I would suggest the balance is a bit more co-dependent here. You make a terrific case for the Board's needing Arsene Wenger, but it sort of skips over the point that in fact Arsenal Wenger needs our Board.frankbutcher wrote:In an effort to clear up the site and return it to what it is for (talking about Arsenal playing football), please post all Board-related chat here.
(Mods - could this be made a sticky?)
To start off the debate, I will post my take on events, from what I understand to be the case.
Who holds the Power at the Emirates - the Board or Wenger?
Wenger, no doubt.
The fact is at this point in time Arsene Wenger would remain a coveted asset to many if not most top football clubs. Having said that however his value has clearly diminished away from Arsenal as his success on the pitch had declined and only a club with a very similar business model or plan to Arsenal's would want Mr. Wenger on his terms now.
The bottom line is there is no club where Arsene Wenger could make the money he is making at Arsenal and do it under as little pressure as he is to produce trophies as he is at Arsenal. It's why he was never seriously leaving fpr Real Madrid. He could have won La Liga and still gotten sacked there. Why take on that risk when you are absolutely secure in your well-paid position at Arsenal so long as you finish top-four?
I think you have to ask though if in fact his decision to rely on these players wasn't shaped by financial constraints in terms of both wages and transfer fess? I think most of us agree at least whatever the reasoniing about the motive that were such contraints imposed upon the manager, anbd it's hard to imagine him continuing to rely on these inferior players if he the financial muscle again to act to replace them as needed.frankbutcher wrote:Have the Board over the last ten years mis-led us about the financial support available to the manager?
This seems a bit of a stretch as we still could have chosen to invest a bit more in the team either in terms of wages or transfers where and when needed and still not gone broke trying to keep up. This sounds like that logic that suggest there are onloy two choices in every circumstance, the logic coming from Peter Hill-Wood when he suggests that more spending on the football team could result in us ending up like Leeds.frankbutcher wrote:Was the faith in youth and a constrained budget brought in by the problems with Highbury?:
barscarf:![]()
![]()
It also doesn't look good when they maintain this scenario of concern about our financial, viabilty as the cash in on millions from selling shres whose price was pushed up in part by these policies. I don't believe Board members should be required to re-invest any of those profits back inot the football club or tewam unless they were to choose to. Having sid that it makes their concern about their "custodianship of the club" look a little disingenuous and is troublling as such.


