Wenger and Gazidis waste money on the wrong players = Stan to blame
In 16/17 we signed Xhaka, Mustafi, Holding, Asano, Perez and Bramall for a total around £95m.
We sold Gnabry and Hayden for a total of around £6m
Gnabry would get a higher transfer fee now than the 6 we signed combined, just a couple of years later.
Just another example of bad scouting, bad negotiating and bad wage control.
Stan has sacrificed everything for us and thanks for that. But he must go now and peacefully hand his ownership over to the Arsenal fans to run the club for themselves or face the consequences, because it will happen.
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke Mesut(U3732)
posted 18 minutes ago
Was it Stan's decision to blow the best part of £150M on Mustafi, Xhaka, Welbeck, Chambers, Perez, and Cech?
Was it Stans decision to pay these Europa league level players champions league wages?
Discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 150 mill you mention would only get you 4 of Evertons players while it got us 6. Embarrassing stuff.
You think spending that money has set us back a lot while for Everton it's a drop in the ocean. How low is your bar of what we should be spending. Are Everton powerhouses to us 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it working for Everton? Why would you want us to adopt their scatterbrained approach?
The key is to spend/sell more wisely? As liverpool and spurs have done. Our shareholders sold to Kroenke knowing we would still continue the self sustainable model.
We have had plenty of money available, we've just spent it terribly.
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
comment by Lucas Torreira (U8691)
posted 15 minutes ago
Except no one has said he is blameless.
And what a shower of $hite Everton have bought
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tu meke in this very article is inusuating it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I left it open to discussion as you did in your article.
Kroenke is not blameless. He should have gotten rid of Gazidis and Wenger ages ago. He could help us out financially, either with transfers or sponsorships, but he chooses not to.
And frankly, can you blame him? Would you invest your own personal money knowing clowns like Gazidis are going to spend it?
Spent poorly, negotiated contracts poorly, sold poorly - Stan shares plenty of the blame but it was the likes of Wenger and Gazidis who had the most direct influence on our multitude of failings.
Kroenke is a cancer though, football and the world are far worse off without the likes of him
So basically we're arguing about what the biggest problem at the club was / still is.
Great way to waste a Friday afternoon.
Think I'm done with it though.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 seconds ago
If clubs make big profits on players it's not luck though, it's down to scouting and buying value players or potential. That's what Wenger was amazing at for most of reign, buying Anelka for 500k and selling him for 20m which funded a new training ground. And after the stadium move allowed us to stay in the CL by buying cheap and selling top players every year. We haven't got big fees lately because we've bought duds or held on to players for too long until they had no value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Nothing to do with investment, all to do with how it was invested. Kroenke is not the scout, nor does he do the deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lukaku was good scouting? No it wasn't, he was well known its just we didn't want to spend 35 mil like Everton, we wanted to get a united reject for less than half price instead.
This is getting so lame, you are better than this dj
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 seconds ago
If clubs make big profits on players it's not luck though, it's down to scouting and buying value players or potential. That's what Wenger was amazing at for most of reign, buying Anelka for 500k and selling him for 20m which funded a new training ground. And after the stadium move allowed us to stay in the CL by buying cheap and selling top players every year. We haven't got big fees lately because we've bought duds or held on to players for too long until they had no value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Nothing to do with investment, all to do with how it was invested. Kroenke is not the scout, nor does he do the deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lukaku was good scouting? No it wasn't, he was well known its just we didn't want to spend 35 mil like Everton, we wanted to get a united reject for less than half price instead.
This is getting so lame, you are better than this dj
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't want to spend £35m on him because the scouts didn't fancy him. Just like Chelsea didn't fancy him, nor any of the others in the top 6.
We spent far more that window, so not sure you can even hint it was due to no funds.
End of the day anyone who argues against me is clutching at straws. Even if you want to cling onto this net spend nonsense (despite the clear fact that Everton have low net spend due to their big outlay on a high potential player leading to them receiving a huge amount for him years later) our net spend is still lower than all the teams above us bar spurs.
I've said for years we will only regularly compete for titles when we spend similar to united city Chelsea and pool. Wenger and glazidis have nothing to do with us not matching those teams. Kroenke does. It's Kroenke fault we are not challenging. Fact.
It's pathetic to still blame our ex manager etc and absolve.the man who has more or less the same or less spending ambition as Everton. Doesn't get much simpler than that to be honest. Pretty much nothing you can say against that. It's alarming seemingly sensible posters are trying to
our net spend is still lower than all the teams above us bar spurs.
======
And Liverpool. So two teams...
Conveniently ignoring the fact we also bought Sanchez, Chambers, Debuchy, and Ospina for for about 60m combined as well as buying Welbeck
'Wenger and glazidis have nothing to do with us not matching those teams.'
Sorry, mate, but you're talking bollox.
Yes the owner is a problem, probably the biggest problem we have, but the ex-manager was also a problem, as was our former CEO.
The latter two have now gone, but their failings are still being felt this season, and will probably be still being felt for a couple more seasons to come.
Your problem is you just want to pile everything negative on Kroenke, and absolve everyone else - apart from the fans - of blame.
You can't have it both ways.
If Godfather is not wumming then this is really really tragic. Talk about blind delusion/obsessive devotion.
No one is saying Kroenke is blameless but Wenger and Gazidis clearly had more of a direct involvement in the multitude of mistakes at Arsenal
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
our net spend is still lower than all the teams above us bar spurs.
======
And Liverpool. So two teams...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have spent net more than arsenal. While they were blowing millions on Carroll, Torres etc we had a transfer record of 16 million for reyes for about 10 years. I don't know what selective data you are looking at but pool have spent more.
I've said for years we will only regularly compete for titles when we spend similar to united city Chelsea and pool.
------
Bollox, you were backing us to win the league every season and saying if we don't then Wenger's failed. You weren't arguing any of this when Wenger was still in charge, now saying we should be finishing 6th lol.
'While they were blowing millions on Carroll, Torres etc we had a transfer record of 16 million for reyes for about 10 years.'
Stadium.
He is definitely WUMing : "End of the day anyone who argues against me is clutching at straws. "
The whole Lukaku angle doesn't really fit anyway. If we had signed him, all evidence suggests we wouldn't have sold him for big profit. More likely he would have run his (massive) contract down and left on the cheap. That is, of course, if he had been a success. Otherwise he would have just been stinking up the squad while Laca and Auba played elsewhere.
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
our net spend is still lower than all the teams above us bar spurs.
======
And Liverpool. So two teams...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have spent net more than arsenal. While they were blowing millions on Carroll, Torres etc we had a transfer record of 16 million for reyes for about 10 years. I don't know what selective data you are looking at but pool have spent more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was using the last 5 years - a timescale I feel is most relevant to the current landscape.
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 8 minutes ago
'Wenger and glazidis have nothing to do with us not matching those teams.'
Sorry, mate, but you're talking bollox.
Yes the owner is a problem, probably the biggest problem we have, but the ex-manager was also a problem, as was our former CEO.
The latter two have now gone, but their failings are still being felt this season, and will probably be still being felt for a couple more seasons to come.
Your problem is you just want to pile everything negative on Kroenke, and absolve everyone else - apart from the fans - of blame.
You can't have it both ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you blame the spending of the previous regime when it is hugely dwarfed by the title contenders? It doesn't make any sense. Why do all the other teams get a far greater leeway to spend until they build a title winning team while we are expected to challenge with a fraction of their budget and if we didn't challenge its the managers fault.
Its literally like having a pop at Huddersfield because they can't compete with West ham regularly
Leicester won the title, Spurs are currently challenging for the title (no point denying it, even though it makes me want to puke).
Pretty sure we've spent more than both of these clubs in the last decade.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 16 minutes ago
Conveniently ignoring the fact we also bought Sanchez, Chambers, Debuchy, and Ospina for for about 60m combined as well as buying Welbeck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what? West ham spent that on one and a half players, why do you think the pitiful amounts spent on those players are acceptable for a title winning team
How can you blame the spending of the previous regime when it is hugely dwarfed by the title contenders?
======
Because the money spent was largely spent on crap. But money was spent.
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 42 seconds ago
Leicester won the title, Spurs are currently challenging for the title (no point denying it, even though it makes me want to puke).
Pretty sure we've spent more than both of these clubs in the last decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs haven't won a trophy for 11 years for a reason. They are not title contenders. They are performing at the max of their ability but achieving nothing. Exactly same as us a few years ago under Wenger. Finishing second third. Folding under pressure. You didn't rate Wenger during that time so why do you rate poch for exactly same output?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
How can you blame the spending of the previous regime when it is hugely dwarfed by the title contenders?
======
Because the money spent was largely spent on crap. But money was spent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Money comparable to West ham and Everton
Sign in if you want to comment
Stan
Page 2 of 3
posted on 22/2/19
Wenger and Gazidis waste money on the wrong players = Stan to blame
posted on 22/2/19
In 16/17 we signed Xhaka, Mustafi, Holding, Asano, Perez and Bramall for a total around £95m.
We sold Gnabry and Hayden for a total of around £6m
Gnabry would get a higher transfer fee now than the 6 we signed combined, just a couple of years later.
Just another example of bad scouting, bad negotiating and bad wage control.
posted on 22/2/19
Stan has sacrificed everything for us and thanks for that. But he must go now and peacefully hand his ownership over to the Arsenal fans to run the club for themselves or face the consequences, because it will happen.
posted on 22/2/19
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke Mesut(U3732)
posted 18 minutes ago
Was it Stan's decision to blow the best part of £150M on Mustafi, Xhaka, Welbeck, Chambers, Perez, and Cech?
Was it Stans decision to pay these Europa league level players champions league wages?
Discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 150 mill you mention would only get you 4 of Evertons players while it got us 6. Embarrassing stuff.
You think spending that money has set us back a lot while for Everton it's a drop in the ocean. How low is your bar of what we should be spending. Are Everton powerhouses to us 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it working for Everton? Why would you want us to adopt their scatterbrained approach?
The key is to spend/sell more wisely? As liverpool and spurs have done. Our shareholders sold to Kroenke knowing we would still continue the self sustainable model.
We have had plenty of money available, we've just spent it terribly.
posted on 22/2/19
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
comment by Lucas Torreira (U8691)
posted 15 minutes ago
Except no one has said he is blameless.
And what a shower of $hite Everton have bought
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tu meke in this very article is inusuating it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I left it open to discussion as you did in your article.
Kroenke is not blameless. He should have gotten rid of Gazidis and Wenger ages ago. He could help us out financially, either with transfers or sponsorships, but he chooses not to.
And frankly, can you blame him? Would you invest your own personal money knowing clowns like Gazidis are going to spend it?
posted on 22/2/19
Spent poorly, negotiated contracts poorly, sold poorly - Stan shares plenty of the blame but it was the likes of Wenger and Gazidis who had the most direct influence on our multitude of failings.
Kroenke is a cancer though, football and the world are far worse off without the likes of him
posted on 22/2/19
So basically we're arguing about what the biggest problem at the club was / still is.
Great way to waste a Friday afternoon.
Think I'm done with it though.
posted on 22/2/19
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 seconds ago
If clubs make big profits on players it's not luck though, it's down to scouting and buying value players or potential. That's what Wenger was amazing at for most of reign, buying Anelka for 500k and selling him for 20m which funded a new training ground. And after the stadium move allowed us to stay in the CL by buying cheap and selling top players every year. We haven't got big fees lately because we've bought duds or held on to players for too long until they had no value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Nothing to do with investment, all to do with how it was invested. Kroenke is not the scout, nor does he do the deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lukaku was good scouting? No it wasn't, he was well known its just we didn't want to spend 35 mil like Everton, we wanted to get a united reject for less than half price instead.
This is getting so lame, you are better than this dj
posted on 22/2/19
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 11 seconds ago
If clubs make big profits on players it's not luck though, it's down to scouting and buying value players or potential. That's what Wenger was amazing at for most of reign, buying Anelka for 500k and selling him for 20m which funded a new training ground. And after the stadium move allowed us to stay in the CL by buying cheap and selling top players every year. We haven't got big fees lately because we've bought duds or held on to players for too long until they had no value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Nothing to do with investment, all to do with how it was invested. Kroenke is not the scout, nor does he do the deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lukaku was good scouting? No it wasn't, he was well known its just we didn't want to spend 35 mil like Everton, we wanted to get a united reject for less than half price instead.
This is getting so lame, you are better than this dj
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't want to spend £35m on him because the scouts didn't fancy him. Just like Chelsea didn't fancy him, nor any of the others in the top 6.
We spent far more that window, so not sure you can even hint it was due to no funds.
posted on 22/2/19
End of the day anyone who argues against me is clutching at straws. Even if you want to cling onto this net spend nonsense (despite the clear fact that Everton have low net spend due to their big outlay on a high potential player leading to them receiving a huge amount for him years later) our net spend is still lower than all the teams above us bar spurs.
I've said for years we will only regularly compete for titles when we spend similar to united city Chelsea and pool. Wenger and glazidis have nothing to do with us not matching those teams. Kroenke does. It's Kroenke fault we are not challenging. Fact.
It's pathetic to still blame our ex manager etc and absolve.the man who has more or less the same or less spending ambition as Everton. Doesn't get much simpler than that to be honest. Pretty much nothing you can say against that. It's alarming seemingly sensible posters are trying to
posted on 22/2/19
our net spend is still lower than all the teams above us bar spurs.
======
And Liverpool. So two teams...
posted on 22/2/19
Conveniently ignoring the fact we also bought Sanchez, Chambers, Debuchy, and Ospina for for about 60m combined as well as buying Welbeck
posted on 22/2/19
'Wenger and glazidis have nothing to do with us not matching those teams.'
Sorry, mate, but you're talking bollox.
Yes the owner is a problem, probably the biggest problem we have, but the ex-manager was also a problem, as was our former CEO.
The latter two have now gone, but their failings are still being felt this season, and will probably be still being felt for a couple more seasons to come.
Your problem is you just want to pile everything negative on Kroenke, and absolve everyone else - apart from the fans - of blame.
You can't have it both ways.
posted on 22/2/19
If Godfather is not wumming then this is really really tragic. Talk about blind delusion/obsessive devotion.
No one is saying Kroenke is blameless but Wenger and Gazidis clearly had more of a direct involvement in the multitude of mistakes at Arsenal
posted on 22/2/19
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
our net spend is still lower than all the teams above us bar spurs.
======
And Liverpool. So two teams...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have spent net more than arsenal. While they were blowing millions on Carroll, Torres etc we had a transfer record of 16 million for reyes for about 10 years. I don't know what selective data you are looking at but pool have spent more.
posted on 22/2/19
I've said for years we will only regularly compete for titles when we spend similar to united city Chelsea and pool.
------
Bollox, you were backing us to win the league every season and saying if we don't then Wenger's failed. You weren't arguing any of this when Wenger was still in charge, now saying we should be finishing 6th lol.
posted on 22/2/19
'While they were blowing millions on Carroll, Torres etc we had a transfer record of 16 million for reyes for about 10 years.'
Stadium.
posted on 22/2/19
He is definitely WUMing : "End of the day anyone who argues against me is clutching at straws. "
The whole Lukaku angle doesn't really fit anyway. If we had signed him, all evidence suggests we wouldn't have sold him for big profit. More likely he would have run his (massive) contract down and left on the cheap. That is, of course, if he had been a success. Otherwise he would have just been stinking up the squad while Laca and Auba played elsewhere.
posted on 22/2/19
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
our net spend is still lower than all the teams above us bar spurs.
======
And Liverpool. So two teams...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have spent net more than arsenal. While they were blowing millions on Carroll, Torres etc we had a transfer record of 16 million for reyes for about 10 years. I don't know what selective data you are looking at but pool have spent more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was using the last 5 years - a timescale I feel is most relevant to the current landscape.
posted on 22/2/19
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 8 minutes ago
'Wenger and glazidis have nothing to do with us not matching those teams.'
Sorry, mate, but you're talking bollox.
Yes the owner is a problem, probably the biggest problem we have, but the ex-manager was also a problem, as was our former CEO.
The latter two have now gone, but their failings are still being felt this season, and will probably be still being felt for a couple more seasons to come.
Your problem is you just want to pile everything negative on Kroenke, and absolve everyone else - apart from the fans - of blame.
You can't have it both ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you blame the spending of the previous regime when it is hugely dwarfed by the title contenders? It doesn't make any sense. Why do all the other teams get a far greater leeway to spend until they build a title winning team while we are expected to challenge with a fraction of their budget and if we didn't challenge its the managers fault.
Its literally like having a pop at Huddersfield because they can't compete with West ham regularly
posted on 22/2/19
Leicester won the title, Spurs are currently challenging for the title (no point denying it, even though it makes me want to puke).
Pretty sure we've spent more than both of these clubs in the last decade.
posted on 22/2/19
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 16 minutes ago
Conveniently ignoring the fact we also bought Sanchez, Chambers, Debuchy, and Ospina for for about 60m combined as well as buying Welbeck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what? West ham spent that on one and a half players, why do you think the pitiful amounts spent on those players are acceptable for a title winning team
posted on 22/2/19
How can you blame the spending of the previous regime when it is hugely dwarfed by the title contenders?
======
Because the money spent was largely spent on crap. But money was spent.
posted on 22/2/19
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 42 seconds ago
Leicester won the title, Spurs are currently challenging for the title (no point denying it, even though it makes me want to puke).
Pretty sure we've spent more than both of these clubs in the last decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs haven't won a trophy for 11 years for a reason. They are not title contenders. They are performing at the max of their ability but achieving nothing. Exactly same as us a few years ago under Wenger. Finishing second third. Folding under pressure. You didn't rate Wenger during that time so why do you rate poch for exactly same output?
posted on 22/2/19
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
How can you blame the spending of the previous regime when it is hugely dwarfed by the title contenders?
======
Because the money spent was largely spent on crap. But money was spent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Money comparable to West ham and Everton
Page 2 of 3