THE WENGER THREAD

As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
Post Reply
clockender1
Posts: 6257
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by clockender1 »

begeegs wrote:. Also, that same ability has allowed him to keep us afloat in a midst a stadium move.
the stadium opened in 2006.

EIGHT seasons ago.

whats the excuse for the last 3-4 years ?

plus i don't buy that 'the stadium hamstrung us" bullshit anyway - we still spent 43million on the wages of diaby, djourou, bendtner, denilson, vela, eboue and Song over six years, plus we were still paying wonga 3 million a year.

people forget that most of the funding for the bowl came from the sale of highbury to the property co - owned by us, and a loan from RBS over 15 years, the cost of which has been between 15-13 million over the last eight years - i checked.

and if you look at turnover in the same period, our debt cost is around 7% - which is nothing, comparing the increase in ticket prices of 11% average per year.

so when we actually look at the facts, we see that wenger wasn't impacted and just spent badly.

with those strong finances, at any other club, wenger would have been expected to compete every year - like Bayern did during their move, but the AKB's blame the stadium which again is just horseshit.
Last edited by clockender1 on Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

clockender1
Posts: 6257
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by clockender1 »

ps - in 2008 Arsenal PLC made a profit of 36.7million quid.

so two years after the move we're building cash. and yet in the six years after we won nothing.

"the stadium" my arse :censored:

User avatar
OneBardGooner
Posts: 42540
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:41 am
Location: Close To The Edge

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by OneBardGooner »

mcdowell42 wrote:Thats part of the problem that not one journalist asks any hard hitting or proper questions,or actually puts him on the spot,but the same journalists who when back behind their key boards love to take the piss.
FACT! :?

I'm sure they are soon rooted out if they upset the wenger media love in applecart :banghead: :cry:

User avatar
BFG4
Posts: 2560
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by BFG4 »

Theoperator wrote:
BFG4 wrote: In fairness, as his time at the club has gone on, he has bought more and more deadwood, Gervinho, Chamakh, Squillaci, Park etc. Your comment about the board limiting Wenger's spending makes sense, except Wenger did the boards bidding by supporting their decision to continuously raise ticket prices. Do you remember his comments about going to the game, and then judging whether it was worth the money paid, all this while sitting on a massive wage himself. Also, you said he is spending money now, but again as we approach the end of the window, he is penny pinching about signing a striker, and this will end up fucking up our season.
One could argue that the deadwood was bought when the budget was limited due to the stadium. I know thats been picked over endlessly but seems that recent purchases dont fall into the deadwood area. Early days but so far the 3 signings this window have given v good accounts of themselves.

We dont really know whether he is penny pinching at this time, seems he is saying we just dont need one- Fans arent happy myself included, but there are still a few days left (Also debated endlessly!)
I definitely think he is penny pinching. Last season between the two transfer windows he spent 42 million, and so therefore there was a lot of money left over to spend this summer, and the Puma deal money on top of that, so Sanchez, Debuchy, and Chambers were bought, but Wenger doesn't want to spend any more than he has to. I seriously doubt that he actually believes that Sanogo, Campbell or Podolski are the answer up front, but he will stick with them rather spend more than he has to, which would also explain why we turned down the chance to re-sign Fabregas as that would have been an extra 20-30 million on top of what we have spent this summer.

Theoperator
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:58 pm
Location: In the tube, rather late again......

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by Theoperator »

Im sure Cesc failure to return was more due to fall out with Wenger when Cesc went- I doubt that it was the $$££ that did for that deal.

Hard to define how much he "has to" though isnt it? It may well more be stubboness than penny pinching. We will in all likelihood never know the full ins and outs.

User avatar
begeegs
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:18 am
Location: London

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by begeegs »

clockender1 wrote: the stadium opened in 2006.

EIGHT seasons ago.

whats the excuse for the last 3-4 years ?

plus i don't buy that 'the stadium hamstrung us" bullshit anyway - we still spent 43million on the wages of diaby, djourou, bendtner, denilson, vela, eboue and Song over six years, plus we were still paying wonga 3 million a year.

people forget that most of the funding for the bowl came from the sale of highbury to the property co - owned by us, and a loan from RBS over 15 years, the cost of which has been between 15-13 million over the last eight years - i checked.

and if you look at turnover in the same period, our debt cost is around 7% - which is nothing, comparing the increase in ticket prices of 11% average per year.

so when we actually look at the facts, we see that wenger wasn't impacted and just spent badly.

with those strong finances, at any other club, wenger would have been expected to compete every year - like Bayern did during their move, but the AKB's blame the stadium which again is just horseshit.
Ok - A lot of things here which looks incorrect, but I am pissed :-)

Firstly, I am not a AKB and if you read any of my posts, you would see that. I find that he is incredibly crap at tactics. However, believe it or not, he is an attraction for top players still despite his shortcomings (and this is purely subjective).

Anyway on to your figures - an 11% average increase on ticket prices every year? Seriously? I don't think so. If it was an 11 percent increase every year, the stadium would be empty and the fans in revolt.

Also, the £43 million figure - where did this come from because as far as I am aware, the club do not tell you what each player makes? Over 6 years, you are saying that they averaged over £118k a week. I think that looks very high and probably not accurate.

According to you, the RBS loan is for 15 years? I believe that you if you add about 10 years to this, you will be closer to the mark.

For me, yes, he paid players that he thought would come good and some did to a mid-table level while others didn't make the grade (while the ones who did ended up eventually getting sold eventually). However, if you look at some arithmetic and see that if a player has a 2 year deal for 40k a week and gets and an extension to say 60k a week - it is a little over a million a season more for two more years - so roughly 4 million over the 4 years and a little more than 2 million for the following two years. For another for roughly the same money, you have to figure in transfer money on top of that and that is also a gamble because they may not be as good as what you already know in the team. This to me smells like someone doesn't have money to spend or is being frugal. But why if there is this money that he can spend?

For me, Wenger has stated many times that he needed to make a profit and the board do not dispute this, but also insist that money is there to spend which is also true. For me, Wenger was frugal and did work within a budget based upon my simplistic figures from above. Whether or not that was imposed by the board or by Wenger himself, we will never know. But either way, we did try to live within our means until the past couple of years, thus a restriction. Whether or not you want to believe that is your own prerogative as I am not privy to Arsenal board meetings, I will hazard a guess that they were fully aware and supportive of the frugality or potentially even told Wenger 'This is what you have to spend. Please work with that.'

So essentially, your 'facts' do not add up at all. Wenger did invest money stupidly in some cases, but in other cases, he generated a tidy profit on player sales and kept us relatively competitive during those years (and in the black financially).

I view it as pretty good management even with his shortcomings. That being said, I do wish that he would have walked at the end of last season, but he didn't and we have to live with it.

User avatar
begeegs
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:18 am
Location: London

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by begeegs »

clockender1 wrote:ps - in 2008 Arsenal PLC made a profit of 36.7million quid.

so two years after the move we're building cash. and yet in the six years after we won nothing.

"the stadium" my arse :censored:
So this somehow blows my ring-fencing theory out of the water then... :rubchin:

No one is disputing that we have only the FA Cup to look at, but I still stand by the fact that we were lied to regarding the finances for many years and there was a budget to work within.

Blood_Gooner
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by Blood_Gooner »

augie wrote:
mcdowell42 wrote:Begeegs I'm a contrary fucker so hard questions wouldnt be a problem.I love a good cock :lol:


:shock: :shock: :shock:
:coffeespit: :coffeespit:

A11M11
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:07 am

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by A11M11 »

It's not as simple to say that the club made the money in 2008 and Wenger chose not to spend it. As the BBC reported :-
"" Arsenal have disclosed their profits last season jumped to £37m ($64.4m) but they also had a rise in debts.
The news comes at a time when one of the club's key shareholders, US sports tycoon Stan Kroenke, has become a non-executive director of the club.
Despite failing to win any silverware, the club's income rose by 11% to £223m thanks to more lucrative TV deals.
Its debts rose by 12% to £318m as it borrowed more to pay for redeveloping its old Highbury stadium. ""

I am not an accountant but it seems that the money was ring fenced to pay for the continual plan of long term development. This decision would have been taken by the board developing Highbury whilst at the time maximising the share price so that they could line their pockets selling out to Kroenke.

User avatar
p206ab
Posts: 1143
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:17 pm
Location: Running around in Europe

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by p206ab »

Is this what he'll be wearing when first wind blows? Even longer than Nike one :lol: :lol:
Image

But you have to admit, this is a great trolling from Puma:
Image
:barscarf:

User avatar
StuartL
Posts: 7878
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 8:22 pm
Location: It’s a new dawn, a new day a new life, for me and I’m feeling good

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by StuartL »

p206ab wrote:Is this what he'll be wearing when first wind blows? Even longer than Nike one :lol: :lol:
Image

But you have to admit, this is a great trolling from Puma:
Image
:barscarf:

PUMA KNOWS !! :-P

armchair
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:30 pm
Location: Wengerhell

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by armchair »

"Im not an AKB but.............

almost every time I post its a post defending or excusing Wenger. " :?

User avatar
greengooner
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:12 pm
Location: Donegal

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by greengooner »

Wengers single biggest fuck up...letting Cesc join the chavs, choosing to strengthen Chelsea instead of strengthening us, there is simply no logic to explain this no matter how hard I think about it, I've tried to rationalise it but it's indefensible

User avatar
OneBardGooner
Posts: 42540
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:41 am
Location: Close To The Edge

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by OneBardGooner »

StuartL wrote:
p206ab wrote:Is this what he'll be wearing when first wind blows? Even longer than Nike one :lol: :lol:
Image

But you have to admit, this is a great trolling from Puma:
Image
:barscarf:

PUMA KNOWS !! :-P
They aught to do a 'put on over the head' version that would REALLY f*ck him up! :lol:

User avatar
OneBardGooner
Posts: 42540
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:41 am
Location: Close To The Edge

Re: WENGER - Views For and Against.

Post by OneBardGooner »

Demun210 wrote:
OneBardGooner wrote:
mcdowell42 wrote:Thats part of the problem that not one journalist asks any hard hitting or proper questions,or actually puts him on the spot,but the same journalists who when back behind their key boards love to take the piss.
FACT! :?

I'm sure they are soon rooted out if they upset the wenger media love in applecart :banghead: :cry:
Wenger media love in? Are you that deluded?

If the likes of Ferguson, Mourinho, Benitez, Mancini etc had the kind of scrutiny Wenger has, they would be kicking up a shit storm. By rights Wenger should be blanking half of the media who want nothing more than belittle him, but yet he faces these people week in week out.
Faces them - You are the delusional one - They are all given slots as to when and what they may ask - when ever there is someone who doesn't follow the script the Arsenal media Machine soon roots them out... :roll:

So tell everyone seeing as you think you are the knower of it all why haven't they asked him any 'Proper; questions ???

:duh: :duh: :duh:

Post Reply