I agree with you up to the idiot part, no need to get personal, we're all on the same side here!
The stadium is having a massive effect on Wenger's spending. In fact, they can even tell the press there is money to spend on players (and I don't doubt that there is) however the strucutre of the loans means we have the wage structure. In fact, it wouldn't suprise me if the wage structure formed part of the loan agreement! So the board can say to Wenger you have £30 mill to spend on players this summer, oh but we can only afford £40k a week wages! You find me a 30 mill rated player who'll play for £40k a week (whether that be right or wrong!!) It ain't going to happen!
I firmly believe moving to the stadium was a step in the right direction but it means that we are going to have a period when we are in transition and 300 million pound investments aren't followed by a sohrt term transition - im talking up to 5 years here!
The invincibles was an amazing point in our history and one which marked the end of a great era. If we were going to have to pick a time to have a few years of transition then I think that was a good time after being spoilt by such a season. We can't have our cake and eat it! It was a choice - new stadium and rebuilding the coffers, or spend the money on players and stay at highbury!
Being a fan of analgies that I am - see this months gooner lol - I'll paint another one (some artistic license is used):
You have a 50 seater restraunt, you get a great manager in who earns your restraunt 1 million a year in profit because he gets the best chefs in and designs a great menu!
Now after 10 years of this lovely business you have a choice. Either spend the 10 million you earned, plus take a five million loan to build a new 100 seater restraunt that will earn you 2 million a year but means one, you pay 500k a year in interest and two you have to get in some new trainee chefs to replace your head chefs as and when they retire or you can take option two which is to spend your 10 million on the wages of some of the best chefs in the world and win some michelin stars
Fast forward another 5 years....
Had you taken the first option you'd now have 7.5 million back in the bank and are again able to hire one or two top chefs who should start winning you some michelin stars
If you'd have taken the second option you'd have just 5 million in the bank, you'd have won some prize money for your stars giving you say 2.5 million extra but your top chefs wage bill is really starting to bite and your outgoings are spiralling out fo control
Now we come to ten years later....
Had you taken the first option, your loan is paid off, you have had another 10 put into the bank, your guaranteed 2 million a year still and you can buy the best chefs in the world and wait for those 3 michelin stars for years to come!
Had you taken the second option then you're only 5 million richer plus your chefs have cost you most of that for the time they've been there and they are demanding more money or they're going, you can't keep up with the bill, you need a bigger resteraunt to keep them happy..can you afford one?? NO! what do you do? take out a 10 million loan you can't service??
Now if you are an economist or diagree no doubt you can punch a load of holes in that analagy but gernally I think that covers the business plan at Arsenal.
Whether the plan was right or wrong is up to you to decide but the point im getting at is this....if you had chosen option one I'd want to make damn sure I ahd the best manager int he world who could get more out of trainee chefs than anyone else in the world! The answer certainly isn't to sack him after 3 years because he's not won any michelin stars!!
End of crazy restaeraunt post - phew i'm exhausted
