The Banner

[g88ner]

As has been said elsewhere look at Dortmund in Germany - no big stars (well not that they signed as stars), no big wage bill, back to back titles at the expense of Bayern (the German equivalent at United). In Holland, FC Twente have won titles ahead of Ajax in recent years, Valencia did it a few years ago in Spain, Montpellier have been up there all season knocking Lyon off their perch and up against PSG who are outspending everyone in their league.

For every example of a Chelsea there's a Dortmund.

Yeah, if you look hard enough you will find examples of when David beat Goliath, but it's not sustainable.

Clubs like Dortmund, Valencia, Montpellier, FC Twente, etc. will have pockets of success, but will it last? or will the rich clubs respond and will the smaller clubs drop away?

You're using them as examples of what Arsenal could - or even should - be expecting to maintain.... even though none of the clubs you've mentioned have been winning titles consistently enough for it to be a proven way of sustainable success.

It's not a coincidence that Real Madrid and Barca almost always win the league in Spain, or that Milan, Inter or Juve usually win in Italy... and then you have Galatasaray, FC Porto, Benfica, Anderlecht, Celtic, Rangers, etc. who have dominated the leagues in their respective countries.

The richest teams dominate the league. Everyone else can have their moment in the sun, but will always fade away and leave the rich clubs to it.

You could argue that we've already had our time in the sun, and have faded away as Citeh and Chelsea have bought their way into the title race. Maybe this is our fading period, before we rise like a phoenix again in the next 5-10 years? who knows.

I accept there's a good argument that we're not maximising our potential and sitting on funds (and I agree with that!) but we're behind 3 clubs in the Premier League with regards to wealth and financial clout, and there can't be many (if any?) examples of clubs in europe's major leagues that have challenged/overpowered their richer rivals for nearly 2 decades without fading away?

We seriously challenged for a decade, and have now dropped back again... but most (all?) examples you've used have slipped a hell of a lot further than us since 1996, that's for sure.

[richpye]

As has been said elsewhere look at Dortmund in Germany - no big stars (well not that they signed as stars), no big wage bill, back to back titles at the expense of Bayern (the German equivalent at United). In Holland, FC Twente have won titles ahead of Ajax in recent years, Valencia did it a few years ago in Spain, Montpellier have been up there all season knocking Lyon off their perch and up against PSG who are outspending everyone in their league.

For every example of a Chelsea there's a Dortmund.

Yeah, if you look hard enough you will find examples of when David beat Goliath, but it's not sustainable.

Clubs like Dortmund, Valencia, Montpellier, FC Twente, etc. will have pockets of success, but will it last? or will the rich clubs respond and will the smaller clubs drop away?

You're using them as examples of what Arsenal could - or even should - be expecting to maintain.... even though none of the clubs you've mentioned have been winning titles consistently enough for it to be a proven way of sustainable success.

It's not a coincidence that Real Madrid and Barca almost always win the league in Spain, or that Milan, Inter or Juve usually win in Italy... and then you have Galatasaray, FC Porto, Benfica, Anderlecht, Celtic, Rangers, etc. who have dominated the leagues in their respective countries.

The richest teams dominate the league. Everyone else can have their moment in the sun, but will always fade away and leave the rich clubs to it.

You could argue that we've already had our time in the sun, and have faded away as Citeh and Chelsea have bought their way into the title race. Maybe this is our fading period, before we rise like a phoenix again in the next 5-10 years? who knows.

I accept there's a good argument that we're not maximising our potential and sitting on funds (and I agree with that!) but we're behind 3 clubs in the Premier League with regards to wealth and financial clout, and there can't be many (if any?) examples of clubs in europe's major leagues that have challenged/overpowered their richer rivals for nearly 2 decades without fading away?

We seriously challenged for a decade, and have now dropped back again... but most (all?) examples you've used have slipped a hell of a lot further than us since 1996, that's for sure.

Spot on post.
There are a lot of clubs who will have to seriously reshape their clubs over the next couple of years starting from the foundations up. We have already built those foundations and our time will come again.
That doesn't mean we don't need to change things, there are deficiencies in the playing squad, scouting, youth development and with overall management style at board level. However we are far from broken

[SteveO 35]

Guys, please stop and wind clock the back to 2004 when the new stadium plans were announced

"We are moving to compete with Europe's elite"

No matter what arguments you use about comparative wealth the club decided to rip up its home of 93 years, indebt itself and charge supporters top, top ticket prices to share that dream. It wasn't - we're moving to compete with everyone that isn't richer than us.

The clubs I quoted, with the possible exception of Valencia, are all provincial clubs and we should be able to achieve better than they did - of course Fc Twente aren't going to win the CL anytime soon, but what they've proved is that decent coaching and wise buying and selling means you can still compete with sides in your own league with double or treble the budget. Not every year, not forever, but that you can compete rather than throwing in the towel by September and accepting the crumbs from the table.

Arsenal should not be finishing 19 points off second place in the table. We are supposedly the biggest club in London, we sell our ground out every week and have a huge worldwide scouting team and expensive academy. Not good enough

[Leyton Gooner]

As has been said elsewhere look at Dortmund in Germany - no big stars (well not that they signed as stars), no big wage bill, back to back titles at the expense of Bayern (the German equivalent at United). In Holland, FC Twente have won titles ahead of Ajax in recent years, Valencia did it a few years ago in Spain, Montpellier have been up there all season knocking Lyon off their perch and up against PSG who are outspending everyone in their league.

For every example of a Chelsea there's a Dortmund.

Yeah, if you look hard enough you will find examples of when David beat Goliath, but it's not sustainable.

Clubs like Dortmund, Valencia, Montpellier, FC Twente, etc. will have pockets of success, but will it last? or will the rich clubs respond and will the smaller clubs drop away?

You're using them as examples of what Arsenal could - or even should - be expecting to maintain.... even though none of the clubs you've mentioned have been winning titles consistently enough for it to be a proven way of sustainable success.

It's not a coincidence that Real Madrid and Barca almost always win the league in Spain, or that Milan, Inter or Juve usually win in Italy... and then you have Galatasaray, FC Porto, Benfica, Anderlecht, Celtic, Rangers, etc. who have dominated the leagues in their respective countries.

The richest teams dominate the league. Everyone else can have their moment in the sun, but will always fade away and leave the rich clubs to it.

You could argue that we've already had our time in the sun, and have faded away as Citeh and Chelsea have bought their way into the title race. Maybe this is our fading period, before we rise like a phoenix again in the next 5-10 years? who knows.

I accept there's a good argument that we're not maximising our potential and sitting on funds (and I agree with that!) but we're behind 3 clubs in the Premier League with regards to wealth and financial clout, and there can't be many (if any?) examples of clubs in europe's major leagues that have challenged/overpowered their richer rivals for nearly 2 decades without fading away?

We seriously challenged for a decade, and have now dropped back again... but most (all?) examples you've used have slipped a hell of a lot further than us since 1996, that's for sure.

Spot on post.
There are a lot of clubs who will have to seriously reshape their clubs over the next couple of years starting from the foundations up. We have already built those foundations and our time will come again.
That doesn't mean we don't need to change things, there are deficiencies in the playing squad, scouting, youth development and with overall management style at board level. However we are far from broken

With regards to Dortmund they ARE one of the bigger clubs in Germany. You only have to look at the size of their following and ground to see that. It's just that no club in Germany spends beyond their means, even Bayern. That's why the Bundesliga is so competitive. Their certainly a bigger club than Chelsea and always have been.

[OneBardGooner]

You should have shown it and you would have been right to. The general acceptance of our piss poor team and even worse manager is disgraceful

If the banner hadn't been kidnapped by a few (un-named characters) then I would have shown it. £50 down the drain. C'est la vie.

??? Who C;Mon Fess Up Who On Earth Did Such A Darstardly Thing!???

[MM99]

Guys, please stop and wind clock the back to 2004 when the new stadium plans were announced

"We are moving to compete with Europe's elite"

No matter what arguments you use about comparative wealth the club decided to rip up its home of 93 years, indebt itself and charge supporters top, top ticket prices to share that dream. It wasn't - we're moving to compete with everyone that isn't richer than us.

The clubs I quoted, with the possible exception of Valencia, are all provincial clubs and we should be able to achieve better than they did - of course Fc Twente aren't going to win the CL anytime soon, but what they've proved is that decent coaching and wise buying and selling means you can still compete with sides in your own league with double or treble the budget. Not every year, not forever, but that you can compete rather than throwing in the towel by September and accepting the crumbs from the table.

Arsenal should not be finishing 19 points off second place in the table. We are supposedly the biggest club in London, we sell our ground out every week and have a huge worldwide scouting team and expensive academy. Not good enough

The football world in 2004 is a hell of a lot different than it is in 2012 so obviously things envisaged then will be completely different nowadays.

Plus the stadium project goes as far back as the late 90s and periods where we were starting to dominate the league along with Utd. Obviously then a new stadium would have taken us that step closer to Utd and the rest of Europe's elite.

But with the introduction of the mega-billionaires buying clubs as their plaything it's a whole different ball game now than it was back then and the money made now is miniscule in comparison as it would have been back then.

[I Hate Hleb]

Same old onlinegooner - moan and moan from the comfort of your laptop. But do nothing about it in real life.

For someone who gives the impression that they can't stand the majority of the views written on forum, you sure as hell seem to be spending a lot of time on here. What's the matter, has the AFCForum closed down for the night?

[SteveO 35]

The football world in 2004 is a hell of a lot different than it is in 2012 so obviously things envisaged then will be completely different nowadays.

Except it isn't really. The stadium project may well have started in the 90s but the final decision to push through the purchase of the land and start to spend money in earnest came in 2003/04. By that stage Abramovich had already bought Chelsea, having spent the previous year hawking his wealth around every other club ours included - so he was a known issue.

And what else has changed in England since then - fuck all, apart from very recently with City's new found wealth. The likes of Newcastle, Spurs, Liverpool etc are no better off now than they were then

Manchester United were already a wealtheir club than Arsenal back then. They haven't been bankrolled by a millionaire - they have been bought with a highly leveraged debt structure and have still found the means to compete with Manchester City

On the continent whats changed - are Barca, Real Madrid, Inter, AC Milan or any of the major clubs materially different in wealth compared to 2004?

Look at Ferguson's response to Chelsea - the Chavs won 2 titles, then United went and won three. Listen to him speak yesterday and see how much seeing City win the League is hurting him. I believe United will come back and win the League next season. One thing's for certain, while that guy is managing them they won't roll over in self pity, bemoaning City's wealth and accepting the inevitability of finishing in the lower CL spots in the League.

City can only register 25 players in Premier League football. They can't buy everyone. Yes, they have an advantage clearly, but you either respond like United.....or you resign yourself to the fact that its all desperately unfair and settle for 3rd or 4th best, season in and season out

[g88ner]

Guys, please stop and wind clock the back to 2004 when the new stadium plans were announced

"We are moving to compete with Europe's elite"

No matter what arguments you use about comparative wealth the club decided to rip up its home of 93 years, indebt itself and charge supporters top, top ticket prices to share that dream. It wasn't - we're moving to compete with everyone that isn't richer than us.

The clubs I quoted, with the possible exception of Valencia, are all provincial clubs and we should be able to achieve better than they did - of course Fc Twente aren't going to win the CL anytime soon, but what they've proved is that decent coaching and wise buying and selling means you can still compete with sides in your own league with double or treble the budget. Not every year, not forever, but that you can compete rather than throwing in the towel by September and accepting the crumbs from the table.

Arsenal should not be finishing 19 points off second place in the table. We are supposedly the biggest club in London, we sell our ground out every week and have a huge worldwide scouting team and expensive academy. Not good enough

I'm sick of that quote, Steveo It highlights that they were wrong. Completely wrong, and we all know it. And as they were wrong, it then becomes obsolete in discussing where we are now.... unless you agree with that statement?

Personally, I consider that statement null and void until at least 2014 when we [hopefully] start generating more income from sponsorship. But even then...

As for supposedly being the biggest club in London... well, historically we are BUT financially we're second to Chelsea and fourth in the league being the 2 Manchester clubs.

And that's the point - look at our position in football financially, and finishing 3rd/4th is exactly where we SHOULD be. Anything above that is financially overachieving.

And here is where our differences start to dovetail...

As we've been 'on par' in recent years by finishing 3rd/4th, we need to make up that difference on our rivals by either spending bigger or by better coaching and attracting better players on a tighter budget. Wenger did the latter brilliantly for a decade (which is better than most) but now looks totally out of ideas and should probably leave and be replaced.

But, as we know, he's going nowhere so I'm resigned to keeping my fingers crossed that we open our purse strings a little more and hoping he dusts off his magic hat. Not holding my breath on that one though.

[QuartzGooner]

The football world in 2004 is a hell of a lot different than it is in 2012 so obviously things envisaged then will be completely different nowadays.

Except it isn't really. The stadium project may well have started in the 90s but the final decision to push through the purchase of the land and start to spend money in earnest came in 2003/04. By that stage Abramovich had already bought Chelsea, having spent the previous year hawking his wealth around every other club ours included - so he was a known issue.

But I think once the idea of the stadium had progressed to sourcing the loans, it was always going to happen unless the loans were refused.

Yes Chelsea had been bought, but I really think the landscape has changed.
Just them and City are enough to make us less competitive than in 1999.
Just those two clubs can push us from 1st to 3rd, which is where we are now.

Man Utd have expanded their stadium.
Liverpool and Spurs will build new large capacity stadiums.

Of course I agree we have yet to challenge for the league since our new stadium has been in use (2007 - 2008 aside) but to not have built it?

OK for a few years, but dangerous long term.

[MM99]

Except it isn't really. The stadium project may well have started in the 90s but the final decision to push through the purchase of the land and start to spend money in earnest came in 2003/04. By that stage Abramovich had already bought Chelsea, having spent the previous year hawking his wealth around every other club ours included - so he was a known issue.

And what else has changed in England since then - fuck all, apart from very recently with City's new found wealth. The likes of Newcastle, Spurs, Liverpool etc are no better off now than they were then

Manchester United were already a wealtheir club than Arsenal back then. They haven't been bankrolled by a millionaire - they have been bought with a highly leveraged debt structure and have still found the means to compete with Manchester City

On the continent whats changed - are Barca, Real Madrid, Inter, AC Milan or any of the major clubs materially different in wealth compared to 2004?

Look at Ferguson's response to Chelsea - the Chavs won 2 titles, then United went and won three. Listen to him speak yesterday and see how much seeing City win the League is hurting him. I believe United will come back and win the League next season. One thing's for certain, while that guy is managing them they won't roll over in self pity, bemoaning City's wealth and accepting the inevitability of finishing in the lower CL spots in the League.

City can only register 25 players in Premier League football. They can't buy everyone. Yes, they have an advantage clearly, but you either respond like United.....or you resign yourself to the fact that its all desperately unfair and settle for 3rd or 4th best, season in and season out

Mate we're trying to have a decent discussion here so let's stop the nonsense about how football hasn't changed since 2004. It's clear to everyone that it has. We now have billionaires creating syndicates to buy Championship sides just to get them in the premier league so they can sell them on for a profit. The number of foreign billionaires buying into the game has increased tenfold.

Now let's take Liverpool as an example, i can't be bothered to get the figures for the others but they'll probably show the same towards the late 2000s.
net spend in transfers:
96/97: -4.6m
97/98: -3.2m
98/99: -7m
99/00: -26m
00/01: -6.2m
01/02: -12.3m
02/03: -7.9m
03/04: -2.2m
04/05: -25.3m
05/06: -25.6m
06/07: -15.6m
07/08: -39.6m
08/09: -6.2m
09/10: +8.6m
10/11: +5.1m
11/12: -35.3m

It's a fact that the money that has come into football from the mid 2000s onwards has not only led to inflated fees but also wages etc...

And you're right, Utd coudl very well come back next year and beat City to the title. Why? Because they can very easily spend 30-40m on players just like they have been doing in the past seasons and it won't affect them that much financially as they will always be bailed out. They are simply too big of a brand to be left to die. Someone will always buy them out no matter how much debt they have.

My point is that what the board imagined back then in the 90s and early 00s was a different football environment than it is now. So whilst at the time we were on the rise and there was optimism that as things were were we would have joined Europe's elite with a new stadium, the game has changed now so the money required back then isn't enough to get you amongst the elites like it is now.

Bare in mind this isn't excusing the tactical/player deficencies in the past few years. Just that the board could have reasonably expected at the time that we could have competed with the extra revenue in those circumstances. These days it's loose change.

[Herd]

You have and had the right to make your banner and make your protest but you choked about putting it out there which shows you have no bottle and are internet whingers without the courage of your convictions .
Frank that isn't a wind up I have been advocating for over 2 years on here that people who want Wenger out should stand up and be counted.
Nobody was going to take your season tickets away you should have put the banner up,end of story !
I still want it for my bedsheets and have bid 5 pound but it must include the flip flops !

On the wider issue of Wenger out my own opinion is that he has run out of ideas and unless we do something about the defense malaise ,he must go ,but unless or until the club is going to spend big ,(and I'm convinced they won't) then he still might be the best option,as no big name coach will join us unless they can spend .

In the recent past many on here have felt that it would be better for the long term interests of the club if we fail to get into to the CL but I cannot subscribe to that .
I do think this season was a watershed but they have got away with it again ,however if we dont go and sign some genuine long term talent rather than the stopgap signings we made at the last min this season things will go from mediocre to mid table before you can say Babatunde .

[Gunnersaurus]

You should have shown it and you would have been right to. The general acceptance of our piss poor team and even worse manager is disgraceful

If the banner hadn't been kidnapped by a few (un-named characters) then I would have shown it. £50 down the drain. C'est la vie.

£50 down the drain but you will have to live with the fact that you were gutless and melted for the rest of your life.

[SteveO 35]

"We are moving to compete with Europe's elite"


I'm sick of that quote, Steveo It highlights that they were wrong. Completely wrong, and we all know it. And as they were wrong, it then becomes obsolete in discussing where we are now.... unless you agree with that statement?

Which is precisely why I bring up that quote time and time again. I know they are wrong, you know they are wrong - but seemingly there are thousands still forking out inflated prices in the hope that the club keeps their side of the bargain and invests the excess profits it is making each year back into the playing squad whilst still servicing its debts comfortably

If the football landscape has changed as much as people are claiming - something I think is completely overstated by the way - then why don't the club subcribe to Usmanov's plan of a rights issue and give him a seat on the board. Their ownership gets diluted slightly but they effectively raise fresh equity to develop the business - it happens every fucking day on stock markets accross the world. I would have more respect for Gazidis in five minutes if he came out and said "Ok, things have changed. We need to review the strategy and in order to compete at the top level we need to raise money from external investors". There would be nothing wrong in that whatsoever. But no, they stick to the same old sorry mantra and just keep upping the cost of football to its loyal followers.

[Herd]

Stevo the original Post is about the banner ,your post (another whinge )reflects the problem with those who will not stand up for their cause but will whine on and on in the OG !

I will be shelling out for the 2 season tickets again in a few days despite the fact that I have only attended 2 games at home last season !