Pires back at Arsenal

[I Hate Hleb]

You guys make me fucking laugh, moaning about not signing a 36 year old attacking midfielder.

Where is he going to play, we have space to 2 players in this position we currently have:

Arshavin
Walcott
Nasri
Rosicky
RvP
Wilshere
Vela

Who can all play there, why would we sign pires, yes a great great player in his day and was sold far to early but we dont need him now.

If we have buffon on trial and reject him then all fucking moan but about us not re-signing pires get a fucking grip.

You guys just want to find anything negative and its getting fucking boring reading all your bitching threads

I'm gonna be down the Wig and Gown good and early tomorrow, can't wait, really bloody looking forward to this one.

Fabianski

Clichy

Eboue

Squlilaci

Djourou

I

Nice straw-man argument there.

What's Worzel Gummidge got to do with this?

[marcengels]

You guys make me fucking laugh, moaning about not signing a 36 year old attacking midfielder.

Where is he going to play, we have space to 2 players in this position we currently have:

Arshavin
Walcott
Nasri
Rosicky
RvP
Wilshere
Vela

Who can all play there, why would we sign pires, yes a great great player in his day and was sold far to early but we dont need him now.

If we have buffon on trial and reject him then all fucking moan but about us not re-signing pires get a fucking grip.

You guys just want to find anything negative and its getting fucking boring reading all your bitching threads

I'm gonna be down the Wig and Gown good and early tomorrow, can't wait, really bloody looking forward to this one.

Fabianski

Clichy

Eboue

Squlilaci

Djourou

I

Nice straw-man argument there.

What's Worzel Gummidge got to do with this?

He's on the bench

[g88ner]

Will you have the same bile for the Board if and quite possibly when it becomes clear that in fact Mr. Wenger has done nothing but work within the Board's financial constraints, constraints which allowed them to make themselves even wealthier at your expense? Will any of you?

"Objection, your honour!... it's nothing but scaremongering. Obviously ( ) people's wrath will turn towards the board IF the above scenario occurs, but it's nothing more than conjecture and has no place in this onlinegooner court, your honour!"

"Agreed... Martin, pull another stunt like that and I'll have you for contempt of court!"

[MM99]

BTW i am loving g88ner's ripping apart of old Martin's post. Seeing him coming up with desperate arguments only to see them being knocked for six is wonderful. Spiffing stuff

[USMartin]

Will you have the same bile for the Board if and quite possibly when it becomes clear that in fact Mr. Wenger has done nothing but work within the Board's financial constraints, constraints which allowed them to make themselves even wealthier at your expense? Will any of you?

"Objection, your honour!... it's nothing but scaremongering. Obviously ( ) people's wrath will turn towards the board IF the above scenario occurs, but it's nothing more than conjecture and has no place in this onlinegooner court, your honour!"

"Agreed... Martin, pull another stunt like that and I'll have you for contempt of court!"

Scaremongering, and you know this how? I 'll repphrase the question

Why are you unwilling to show the same bile toward the Arsenal Board when you have no idea whatsoever that they are not respeosible for the finanicially-driven decisions you constantly blame the manger for without real proof other then the Board saying so without proving it?

[USMartin]

BTW i am loving g88ner's ripping apart of old Martin's post. Seeing him coming up with desperate arguments only to see them being knocked for six is wonderful. Spiffing stuff

Get some new glasses mate cause that isn't what you're seeing I'm afraid

[g88ner]

Scaremongering, and you know this how?

"Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_mongering

Now come on Martin, I think that describes your tactics on this forum quite well.

Now read your quote below...

Will you have the same bile for the Board if and quite possibly when it becomes clear that in fact Mr. Wenger has done nothing but work within the Board's financial constraints, constraints which allowed them to make themselves even wealthier at your expense? Will any of you?

As I said, scaremongering and it's nothing more than conjecture.

[I Hate Hleb]

BTW i am loving g88ner's ripping apart of old Martin's post. Seeing him coming up with desperate arguments only to see them being knocked for six is wonderful. Spliffing stuff?

I plead Guilty, your honour.

[USMartin]

[quote="g88ner"] We have a wage structure, just like every other club. We already know that - Gazidis had talked about it and so has Wenger. That comment couldn't be less controversial if it tried.

Nothing new to debate here.

[Well, obviously! Apart from Citeh, that's probably the case with every other club on the planet!

Again, nothing new to debate here either.[ /quote]

Actually there is, because our Wage structure works more as a salary cap than anyother wage structure because it ios clealry less flaxible than any other and is designed to eliminate the payment of higher wages to players who earn them. Our wage bill in 2004 was 74 million pounds yet we had tow players on or over 100K a week. Despite a wage bill that is 40 million pounds larger we haven't got one player on or over 100K a week and Ivan Gazidis acknowledges we are over-paying under-experienced, under-developed under-achievers under the new bottom-weighted wage structure, and Dan Fiszman has acknowledged the shift to this wage structure which both pushes out top-earning veterans as early as possible(even if we get no return on our initial investment) and precludes signing most if not all quality veterans on the transfer market and Bosman candidtaes as well. Only one free transfer since 2005, and two since 2001.


[quote="g88ner"]Nothing you haven't said a million times before.

So again, nothing new to debate.

Next! [ /quote]

Maybe not but I'll keep saying because someday if I am right those who ignore this will have to take some of the blame for it happening, as Brian Moore told the Scousers recently. I'd rather no Gooner have to wonder if they somehow are at fault if it comes to that.

[USMartin]

Scaremongering, and you know this how?

"Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_mongering

Now come on Martin, I think that describes your tactics on this forum quite well.

Now read your quote below...

Will you have the same bile for the Board if and quite possibly when it becomes clear that in fact Mr. Wenger has done nothing but work within the Board's financial constraints, constraints which allowed them to make themselves even wealthier at your expense? Will any of you?

As I said, scaremongering and it's nothing more than conjecture.

g88ner you're dead wrong. I believe that in fact is the case concerning the Board. I simply incude the word if because I do not know for absolutely certain and would not delibreately mis-state such a claim or deliberately mis-lead anyone about that being proven to be the case at this teim(unlike some on here) as that is scaremongering?

That is ludicrous. I am saying the Board may be at fault instead of saying the Board is at fault. How is that scaremongering.? I am asking them if they will show the same anger toward the Board they do the n]manager. What pray tell is scary about that? Unless in fact supporters are afraid to criticize the Board...

But its especially ludicrous when compared to Board members repeatedly raising the spectre of Leeds and Pompey to justify not investing more in the football team when we clearly could afford to invest more money without risking ending up in that horrific situation. Given that that situation would in fact actually scare many Gooners, myself included how can you call falsely suggesting that is an inevitability or even a likelihood if more money invested in the football team any thing other than absolute scaremongering and fear tactics?

And given that what the Board is engaging in is undeniable scaremongering by any standard how can you sincerely compare my question to that?

[g88ner]

Again, nothing new to debate here either.

Actually there is, because our Wage structure works more as a salary cap than anyother wage structure because it ios clealry less flaxible than any other and is designed to eliminate the payment of higher wages to players who earn them. Our wage bill in 2004 was 74 million pounds yet we had tow players on or over 100K a week. Despite a wage bill that is 40 million pounds larger we haven't got one player on or over 100K a week and Ivan Gazidis acknowledges we are over-paying under-experienced, under-developed under-achievers under the new bottom-weighted wage structure, and Dan Fiszman has acknowledged the shift to this wage structure which both pushes out top-earning veterans as early as possible(even if we get no return on our initial investment) and precludes signing most if not all quality veterans on the transfer market and Bosman candidtaes as well. Only one free transfer since 2005, and two since 2001..

That's not new - that's a summary of what we already know, and debated to within an inch of it's life. Lets not jump back on that merry-go-round again, eh!

Next!

[USMartin]

Again, nothing new to debate here either.

Actually there is, because our Wage structure works more as a salary cap than anyother wage structure because it ios clealry less flaxible than any other and is designed to eliminate the payment of higher wages to players who earn them. Our wage bill in 2004 was 74 million pounds yet we had tow players on or over 100K a week. Despite a wage bill that is 40 million pounds larger we haven't got one player on or over 100K a week and Ivan Gazidis acknowledges we are over-paying under-experienced, under-developed under-achievers under the new bottom-weighted wage structure, and Dan Fiszman has acknowledged the shift to this wage structure which both pushes out top-earning veterans as early as possible(even if we get no return on our initial investment) and precludes signing most if not all quality veterans on the transfer market and Bosman candidtaes as well. Only one free transfer since 2005, and two since 2001..

That's not new - that's a summary of what we already know, and debated to within an inch of it's life. Lets not jump back on that merry-go-round again, eh!

Next!

As long as we treat it in this matter it remains new, and will reamin new until it's too late I fear.

[flash gunner]

I sometimes wish i cared enough to get involved

[USMartin]

I sometimes wish i cared enough to get involved

Too busy watching Johnny Cash I guess

[brazilianGOONER]

my dad taught me something very wise when i was a kid:

"it's no good talking to a wall, son. it just won't hear you"

it seems your dad didn't tell you that, g88ner

(just joking, USM!)