afc Do we want to be another chelsea/man citeh?

[MetaFives]

I'm getting the idea from a lot of supporters that they want heavy finance invested so we can go out and spend £35m on any players we want.Personally I'm dead against this.Whilst I concede we need a few new players, turning into chelsea/citeh would be the beginining of the end for me especially as it would go against Wenger's philosophy and probably result in his exit.If you look at what we're doing with the amount of money spent it's absolutely ridiculous and if you asked me either;Win everything going every year by spending £500m, making big signings whenever we're slipping and have 50 first team squad players with a very high player turnoverORMaking astute signings that don't cost the world and winning things in the future with the squad we have now (and a few additions)I know what I would choose.

[streets.]

I'm getting the idea from a lot of supporters that they want heavy finance invested so we can go out and spend £35m on any players we want.Personally I'm dead against this.Whilst I concede we need a few new players, turning into chelsea/citeh would be the beginining of the end for me especially as it would go against Wenger's philosophy and probably result in his exit.If you look at what we're doing with the amount of money spent it's absolutely ridiculous and if you asked me either;Win everything going every year by spending £500m, making big signings whenever we're slipping and have 50 first team squad players with a very high player turnoverORMaking astute signings that don't cost the world and winning things in the future with the squad we have now (and a few additions)I know what I would choose.

The difference is that Arsene will never spend £35mill on a "galactico" player or pay £20mill for a standard european class player like Man City/Chelsea/Liverpool do. However there is nothing wrong with signing 1 or 2 superstars and if you look over the years you will actually see that we do splash out-:Berkamp - British transfer record at the time.Reyes - Could have been up to £17mill, which at the time would have put him in the top 15 most expensive players in the world at the time.Wiltord - £13mill, club record at the time.Henry - £10mill, a big amount in 99 to spend on just a "decent" player.So although we don't do it as much as the other top 4 clubs, we have bought the occaisional big player over the years. If this boardroom drama allows Wenger to have that extra £5mill to tempt Alonso, or that extra £10mill to buy a decent centre back, then I'm all for it.

[Heero Yuy]

Basically what streets saidEven with a billionaire owner wenger wouldn't be doing Chelsea and Citeh spending sprees. Hes just not that type of manager.

[TF S4DK]

The problem is that the fans feel deceived and confused atm.Deceived because in late 2004 the club took a change of stance, due to the building of The Emirates. Great, more revenue = more money. We where assured that any financial restrains on the club due to the stadium wouldnt be majorly felt, however the club would definitely be looking to a new youth policy as young players maintain a sell on value when sold and generally cheaper to buy and run (after all we had just taken huge losses on the likes of Wiltord, Edu, Jeffers, van Bronckhorst, etc). Fine, in Wenger we trust.Years later, young players are leaving with not much sell on profit, if any, (see Flamini, Hleb, Reyes, etc) and generally as much as what Arsenal say regarding the financial situation we dont see money being spent. Which would be fine if there was no problems on the pitch, but 1 trophy since 2004 tells its own story.Now the failure to win trophies and the failure to see signings to change things have put pressure on the manager... Some even believe changing the manager is the answer, as he is too stubborn and refusing to spend the millions the club says he has.Again lets look at stats to tell the story...From 1996-2004 Wenger spent around £133.35m and recouped around £93.404m. Now take into account that the lump of that recouping was made by key sales of Anelka (23m), Overmars & Petit (32m) which is 55m, more than half on three players. You dont get the feeling that Wenger was a manager who didn't like to spend money...From 2004-present Wenger has spent around £100.525m and recouped around £106.867m, that says it all for me. He basically running at what he brings in just about goes back out. Again not a manager who doesnt like to spend money but a manager spending what he can...So the question isn't do you want to see Arsenal be another Chelsea or Man City, but do you want to see Man City, Tottenham, Aston Villa joining Chelsea & Man Utd in being ahead of Arsenal? No. Do I want us to be buying every player with a name for 35m? No too. But with our manager and having the feeling that in order to strengthen the squad, that nobody has to leave is happily what I'd accept. You know like it was before The Emirates, you know the teams like we use to have that you lot all reminisce on.If that means dropping 70m in Wenger's pocket for one summer to bail him out and let him get what he needs and not have to think about balancing the books, then show me the way to do it and I'll accept.

[Mr.Skeng]

I'm getting the idea from a lot of supporters that they want heavy finance invested so we can go out and spend £35m on any players we want.Personally I'm dead against this.Whilst I concede we need a few new players, turning into chelsea/citeh would be the beginining of the end for me especially as it would go against Wenger's philosophy and probably result in his exit.If you look at what we're doing with the amount of money spent it's absolutely ridiculous and if you asked me either;Win everything going every year by spending £500m, making big signings whenever we're slipping and have 50 first team squad players with a very high player turnoverORMaking astute signings that don't cost the world and winning things in the future with the squad we have now (and a few additions)I know what I would choose.

The difference is that Arsene will never spend £35mill on a "galactico" player or pay £20mill for a standard european class player like Man City/Chelsea/Liverpool do. However there is nothing wrong with signing 1 or 2 superstars and if you look over the years you will actually see that we do splash out-:Berkamp - British transfer record at the time.Reyes - Could have been up to £17mill, which at the time would have put him in the top 15 most expensive players in the world at the time.Wiltord - £13mill, club record at the time.Henry - £10mill, a big amount in 99 to spend on just a "decent" player.So although we don't do it as much as the other top 4 clubs, we have bought the occaisional big player over the years. If this boardroom drama allows Wenger to have that extra £5mill to tempt Alonso, or that extra £10mill to buy a decent centre back, then I'm all for it.

like f*ck it would. For years the premiership saw teams like manchester united buy and buy players whilst poorer clubs had to make do with what little money they had. If an investor came to your club, he could either invest in youth and see results within the next 5-10 years, OR, he could buy players immediately for an instant success (like at chelsea). Think of it as making up for lost time when united were splashing out 30 mill for ferdinand, 24 mill for veron, etc. Given the two choices, i know which one ild prefer.Allow being content with shitness just so you can take the moral high ground when it comes to finances

[Flojo]

I'm getting the idea from a lot of supporters that they want heavy finance invested so we can go out and spend £35m on any players we want.Personally I'm dead against this.Whilst I concede we need a few new players, turning into chelsea/citeh would be the beginining of the end for me especially as it would go against Wenger's philosophy and probably result in his exit.If you look at what we're doing with the amount of money spent it's absolutely ridiculous and if you asked me either;Win everything going every year by spending £500m, making big signings whenever we're slipping and have 50 first team squad players with a very high player turnoverORMaking astute signings that don't cost the world and winning things in the future with the squad we have now (and a few additions)I know what I would choose.

The difference is that Arsene will never spend £35mill on a "galactico" player or pay £20mill for a standard european class player like Man City/Chelsea/Liverpool do. However there is nothing wrong with signing 1 or 2 superstars and if you look over the years you will actually see that we do splash out-:Berkamp - British transfer record at the time.Reyes - Could have been up to £17mill, which at the time would have put him in the top 15 most expensive players in the world at the time.Wiltord - £13mill, club record at the time.Henry - £10mill, a big amount in 99 to spend on just a "decent" player.So although we don't do it as much as the other top 4 clubs, we have bought the occaisional big player over the years. If this boardroom drama allows Wenger to have that extra £5mill to tempt Alonso, or that extra £10mill to buy a decent centre back, then I'm all for it.

Who you referring to, we have only spent upwards of 12 million on a player 4 times and two of those are arguably the best in the world in their position (Torres & Mascherano).

[Lenny]

The problem is that the fans feel deceived and confused atm.Deceived because in late 2004 the club took a change of stance, due to the building of The Emirates. Great, more revenue = more money. We where assured that any financial restrains on the club due to the stadium wouldnt be majorly felt, however the club would definitely be looking to a new youth policy as young players maintain a sell on value when sold and generally cheaper to buy and run (after all we had just taken huge losses on the likes of Wiltord, Edu, Jeffers, van Bronckhorst, etc). Fine, in Wenger we trust.Years later, young players are leaving with not much sell on profit, if any, (see Flamini, Hleb, Reyes, etc) and generally as much as what Arsenal say regarding the financial situation we dont see money being spent. Which would be fine if there was no problems on the pitch, but 1 trophy since 2004 tells its own story.Now the failure to win trophies and the failure to see signings to change things have put pressure on the manager... Some even believe changing the manager is the answer, as he is too stubborn and refusing to spend the millions the club says he has.Again lets look at stats to tell the story...From 1996-2004 Wenger spent around £133.35m and recouped around £93.404m. Now take into account that the lump of that recouping was made by key sales of Anelka (23m), Overmars & Petit (32m) which is 55m, more than half on three players. You dont get the feeling that Wenger was a manager who didn't like to spend money...From 2004-present Wenger has spent around £100.525m and recouped around £106.867m, that says it all for me. He basically running at what he brings in just about goes back out. Again not a manager who doesnt like to spend money but a manager spending what he can...So the question isn't do you want to see Arsenal be another Chelsea or Man City, but do you want to see Man City, Tottenham, Aston Villa joining Chelsea & Man Utd in being ahead of Arsenal? No. Do I want us to be buying every player with a name for 35m? No too. But with our manager and having the feeling that in order to strengthen the squad, that nobody has to leave is happily what I'd accept. You know like it was before The Emirates, you know the teams like we use to have that you lot all reminisce on.If that means dropping 70m in Wenger's pocket for one summer to bail him out and let him get what he needs and not have to think about balancing the books, then show me the way to do it and I'll accept.

TF >

[HangTheDJ]

Good write up TF.Interesting read.

[Natty]

TF dropped that real talk

[will h]

Unfortunately we have an economist for a manager. He spends the money as if it is his own and doesn't play inflated prices and on the most part it has been a very successful strategy. Do i want a sugar daddy spunking money up us like a cheap whore. NO. Especially a foreign investor without a background in sport.I am quite proud of the way our club is run. If following a chelsea/city model is seen as a clever way to run a football club then i'd be worried about the state of football.I honestly feel if u gave wenger a £100m to go and buy players, he'd hand you back £70m of it and sign 2 or 3 players with the £30m. Just the way he is, having a huge transfer budget ain't gonna change your manager's style/belief.

[n/a]

c/s TF post tbhparticularly the bit about spending post /pre emirates aint seen them figures before+i think if u gave wenger 100 m he would happily spend 30m on a player but not 30m on someone whose really a 20m player,he would spend 30m for the true value of a playerhe done it with arshavin (just because they tried squeeze evry penny out of us in the end)problem is mrkt is inflated more time for top clubs, where ferguson for ex can spend 30m on a player whose current true value is maybe 20m, because he dont have to worry as long as there board ok it But wenger and the board still seem to be one entity at arsenal (see the gazidis interview), therefore wenger has to personally look at the financial implications of spending big money

[Guest Jogo Bonito]

Do i want a sugar daddy spunking money up us like a cheap whore. NO. Especially a foreign investor without a background in sport.I honestly feel if u gave wenger a £100m to go and buy players, he'd hand you back £70m of it and sign 2 or 3 players with the £30m. Just the way he is, having a huge transfer budget ain't gonna change your manager's style/belief.