MoroccanBlue

Willian has no right playing for a top club in any league IMO. Pedro is over the hill. I may actually suffer from chronic depression if I wake up one morning reading they were offered contract extensions.. Sad nightmare that may become a reality.

Unless we massively improve the midfield and fullbacks, it does not leave me enthusiastic about the possibility of CHO and Pulisic being our starting wingers next season.

Entire world can see how promising he is yet Sarri is still keeps starting two 30+ year old wingers that blow cold more often than hot.

Games against Roma and the draw to Atletico at home were unacceptable.

So now you've gone from they're not selling anyone, to they aren't important players. Nice deflection. And you're still wrong. Iheanacho had the same role as Jesus. Fernando had the same role as Gundogan. Clichy, Zabaleta, and Kalorov had the same role as Danilo, Mendy, and Walker...which were starter roles. Nolito had the same role as B.Silva. These are key players that City upgraded on. Because they utilised their funds effectively. What did we do? Overspent on average players which did nothing but made us worse.

Poetic justice for talking shit about us. The media will talk shit about you.

Needs to bulk up. Honestly not comfortable with him starting. Far too soft especially against aggressive strikers. Stones was the same way and look at him now.

So City didn't sell anyone? Iheanacho Out. Jesus In Nolito Out. B.Silva In Fernando Out. Gundogan In Kolarov Out. Mendy In Clichy Out. Danilo In Zabaleta Out. Walker In Hart Out. Ederson In Right. I'm the one not making sense

They've spent 65 million more than us as of 2018 since Pep's arrival. I wouldn't say that far eclipses ours given today's market. Also, net spend has nothing to do with how efficiently we utliise our funds. Doesn't matter if you have 500 million in the bank or if you have to sell before you have that 500 million, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is how you use that 500 million.

How is it a dumb argument? Have you even comprehended by point? It's not about how much we spend, it's about how effectively we utilise our funds. That is how you measure efficiency for Christ sake. Spending nearly 200 Million on average players in Morata, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Alonso, and Zappacosta is as inefficient as you can get. Of course City won't target that because they have an efficient board with a director of football. WHICH IS MY ENTIRE POINT. Because I'm not going to waste my time with such a vacuous false equivalence. Especially when your only supporting argument is "The board won't challenge him because they are his best mates"

I'll trust our own correspondent over this Christian Falk bloke

Cheeky response

There is a bright future for English players. Best to nurture them now. I remember watching a video with Lampard, Rio, and Gerrard and they gave their input in how that golden era 2004-2008 of English players never worked for the national side. Found it

Got rid of those that were signed before Marina was appointed. Asano wasn't able to get a work permit. Only cost the club 2 million. Ill give you Lucas Perez. Still vastly cheaper than Drinkwater, Bakayoko, Zappacosta, and Rahman. Kostantinos is only 21 and cost the club 114K. We did. Because Arsenal can't compete with us financially given we have an ambitious owner. But I thought success was based on trophies and history? You said so yourself? Arsenal is a dwarf compared to Inter, Benfica, Porto, and Milan. Arsenal have no European Pedigree. Having an owner that fails to invest in a club, in this current economic climate, will end in a club's demise. The market will continue to be inflated. You can see my edited post that Arsenal will follow in the same path as Milan. What sped up Milan's downfall, was poor player investment. So Kroenke chooses the players to buy? A man who doesn't even watch football let alone attend Arsenal games? Sunderland Till I die shows the inner operations of a club that has a disinterested owner. Members of the board desperately wanted to sign certain players, but didn't have the funds to do so. So they had to make do with what they had. That is exactly what the Arsenal board are doing. Making do with what they have because of a disinterested owner. To deny that is the case is just absurd.

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1104825889458667520

So you think bringing up the Rahman's, Pato's, Falcao's, Hector's, Djilobodji's, etc will strengthen your argument? I did you a favor We are 3 points behind yet outspent Arsenal nearly 5x. Our spending is comparable to City yet we are almost 20 points behind. Now what does that say about how we are run? No. They are not. A player isn't going to prefer playing at Milan over City FFS Modern football has completely shifted the market footprint of top clubs. The administration of both Inter and Milan both failed to adjust to the changes and Benfica and Porto don't bring in nearly enough ad revenue to compete against the other top leagues. The premier league in general. Arsenal are following the same path as Milan, but their board are identifying good players. That is the only difference. Please watch the Sunderland till I die documentary then get back to me. The fact you think the board and owner share the same brain, speaks volumes.

What are you on about? They brought in Lacazette, Aubameyang, Sokratis, and Torreira with money they generated as a club. They are looking extraordinarily better than they did last season. They cost the same as Morata, Drinkwater, Bakayoko, and Zappacosta combined. With funds generated by the owner. You measure incompetence by efficiency. And our board is far from effective. Oh jog on with your moral high ground I specifically said anymore. Are Inter and Milan bigger than us? Porto? Benfica? Modern football has diminished their footprint and spending power and to reject that claim shows your delusion. Because you cant reasonably compare a board that has restricted funds to a board that has unlimited funds. How many times do I have to tell you? But how do you know Arsenal's board would perform worse if they were given unlimited funds? Oh that's right you don't. Because it's a logical fallacy.

You are clearly not seeing my point. I don't see a board, who can only utilise funds that were generated by the operations of the club, more incompetent than a board who wastes unlimited funds generated by the owner. Especially when we reflect on how those funds were used. I don't see how you can rationally compare the two. Arsenal aren't a big club anymore and the board are only doing with what they are given. The owner and board are two separate entities. Goodness sake look at Sunderland before they got relegated. If we are ranking board incompetence, it needs to be rationally compared to a club that is operated in the same way. Man City (2016 - Present) Mahrez - 65 Million, Laporte - 65 Million, Mendy - 57 Million, Walker - 52 million, Ederson - 40 Million, Danilo - 30 Million, Bernardo Silva - 50 Million, Stones - 50 Million, Sane - 50 million, Jesus - 32 Million, Gundogan - 27 Million = 518 Million Chelsea (2016 - Present) Kepa - 80 Million, Pulisic - 65 Million, Jorginho - 57 Million, Morata - 66 Million, Bakayoko - 40 Million, Drinkwater - 37 Million, Rudiger - 35 Million, Zappacosta - 25 Million, Emerson - 20 Million, Giroud - 17 Million, Barkley - 17 Million, Batshuayi - 40 Million, Kante - 35 Million, David Luiz - 35 Million, Marcos Alonso - 25 Million = 594 Million It's evident that we have an ambitious owner, but an incompetent board. Again, they are two separate entities. Those in bold are the examples of incompetence from our board. Spending over the means on bang average players. Matching no profile what so ever.

How is it not a difference? Arsenal's whole business model is a self sustaining one. Only spending with what they bring in on operations, IE new stadium ticket prices. How do you honestly expect them to compete against us, City and United? But the argument is who has the more incompetent board? Not owner? I specifically said half a decade. Why? Because that is when Marina took charge. Since then, only City have out spent us. Being the 2nd highest spenders in Europe, yet being on course to finish outside the top 4 for the 3rd time in 4 years, shows we are run worse than a club who can only spend beyond their means.

I personally hope the next owner is English

We have zero leverage with the transfer ban. I can still see a quality striker there, despite his recent showings.

They had a new stadium to fund. And they can only spend within the means of the money brought in from operations. They can't compete financially compared to us, City, or United. The fact we are the 2nd biggest spenders in Europe and have done so poorly this half a decade, to me, reflects worse than Arsenal if we are to rate incompetence.

Speculation. It cost a ton to bring Sarri here as well as sacking Conte. Fairly certain the club have taken that into consideration.

All depends if Roman actually intends on keeping the club or not.