What Would Your Reaction Be?

Agree with Darren. Invincibles not winning a CL when they probably should have or least a semi or final with that side isn't good enough and has nothing to do with Chelsea's spending.

To be honest I think you place too much importance on the net spend of the side. That doesn't concern me as much as the quality of the team, the tactics and the opposition. With the latter in mind their record in the CL is still poor since the move to the Emirates.

No they probably shouldn't have been winning it. However, worse sides, such as Liverpool, were outperforming them in the CL.

Failing to win their groups, thus being drawn against the group winners, and losing to inferior sides such as PSV, Milan (when they get smashed 4-0) and Liverpool in 08 is all on the manager and nothing to do with net spend.

Wenger has done brilliantly in assembling his sides on the budget he has. But in Europe, frankly, his record is poor with the teams he's had, the manner of some of the defeats and the opposition they've lost to.

Wenger deserves the credit for creating those sides, but he shouldn't be absolved of blame when those sides fail to do better in Europe than the quality of the team suggests they should.

I didn't say it did, what I was referring to was the period of negative spend to fund the stadium build and then asking why Chelsea weren't criticised further pre their CL win considering the massive spending difference between the clubs.

Although if Chelsea knocked Arsenal out at one point after Roman turned up it could be said to make the difference that season I guess.

Because Chelsea regularly competed with the best in Europe in the latter stages of the tournament. Arsenal never did, even when they had better teams than Chelsea have had despite spending less.

We will have to agree to disagree then DTKF, net spend isn't everything but if you have to make money from transfers whilst competing against clubs who can spend big year in year out it is going to make it that much harder.

Okay they may have lost to some poorer sides they shouldn't but if rather than blooding some new players into the side they kept their stars and added to them every year Arsenal would have been a much much better side.

Not losing Ashley Cole alone, and having him all these years instead of blooidng Clichy who even at his best for Arsenal was nowhere near Cole's standards would have made a big difference, let alone all the others that were sold and potential players not bought. Agree to disagree

Of course it makes it harder. But it doesn't excuse being regularly shown up by Europe's elite and failing to finish above the likes of Shalke, thus having to play Europe's elite earlier than they should, and being knocked out by teams they have more quality than.

That's why, whatever spin you put on it, Wenger's record in Europe is poor whether they had Henry or Adebayor leading the line.

Even lots of Arsenal fans recognise his record is poor.

It's always been his biggest flaw. In terms of premier league I'd only have Mourinho and Fergie above him. But even Rafa was better than him in Europe.

What about managers overall (that have managed in the premiership in Wengers time)

SAF
Mou
Wenger?

Because thats how I would put it in terms of overall ability taking everything into account. Although Carlo and Hiddink are both pretty good too, Scolari has a world cup!

I'd agree with that. You could make a case for Wenger being above Mourinho if you consider the longevity of his tenure, which is definitely worth considering as Mourinho hasn't been here long enough to consistently have proven more than Wenger in England.

Fergie out on his own in first, I don't think you'd get many arguments about that.

I think going back maybe 5 years I did have Wenger above Mou, but he's just such a consistent winner that even when taking everything into account I had to give it to Mou, not miles apart though, fairly close.

The Mancs really care about us