Football 2010-2011

[The Nal]

For example, some one said on here yesterday that Barcelona are not the greatest team in the world. Fine. But they went on to say that this opinion was 'despite what the media think'. But I for one think that they are, which is also despite what the media think. The difference is that I don't feel any need to clarify my opinion against the media.

Edited March 9, 2011 by The Nal

[worm]

That was me I think, and I didn't say that. I said they weren't Brazil 1970, despite what the media think. They're not. I do think they're the best team in the world but they are beatable and have been lucky in the league on a couple of occasions recently against shitty opposition.

Edited March 9, 2011 by worm

[worm]

the fact that everyone thinks they're better than they actually are.

[ampersand]

seen as we're focussing on barca, i think that afellay looks completely out of his depth in that team. every time he got the ball, he seemed to play it backwards. and on the one occassion i saw him going forward, he just kicked and tried to beat with pace up to the corner flag. which isn't really barca.

maybe i've just got selective memory. or maybe he just needs time to settle in. stood out like a sore thumb yesterday for me though.

[ampersand]

So you do have a problem with the brand.

I had one with brand Newcastle during the 90s and early 00s. Mainly due to over exposure and the superlative tags they got like 'The Entertainers' and 'The New Breed'. What toss! It was partly due to them playing good football as well like.

[The Nal]

Well I didn't mean to get that into like, but now that you mention it: I think that they are better than the Brazil 1970 team. I just didn't want to bring up the innane comparison as it's besides the point.

[worm]

if that's how you want to put it, then aye. it's not the main reason though.

[ampersand]

If the image of Arsenal was of a decent team with a miserable spoiled twat of a manager in charge who have under-achieved the last few years, would you have a problem with them?

It appears from what you've been saying that you wouldn't. If so, then you have a problem with the brand.

[worm]

perhaps. but the whole eduardo saga still leaves a nasty taste which is another reason i dislike wenger. and whenever they sing 'that' song, i just hope they get beat. i even prefer 'we are tottenham from the lane' song better. plus they have chas and dave on their side.

[Steve P]

you're better resourced than birmingham. more trophies up for grabs than just the ones than just the premiership. and arshavin and vermaelen didn't come cheap. and i'm sure fabregas and van persie aren't on 10k a week.

you're better resourced than most anyway. apart from in the songs department

[Kopparberg]

If the image of Arsenal was of a decent team with a miserable spoiled twat of a manager in charge who have under-achieved the last few years, would you have a problem with them?

It appears from what you've been saying that you wouldn't. If so, then you have a problem with the brand.

I have a problem with most brands that thrive on advertising because you'd expect the product they're selling to be the answer to all your prayers. Like BMW for instance. Apparently, the car they sell you is not made out of designed metal and integrated technology as you might come to expect, but joy. Actual joy! Get f**ked!

[The Nal]

Of the current premiership teams, since 2006, only Newcastle have less of a net spend than Arsenal. Arsenal have spent 85m and sold 113m giving the Gooners a net spend of -£27,850m.

Citehs net spend is 380m from a 455m gross!!

Haha everyone. Lets all laugh at City.

[eFestivals]

Of the current premiership teams, since 2006, only Newcastle have less of a net spend than Arsenal. Arsenal have spent 85m and sold 113m giving the Gooners a net spend of -£27,850m.

and that - to everyone but ampersand - demonstrates just what a genius wenger is, trophies or no trophies.

After all, if it was as easy as he makes it look, then every other club which doesn't win anything would be doing it too.

[The Nal]

sorry, one more giggle at Citehs expense.

Hey everyone, lets laugh at them some more.

and that - to everyone but ampersand - demonstrates just what a genius wenger is, trophies or no trophies.

After all, if it was as easy as he makes it look, then every other club which doesn't win anything would be doing it too.

Edited March 9, 2011 by The Nal

[ralph250]

Cretin Come off it Ampers, he's a damn good manager, and any post match comments or actions need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Fergie/Wenger rub people up the wrong way with comments they make but nearly all the time it'll be to protect their players or deflect attention from a performance. They're both willing to open themselves up to criticism if it takes the flack off the team and allows them to prepare the next game more effectively.

As for trophyless seasons, As Steve says, at the end of the day he's been hamstrung a fair bit by the Emirates - though will be part of his legacy in the future - and competition has been pretty damn high as had Mourinho's Chelsea and then Ronaldo-era United to contend with.

Equally he's often been frustrated by players leaving whilst trying to build something and then having to start again (eg. Flamini, Hleb) or injury (Van Persie/Eduardo/Ramsey). Fabregas likely to follow suit.

I do think he's probably slightly worried his "project" will fail if he can't capitalise on other teams transitional periods this year and next.

Arsenal are in constant transition themselves as players have left and others have had to come in, often young (Wilshire, Szscesny, Koscielny inexperienced at top level) but it can be assumed City will continue to spend and get stronger and I'd argue both Chelsea and United are in transition at the moment and will be for the next year or two, just United have remained strong enough due to Rio/Vidic to ride it out as best they can; 0.66 goals per game conceded with Rio compared to 1.42 goals per game without this season in the league.

City will likely continue to evolve, Chelsea's January spending signals strong intentions, and Utd haven't spent much for the last couple years so possibly ready to strengthen now. I'd envisage all 3 teams will probably be stronger in a couple of years than they are presently, lest not forget whether Spurs and Liverpool strengthen. Both in transition too really.

Wenger doesn't have the financial ability to replace a whole squad like City could do, so will need to augment the existing squad here and there when he can and I just think Arsenal's current team could struggle to breakthrough that lot, if don't gain that experience of winning now whilst the others aren't as strong as they can/will be. Would help retain some of the core players aswell so Wenger has something to build on, as opposed to currently where player X and Y buggers off and Wengers set back another year or two waiting for the replacement to settle/mature.

Problem is whether factors to a degree will conspire against it. He's been unfortunate in Vermaelen being out and so not being able to help Koscielny integrate into the squad, though Vermaelen isn't really the most experienced either. Koscielny's had a pretty difficult first year as not played at this level before and not had an experienced partner to help him settle. Djourou more often than not who is also inexperienced and learning as is their keeper. Not exactly optimal. Lost a fair amount of experience in Gallas, Toure, Campbell, Silvestre and Squillaci who was bought to offer that hasn't really worked out yet.

[Kopparberg]

sorry, one more giggle at Citehs expense.

Hey everyone, lets laugh at them some more.

Oh hes fantastic no doubts, but he really needs to spend that extra 10%. Hes too stubborn sometimes. "I dont need to spend to win". He does. Arsenal would be top of the league now if they had a good central defender.

[ampersand]

is there a table for wage costs? and broken down into the most common first 11? arsenal surely score quite high on here?

[eFestivals]

is there a table for wage costs? and broken down into the most common first 11? arsenal surely score quite high on here?

compared to the other 'top' teams, Arsenal's wages have always been comparitively low.

For example, Cashley left because they'd only offer him either 55k or 65k a week (I forget which it is now, but I think it was 55). Chelsea were/are paying him nearer £100k.

Edited March 9, 2011 by eFestivals

[ampersand]

compared to the other 'top' teams, Arsenal's wages have always been comparitively low.

For example, Cashley left because they'd only offer him either 55k or 65k a week (I forget which it is now, but I think it was 55). Chelsea were/are paying him nearer £100k.

[chappiepunk]

Name Club Annual Salary

Arsene Wenger Arsenal £6 million

Alex McLeish Birmingham £2 million

Carlo Ancelotti Chelsea £6 million

David Moyes Everton £3 million

Roberto Mancini Manchester City £3 million

Alex Ferguson Manchester United £3 million

Alan Pardew Newcastle £500k

Avram Grant West Ham £1.3 million

Postman Pat Engand £6 million

Giovanni Trapattoni Republic Of Ireland £1.5 million

Not sure if this is very accurate,, but I personally think Wenger's salary is a joke for what he has achieved.

(This was found on a newcastle forum, so could be utter bollocks.)

[ralph250]

is there a table for wage costs? and broken down into the most common first 11? arsenal surely score quite high on here?

[eFestivals]

Name Club Annual Salary

Arsene Wenger Arsenal £6 million

Alex McLeish Birmingham £2 million

Carlo Ancelotti Chelsea £6 million

David Moyes Everton £3 million

Roberto Mancini Manchester City £3 million

Alex Ferguson Manchester United £3 million

Alan Pardew Newcastle £500k

Avram Grant West Ham £1.3 million

Postman Pat Engand £6 million

Giovanni Trapattoni Republic Of Ireland £1.5 million

Not sure if this is very accurate,, but I personally think Wenger's salary is a joke for what he has achieved.

(This was found on a newcastle forum, so could be utter bollocks.)

I think ampers was talking about players salaries rather than the manager.

But regarding what he's paid, it's very probably the case that a part of his high rewards is for his success with financially managing the playing side of the club so that he's not having to spunk tens of millions on new players each year that may or may not turn out to be worth what's been spent on them. What he's saved the club more than justifies his wages by itself.

It's also that he's one of the longest serving managers.

And of course that until 5 years ago he'd won a significant amount of silverware. And even since then it's not like they've been a failure; if failing to win was taken as the harsh thing you appear to think it as then there'd be no football. There can only be winners because there's also losers.

[eFestivals]

There wagebill is generally pretty high, but not sure how much would be for first XI. Their club policy is generally for their top earners to not get that much, but their academy players get a shitload.

I didn't know that about the kids, but it makes complete sense. It's a big help to attract the best if you can pay them the best, at any level.

They've had a club pay policy with a top end limit (if not more to it than that) for at least 20 years from what I remember, and they're about the only club I've ever seen written about as having a pay limit. Presumably that's because other clubs don't operate their pay for players in the same way (or didn't in the past, if they do now).

[ralph250]

After all, if it was as easy as he makes it look, then every other club which doesn't win anything would be doing it too.

[chappiepunk]

There can only be winners because there's also losers.