First off how do you know those reasons are mistaken other than your desire to believe otherwise? Seriously. You cite one example where you have genuine information - or even presumably genuine information.QuartzGooner wrote:My explanations were not irrelevant, they were responses to your post which you filled with mistaken reasons as to why certain players left!USMartin wrote: Your explanations are irrelevant in the sense that even the decisions which I would endorse were bad decisions because of their timing coinciding with other key deoartures and the failure in many of most of the cases to acquire genuinely adequate replacements. The fact that you acknolwedge any of these decisions were financially driven is sufficient cause for alarm - we are Arsenal Football Club - not Arsenal Investment Club or Arsenal Budget Balancing Club.
Indeed the Board's strategy risks turning us into another Leeds more than anything else right now.Under-ivestment backfiring is just as dangerous as over-investment backfiring.
.
As I say you seem incapable of anything but defending the Board. Even your critiicisms of anything Arsenal are limited in nature and none ever directly address the Board in any way. You are a Board apologist in the same way you see Wenger apologists. such as the following line
You would have to be on really bad acid not to agree with that or to perceive it to begin withQuartzGooner wrote:But I agree that we did not adequately replace enough of the players who left 2005 - 2008.!
I
Not to the Board it isn't. But to Arsenal it is - absolutely. Serious question what do you suppose would have happened had we finished fifth in 2006 and still not won in Paris? Seriously - do you believe there would have been no serious reprecussions whatsoever? No major departures ahead of time? That we easily would have reclaimed fourth if there were a year later? That if we didn't ticket sales wouldn't have suffered, including Club Level renewals if this decline continued? And let's not forget will stll had both the Highbury re-development and new stadium debts over our heads.QuartzGooner wrote:t is not dangerous that decisions were made on a a financial basis, because in building a new stadium the club were going to be short of cash, regardless of what any director ever said.
A new Leeds?
No. Very different situation to them.
We will struggle to win the title, but have a reasonable chance of fourth.
Much more reasonable should if buy a decent new goalkeeper!
Leeds suffered because they over-invested in players and could not keep up without Champions League Football. Subsitute property development for players you have the same sentence drescribing our position without a top four finish. Yes we could sell,the new stadium or our training ground to offset the damage. Afetr all s***s are looking to improve their gorund and facilities, no?
Or they could just sell to make whatever they can before the price tanks to a new owners or owners reliant on debt-leverage to be able to purchase Arsenal -since you seem fine with them not assuring us they would not do so and all.
Are you really that confident in our situation. After all you yourself have us pegged for fourth. If that's the best we can do what if something goes wrong? I think you - like our Board underestimate the riskiness of their policy and are unprepared for what happens if it fails - like our Board.
You just hope it doesn't - like our Board.
Maybe someone is on their way afterall, although it will probably be the Fulham keeper - who is better than what we have, but not the preference of the majority of us.
Now that would be stupid!!! 
