The point he's making, made simply without fuss, is that it's not a huge achievement to have stayed ahead of Villa and Everton (and Tottenham for that matter) given our wage bill compared to theirs. Someone quoted Why England Lose, what that tells us (and is obvious anyway) is that success is linked closer to wage bills than to transfer fees. Our wage bill has always compared well with those in the top 4 apart from Chelski (and Man City now) and our transfer fees aren't exactly bad when compared to Everton (our closest challengers in terms of final position for the last two seasons) either.
To me the point it makes is true. Finishing top 4 every year in the last few without doing much else has not been a great achievement. Yes it is good that we kept doing it but let's not pretend it was some impossible feat. It wasn't. It is harder this season given Man City's emergence.
The last 4 years will be judged by the next 4. If we have built a team which will dominate for years then it's acceptable. If not then it hasn't been.
Wenger’s Myths Exposed (3/1)
Wenger’s Myths Exposed (3/1)
The point this misses is that we have been closer at times over the last 5 years to ManU and Chelsea than Everton or Villa have been to us in that same period. At the same time both Everton and Villa have had to spend more than their revenues (hence they have made losses while we balanced our books) in order to get as close as they have done (no nearer than 9 points away at any time in those 5 years). Is finishing in the top four during a period when we have commissioned and installed ourselves in a new stadium as part of a huge capital project a remarkable achievement? You bet your life it is.djhdjh wrote:The point he's making, made simply without fuss, is that it's not a huge achievement to have stayed ahead of Villa and Everton (and Tottenham for that matter) given our wage bill compared to theirs. Someone quoted Why England Lose, what that tells us (and is obvious anyway) is that success is linked closer to wage bills than to transfer fees. Our wage bill has always compared well with those in the top 4 apart from Chelski (and Man City now) and our transfer fees aren't exactly bad when compared to Everton (our closest challengers in terms of final position for the last two seasons) either.
To me the point it makes is true. Finishing top 4 every year in the last few without doing much else has not been a great achievement. Yes it is good that we kept doing it but let's not pretend it was some impossible feat. It wasn't. It is harder this season given Man City's emergence.
The last 4 years will be judged by the next 4. If we have built a team which will dominate for years then it's acceptable. If not then it hasn't been.
The articles claim that in the 5 years (2003 to 2008) it has been a myth that we have been hampered by financial restrictions and that it is also a myth that in the same 5 years that we have had a significantly younger than average squad. Both contentions are tosh - although it is true that neither is as true now as it has been for much of that period. That it is no longer true is only the logical consequence of the project to build the stadium and rely on a policy, during that period, to acquire and, equally importantly, retain talented young players until the income from the stadium allowed us to compete on a financial level closer to ManU and Chelsea. Neither Wenger or the club has claimed in the last couple of seasons that either 'myth' is true any longer. On the contrary the claim since the summer before last is that finances are improving significantly and the team is maturing.
Look logically at what has happened and you can see that the financial brakes were only able to begin to come off in the summer of 2008. Since then (with the exception of Ramsey) our transfer policy has been to recruit players with high level experience in Nasri, Silvestre, Arshavin and Vermaelen. The youth policy is over as the financial restrictions now ease - but neither were myths and haven't been exposed as such.
No - our top 4 rivals have been at least as close to us as us to Chavs United. We nearly lost our place on the last day to Spurs (he didn't mention them and on transfer fees they will be ahead, although not by as much as you would think but on wages we will be ahead) a few years back. Nearly lost out to Villa last year as we nearly won the title in 07/08. Apart from 1 season we have been nearer losing the top 4 than winning the title since 05/06. And given our wage bill keeping our place in the top 4 should have been quite comfortable and apart from 05/06 in fairness it was. But we should have done better than 1 Champions League Final in that period in terms of getting close to winning things.
There have clearly been financial restrictions with regards to transfers (and I would say in net terms they still exist either in Wenger's mind or in reality). They have been exacerbated by paying unproven players too much.
In terms of youth I've always seen that as an excuse. His choice to bring in young players (you can still get experienced players for relatively little money if you look in the right places as Wenger and others have always proven) and except when injuries have occurred our first eleven has never been that young over this period. It certainly doesn't stand up now and Wenger does still like to use it as an excuse.
Ultimately you are being deliberately stubborn in refusing to see the basic point which is that our wage bill has always been right up there with the other red members of the top 4 and miles ahead of any potential challengers. Leaving aside transfer fees (true we have and still seemingly are restricted in this area, although I would argue we have spent too much on wages for unproven youngsters) and youth of the squad (a managerial choice) that in itself means that we should indeed be well ahead of any top 4 challengers which undermines claims it has been a great achievement by Wenger to keep us in the top 4. Solid achievement but well below his previous standards and not good enough for a club of our size when not accompanied by any trophies.
There have clearly been financial restrictions with regards to transfers (and I would say in net terms they still exist either in Wenger's mind or in reality). They have been exacerbated by paying unproven players too much.
In terms of youth I've always seen that as an excuse. His choice to bring in young players (you can still get experienced players for relatively little money if you look in the right places as Wenger and others have always proven) and except when injuries have occurred our first eleven has never been that young over this period. It certainly doesn't stand up now and Wenger does still like to use it as an excuse.
Ultimately you are being deliberately stubborn in refusing to see the basic point which is that our wage bill has always been right up there with the other red members of the top 4 and miles ahead of any potential challengers. Leaving aside transfer fees (true we have and still seemingly are restricted in this area, although I would argue we have spent too much on wages for unproven youngsters) and youth of the squad (a managerial choice) that in itself means that we should indeed be well ahead of any top 4 challengers which undermines claims it has been a great achievement by Wenger to keep us in the top 4. Solid achievement but well below his previous standards and not good enough for a club of our size when not accompanied by any trophies.
Wenger’s Myths Exposed (3/1)
You are changing the point being made which was that our achievements in the period that the article covered were not significantly better than Villa's or Everton based on money spent. The fact is that we came within 4 points of the champions in that period and neither club came closer than 9 points of us. Sure Tottenham came within a couple of points of us in 2006 but they haven't even finished consistently in the top half of the table in that period so no real case to be made for them. The writer didn't mention them for very good reason just as he didn't mention Chelsea as they would make the opposite case. Sure we have spent more on wages than those outside the top four. Primarily that is because we haven't failed to qualify for the CL in 12 years. We have been able to pay good wages despite the financial restrictions of the stadium because we have been successful - not paid good wages with funds we don't have in order to be successful.
You can have a view on whether Wenger should have spent more or less on wages/transfers and/or whether we should have spent more on experienced players or youth. There are many valid arguments to be had in support of those issues. But they aren't the arguments that are being made here which I have taken issue with.
The articles claim that it is a myth that we have been hampered by finanical restrictions in the 5 years between 2003 -2008 (let's leave aside that we had an unbeaten title and an FA Cup in that period), that our squad wasn't younger than average and that ManU achieved more without spending a great deal more. None of that is true however highly you paint the achievements of those outside the top four. Our achievements can only be measured against those that have done better than us in that period, ManU and Chelsea, and if we are using financial resources as an argument for justification of success or failure then our achievements must be measured against the resources that those clubs have been able to employ in that period.
You can have a view on whether Wenger should have spent more or less on wages/transfers and/or whether we should have spent more on experienced players or youth. There are many valid arguments to be had in support of those issues. But they aren't the arguments that are being made here which I have taken issue with.
The articles claim that it is a myth that we have been hampered by finanical restrictions in the 5 years between 2003 -2008 (let's leave aside that we had an unbeaten title and an FA Cup in that period), that our squad wasn't younger than average and that ManU achieved more without spending a great deal more. None of that is true however highly you paint the achievements of those outside the top four. Our achievements can only be measured against those that have done better than us in that period, ManU and Chelsea, and if we are using financial resources as an argument for justification of success or failure then our achievements must be measured against the resources that those clubs have been able to employ in that period.
Well our achievements aren't significantly better than Villa or Everton based on money spent. Our spending should place us 3rd or 4th and we've kept coming 3rd or 4th since 2006 (I'm looking at that period because that's the period since the Invincibles broke up and I'm changing the argument because I have my own mind and fancy arguing my own point).
Everton's spending should have placed them somewhere in mid-table and they've been in the top 5 or 6 for a while. Villa are probably about where they should be. Until recently Spurs have been largely crap, tell me something we don't know! Looking at points is a waste of time - would we rather get 80 and finish 5th or 75 and win the title? You can't justify only comparing us to United or Chelsea and even if you did I would argue that United have achieved more than their resources would have dictated and Chelsea aren't a million miles away either.
Reality is that we've achieved about what we should have done with the money we've had to spend, which has been frustrating as we were ahead of that between 2002-2005 and even with less money should have been able to stay in the title hunt. Wenger has done a solid job in the last few years but not the miracle that some would like to claim or that he achieved between 1997-2004.
Everton's spending should have placed them somewhere in mid-table and they've been in the top 5 or 6 for a while. Villa are probably about where they should be. Until recently Spurs have been largely crap, tell me something we don't know! Looking at points is a waste of time - would we rather get 80 and finish 5th or 75 and win the title? You can't justify only comparing us to United or Chelsea and even if you did I would argue that United have achieved more than their resources would have dictated and Chelsea aren't a million miles away either.
Reality is that we've achieved about what we should have done with the money we've had to spend, which has been frustrating as we were ahead of that between 2002-2005 and even with less money should have been able to stay in the title hunt. Wenger has done a solid job in the last few years but not the miracle that some would like to claim or that he achieved between 1997-2004.
So we have achieved what we should have expected to achieve then? ManU and Chelsea spent more than us so we should expect them to be above us! What you can say then is that at least Wenger hasn't messed up.djhdjh wrote: Our spending should place us 3rd or 4th and we've kept coming 3rd or 4th since 2006
Picking achievements since 2006 makes sense for the point you want to argue (rather than the point we were arguing) because it rather falls apart in respect of Everton and Villa's achievements before then even if Villa only managed 11th in 2007.
Wenger's achievements have first to accept that his ability to build a team was hampered by financial restrictions since the stadium project was undertaken. As I pointed out in an earlier post we had taken some £140m out of our own resources prior to the refinancing of the stadium in 2006. Could we have expected to have achieved more had we spent that £140m on team building rather than the stadium? On the premise of your argument the answer has to be yes. Would we be in a weaker position to compete now had we not spent that money on the stadium? Clearly that also has to be yes. Take all the achievements in the round and it really isn't hard to see that pound for pound our achievements have far exceeded whatever Everton or Villa have borrowed to reach their heights even in your more limited time frame.
The stadium did not generate significant profit until 2008. The Invincibles broke up because we couldn't afford to replace them on a like for like basis especially in a period after Abramovich had taken over the Chavs in 2003 and distorted the transfer market. The reliance on youth was brave and far sighted but very risky. That we managed to retain an ability to spend significantly on wages (but less so on transfer fees) is testimony to the success, as qualified as it was, we did have. Even so that ability was some 40% less on average than Chelsea on wages alone - ignoring the their transfer spend and apparently some 20% less than ManU's player budgets.
How confident would you be that we would still be where we are now had Moyes or O'Neill been in charge of our budgets during that seminal period in the clubs history? It's one thing to meet the expectations of Villa or Everton supporters - quite another to meet those of Arsenal supporters it seems.
This whole argument seems useless. Chelsea, Man Utd and Arsenal have spent money so differently in the past five years that comparing them makes no sense.
Cheski will implode without 100 million pounds per year from Abramovich. They "deserve" their success, but they'll struggle immediately if RA quits donating or if Platini forces a "financial fair play" law through UEFA.
In the last five years, Man Utd's financials have decayed. The Glazer family borrowed to buy the team and require their stock shares to produce revenues (dividends) since they secured (some of) the debt against Man Utd. Much of their debt is "off the books" and not included in the above figures.
Who's better off long term? Arsenal, by a long shot. Arsenal have both survived the worst of the transition and look to get only more financially solvent in the next five years, something the other Top 4 clubs can only dream about.
How will Man Utd do in a couple years when Fergie retires and there's no transfer kitty for the new guy? How will Chelski do when Abramovich tires of charity or Platini gets his way? And who would want to be in Liverpool's shoes in the next five years?
Arsenal have done the business and in the right way to insure we can vie for championships for the next decade. I guarantee you the Arsenal will have more success than Chelsea or Liverpool between 2011 and 2020.
Cheski will implode without 100 million pounds per year from Abramovich. They "deserve" their success, but they'll struggle immediately if RA quits donating or if Platini forces a "financial fair play" law through UEFA.
In the last five years, Man Utd's financials have decayed. The Glazer family borrowed to buy the team and require their stock shares to produce revenues (dividends) since they secured (some of) the debt against Man Utd. Much of their debt is "off the books" and not included in the above figures.
Who's better off long term? Arsenal, by a long shot. Arsenal have both survived the worst of the transition and look to get only more financially solvent in the next five years, something the other Top 4 clubs can only dream about.
How will Man Utd do in a couple years when Fergie retires and there's no transfer kitty for the new guy? How will Chelski do when Abramovich tires of charity or Platini gets his way? And who would want to be in Liverpool's shoes in the next five years?
Arsenal have done the business and in the right way to insure we can vie for championships for the next decade. I guarantee you the Arsenal will have more success than Chelsea or Liverpool between 2011 and 2020.
Yes, I agree we have achieved what we should have done. What annoys me is those trying to claim we have done brilliantly to stay in the top 4 because that is bollocks. And I stilll think had we signed some bigger and more experienced players (which was not impossible on our budget) we could have done even better.Amos wrote:So we have achieved what we should have expected to achieve then? ManU and Chelsea spent more than us so we should expect them to be above us! What you can say then is that at least Wenger hasn't messed up.djhdjh wrote: Our spending should place us 3rd or 4th and we've kept coming 3rd or 4th since 2006
Picking achievements since 2006 makes sense for the point you want to argue (rather than the point we were arguing) because it rather falls apart in respect of Everton and Villa's achievements before then even if Villa only managed 11th in 2007.
Wenger's achievements have first to accept that his ability to build a team was hampered by financial restrictions since the stadium project was undertaken. As I pointed out in an earlier post we had taken some £140m out of our own resources prior to the refinancing of the stadium in 2006. Could we have expected to have achieved more had we spent that £140m on team building rather than the stadium? On the premise of your argument the answer has to be yes. Would we be in a weaker position to compete now had we not spent that money on the stadium? Clearly that also has to be yes. Take all the achievements in the round and it really isn't hard to see that pound for pound our achievements have far exceeded whatever Everton or Villa have borrowed to reach their heights even in your more limited time frame.
The stadium did not generate significant profit until 2008. The Invincibles broke up because we couldn't afford to replace them on a like for like basis especially in a period after Abramovich had taken over the Chavs in 2003 and distorted the transfer market. The reliance on youth was brave and far sighted but very risky. That we managed to retain an ability to spend significantly on wages (but less so on transfer fees) is testimony to the success, as qualified as it was, we did have. Even so that ability was some 40% less on average than Chelsea on wages alone - ignoring the their transfer spend and apparently some 20% less than ManU's player budgets.
How confident would you be that we would still be where we are now had Moyes or O'Neill been in charge of our budgets during that seminal period in the clubs history? It's one thing to meet the expectations of Villa or Everton supporters - quite another to meet those of Arsenal supporters it seems.
Villa were on the way back up from having nearly got relegated the previous year when they came 11th and barely spent anything that year.
The reliance on youth was to some degree necessary and to some degree looks to have set us up nicely (although all our best recent signings have been in their mid 20's) but had it just had a sprinkling on experienced players it could have been so much better in the short term.
Since you ask I'd be very confident that we'd have stayed in the top 4 under Moyes or O'Neill. As I've said it wasn't a difficult achievement given the amount we can spend on wages relative to our rivals. Both exceptional managers and both have done a better job since 2006 when the latter arrived in English football than Wenger has. Overall of course Wenger's career makes theirs look rather puny.
In conclusion this is not me saying that Wenger should be sacked, this is me saying let's not keep arse licking him for a period when, even if we were financially restricted, he still only achieved the bare minimum necessary. As I said at the start, this 4 years will be judged by the next 4.
So you agree that it's our financial strength that has enabled us to maintain a position in the top four while at the same time building new state of the art training facilities and a new revenue enhancing stadium. But you don't think that Wenger is largely responsible for the financial health of the club that has enabled us to achieve all of this?
The argument seems to assume that the financial strength is there anyway. That an astute eye on valuing players rather than names hasn't helped, at least in substantial part, to bring us to this stage. Whether from the £23m we got for the £500K outlay on Anelka or the £40m+ we got for the collective outlay of £8m for Adebayor and Toure 10 years later - and all the deals in between. Would you be confident that Moyes or O'Neill had such a talent for player spotting? Or is it more likely that they would have spent more on 'names' and therefore we would have had less to spend on players wages and ultimately had to settle for players happier to accept lower wages? If so then your argument becomes academic because chances are that they wouldn't have achieved as much as we have done as a result of the reduced resources.
That the club has avoided spending future revenues as both Moyes and O'Neill are currently doing is one of the primary reasons why we have been able to maintain as high wages as we have done despite committing so much of our resources to building the stadium. Now we are able to use existing rather than prospective revenues.
Think a little wider. Would a brand of football that relies on honest hardworking scuttlers playing hoof ball behind target men like Carew or Heskey have attracted quite the same international support that the club now commands? If not then we can chalk a few million more off our revenues over the last 10 years and therefore our position to compete would be lower than it has been.
It's fair enough to criticise Wenger for mistakes he has made but those are mainly the small ones. He, and the board, for the most part have got the big key decisions right. Acknowledging that we are as successful as our financial strength allows us to be logically then has to acknowledge that we are as financially strong as we are because of the way the club has been managed. It's one thing to spend money quite another to create it in the first place. Moyes and O'Neill might have been able to spend the money but they wouldn't have been able to make it.
The argument seems to assume that the financial strength is there anyway. That an astute eye on valuing players rather than names hasn't helped, at least in substantial part, to bring us to this stage. Whether from the £23m we got for the £500K outlay on Anelka or the £40m+ we got for the collective outlay of £8m for Adebayor and Toure 10 years later - and all the deals in between. Would you be confident that Moyes or O'Neill had such a talent for player spotting? Or is it more likely that they would have spent more on 'names' and therefore we would have had less to spend on players wages and ultimately had to settle for players happier to accept lower wages? If so then your argument becomes academic because chances are that they wouldn't have achieved as much as we have done as a result of the reduced resources.
That the club has avoided spending future revenues as both Moyes and O'Neill are currently doing is one of the primary reasons why we have been able to maintain as high wages as we have done despite committing so much of our resources to building the stadium. Now we are able to use existing rather than prospective revenues.
Think a little wider. Would a brand of football that relies on honest hardworking scuttlers playing hoof ball behind target men like Carew or Heskey have attracted quite the same international support that the club now commands? If not then we can chalk a few million more off our revenues over the last 10 years and therefore our position to compete would be lower than it has been.
It's fair enough to criticise Wenger for mistakes he has made but those are mainly the small ones. He, and the board, for the most part have got the big key decisions right. Acknowledging that we are as successful as our financial strength allows us to be logically then has to acknowledge that we are as financially strong as we are because of the way the club has been managed. It's one thing to spend money quite another to create it in the first place. Moyes and O'Neill might have been able to spend the money but they wouldn't have been able to make it.
