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.
Wilson wrote:Usmanov would certainly break up the cartel and end the 'ill pat your back, if you pat my back' culture that begets the board, Gazidis and Wenger.
Now wonder they resist him so much. As between the board, Wenger and Gazidis, they all cover for each other and have a gentlemen's agreement not to rock the boat, and to keep the current order in place.
Remember when the original Americans took over Liverpool, granted they wernt any good, but they at least asked Rick Parry WFT he actually does at the club, and got rid of him when he couldnt answer. I would imagine Usmanov would ask Gazidis WTF he does at Arsenal, and that would be the end of him given he wouldnt be able to answer.
I think that he liaise's with groups/people like redaction, ast, arseblog and all those other clowns who are in the club's pocket
It makes me laugh when I see parts of our fanbase pontificating about the likes of Chelsea and City, and how they are corrupt bastards. I despise Chelsea, but they have an owner who will do whatever it takes to make the club successful. He pumps as much money into the club to see them win things. At city they are replacing a manager who has won a league and cup double, because a top class manager was available. Compare that with the way we operate, in which our owner couldn't give a shit about on field success, and only wants to make a tidy profit, with as limited spending as possible. Add to that a manger who is complicit in this, as it allows him to massage his massive ego. The moral high ground some of our fans take is nothing but a cover for accepting the reality that other clubs have ambition and we have none.
BFG4 wrote:It makes me laugh when I see parts of our fanbase pontificating about the likes of Chelsea and City, and how they are corrupt bastards. I despise Chelsea, but they have an owner who will do whatever it takes to make the club successful. He pumps as much money into the club to see them win things. At city they are replacing a manager who has won a league and cup double, because a top class manager was available. Compare that with the way we operate, in which our owner couldn't give a shit about on field success, and only wants to make a tidy profit, with as limited spending as possible. Add to that a manger who is complicit in this, as it allows him to massage his massive ego. The moral high ground some of our fans take is nothing but a cover for accepting the reality that other clubs have ambition and we have none.
Abramovich regularly converts the debt the club owe 'him' every season to equity, so the popular myth that they'll be fucked if he ever disappears is wide of the mark. Sure, they would need someone to invest huge amounts on an ongoing basis to keep up their historic levels and pay the wages that they do but they wouldn't "do a Leeds". Our owner hasn't paid off the debt as any sort of gesture but services it from the cash he generates from the fans and selling property. But apparently Roman is the root of all evil, whilst our 'sustainable model' is held up as something of beauty. Go figure
BFG4 wrote:It makes me laugh when I see parts of our fanbase pontificating about the likes of Chelsea and City, and how they are corrupt bastards. I despise Chelsea, but they have an owner who will do whatever it takes to make the club successful. He pumps as much money into the club to see them win things. At city they are replacing a manager who has won a league and cup double, because a top class manager was available. Compare that with the way we operate, in which our owner couldn't give a shit about on field success, and only wants to make a tidy profit, with as limited spending as possible. Add to that a manger who is complicit in this, as it allows him to massage his massive ego. The moral high ground some of our fans take is nothing but a cover for accepting the reality that other clubs have ambition and we have none.
Abramovich regularly converts the debt the club owe 'him' every season to equity, so the popular myth that they'll be fucked if he ever disappears is wide of the mark. Sure, they would need someone to invest huge amounts on an ongoing basis to keep up their historic levels and pay the wages that they do but they wouldn't "do a Leeds". Our owner hasn't paid off the debt as any sort of gesture but services it from the cash he generates from the fans and selling property. But apparently Roman is the root of all evil, whilst our 'sustainable model' is held up as something of beauty. Go figure
Agreed they probably wouldn't do a Leeds but they certainly would drop back to their rightful position as a little mid table club from Fulham. Their success was built on the Russian pimp clearing the £80 million debt they were operating under and then providing the cash to sign big players and more importantly to keep paying them big wages.
I never get this polarising opinion that either you support the Russian gangster pimp model or the wiggy model as if there is no other option or middle ground. I personally dislike both models.
I think that he liaise's with groups/people like redaction, ast, arseblog and all those other clowns who are in the club's pocket
I dont think so augie but he does pay some people to act as a kind of think tank to gauage the "average fan" as he realises than Red Action and ISAS exist almost entirely so they can suck up to the club !
I despise Abramovich for what he has done to football in this country. The sky money had taken to another level but he was the first to throw money at a mid range team and blow everyone else out of the water. Whatever the arguments about our model and others fact is without him picture would be very different - Chavs mid table as they are now possibly having been relegated, Arsenal vying with Utd 2004 onwards with challenge from Scousers now Leicester and ****. City - who knows? Without Chelsea demonstrating wealth buys trophies Arabs might not have bothered or taken over a French or Spanish team. Despite all the concerns about Wenger at moment, we have shown we can get into a position to win EPL without a super rich oligarch in control, a better manager might have succeeded in 2008, 12 or even now. I can never look at Chelsea and City as anything other than plastic clubs who can only achieve with an oligarch in total control, yes Kroenke is a *word censored* but we will always be able to hold our heads higher than the blinkered Chavs who won 1 League title in their pre Gazprom era.
Urko wrote:I despise Abramovich for what he has done to football in this country. The sky money had taken to another level but he was the first to throw money at a mid range team and blow everyone else out of the water. Whatever the arguments about our model and others fact is without him picture would be very different - Chavs mid table as they are now possibly having been relegated, Arsenal vying with Utd 2004 onwards with challenge from Scousers now Leicester and ****. City - who knows? Without Chelsea demonstrating wealth buys trophies Arabs might not have bothered or taken over a French or Spanish team. Despite all the concerns about Wenger at moment, we have shown we can get into a position to win EPL without a super rich oligarch in control, a better manager might have succeeded in 2008, 12 or even now. I can never look at Chelsea and City as anything other than plastic clubs who can only achieve with an oligarch in total control, yes Kroenke is a *word censored* but we will always be able to hold our heads higher than the blinkered Chavs who won 1 League title in their pre Gazprom era.
Blackburn yes but not to same extent I don't think, Utd, Scousers, even Leeds could compete with them. Abramovichs wealth is far greater than anything we saw until the Arabs came along. I get the point about moaning about it but his wealth has in my opinion deprived not just us but Scousers of titles that we have earned not bought. Something City fans seem to get but not the Surrey vermin.
Urko wrote:Blackburn yes but not to same extent I don't think, Utd, Scousers, even Leeds could compete with them. Abramovichs wealth is far greater than anything we saw until the Arabs came along. I get the point about moaning about it but his wealth has in my opinion deprived not just us but Scousers of titles that we have earned not bought. Something City fans seem to get but not the Surrey vermin.
That is complete and utter bollocks - one of the most genuinely deluded statements I have ever seen on here.
We haven't 'earned' shit over the last decade and whenever this bunch of bottlers has been in with a sniff of a title come Jan/Feb they crash and burn - see 2008, 2010, 2014 and now 2016.
How often have us and Liverpool finished 2nd behind Chelsea? Let's face it, in terms of challenging for titles we are both also-rans at best and have been for over 10 years now (although at least they challenged for one).
Who have won the most titles since Abramovich came on the scene? That's right - United. Who have also been 'deprived' of 2 titles finishing 2nd behind Chelsea. Instead of sitting around complaining about Abramovich's money, Ferguson swallowed his pride and became prepared to overpay pampered players because he saw it was the only way to compete. Abramovich sped up the changing dynamics of English football but he wasn't the ones giving Denilson, Almunia, Bendtner etc etc huge long-term deals and playing them every week for years.
If Usmanov ever does take over and embarks upon a spending spree that sees our club go through a period of success that involves winning multiple PL titles and the odd CL, I hope the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" brigade on here stick to their Victorian principles and form their own AFC Gunners breakaway team playing on Highbury Fields. I'm sure the moral high ground will be comforting on a cold afternoon
I understand you're argument NBC and Steve O but if. It wasn't for Abramovich would we be having it in the first place? His wealth has distorted the ability to win league titles surely?
But the idea that we have earned titles just because we turn a profit is lunacy. And it certainly doesn't justify throwing in the towel like we have. The reality is our sides over the last few years wouldn't have been good enough to win the league any season pre- or post-Abramovich.
Urko wrote:I understand you're argument NBC and Steve O but if. It wasn't for Abramovich would we be having it in the first place? His wealth has distorted the ability to win league titles surely?
He said in a season that sees the Ruskis just a few points clear of the relegation zone and with no chance of qualifying for Europe...
The only thing that's distorted the ability to win the league is the French charlatan who couldn't beat himself off.
Leicester City are top of the league. Spurs are ahead of Arsenal and have scored more goals, conceded less goals and got a superior defence, midfield and attack. Both these clubs spend collectively less on wages than Wenker. Seriously, just give up. Pure horse-shite.
Urko wrote:I understand you're argument NBC and Steve O but if. It wasn't for Abramovich would we be having it in the first place? His wealth has distorted the ability to win league titles surely?
He said in a season that sees the Ruskis just a few points clear of the relegation zone and with no chance of qualifying for Europe...
The only thing that's distorted the ability to win the league is the French charlatan who couldn't beat himself off.
Leicester City are top of the league. Spurs are ahead of Arsenal and have scored more goals, conceded less goals and got a superior defence, midfield and attack. Both these clubs spend collectively less on wages than Wenker. Seriously, just give up. Pure horse-shite.
Just dust down your 'Mind The Gap' shirt and jog on down to the lane - its only February, also, just as well you binned your ST as your direct action was instrumental, at what point (besides binning your fabelled ST have you ever directly protested) - i think your response will give us all the answer (i.e. none or a barb of BS)
