As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
USMartin wrote:Of course state something as categorical fact contradict it when its proven wrong then pretend you didn't even say it.
I think you're trying to cover for your own failings now as much as the Board's honestly.
You have and never will prove any facts about the Board. The only fact I can see is that you are an obsessive compulsive, who resorts to insults when things don't go your way.
USMartin wrote:Of course state something as categorical fact contradict it when its proven wrong then pretend you didn't even say it.
I think you're trying to cover for your own failings now as much as the Board's honestly.
You have and never will prove any facts about the Board. The only fact I can see is that you are an obsessive compulsive, who resorts to insults when things don't go your way.
Frank you don't care about the facts unless they say what you want to believe which is saying ignoring the possibility the Board didn't live up to your trust wasn't a mistake. Basically it appears you will say anything to avoid admitting that reality.
You suggested that I was naive for suggesting what I do because it was against some iron-core principle of business investiing. Except the actual facts and nothing else proved that statement was flawed iand inaccurate in which case you basically contradicted your original statement simply to avoid saying the original statement was wrong. You would rather make yourself look a hypocrite or even dishonest than to simply honestly say okay that claim that you made is not true or correct.
Read what's been said here I am not the one telling you to sod off or fuck off(that is an insult btw) I am not the one saying you are obssed with anything (again an insult since you are not a lsicensed therapist whoi has examined me in session)
If anything you are the one resorting to insults and personal attackes because you can not defend your position on genuine facts. You made an argument to dismiss my contentions that the facts fatally undermine and disprove, and cannot accept that, and now your angry because I have correctly pointed that out and pointed out that your defence of that failed argument proved my own contention more strongly that it does your own.
Of course you now seem to think Arsene Wenger may be deliberately sabotaging the team and no one at the club is capable of doing anything to stop him and the share price rising 8000 while this happened is to quote Patsy Stone after she stubbed a Ciggie in Saffy's arm - "Accident." Don't tell me your as thoughtful as Eddy are you?
Peeman wrote:Martin I'll keep this short and sweet buddy
If Wenger is the victim in all this - a man with all these morals and honour
Why would he not expose the board for what they are vis a vis Martin O'Neill, Alan Curbishley.
I'll keep this short and sweet as well - if the Board wanted more money spent for the team to win things why have't they even said so to him or sacked him for refusing again and again for six years?
I'll just add both questions are valid - the problem is we don't seem willing to actually ask either question and many certainly are not willing to ask the second question at all of the Board, who would ultimately decide how we move forward no matter what answer is in fact correct.
But to answer your question there are two possibilities
1) He is content to be overpaid for underperfoming especially with that job absolutely safe
2) That he simply believes it is not his job to question how much money he is or is not given by his employers but to do the best he can whatever the case may be.
As to other theories I simply don't undertsand how he could just refuse to use money the Club made available and wanted spent on better players for more than one year without losing his job, if he could hold it that long in such circumstances.
Maybe you could explain why that is wrong to conclude somehow, y'know shortly and sweetly
[quote]STG Officer: “We haven’t even asked them for alibis as we believe it unnecessary. These are men of honour and distinction and their word alone is good enough for us and should be for you then too.â€
[quote="stg"][quote]STG Officer: “We haven’t even asked them for alibis as we believe it unnecessary. These are men of honour and distinction and their word alone is good enough for us and should be for you then too.â€
USMartin wrote:- if the Board wanted more money spent for the team to win things why have't they even said so to him or sacked him for refusing again and again for six years?
Our old board (that no longer exists btw) were a conservative bunch nobody is disputing that. They had two minimum requirements of wenger which if met, his job was secure. Those two requirements were to keep the fans happy and to keep us in the champions league. He has achieved this over the past 6 years no question about it.
I dont buy into the idea that this was the height of their ambition or interest, just that in order to remove such a renowned, respected and formerly successful manager we would have to drop below this point to spark the codgers into action. How many people connected to Arsenal over the past 6 years have been labouring under the certainty that success was just around the corner? The vast vast vast majority. And you would expect the board to fly in the face of this and sack the man just because he isn't emptying their coffers? What can you do with an argument like that...
As for the original question of whether Wenger is refusing the spend or the board is withholding funds all i will say is that you massively underestimate Arsene Wenger both as a man and the power he holds at the club. Which is ironic considering how desperately you cling to him but there you go.
Last edited by LDB on Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Btw, after reading the first page i was going to advise you not to stray from your comfort zone of the arsenal board ever again. Luckily you didnt even need that advice in the end
LDB wrote:Our old board (that no longer exists btw) were a conservative bunch nobody is disputing that. They had two minimum requirements of wenger which if met, his job was secure. Those two requirements were to keep the fans happy and to keep us in the champions league. He has achieved this over the past 6 years no question about it.
On your first point I would go even further and suggest they are conservative in the same way as legislators who isnsist we mucst cut programs to heklp porr and workiing-class people to cut budget deficits but should never raise taxes on weathier people who don't need or use those programs and would not literally struggle to survive withouth those programs or a little bit of money. It's the same phony conservatism that portarys millionaires and bearing greater burdens in our society than people who are not simply so they may be even weathier. I'll comment on the second part below
LDB wrote:I dont buy into the idea that this was the height of their ambition or interest, just that in order to remove such a renowned, respected and formerly successful manager we would have to drop below this point to spark the codgers into action.
These two points completely and utterly contradict one another, LDB. If they had higher ambitions as you suggest they would not be ready or willing to wait for the exact opposite to happen to take action. I would suggest this is how it should be but they would behave more like Real Madrid's Board if they had higher ambitions for us on the pitch than they in fact have shown they do The simple fact is that if our ambition was to do better than we have we wouldn't wait to do worse than our ambitions then we have to address the failure to do better.
