Babatunde wrote:Look. No one debates Arsenal's history. No one. We all know it. And yes it is an essential composition of any big club.
However.
Consider the facts and consider Arsenal's standing. No teams fear playing Arsenal at all. No one. In fact if anything, they are emboldened! The sign of a big club also is a club that scares the opposition at the mere mention of the name. Liverpool are shit but going to Anfield is still seen as one of the toughest fixtures for clubs.
Going to the Emirates is something that even Villa relish now.
So the question remains: no one is writing off Arsenal's history. What I am saying, is that the people carping on about things we won very long ago are beginning to sound like Liverpool fans!
No one disputes Arsenal's rich history. People dispute whether Arsenal can still be considered a big club. And according to 'Arsenal's greatest ever manager' (tm) Arsenal can no longer be considered a big club. He said it.
So I ask again: how does this work?
I strongly disagree with your viewpoint.
You seem to be trying to intentionally stir things up here.
It is your thread, but you dismiss our history as if it were barely relevant.
You cannot compare us to Liverpool, because we have won the league seven years ago, they 21 years ago.
It is a significant difference.
"BIG CLUB" status is not a "Here and Now" matter in all but the most extreme case of a club going bust.
Big Club status involves many parameters, many of which I have previously listed.
Sure, few fear us on the pitch at present.
You seem to confuse "Big Club" with "Form Team" and "Rich Owners".
For all of Chelsea and Man City's wealth, their status is built on their owners, nothing more.
They have added to their history, but only in terms of total trophies won, not unique historic achievements or stylish play.
The domestic Double has been devalued, to the point where I would say our last Double in 2002 was the last one that counted for something special.
It would take decades for Man City and Chelsea to infiltrate the public consciousness in the way we have.
Look at both of these clubs. They know that to be true, and are now investing in training ground improvements and youth.
Just as we have before them.
Though for us, our manager relied too heavily on these.
If Man City and Chelsea's owners walk away, they diminish.
If our walks away, so what?
The current state of English football is that three clubs are financially powerful enough to spend masses on players.
Ours has a different financial strength, that of long term security, all be it partially dependent on Champions League qualification.
We cannot compete equally financially with the other clubs, but we do have enough cash to buy some good enough players and with better team management/coaching we can compete for the title.
In the knowledge that our financial security is better.
That said I would be happy for Usmanov to join the board and inject a bit of cash if he wants to. Why not?
