent less than Manchester City last year, does that mean they were less ambitious? Campbell is a great player, but I hardly think Wenger should be taking team building, or economics advice from him.
Campbell is not the only ex player to have commented on Wenger, Petit and Bergkamp have bothe said much the same.
You missed the key point. Why does buying players equate to "ambition", why are they linked? Where did this come from? When Manchester United burst onto the scene with Giggs and Scholes and Beckham and Keane and the Neville brothers, did they lack ambition, because they promoted them from their acadamy instead of buying from elsewhere? The other point which you keep on making is that, "If Wenger had spent money, he would have been successful". This is simply not necessarily true. You cannot prove a positive, with a negative. You are saying, "We didn't win by not spending, so therefore we would have won by spending." If science allowed that kind of proof, we would still think the sun went round the earth.
fact is we can't compete with the likes of man city, manu, chelsea and even liverpool for top talents. We have to be very careful as to who we go for and more often than not we are left with no choice but to seek bargains. Wenger wanted mata once he indentifies his targets its up to gazidis to push the deal through (and why would we want cahill?)
Arsene Wenger and I'll include the board in this since unless otherwise advised, I presume he speaks for them, is hardly known for a track record of spending for success. Certainly not of late anywa. Yes there are clubs out there who have notoriously not spent well and considering some of the less than successful players on our books and the sums they are paid, it too could be argued that we have not spent well either. Had we done so perhaps we might have landed the likes of Alonso and Mata. Still I'm sure there are those who will say there are justifiable reasons these players are not with us just as there are those who say that we haven't spent because the opportunity to spend has not been there by which I mean the players were not available. That though is every bit as questionable as Arsene saying he will spend the money because as we know, that isn't always the case. Goodbye Arsene and goodbye board should I believe be high on the agenda. With them around, nothing is likely to change. End of rant
Mata is playing for a team below us in the league, how did you deduce that he would definitely help us?
Really? Based on what? Certainly not based on his record. 6 goals and 11 assists from a player effectively playing as a striker is not exceptional. Walcott has 8 goals and 11 assists from virtually the same number of games, is he also one of the best players in the league?
Agreed, I had a similar debate on here a week or so ago, when someone started throwing these stats at me about how good mata was. Every time I have watched him I have not been that impressed, and am glad that we did not spend all that money on him.
My view is that he is neither fast enough nor strong enough to be employed as a striker. He might make a decent midfielder, but I would have to see him play there to rate him on that. I am far from convinced he would improve us. A couple of flashy goals and the odd good game, do not cut it for me. He is a very expensive passenger in their team IMO.
Anyone who says Mata wouldn't improve us is clearly off their rocker. Thats as daft as saying the defence is better with Almunia in goal.
Jack wilshire: 49 games 3 goals and 9 assists last year. Is he bad too? Sorry but stats and football dont really go together.
