Why do Man. City fans care about what Arsene Wenger says?
---------------
Half of me sees the value in these kind of comments, the other half wonders why such comments need to be made at all.
Similarly, the comments that say "Wenger was asked a question, so he had to respond" leave me equally perplexed. Whenever someone comments on something someone else said, they are invariably accused of going over the top.
Commenting on something Wenger said doesn't make us fans obsessed. Commenting on another club doesn't make us fans obsessed. It simply means we are commenting on a footballing issue that is in the news, football being the one thing we can all relate to on this site.
I get the sentiment, I really do, but it really bugs me that if someone associated to another club says something about the club I support and I respond, I am met with such responses. It's a cop out of a retort all said and done.
Wenger comments on City. City fans in turn comment on Wenger's comments. It's no surprise. Yet clearly it is, for some people.
I think the problem is when Wenger makes a comment on say City or Chelsea ,the default position of many is to abuse him rather than debate the issue. Arsenal fans then abuse those who have abused him and it goes round. Funnily enough when Chelsea had a problem with Gael Kakuta concerning UEFA or FIFA, Wenger stuck up for Chelsea and guess what, even though it may be considered none of his business, no Chelsea fans abused him that I saw.
Good point Gunner.
I think too many people paid attention the media headlines in regards to Wenger's recent comments about City. What he actually said wasn't that detrimental at all.
Yep, said the same earlier Ripley. He didn't need the insinuation though. Wenger is a very clever man.
He knew exactly what he was doing. He's been in the game long enough to know how the media work.
It's only naive people (or people trying to deflect) who come out with comments such as "Wenger was only answering a question".
comment by Sömeday_693 - Källström will be... (U8892)
posted 22 hours, 24 minutes ago
I would consider going-ons in the Premier League part of his business.
There are clearly opportunities to circumvent aspects of FFP by owning multiple clubs. As UEFA has said today they don't have an issue with this particular loan as City are paying Lampard's wages (in full I believe) and that's fair enough.
However what about in cases where paying a particular transfer fee for would push one club beyond the FFP limit for the loss a club can make. What's to stop one of the feeder club paying the fee, the loaning the player, perhaps with a permanent transfer occuring at a later date, maybe for a below market price fee?
I generally think City have responsible owners, highlighted by their extensive investment in the club's infrastructure and local community when contrasted with say Chelsea's attitude to big spending. However, I would not particularly be a fan of any club creating or acquiring a network of feeder clubs who primary purpose is to produce talent for the main club, and help then circumvent footballing legislation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The "primary purpose" of the clubs in which Man City has an interest is to compete seriously in the league in which they play i.e. the MLS and the 'A' League. They are not "primarily" feeder clubs for City and all this nonsense is being discussed because Wenger could not resist having another pop. It's all very well saying that he only answered a question he asked and he has done nothing wrong but maybe he should take a leaf out of Pellegrini's book and simply answer that the goings on at rival clubs are not his concern and make no further comment.Since City's rise to prominence in the PL at Arsenal's expense he has made several unnecessary comments, he was quite receptive to taking City's money when he sold Toure, Adebayor, Nasri and Cliche at inflated prices though. He also did not mind taking Henri back on loan in much the same deal as City with Lampard, the only difference being we own a part share of New York City which he could not resist having a pop at in relation to FFP which he seems to have apersonal interest in when it comes to City, Same old whiner.
comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 1 day, 3 hours ago
"Wenger took Henry back on loan, what's the difference?"
You're comparing taking Henry on loan to taking a player on loan from a club owned by the same owners?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership is irrelevant if we are paying all his wages what difference does that make if we own NYC or not? Are you Wenger in disguise? Nothing illegal is happening here so stop trying
Don't expect anything other than bitterness from sherrif the muppet.
Sign in if you want to comment
Failure specialist whinging again
Page 3 of 3
posted on 4/8/14
Why do Man. City fans care about what Arsene Wenger says?
---------------
Half of me sees the value in these kind of comments, the other half wonders why such comments need to be made at all.
Similarly, the comments that say "Wenger was asked a question, so he had to respond" leave me equally perplexed. Whenever someone comments on something someone else said, they are invariably accused of going over the top.
Commenting on something Wenger said doesn't make us fans obsessed. Commenting on another club doesn't make us fans obsessed. It simply means we are commenting on a footballing issue that is in the news, football being the one thing we can all relate to on this site.
I get the sentiment, I really do, but it really bugs me that if someone associated to another club says something about the club I support and I respond, I am met with such responses. It's a cop out of a retort all said and done.
Wenger comments on City. City fans in turn comment on Wenger's comments. It's no surprise. Yet clearly it is, for some people.
posted on 4/8/14
I think the problem is when Wenger makes a comment on say City or Chelsea ,the default position of many is to abuse him rather than debate the issue. Arsenal fans then abuse those who have abused him and it goes round. Funnily enough when Chelsea had a problem with Gael Kakuta concerning UEFA or FIFA, Wenger stuck up for Chelsea and guess what, even though it may be considered none of his business, no Chelsea fans abused him that I saw.
posted on 4/8/14
Good point Gunner.
I think too many people paid attention the media headlines in regards to Wenger's recent comments about City. What he actually said wasn't that detrimental at all.
posted on 4/8/14
Yep, said the same earlier Ripley. He didn't need the insinuation though. Wenger is a very clever man.
posted on 4/8/14
He knew exactly what he was doing. He's been in the game long enough to know how the media work.
It's only naive people (or people trying to deflect) who come out with comments such as "Wenger was only answering a question".
posted on 4/8/14
Agreed.
posted on 5/8/14
comment by Sömeday_693 - Källström will be... (U8892)
posted 22 hours, 24 minutes ago
I would consider going-ons in the Premier League part of his business.
There are clearly opportunities to circumvent aspects of FFP by owning multiple clubs. As UEFA has said today they don't have an issue with this particular loan as City are paying Lampard's wages (in full I believe) and that's fair enough.
However what about in cases where paying a particular transfer fee for would push one club beyond the FFP limit for the loss a club can make. What's to stop one of the feeder club paying the fee, the loaning the player, perhaps with a permanent transfer occuring at a later date, maybe for a below market price fee?
I generally think City have responsible owners, highlighted by their extensive investment in the club's infrastructure and local community when contrasted with say Chelsea's attitude to big spending. However, I would not particularly be a fan of any club creating or acquiring a network of feeder clubs who primary purpose is to produce talent for the main club, and help then circumvent footballing legislation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The "primary purpose" of the clubs in which Man City has an interest is to compete seriously in the league in which they play i.e. the MLS and the 'A' League. They are not "primarily" feeder clubs for City and all this nonsense is being discussed because Wenger could not resist having another pop. It's all very well saying that he only answered a question he asked and he has done nothing wrong but maybe he should take a leaf out of Pellegrini's book and simply answer that the goings on at rival clubs are not his concern and make no further comment.Since City's rise to prominence in the PL at Arsenal's expense he has made several unnecessary comments, he was quite receptive to taking City's money when he sold Toure, Adebayor, Nasri and Cliche at inflated prices though. He also did not mind taking Henri back on loan in much the same deal as City with Lampard, the only difference being we own a part share of New York City which he could not resist having a pop at in relation to FFP which he seems to have apersonal interest in when it comes to City, Same old whiner.
posted on 5/8/14
comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 1 day, 3 hours ago
"Wenger took Henry back on loan, what's the difference?"
You're comparing taking Henry on loan to taking a player on loan from a club owned by the same owners?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership is irrelevant if we are paying all his wages what difference does that make if we own NYC or not? Are you Wenger in disguise? Nothing illegal is happening here so stop trying
posted on 5/8/14
Don't expect anything other than bitterness from sherrif the muppet.
Page 3 of 3