QuartzGooner wrote: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?
1. Here we go again. Because I have a legitimate question, the only counter-argument you can proffer is that this is an attempt to 'stir things up'
I especially like the way you deliberately dodged the simple question I asked. Which was: if we are still a big club, why is this in immediate contravention of what Wenger said about us not being a big club if we lost Cesc and Nasri? Please don't avoid this question and selectively answer what you want to.
2. Yet again, you have peddled the myth that Arsenal cannot compete with the rich clubs. This despite having a shareholder who is a billionaire, and another major shareholder who was recently declared the richest man in the UK with a wealth that surpasses Abramovich. You conveniently ignore that this very man, despite all the laughable pleas of poverty from Arsenal fans in denial; offered a Rights issue of over £100 million which was flatly turned dow. That sound like a club that can't compete with the richest to you? Did you read Alex Fynn's interview? He CLEARLY stated that Arsenal are as rich as Real Madrid. I suspect his knowledge is superior to yours somewhat, with all due respect.
Again, why is the myth that Arsenal 'cannot compete' being peddled?
Arsenal WON'T compete. Not to be confused with 'cannot'.
3. You claim Chelski are not in the public consciousness like Arsenal are. Interesting. I'll tell you what. Get on the Eurostar and go to Paris tomorrow. Talk to 100 people in the street who are regular footballl followers. Ask them who the big clubs in England are. And see if Arsenal make the top three names. You could always go and check the survey TeleFoot carried out a few months ago, where Arsenal weren't even mentioned as one of the top three clubs in England.
Chelski on the other hand, were.
If Arsenal are 'in the public consciousness' it's a shame they ain't in the players' consciousness. Or else Juan Mata wouldn't have said he chose to join a club where he had a chance of winning things.
4. I have not confused a 'big club' with a 'form team'. I know exactly what I am saying. I asked if Arsenal could be considered a big club. Arsenal ain't even a form team right now so that's irrelevant.
I clearly stated that Arsenal's history cannot be overlooked.
You then went on to claim I am dismissive of Arsenal's history.
Errrr....ok.
5. You conveniently overlooked my question also of which big club in footballing history has had an unsackable manager? I suspect because you cannot actually answer it.
The point - and it very much still remains - is that a Big club has a particular mindset that marks it out from the small an average clubs. That means each time ManYoo, Chelsea, Liverpool et al start a season, there are certain expectations. To win something. I have yet to hear a single manager of these clubs state at the start of a season that they would be happy with 4th. Not one. I've not known of a single manager of any of these clubs who has been unsackable. Not one. I do not know of a single one of those clubs with a manager who has ever gone seven years without a bean, and has never been in a safer position.
Those are the Facts.
As Augie mentioned: the reaction of plenty of people is indicative of a genuine 'la la la' fingers-in-ears- attitude that refuses to even contemplate the question.
It speaks volumes.
