What needs to happen to prove Wenger right?

highburyJD · Post by **highburyJD** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:06 pm

a good constructive post quartz

RNTGOONER · Post by **RNTGOONER** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:21 pm

Champagne Charlie wrote:Who Killed JFK
Did Bush order the bombing of the WTC
Where is Bin Laden
Who really killed Lady Di?
Area 51 and the UFO conspiracies

And the most popular conspiracy theory????

Does Wenger really have money to spend?

And in other news: We happen to play Nocastle on the weekend...

Did andy Carrol bring it with him

TeeCee · Post by **TeeCee** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:22 pm

Martin,

Read the article on 'Le Grove' where they quote AST.

http://le-grove.co.uk/2011/02/03/exclus ... clarified/

In it the AST say that Wenger is in on the board meetings and has a say in the strategic direction of Arsenal including finances. There was also Â£40m available this window.
Arsene Wenger chooses not to spend, the board do not.

RNTGOONER · Post by **RNTGOONER** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:28 pm

TeeCee wrote:Martin,

Read the article on 'Le Grove' where they quote AST.

http://le-grove.co.uk/2011/02/03/exclus ... clarified/

In it the AST say that Wenger is in on the board meetings and has a say in the strategic direction of Arsenal including finances. There was also Â£40m available this window.
Arsene Wenger chooses not to spend, the board do not.

Case closed usmartin now feck off

Arsenal 1991 · Post by **Arsenal 1991** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:33 pm

TeeCee wrote:Martin,

Read the article on 'Le Grove' where they quote AST.

http://le-grove.co.uk/2011/02/03/exclus ... clarified/

In it the AST say that Wenger is in on the board meetings and has a say in the strategic direction of Arsenal including finances. There was also Â£40m available this window.
Arsene Wenger chooses not to spend, the board do not.

Your move martin...

Well done TC by the way!

highburyJD · Post by **highburyJD** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:43 pm

let me post for martin - the fact that wenger is on the board making financial decisions makes him even more likely to tow the party line

USMartin · Post by **USMartin** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:20 pm

What makes him more likely to tow the party line is he cannot get another job where he will be under so little pressure to produce better resulta and the same kind of money or he would be there now.

The bottom line is simple - do the Board want more money spent yes or no? If they do not then are they not repsonsible no matter how you try to color it. After all Mr. Wenger is their employee, not the other way around.

Like I say show me piece of independently varifiable evidence that the Board would not limit how much any other manager would spend. Not the Board's words show me someone independent like the Swiss Ramble or Simon Kuper or Paul Tomkins or some top football economice journalist like David Conn.

USMartin · Post by **USMartin** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:23 pm

highburyJD wrote: my opinion is that Wenger and the board think it's financially prudent to pay down debt now. Probably we have sailed closer to the wind debtwise than they would like to admit - some of our undisclosed debt agreements could demand we hold a certain amount of capital for all I know.

First off, we have over 125 million banked away right now and up to 100 million of it is available to be spent either on debt repayment or investment in the football team. This money has built up since 2007 or 2008 and has not been used for either. In part because as Quartz has correctly pointed out there are financial penalties for early repayment of the debts. So when you combine that with the fact the annuaual profits sufficiently provide our annual debt repayment now why shouldn't the club want to use some of that money to invest in the football team?

And don't forget this that amount above does not include any profits from this past season to be reported this May in the Half-Year report, and there almost certainly will be a profit again and we could than be looking at over 150 million banked away going neite=ther to pay down the debt nor back into the football team.

As to your theory about the club being deepr in debt than they wanted to say that is a viable suggestion but again the sole reason that would have been was the decision not to sell Highbury as originally planned, as that increased our total debt by 50% and increased our short-term debt burden by about 100% and eliminated aguaranteed source of income with which to pay off any debt for five full years. Arsene Wenger did not make that decision - the Board made it. And so far only the Board or its major shareholders have benefitted from it.

highburyJD wrote:The reality is Wenger is stubborn - lot's on here see it as an unforgiveable weakness. It can be a weakness - his insistence on playing tomorrows games today often rejects the chance of the quick fix experienced signings. Whilst allowing players to gain experience you risk losing games. The glaring error of that sort was dropping Arshavin v Chelski in the cup IMO because he wanted the team to believe they could win without him pre-Barca.

I don't disagree necessarily but what does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to say he stubbornly refuses to spend more money? Even if that were true does the Board sincerely want him to? Because they have not once made any effort to push him to do so, and again he is their employee - not the otherway around.

highburyJD wrote: The stubborness is also by far Wenger's biggest strength. I think it is better to have a system than just a group of players.

Wait which is it - is it adhering to system or being stubborn or just financially prudent?

And why not employ this system before 2006? Again if he is so stubborn about what he believes is right why work against his own beliefs from 1998-2005?

Arsenal 1991 · Post by **Arsenal 1991** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:30 pm

USMartin wrote:What makes him more likely to tow the party line is he cannot get another job where he will be under so little pressure to produce better resulta and the same kind of money or he would be there now.

The bottom line is simple - do the Board want more money spent yes or no? If they do not then are they not repsonsible no matter how you try to color it. After all Mr. Wenger is their employee, not the other way around.

Like I say show me piece of independently varifiable evidence that the Board would not limit how much any other manager would spend. Not the Board's words show me someone independent like the Swiss Ramble or Simon Kuper or Paul Tomkins or some top football economice journalist like David Conn.

Wenger chooses not to spend the money. The board obviously trust him, as a lot of people still do. Whats the problem?

Maybe the board should force him to spend the money. IMO they are cutting him some slack as we've only just starting making lots of money and the market is ridiculous. I think and maybe some of the board members think that he should've spent a bit of it.

BUT it would be madness for them to sack him from their perspective.

highburyJD · Post by **highburyJD** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:34 pm

USMartin wrote:Wait

for what?

Arsenal 1991 · Post by **Arsenal 1991** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:35 pm

Wait

Good things come to those who...

highburyJD · Post by **highburyJD** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:37 pm

how do I reduce the pixels of a pic so I can have an avatar btw...?

Arsenal 1991 · Post by **Arsenal 1991** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:47 pm

highburyJD wrote:how do I reduce the pixels of a pic so I can have an avatar btw...?

Have you got a mac?

USMartin · Post by **USMartin** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:54 pm

Arsenal 1991 wrote: Wenger chooses not to spend the money. The board obviously trust him, as a lot of people still do. Whats the problem?.

So why did he spend it from 1998-2005 as he clearly did - average spend was 5.1 million per year, since 2006 average profit has been about 5.2 million. Was he being forced to? And if so why didn't he quit in protest and tow why did they suddenly stop forcing him to spend?

And if he wasn't being forced to spend then given the success that resulted why would he want to stop spending on his own and continue not to spend even when money actaully was available to restore the team and his reputation as a manager?

Arsenal 1991 wrote: Maybe the board should force him to spend the money. IMO they are cutting him some slack as we've only just starting making lots of money and the market is ridiculous. I think and maybe some of the board members think that he should've spent a bit of it..

We have been making serious money really since the summer of 2007 - whether it was or should have been available then is less certain perhaps.

But where do you get this notion about Board members thinking he should spend more because other than one comment back in2006 or 2007 not once has any Board member publically said anything like that, and apparently Mr. Hill-Wood wasn;t too upset at all that he did not since its 2011 now and he heasn't said that again. His comment was basically was that "money was available to spend and I wish he would", no more than that, and as I say he wasn't terribly upset that it never happened the next three or four years.

B

Arsenal 1991 wrote: UT it would be madness for them to sack him from their perspective.

I love the blanket statement of fact and how you know how the Board feel as though you are in the Board Room with them

Arsenal 1991 · Post by **Arsenal 1991** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:10 pm

USMartin wrote:
Arsenal 1991 wrote: Wenger chooses not to spend the money. The board obviously trust him, as a lot of people still do. Whats the problem?.
So why did he spend it from 1998-2005 as he clearly did - average spend was 5.1 million per year, since 2006 average profit has been about 5.2 million. Was he being forced to? And if so why didn't he quit in protest and tow why did they suddenly stop forcing him to spend?

And if he wasn't being forced to spend then given the success that resulted why would he want to stop spending on his own and continue not to spend even when money actaully was available to restore the team and his reputation as a manager?

Arsenal 1991 wrote: Maybe the board should force him to spend the money. IMO they are cutting him some slack as we've only just starting making lots of money and the market is ridiculous. I think and maybe some of the board members think that he should've spent a bit of it..
We have been making serious money really since the summer of 2007 - whether it was or should have been available then is less certain perhaps.

But where do you get this notion about Board members thinking he should spend more because other than one comment back in2006 or 2007 not once has any Board member publically said anything like that, and apparently Mr. Hill-Wood wasn;t too upset at all that he did not since its 2011 now and he heasn't said that again. His comment was basically was that "money was available to spend and I wish he would", no more than that, and as I say he wasn't terribly upset that it never happened the next three or four years.

B
Arsenal 1991 wrote: UT it would be madness for them to sack him from their perspective.
I love the blanket statement of fact and how you know how the Board feel as though you are in the Board Room with them

I try and start a debate with you, then you remind me why I don't bother.

I just haven't got the time to post essays, I'll save that for uni.

I summarise it for you:

I believe that AW is choosing not to spend the money that is available to spend. This is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard. It is not based on any solid facts, neither is yours however you like to paint it.

Now just leave it alone and lets us debate football matters until the season is over. The window is shut so financial matters should be left alone until results are realised or the window is open again.

OK?