THE BOARD - Kroenke, Usmanov and Finance

[georgeknows89]

Augie, I agree 100million % on all the AW negatives and yes past his sell by date ( i am certainly not an AKB)

The problem is, Bruce Rioch aside, and GG not getting caught out meant his stay would have been longer, is that a correct AFC manager appointed will be around for a long time, hopefully !

If SK is in control when AW leaves then if he makes what he believes is the right appointment for 'his' Arsenal then he will remain happy with investment ,model and strategy so we will be stuck with him for long term cancer that will kill the Arsenal we love.

I strongly believe that anyone but SK must be better in the longer term, only time will tell but we are all getting older.

I started with 1970 Fairs Cup trophy but cant see where the next 1 coming without change

[augie]

Augie, I agree 100million % on all the AW negatives and yes past his sell by date ( i am certainly not an AKB)

The problem is, Bruce Rioch aside, and GG not getting caught out meant his stay would have been longer, is that a correct AFC manager appointed will be around for a long time, hopefully !

If SK is in control when AW leaves then if he makes what he believes is the right appointment for 'his' Arsenal then he will remain happy with investment ,model and strategy so we will be stuck with him for long term cancer that will kill the Arsenal we love.

I strongly believe that anyone but SK must be better in the longer term, only time will tell but we are all getting older.

I started with 1970 Fairs Cup trophy but cant see where the next 1 coming without change

I understand what you are saying george and I agree totally but david moyes with a similar spend would still do better than the senile living on past glories fool currently in charge that is not me advocating moyes as our next manager (even though I would be happy to give him a shot at it) but am simply saying that kroenke's dividends/profit scheme isnt stopping us getting the basics right

[MM99]

George my preference for usmanov is well documented but too many focus on kroenke and make excuses for wenger on the back of that Forget about the buying and selling of players and concentrate on the what we currently have and only a blind man could deny that wenger is far from maximising what we currently have - we play a formation that doesnt suit the players available, we play players out of position, we seem unable to make subs prior to the 65th-70th minute in most games, we have no fcuking tactical plan at all and most importantly the players regularly seemed unmotivated for games against "lesser oposition" Kroenke cannot be held responsible for these failings and whilst removing him from the club is a very important target, I believe that removing wenger is a more realistic short term target that will see faster improvements which will in turn lift morale Mind you I do have concerns that this board will be unable to appoint a proper manager to replace wenger but that is another days work

Augie, you are absolutely correct in everything you said about Wenger. But let's also look at the bigger picture. Why is it that we have a maximum wage limit of 100k p/w when we have two billionaire shareholders? Why do we have to sell our best players every season in order to make a profit on the books? Why won't the owner acknowledge the fans by meeting up with the fans' groups like he promised he would? Why does he continue to remain silent on major issues concerning the club? Why did he and the Board not do all that was necessary to keep RVP?

These are all major issues concerning our club that are beyond Wengers responsibility and are affecting us as much as Wengers tactics. There is no doubt in my mind that if we had RVP in this squad we had a real chance of challenging for the title, and that is even with Wenger in charge. Like george said above, what's the point in having a new manager if the current regime will still continue to sell our best players every season just because they're not willing to actually invest into the club like other superpowers? We would never win the league like that. The best we could hope for would be a cup here or there.

[northbank123]

George my preference for usmanov is well documented but too many focus on kroenke and make excuses for wenger on the back of that Forget about the buying and selling of players and concentrate on the what we currently have and only a blind man could deny that wenger is far from maximising what we currently have - we play a formation that doesnt suit the players available, we play players out of position, we seem unable to make subs prior to the 65th-70th minute in most games, we have no fcuking tactical plan at all and most importantly the players regularly seemed unmotivated for games against "lesser oposition" Kroenke cannot be held responsible for these failings and whilst removing him from the club is a very important target, I believe that removing wenger is a more realistic short term target that will see faster improvements which will in turn lift morale Mind you I do have concerns that this board will be unable to appoint a proper manager to replace wenger but that is another days work

Augie, you are absolutely correct in everything you said about Wenger. But let's also look at the bigger picture. Why is it that we have a maximum wage limit of 100k p/w when we have two billionaire shareholders? Why do we have to sell our best players every season in order to make a profit on the books? Why won't the owner acknowledge the fans by meeting up with the fans' groups like he promised he would? Why does he continue to remain silent on major issues concerning the club? Why did he and the Board not do all that was necessary to keep RVP?

These are all major issues concerning our club that are beyond Wengers responsibility and are affecting us as much as Wengers tactics. There is no doubt in my mind that if we had RVP in this squad we had a real chance of challenging for the title, and that is even with Wenger in charge. Like george said above, what's the point in having a new manager if the current regime will still continue to sell our best players every season just because they're not willing to actually invest into the club like other superpowers? We would never win the league like that. The best we could hope for would be a cup here or there.

MM99: I think recent quotes from Wenger have made it fairly clear who is responsible for our refusal to pay anybody over £100k/w. We pay barely less than United in wages (especially considering performance-related bonuses for them) and 50% more than Spurs, so you can't suggest he's been hamstrung regarding the wage bill.

Kroenke is a twat but whether he'll meet with the fans or not really has fuck all to do with why we're in perpetual decline on the pitch. I agree that the board is a problem, but nowhere near to the extent that replacing Wenger would have no difference. I'm certainly not saying we'd win the league under the current board but a new manager couldn't do much worse with the wages we pay overall and the attraction and stature of the club.

We conceded 49 league goals last year (20 more than City, 16 more than United): given that we're worse than ever at the back this year do you think van Judas staying would have made us 20 goals better in attack than them? Must be joking.

[MM99]

MM99: I think recent quotes from Wenger have made it fairly clear who is responsible for our refusal to pay anybody over £100k/w. We pay barely less than United in wages (especially considering performance-related bonuses for them) and 50% more than Spurs, so you can't suggest he's been hamstrung regarding the wage bill.

Kroenke is a twat but whether he'll meet with the fans or not really has fuck all to do with why we're in perpetual decline on the pitch. I agree that the board is a problem, but nowhere near to the extent that replacing Wenger would have no difference. I'm certainly not saying we'd win the league under the current board but a new manager couldn't do much worse with the wages we pay overall and the attraction and stature of the club.

We conceded 49 league goals last year (20 more than City, 16 more than United): given that we're worse than ever at the back this year do you think van Judas staying would have made us 20 goals better in attack than them? Must be joking.

Mate if you look at what he said about the wage structure it might be a bit clearer as to who is actually responsible.

The manager is given a wages budget by the board, but then it is up to him how high or low the salaries are for individual players.
Wenger added: ‘I don’t know how it works at other clubs. But it’s not only me: it’s in cooperation with the board.
'When I want to go far [in setting a higher salary for a player], I ask the authorisation of the board.’

That was from one paper, and i remember reading in another paper where he also went on to say that he is given a set amount for wages and fees and it is then up to him how he sets about distributing that. So it's hardly him refusing to spend over 100k p/w if the capability to spend 200k isn't given to him by the board in the first place. He explicitly states that he is given a set amount of money by the board so why you think he is solely responsible for it I don't know.
Also you mention that we're not that far from United's wage bill, but we're actually spending £29 million less than them on wages. Think about that for a moment. £29million per year. On wages alone. That allows them to not only spend the required £200k+ in bringing in world class players, but also pay their middle and lower tier players the same wages that we do! It's no wonder that they could easily keep hold of all their quality players and to then attract RVP.

There is also the argument that we could get rid of the 'deadwood' at the club and instead spend that money on a world class player with top wages. There's two reasons why this won't happen.

1) The risk element. The club always encounters an element of risk when signing expensive players and this risk is spread if you buy 3 decent players at around £12m each, rather than one for £20-30m. If one of the three decent players gets injured or turns out to be a flop, then you've only really wasted £12m plus a rough average of £50k on wages p/w, which would give a total loss of £14.6m. If that £20m player ends up being a miss or getting a serious injury, then the club sees it as a waste of £30.4m (an average wage of 200k which is the standard now for top players).

If you look at it that way then it's no surrpise which we always buy around 3 signings around the £10m-15m mark rather than saving it for one world class players. The club are not willing to take that risk. Not to mention that it would be three players in the squad rather than just the one., so squad rotation also comes into it.
If we however had the extra £29m that Utd have, or the extra £50m that City have, or the extra £67m that Chelsea spend, then imagine the sort of players we would actually be able to attract with that money. Remember that this is in wages alone and does not count the extra transfer budget that those teams have. We are purely talking about the ability to say to a potential signing "Yes we will pay you £200k+ irrespective of transfer fees and signing on fees." That would put us in a whole different class of players.

2)The second issue would be that if we did pay 200k p/w to RVP then we'd have twats like Walcott who think they're better than they are knocking on the door demanding similar wages. We'd then have to bring up the pay scale of all our "best" players and we'd then need that extra £29m that Utd have which allows them to do so in order to meet the demans of our players. Where is that extra £29m going to come from? It sure as hell isn't going to come from the pockets of the board or the owner. It's going to come from the pockets of me and you.

These are the reasons why I say that a new manager will not necessarily get us to the top again. We are in a situation where we are competing for upper-mid level players on limited wages, instead of the very best with the highest wages. Sure a new manager might be able to drill the defence better, or to apply better tactics in games, or spend the money more wisely; but let's be real, we will never sign the worlds best players with the shit offers we make players. We will never sign the likes of Hazard, Silva, Rooney, Tevez etc... until the board changes their approach.

Regarding your last point, i disagree that our defence is as bad as you think it is. Our problem has actually been scoring and putting games to bed. There's no doubt in my mind that with RVP we'd have had at least 15 more premier league goals this season. Maybe with our defence we wouldn't have won the league, but we'd certainly have at least challenged for it. Think how many times he's saved United this season and got them out the shit.

[augie]

MM99, doesnt that wage bill of manure's include bonus payments and if so is there wage bill any/much higher than our's when it comes down to it ?
Regarding the nature of the wage cap, it seems to me that the two newspapers comments you quote actually contradict each other In one wenger says that the wage limits are done in co-operation with the board but the other paper says that he is given a wage budget to distribute it as he see's fit and that clearly tie's in with recent confirmation by wenger himself that it is his practice to avoid having big differences in different players wages.

[northbank123]

MM99: I think recent quotes from Wenger have made it fairly clear who is responsible for our refusal to pay anybody over £100k/w. We pay barely less than United in wages (especially considering performance-related bonuses for them) and 50% more than Spurs, so you can't suggest he's been hamstrung regarding the wage bill.

Kroenke is a twat but whether he'll meet with the fans or not really has fuck all to do with why we're in perpetual decline on the pitch. I agree that the board is a problem, but nowhere near to the extent that replacing Wenger would have no difference. I'm certainly not saying we'd win the league under the current board but a new manager couldn't do much worse with the wages we pay overall and the attraction and stature of the club.

We conceded 49 league goals last year (20 more than City, 16 more than United): given that we're worse than ever at the back this year do you think van Judas staying would have made us 20 goals better in attack than them? Must be joking.

Mate if you look at what he said about the wage structure it might be a bit clearer as to who is actually responsible.

The manager is given a wages budget by the board, but then it is up to him how high or low the salaries are for individual players.
Wenger added: ‘I don’t know how it works at other clubs. But it’s not only me: it’s in cooperation with the board.
'When I want to go far [in setting a higher salary for a player], I ask the authorisation of the board.’

That was from one paper, and i remember reading in another paper where he also went on to say that he is given a set amount for wages and fees and it is then up to him how he sets about distributing that. So it's hardly him refusing to spend over 100k p/w if the capability to spend 200k isn't given to him by the board in the first place. He explicitly states that he is given a set amount of money by the board so why you think he is solely responsible for it I don't know.
Also you mention that we're not that far from United's wage bill, but we're actually spending £29 million less than them on wages. Think about that for a moment. £29million per year. On wages alone. That allows them to not only spend the required £200k+ in bringing in world class players, but also pay their middle and lower tier players the same wages that we do! It's no wonder that they could easily keep hold of all their quality players and to then attract RVP.

There is also the argument that we could get rid of the 'deadwood' at the club and instead spend that money on a world class player with top wages. There's two reasons why this won't happen.

1) The risk element. The club always encounters an element of risk when signing expensive players and this risk is spread if you buy 3 decent players at around £12m each, rather than one for £20-30m. If one of the three decent players gets injured or turns out to be a flop, then you've only really wasted £12m plus a rough average of £50k on wages p/w, which would give a total loss of £14.6m. If that £20m player ends up being a miss or getting a serious injury, then the club sees it as a waste of £30.4m (an average wage of 200k which is the standard now for top players).

If you look at it that way then it's no surrpise which we always buy around 3 signings around the £10m-15m mark rather than saving it for one world class players. The club are not willing to take that risk. Not to mention that it would be three players in the squad rather than just the one., so squad rotation also comes into it.
If we however had the extra £29m that Utd have, or the extra £50m that City have, or the extra £67m that Chelsea spend, then imagine the sort of players we would actually be able to attract with that money. Remember that this is in wages alone and does not count the extra transfer budget that those teams have. We are purely talking about the ability to say to a potential signing "Yes we will pay you £200k+ irrespective of transfer fees and signing on fees." That would put us in a whole different class of players.

2)The second issue would be that if we did pay 200k p/w to RVP then we'd have twats like Walcott who think they're better than they are knocking on the door demanding similar wages. We'd then have to bring up the pay scale of all our "best" players and we'd then need that extra £29m that Utd have which allows them to do so in order to meet the demans of our players. Where is that extra £29m going to come from? It sure as hell isn't going to come from the pockets of the board or the owner. It's going to come from the pockets of me and you.

These are the reasons why I say that a new manager will not necessarily get us to the top again. We are in a situation where we are competing for upper-mid level players on limited wages, instead of the very best with the highest wages. Sure a new manager might be able to drill the defence better, or to apply better tactics in games, or spend the money more wisely; but let's be real, we will never sign the worlds best players with the shit offers we make players. We will never sign the likes of Hazard, Silva, Rooney, Tevez etc... until the board changes their approach.

Regarding your last point, i disagree that our defence is as bad as you think it is. Our problem has actually been scoring and putting games to bed. There's no doubt in my mind that with RVP we'd have had at least 15 more premier league goals this season. Maybe with our defence we wouldn't have won the league, but we'd certainly have at least challenged for it. Think how many times he's saved United this season and got them out the shit.

These are exactly the quotes I'm referring too. I wasn't suggesting he decided how much money we spent overall on wages, but that how it was allocated was 100% his decision and it's his "socialist" policy that sees crap players earn upwards £40k/w. Say what you want about wages but unless you can provide a succinct justification as to:

(a) why United spend about 10% more on wages yet have a far far superior squad who look like cantering to the league. (b) why we battle with Spurs, who we spent about 50% more than on wages, and Everton whose wage budget is about 45% of ours, and
(c) how we've increased our wage bill by worrying amounts year-on-year for the last half a decade despite losing key players

then don't bother replying with anything defending Wenger's wage spending.

And last year City and United both finished on 89 points, a total we've only bested in our Invincibles season. The league is a bit weaker now but do you really think we have a good enough team to get near that even with van Judas? We need to score 2 goals to win nearly any game, and 3 or 4 in many.

[MM99]

MM99, doesnt that wage bill of manure's include bonus payments and if so is there wage bill any/much higher than our's when it comes down to it ?
Regarding the nature of the wage cap, it seems to me that the two newspapers comments you quote actually contradict each other In one wenger says that the wage limits are done in co-operation with the board but the other paper says that he is given a wage budget to distribute it as he see's fit and that clearly tie's in with recent confirmation by wenger himself that it is his practice to avoid having big differences in different players wages.

Doesn't say mate. Just says it's the wages bill as published by Deloitte accountantcy firm. Although it would seem that it doesn't include bonuses and the like as there have also been other figures which have detailed agents fees etc... which seems to be separate from this.
The quotes from the papers in essence say that Wenger recieves a budget that he can spend on wages from the board, it is then up to him to decide how that budget should be spread for each individual player. So for example if he wants to offer Wilshere £80,000 p/w instead of £70,000 then that is up to him, provided it remains within the overall budget. If he wants to offer a player more than he usually would, then as he says, he goes to the board for their authorisation which I imagine is happening in the Walcott case where Wenger seems to have wanted to only offer £75,000 but now seems to have gone up nearer £100,000.

These are exactly the quotes I'm referring too. I wasn't suggesting he decided how much money we spent overall on wages, but that how it was allocated was 100% his decision and it's his "socialist" policy that sees crap players earn upwards £40k/w. Say what you want about wages but unless you can provide a succinct justification as to:

(a) why United spend about 10% more on wages yet have a far far superior squad who look like cantering to the league. (b) why we battle with Spurs, who we spent about 50% more than on wages, and Everton whose wage budget is about 45% of ours, and
(c) how we've increased our wage bill by worrying amounts year-on-year for the last half a decade despite losing key players

then don't bother replying with anything defending Wenger's wage spending.

a) Like I explained in my previous post, the extra money they spend allows them to keep all their best players whilst also attracting new world class players. Would RVP have left us for them if they were only offering £100kp/w to him and we offered 200k? Very much doubt it. Would he have turned down the £200k offer from juve or the £300k from City? Again, I doubt it. The extra £30m they spend per year allows them to do this and obviously have a better squad of players than us. BTW, this isn't even taking into account the substantial amount of money they spend on transfer fees and agent fees which allows them to buy better players.

b) Let's be honest, we've never really been under threat from Everton. It's always been spurs or Chelsea or Liverpool. I concede the point that spurs are overachieving on their current budget but I do wonder how long they will be able to keep it up for. Especially if they don't make it back into the CL. Also, if you think we were doing bad in relation to spurs, Chelsea spent £83m more than spurs and yet finished behind them last season. Even now they're only two points ahead of them. They're just having a good period. It happens from time to time. Hopefully they'll soon be back down where they belong.

c) Because player wages have been increasing year on year? Just because we've lost our best players doesn't mean that they haven't then been replaced by players who are then recieving similar amounts and that new contracts don't have to be negotiated with existing players who look to get more than they previously did.

And last year City and United both finished on 89 points, a total we've only bested in our Invincibles season. The league is a bit weaker now but do you really think we have a good enough team to get near that even with van Judas? We need to score 2 goals to win nearly any game, and 3 or 4 in many.

We had a god awful team last season. Not necessarily shit players, but the team as a whole was bad. A whole load of new signings brought in last minute with no time to gel in pre-season. Cesc leaving us. Nasri leaving us. Wilshere injured for the whole campaign. This year we've got a much better squad. Gibbs, touch wood, seems to have put his injury woes of last season behind which solves last seasons LB problem. The signings of last year have embeded and become vital parts of the team now. Cazorla and Podolski have been brought in. Wilshere is finally fit. So yes even if we wouldn't have won the league, we definitely would have at least challenged with RVP in the sqaud.

[northbank123]

MM99 - I haven't got the latest figures to hand but I'm fairly sure we've closed the gap on United to less than £30m and our wages are something like £143m a year from the last available figures.

If we've let our best players go and brought in replacements on the same money then that's a pretty damning indictment of our wage policy then isn't it? If we're more limited with transfer funds then why are we rewarding inferior players with the same money as the top class ones we're letting go and the far better first-team/squad players United are getting in?

And Spurs aren't really overachieving. They spend 55-65% of the wages of City, United and Chelsea, yet have not got near winning the league, or finishing top two, and never will. We're underachieving.

[goonerwalker]

I get so pissed off when any TV presenter or pundit in the media pipes up about how we are 'well-run' just because we make a profit, its absoloute nonsense. A club that charges its fans ridiculous ticket prices, sells its best assets and fails to replace them and despite having a huge turnover fails to compete for trophies is NOT well-run.

Any Gooner or probably any other true football fan would understand this, but the guys in the media don't.

Also did a more though-out and less rant-like write-up of this on my blog- http://www.schoolofgooner.blogspot.co.u ... l-one.html

[LDB]

We only make a substantial profit through player sales.

Take away the champions league money and the house of cards will fold very quickly.

[swimmer1]

Not sure if this has been posted or where to post it so please lock if duplicated.

It is a good read and for those who are uncertain there are no reasons why we cannot spend big

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d363b054-6548 ... z2J5TB5uAj

[QuartzGooner]

Very good article Swimmer.
For those who cannot read it, author Simon Kuper says that Arsenal's failure to spend may not help us at all.
He says that our youth policy is nothing special, and that other clubs can find loopholes round most of Financial Fair Play rules (and that Gazidis is not expecting these rules to level the playing field).

The article does not mention the attempt by us, Spurs, Liverpool and Man Utd to have those rules enforced rigorously in England though....so this only adds weight to those who reckon we are really trying to change these rules, that the existing ones will not be enough.

[TeeCee]

Very good article. One of the msgs I took from it is that Wenger is a dinosaur, stuck in the past, unable to adapt to his new surroundings. That is spot on and is precisely the reason why he will never compete at the top level, certainly with Arsenal, ever again.
Ferguson has 're-invented' himself through the years. When United failed to win the PL he took action, sometimes drastic, and got rid of players that some thought he was mad to get rid of, but the important thing was that he replaced great players with great players (on the whole). This is something that Wenger has certainly failed to do for 7 years now and he has paid the price by weakening Arsenal to such an extent that for the first time in his tenure, not qualifying for the CL is a real prospect, some would say 'likely prospect'. A Leopard doesn't change his spots and Wenger seems incapable, or at least unwilling, to change his at all.

[georgeknows89]

Agree a great factual article but the fact remains and partly overlaps with a posting I just made on the Wenger out page ( but mods we must always keep these separate otherwise too many subjects will merge).

Wengers philosophy , and perhaps mental strength ! is exactly what Kroenke wants and he is the perfect employee.

I know he's made big mistakes but agree what said not moved with times but also not been allowed to which is becoming more and more evident since players left and the recent comments about us now coming out the other side on finances etc etc.

He works to a degree within the limits imposed by the owners and they love him for not being confrontational and over achieving still relative to spend profit etc.

Quartz is right re FFP comments and the clubs actions but please also don't forget the clubs successful attempt to change the 30% shareholder rule with the Premier League to stop Red and White getting seat on board and or access to finances.

Anything that they are fearful of losing out on they want to change.

No change still since my May posting , get Kroenke out and we have a chance, until then forget it