WELL HOW ABOUT WHEN THEY ALLOWED FIRST BRADY AND THEN STAPLETON TO LEAVE BECAUSE FIRSTLY, THEY WOULDN'T PAY THE GOING RATE; AND SECONDLY, ARSENAL WERE SHOWING NO INCLINATION TO CHALLENGE THE LIKES OF LIVERPOOL, FOREST AND ASTON VILLA FOR THE LEAGUE TITLE? LIAM BRADY SAID AS MUCH HIMSELF!!Cus Geezer wrote:And also with regards to the board of the 1970s lacking ambition, it depends on how you define 'ambition'.
Arsenal showed no lack of ambition when they signed Alan Ball for a record transfer fee in 1971 and he did turn out to be one of our best ever players, yet he came in on a high wage and lead to several other 1st teamers demanding the same and leaving when they didn't get it, hence the mid-70s dearth.
THOSE DECISIONS CAUSED THE BREAK-UP OF A TEAM THAT MIGHT WELL HAVE CHALLENGED FOR THE TITLE AT THE START OF THE EIGHTIES. AGAIN, ALL IT PROVES IS THAT WE CAN BOTH PULL OUT EXAMPLES TO SUPPOSEDLY SUPPORT OUR PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW.
ANYWAY, WE HAVE GONE ON A ROLLER-COASTER RIDE OF ARSENAL DEBATE AND STRAYED FROM THE ORIGINAL POINTS FROM MY EARLIER POSTS, WHICH WERE: THAT DESPITE SOME MISTAKES, DEIN WAS AN ARSENAL SUPPORTER WITH THE CLUB'S BEST INTERESTS AT HEART; THAT HE HAD DONE SOME GOOD WHILST A DIRECTOR OF THE CLUB - UNLIKE WHAT THE AUTHOR OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE WAS CLAIMING.
CUS, ALTHOUGH WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENCES ABOUT OTHER THINGS, I DON'T THINK EVEN YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH THOSE TWO POINTS!!
