g88ner wrote:Babatunde wrote:
Thank you Frank.
So to conclude: if a team spends lots of cash, and fails like Liverpool then "money is no guarantee of success".
But if a team spends lots of money and succeeds, then "well of course they win, they spend all that money so wisely".
Right, glad we cleared that up then!
The glass half full brigade have every base covered I see!
We're never going to agree, but I'm not sure why. My opinion is logical.
Money IS a massive advantage. That's why Europe's most successful clubs are also the richest. You may disagree, but that's NOT a coincidence. I'm amazed that's even up for debate.
And yes, if a rich team spends badly (Liverpool buying Carroll, Henderson, Dpwning, Adam, etc.) then they've not made the most of their financial advantage and that gives other clubs a chance to compete better.
But if Citeh, for example, spend well on Tevez, Aguero, Silva, etc. then that consolidates their financial advantage and are therefore more difficult to compete with.
That's logical.
If we can't buy the great players our rivals can, then we have to hope we can bridge that gap somewhere i.e. more efficient spending, better tactics, etc.
Agree to disagree I suppose, but I still don't see what we're debating.
Someone forgot to tell wee Montpellier in France about your wee theory there then eh?
Do you know how small-time Montpellier are? How on earth are the ahead of the richest club in world football and on the verge of a French league title?
How on earth have Dortmund - with a wage bill lower than Aston Villa please note - managed to usurp the mighty Bayern Munich back to back for the past two years?
If you look at Schalke in that same league, bankrolled by Gazprom and where do they figure?
This money argument is fictitious smokescreen bullshit, used by Gooners to justify the wholesale managerial and directorial incompetence at our club.
Also, why have you used it as FACT that we cannot compete for the top players? That is a myth. We refuse to compete for them - but we can. I don't know if you have done the research, but Arsenal are the fourth richest club in European football. Therefore, please explain to me what your rationale is for claiming we cannot sign £35 mil players, when clubs below Arsenal on that list such as the Scousers do it. Why can we not spend the £18 mil on Mata when the Spuds, who have nowhere near our income, have spent that on shitter players? Why can Aston Villa spend £24 million on a centre-forward and yet I am hearing we cannot go out and compete for top players?
FFS Bolton Wanderes have spent more on a centre forward (£12 mil Elmander) than we have in ages.
Oh hold on, I see that even Sunderland spent £16 million on signing a striker....
Any idea what kind of players Arsenal could afford to sign?
Why are you obfuscating the issue by pretending that we have to develop and polish rough gems, when that is, with respect, bollocks?
As soon as you can explain to me how teams with no regular Champions League income i.e. Sunderland, Spurs, Everton (£16 mil Fellaini

), Liverpool et al can spend sizeable amounts on players they require, and we, with the highest matchday revenue in Europe and those cash reserves cannot?
Why have you stated as fact that we cannot compete for the top players?
We could have signed Villa a year before he joined Barca. Wenger is too unambitious.
Mata was in the bag, Again, muppet in charge fucked it.
Frank Ribery could have been an Arsenal player - Wenger dithered over the £18 mil fee.
Arjen Robben was being bandied about for £14 mil when Real got rid - what, couldn't afford to put a bid in? Or was Arsene too busy spunking on his Gervinho poster?
Even now, if we wanted to bid for Higuain to play up front, we could easily do it.
We could stick in a bid for Javi Martinez for £20 mil.
We could go and sign Vertonghen.
But oh no.
It's 'we cannot compete for the top players'. Pfffft
