The Board

[zekinjo 449]

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

Gourlay leaving had a bigger impact. Especially in how we approached the transfer market. 

[manpe 10,861]

2 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Gourlay leaving had a bigger impact. Especially in how we approached the transfer market. 

He still got a lot of stick from us. Shows you can't appreciate something until you get something worse.

[Vesper 30,224]

101 days until the summer 2019 window opens. I hope the numpty board has the GO button set up and their plans set to liquidate and rebuild in a MASSIVE way just in case our CAS non-deferral appeal is successful (I think it has a good shot)

IF we do get the window this summer and the board (ie. Roman and the puppets) go all deer-in-the-headlights and fuck it up badly we are so screwed until 2021.

[Special Juan 28,140]

Our board don't plan properly, the scatter gun approach will still continue if the ban is lifted.

People need to understand the club is a mess, and nothing will change why we still have these fucking cock jockeys in charge.

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

1 hour ago, Mana said:

Actually, the most useless board out of the top 6 is Stan Kroenke and his cronies...but THEN it's us.

They can only spend revenue brought in from the club's operations. I wouldn't rate them alongside us. 

We are on course to miss CL football for the 3rd time in 4 years, in spite City being the only club in Europe outspending us. That is utterly unacceptable. The Drinkwater deal alone is a sackable offence. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

4 minutes ago, Mana said:

That's what makes them very bad owners. You can rate them alongside them.

Yes I know. But Arsenal's situation is way worse. 10+ years without a league trophy. Little ambition. That's why we are the second worst run club in the top 6.

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. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

4 minutes ago, Mana said:

Keyword, "Had". HAD. It's all paid off for years now. Still no difference.

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?

11 minutes ago, Mana said:

Kroenke used his own money (and Arsenal's profits) to build his ranch and expand Los Angeles Rams in America. So don't pretend the owners (and Arsenal) don't have any money to spend. They do. Just in the wrong areas, and that's down to Kroenke.

But the argument is who has the more incompetent board? Not owner?

11 minutes ago, Mana said:

That's based in the last 10 years. And within that 10 years, didn't we win the league 3 times and the Champions League? What did Arsenal win compare to that time?

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. 

[Superblue 6,372]

33 minutes ago, Mana said:

Keyword, "Had". HAD. It's all paid off for years now. Still no difference.

Kroenke used his own money (and Arsenal's profits) to build his ranch and expand Los Angeles Rams in America. So don't pretend the owners (and Arsenal) don't have any money to spend. They do. Just in the wrong areas, and that's down to Kroenke.

That's based in the last 10 years. And within that 10 years, didn't we win the league 3 times and the Champions League? What did Arsenal win compare to that time?

To Kroenke's credit what the Rams have done over the last couple of years in relocating a poor franchise, rebuilding the team to an elite championship challenging team with a young, progressive head coach has been pretty phenomenal.

Arsenal fans won't take any consolation in that mind, because his lack of enthusiasm with them is laughable.

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

40 minutes ago, Mana said:

Yep, and that's why Arsenal fans are pissed off at Kroenke. What Kroenke did with the Rams is unbelievable, yet he has done zero with Arsenal. All what Kroenke is doing with Arsenal is take their profits. He's like a leech.

@MoroccanBlue Who would you rather have? The Arsenal board or our current board? If it's our board, then stop playing with this argument. 

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. 

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

41 minutes ago, Mana said:

Arsenal's board at least didn't do this to their best of their ability. Chelsea didn't either, but we have done more than what they had done in the past five years. Fact.

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. 

41 minutes ago, Mana said:

Lol. I don't know where to begin with this. Because they certainly are a big club, and they are bigger than us in terms of trophies, history and fanbase. Take your bias elsewhere.

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. 

41 minutes ago, Mana said:

 

it depends. But in Arsenal's board, Kroenke is part of the board as a director. And FFS, as I said time and time again, the board is full of Kroenke's yes men especially Keswick.

Why are you changing the shift from Arsenal v Chelsea, to Chelsea v City? We are not discussing who is a better board between us and City. It's clear who's doing better in that area.

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?

 

41 minutes ago, Mana said:

But answer my question because you ignored it. Which board would you rather have? Arsenal's or ours?

If it's ours, let's end the discussion because then you agree with me that we are the second worse run board out of the top 6.

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. 

[Tomo 21,751]

19 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

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. 

Are they? They look quite similar to me.

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

39 minutes ago, Mana said:

All of these signings (both sides) were done in the last 2 years. I thought we are talking about since Marina was at Chelsea? Or you are now changing the goalposts?

Also extraordinarily better? We are only 3 points behind them with all of that!

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? 

39 minutes ago, Mana said:

It's not ANYMORE. They still are. Just because they are not in the CL for 2 years doesn't mean their fanbase and brand recognition has declined. Look at United and Liverpool (especially the latter FFS). You're the one who's deluded here. Inter, Milan, Porto etc. were never bigger than Arsenal.

A joke run club can still be a massive club.

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. 

39 minutes ago, Mana said:

And how many times do I have to tell YOU that it's all about the ambition. It's not all about the fecking money. Kroenke CAN invest in to Arsenal. He's a board member AND the owner. 

39 minutes ago, Mana said:

And again, you avoided my question. If Arsenal had unlimited funds, I bet it's all going to the Rams.

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. 

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

28 minutes ago, Tomo said:

Are they? They look quite similar to me.

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

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

42 minutes ago, Mana said:

Oh you are cute! Just focusing on Chelsea, without bringing up Arsenal's failure signings? Since you are not going to do that, let me do that for you.

Takuma Asano, Lucas Pérez, , Konstantinos

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. 

42 minutes ago, Mana said:

And remind me, who has won more trophies between the two clubs within that period?

We did. Because Arsenal can't compete with us financially given we have an ambitious owner. 

42 minutes ago, Mana said:

 

And that's why Arsenal will always be bigger than those clubs. So stop mentioning them, they are not in the same ballpark.

And for the Milan clubs, that's their own fault. They didn't change with modern football so they were left behind. Not to mention, they don't have the spending power PL top 6 side has.

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. 

42 minutes ago, Mana said:

Sunderland =/= Arsenal. Sunderland are a small club that has little spending power, and the way they run is different. Use your brain.

Are you doing this on purpose? Ignoring everything I said?

THE BOARD ARE FULL OF KROENKE'S YES MEN.

So yes, they share the same brain because whatever Kroenke says, they obey.

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. 

 

[Vesper 30,224]

Arsenal's board are not top rate, but have made less overall strategic blunders than ours has in past 5 years.

Let's list their BIG fails (please let me know if I forgot any)

The huge contract to Özil (idiots on that)

Due to that, they will lose Ramsey on a free (they should have sold him this past summer, but felt they needed him (they did and do) and also thought he would cave (he didnt, so off to Juve he goes, where I think he just might really play well)

Also due to contract issues, they lost Alexis, BUT they dodged 2 bullets (they didnt cave in and give him a huge contract) and he also has massively declined as a player, PLUS they did get Henrikh Mkhitaryan in the swap, which, for ony 6 months left in Alexis contract, is not terrible. Mkhitaryan is hardly a superstar, but he has played well at times (if he was on full time minutes pace he would end up with around 25 total goals produced this year, 12 goals, 12 assists)

Shkodran Mustafi  has been oki, a regular starter, but they did overpay a bit IMHO

They also did lose Jack Wilshere on a free, but that is nowhere near as bad as losing Ramsey

Yes, they have made some stupid buys, and taken gambles, but none of them were for huge quid losses

plus

on the good side (some great, some fairly good, none horrid at all)

Lucas Torreira (great buy)

Bernd Leno looks to really be coming good the last 3 months

Sokratis (not great, but was cheap and has had his share of good games)

Mattéo Guendouzi  (great buy)

Sead Kolasinac (on a free)

Denis Suárez (short loan and may not be kept, has played oki at times, but doesnt seem to fit in to emery style, but due to this only a loan, and it had decent potential, I give this a barely positive)

Granit Xhaka (I rate this the same as Suarez, a barely positive, due to cost, he has his monets, but also can make mistakes, very up and down player, jury still out for full level) certainly is mile beyond Drinkwater and Bakayoko

Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang  (great buy)

Alexandre Lacazette  (overall, a  good buy, 25 total goals produced  (14 goals and 11 assists) this year in only 2400 minutes)

Reiss Nelson (brilliant loan move and probably soon a star for them)

Finally, they have a big, somewhat new, deffo modern stadium for over a decade that massively helps with revenue

and no bans

 

overall, despite their less than ideal owner

they have done better than our shit show of a board in last 5 years

they are in the bottom half of the top 30 teams in terms of board, maybe even bottom 7 or 8, but not at our shambolic level

the main thing we do have is trophies by the bucket load, but most all of those came as a result from moves made more than 4 or 5 years ago, and some of the newer moves (Conte, etc) have already been fucked up

only massively brilliant move still around that occurred in last 5 years is Kante, and 2 good ones (Rudiger and Kepa)

Pedro, well oki, but not close to those other 3 overall, but a positive I think (he is coming to end of his time soon anyway, due to age)

bring in 3 superior players (only one so far who can be called truly great) in over 5 years, whilst making so, so many crazy bad moves, horrific sales, horrific buys, stupid contract handling, now no new stadium, and also the fucking bans

adds up to worst run top 20 club i world atm (AC Milan seems to be sorting themselves out, and their blunders are hundreds of millions of pounds less than ours en toto)

 

 

 

[communicate 2,703]

20 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

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 

 

 

That is a horrible argument. It is different spending 500 m when you don't sell anybody with spending 500 m when you have to sell your key player. We have sold courtois, Costa, Cesc and matic. All key players for us and Pulisic hasn't even kicked a ball yet. 

Comparing us to city is a dumb argument. They target the best player they can get. They won't target player like Alonso, Emerson and zappacosta because they can afford getting the best player they can get. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

2 hours ago, communicate said:

That is a horrible argument. It is different spending 500 m when you don't sell anybody with spending 500 m when you have to sell your key player. We have sold courtois, Costa, Cesc and matic. All key players for us and Pulisic hasn't even kicked a ball yet. 

Comparing us to city is a dumb argument. They target the best player they can get. They won't target player like Alonso, Emerson and zappacosta because they can afford getting the best player they can get. 

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. 

2 hours ago, Mana said:

I'm not continuing with this discussion anymore due to time and time again, this question has been avoided.

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" 

[communicate 2,703]

1 hour ago, MoroccanBlue said:

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" 

Because comparing us to city is just dumb. City transfer budget far eclipse ours. It is not oh 500 m spend. If we can spend on players without selling anyone is completely different to sign player because we have sold somebody

If city has to sell sterling and sane when they sign Bernardo silva and mahrez then you can compare us to city. City this season signed mahrez for 60m just to be their backup winger. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,383]

37 minutes ago, communicate said:

Because comparing us to city is just dumb. City transfer budget far eclipse ours. It is not oh 500 m spend. If we can spend on players without selling anyone is completely different to sign player because we have sold somebody

If city has to sell sterling and sane when they sign Bernardo silva and mahrez then you can compare us to city. City this season signed mahrez for 60m just to be their backup winger. 

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.