Country: Canada
I think for Mou, Utd began when he got hired by them.
Nah, Utd always want to beat Arsenal. Every time.
Except that nobody is complaining about it. We're all more amused at how dreadful they are relative to what they've spent than anything. That has absolutely nothing to do with us and everything to do with how badly they've misallocated their tremendous resources. The funny thing about his whole "squad cost" argument is that its entire purpose is to defend Wenger but actually either way you look at it Wenger looks bad. We don't spend as much as we could(and he has admitted that he treats the club's money like his own meaning he's the one behind it) but we're not so far behind our rivals(bar United who again are incredibly wasteful and underachieving terribly) in "squad cost" that it justifies our continuing regression in the league.It's interesting to see a number of people complain about the amount of money spent at Utd without a high league position or good football being played.
I haven't kept up with the 'squad cost' debate, but it seemed as though it was @Makingtrax versus almost the entire forum? If that were the case, it would be hard to resolve the contradiction of that with the above complaints about Man Utd.
Except that nobody is complaining about it. We're all more amused at how dreadful they are relative to what they've spent. That has absolutely nothing to do with us and everything to do with how badly they've misallocated their tremendous resources.
Resources CAN make a difference. They aren't the be all end all. No club on earth has more access to capital than Manchester City. How do they fare in Europe?Which is an acknowledgement that resources make a difference. It has plenty to do with any debate on Arsenal's resources and expectations. Can't have it both ways.
Resources CAN make a difference. They aren't the be all end all. No club on earth has more access to capital than Manchester City. How do they fare in Europe?
There seems to be some confusion here of willingness to spend versus resources. If Kroenke and Usmanov wanted to work together they could easily outspend United and Chelsea. They've got way more money than the Glazers and Roman do with their combined wealth. Clearly we do have the resources. What is also clear is that between Kroenke and Wenger there is less inclination to both properly and fully utilize those resources than there should be.The fact that the manager can flush 16M down the toilet on Perez means we can't exactly cry poverty even compared to those 3 clubs you've mentioned but resources mean very little if you don't dispense them well as United are proving on a macro level and we are proving on a smaller scale.I agree, except I think it is fairer to say that resources DO make a difference. They always do, regardless of the less than 100% correlation between resources and league position. Perhaps I should actually read all of the debates on resources to understand what the debate actually is. I just can't really be arsed...
It's obvious that resources are a huge factor. Obvious that Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea have more than anyone else in the league. Obvious that all managers make mistakes regardless of resources. Obvious that resources aren't the only factor as Leicester proved. Obvious that anyone arguing that Wenger has never made a mistake is wrong. Obvious that anyone who denies that resources have played a huge part in the stranglehold of Man Utd, Chelsea and Man City is wrong.
There seems to be some confusion here of willingness to spend versus resources. If Kroenke and Usmanov wanted to work together they could easily outspend United and Chelsea. They've got way more money than the Glazers and Roman do with their combined wealth. Clearly we do have the resources. What is also clear is that between Kroenke and Wenger there is less inclination to both properly and fully utilize those resources than there should be.The fact that the manager can flush 16M down the toilet on Perez means we can't exactly cry poverty even compared to those 3 clubs you've mentioned but resources mean very little if you don't dispense them well as United are proving on a macro level and we are proving on a smaller scale.
It's difficult though to look at a club like Atletico or Dortmund and the success they've had relative to their resources with bigger fish than we have to worry about to compete with and continue to moan about squad cost. Our squad cost is much closer to Chelsea's or City's than Dortmund's is to Bayern or Atleti's is to Barca and Madrid and yet both of those sides have managed to compete in Europe and domestically and even pip those giants to the title while we have floundered. What that suggests is that our utilization of resources is a greater problem than the quantity of them.
Nobody knows the truth about the level of resources Wenger has been given, but of course it suits his critics to say that he's just stubborn and refuses to spend. We do know there's money in the bank to improve this team though, but not enough to outspend or out bid the big three.Of course, I agree that willingness and ability to invest resources are part of the issue. However, I'm referring to criticism of Wenger's performance as manager, when people reject the relevance of resources allocated on the squad. It isn't unambiguously clear what the truth is about the level of resources being made available to Wenger by the club.
If you want a different owner of a club, that's up to you. However it doesn't automatically lead on that it is reasonable to criticise someone who has bought a business legitimately and seen that business turn over a healthy profit. If Kroenke wants to do that it's up to him, he's the major shareholder and that is how it works. No amount of billions that Usmanov owns can do anything to force that to change.
Dortmund and Athletico have done very well with less resources, although it's quite biased to portray them as doing better than Arsenal. Neither team has won all that many trophies really. Neither team has won the league more than Wenger has over the period he has been manager (Dortmund 3, Atheltico 1). Athetico won the Europa League while Arsenal were competing in the Champions League. Neither team can compete with Arsenal's success in domestic cups during the Wenger era. I don't think either of them has to compete with 3 teams investing more than them like Arsenal do with Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea.
Absolutely the utilization of resources can be questioned - it just doesn't automatically necessitate slagging off the manager or moaning about ownership and the board.
The early Wenger era is not in question though, its about his recent performance.Of course, I agree that willingness and ability to invest resources are part of the issue. However, I'm referring to criticism of Wenger's performance as manager, when people reject the relevance of resources allocated on the squad. It isn't unambiguously clear what the truth is about the level of resources being made available to Wenger by the club.
If you want a different owner of a club, that's up to you. However it doesn't automatically lead on that it is reasonable to criticise someone who has bought a business legitimately and seen that business turn over a healthy profit. If Kroenke wants to do that it's up to him, he's the major shareholder and that is how it works. No amount of billions that Usmanov owns can do anything to force that to change.
Dortmund and Athletico have done very well with less resources, although it's quite biased to portray them as doing better than Arsenal. Neither team has won all that many trophies really. Neither team has won the league more than Wenger has over the period he has been manager (Dortmund 3, Atheltico 1). Athetico won the Europa League while Arsenal were competing in the Champions League. Neither team can compete with Arsenal's success in domestic cups during the Wenger era. I don't think either of them has to compete with 3 teams investing more than them like Arsenal do with Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea.
Absolutely the utilization of resources can be questioned - it just doesn't automatically necessitate slagging off the manager or moaning about ownership and the board.
We're not talking about the entire period Wenger has been manager now are we? We're talking about the period since the move to the Emirates which has coincided with takeovers at Chelsea, City and United that have increased their spending power(though United's of course is less artificial).Of course, I agree that willingness and ability to invest resources are part of the issue. However, I'm referring to criticism of Wenger's performance as manager, when people reject the relevance of resources allocated on the squad. It isn't unambiguously clear what the truth is about the level of resources being made available to Wenger by the club.
If you want a different owner of a club, that's up to you. However it doesn't automatically lead on that it is reasonable to criticise someone who has bought a business legitimately and seen that business turn over a healthy profit. If Kroenke wants to do that it's up to him, he's the major shareholder and that is how it works. No amount of billions that Usmanov owns can do anything to force that to change.
Dortmund and Athletico have done very well with less resources, although it's quite biased to portray them as doing better than Arsenal. Neither team has won all that many trophies really. Neither team has won the league more than Wenger has over the period he has been manager (Dortmund 3, Atheltico 1). Athetico won the Europa League while Arsenal were competing in the Champions League. Neither team can compete with Arsenal's success in domestic cups during the Wenger era. I don't think either of them has to compete with 3 teams investing more than them like Arsenal do with Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea.
Absolutely the utilization of resources can be questioned - it just doesn't automatically necessitate slagging off the manager or moaning about ownership and the board.