Arsenal Thread 2013/14

[Bilboblue]

no arsenal supporters i know think that you were some tiny club before your takeover.

but neither were you anywhere near big enough to bag one of the biggest (if not the biggest) sponsorship deal in the premier league and Europe were you? thats why there was so much suspicion around the sponsorship, once it turned out the sponsor was directly related to the city owner.

like i said in previous post, theres no way even any city fan can deny the obvious with that one...

Etihad is I no way shape or form directly related to our owner. It's like Alan Sugar buying Valencia, investing millions into the playing staff and infrastructure of the club and getting sponsored by a company like BT. Completely unrelated yet you fools can't understand that as all you see is an 'Arab'.

this shows a terrible lack of understanding of your own club.

if the scenario you described with alan sugar happened, it would be totally different as alan sugar has no links whatsoever with BT.

your deal with etihad on the other hand, from the BBC:

"Etihad Airways, for example, is owned by the Abu Dhabi government. The oil-rich state's ruler, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is Sheikh Mansour's half-brother."

so basically the main man, the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who effectively owns the etihad company, is the man city owners half brother. hmmm

on top of that there was also investigations and allegations from uefa and other governing bodies around the deal. this shows it isn't just 'bitter arsenal fans' that thought the same thing.

obviously nothing got proved in the end as with a deal like this, done in a closed country such as abu dhabi, you are never going to be able to prove anything for definite.

Cry me a river, bitter.

 

[Newman Noggs]

no arsenal supporters i know think that you were some tiny club before your takeover.

but neither were you anywhere near big enough to bag one of the biggest (if not the biggest) sponsorship deal in the premier league and Europe were you? thats why there was so much suspicion around the sponsorship, once it turned out the sponsor was directly related to the city owner.

like i said in previous post, theres no way even any city fan can deny the obvious with that one...

Etihad is I no way shape or form directly related to our owner. It's like Alan Sugar buying Valencia, investing millions into the playing staff and infrastructure of the club and getting sponsored by a company like BT. Completely unrelated yet you fools can't understand that as all you see is an 'Arab'.

this shows a terrible lack of understanding of your own club.

if the scenario you described with alan sugar happened, it would be totally different as alan sugar has no links whatsoever with BT.

your deal with etihad on the other hand, from the BBC:

"Etihad Airways, for example, is owned by the Abu Dhabi government. The oil-rich state's ruler, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is Sheikh Mansour's half-brother."

so basically the main man, the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who effectively owns the etihad company, is the man city owners half brother. hmmm

on top of that there was also investigations and allegations from uefa and other governing bodies around the deal. this shows it isn't just 'bitter arsenal fans' that thought the same thing.

obviously nothing got proved in the end as with a deal like this, done in a closed country such as abu dhabi, you are never going to be able to prove anything for definite.

That some people believe this sort of nonsense and go to the lengths of ranting about it on our forum only makes winning trophies more enjoyable. You can imagine them sitting at their keyboards seething with self-righteous indignation. I love it.

 

[silverback]

Afc16, is that your age?

 

[Proelia]

no arsenal supporters i know think that you were some tiny club before your takeover.

but neither were you anywhere near big enough to bag one of the biggest (if not the biggest) sponsorship deal in the premier league and Europe were you? thats why there was so much suspicion around the sponsorship, once it turned out the sponsor was directly related to the city owner.

like i said in previous post, theres no way even any city fan can deny the obvious with that one...

Etihad is I no way shape or form directly related to our owner. It's like Alan Sugar buying Valencia, investing millions into the playing staff and infrastructure of the club and getting sponsored by a company like BT. Completely unrelated yet you fools can't understand that as all you see is an 'Arab'.

this shows a terrible lack of understanding of your own club.

if the scenario you described with alan sugar happened, it would be totally different as alan sugar has no links whatsoever with BT.

your deal with etihad on the other hand, from the BBC:

"Etihad Airways, for example, is owned by the Abu Dhabi government. The oil-rich state's ruler, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is Sheikh Mansour's half-brother."

so basically the main man, the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who effectively owns the etihad company, is the man city owners half brother. hmmm

on top of that there was also investigations and allegations from uefa and other governing bodies around the deal. this shows it isn't just 'bitter arsenal fans' that thought the same thing.

obviously nothing got proved in the end as with a deal like this, done in a closed country such as abu dhabi, you are never going to be able to prove anything for definite.

Were filthy rich ya bitter tarquin

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

no arsenal supporters i know think that you were some tiny club before your takeover.

but neither were you anywhere near big enough to bag one of the biggest (if not the biggest) sponsorship deal in the premier league and Europe were you? thats why there was so much suspicion around the sponsorship, once it turned out the sponsor was directly related to the city owner.

like i said in previous post, theres no way even any city fan can deny the obvious with that one...

Etihad is I no way shape or form directly related to our owner. It's like Alan Sugar buying Valencia, investing millions into the playing staff and infrastructure of the club and getting sponsored by a company like BT. Completely unrelated yet you fools can't understand that as all you see is an 'Arab'.

this shows a terrible lack of understanding of your own club.

if the scenario you described with alan sugar happened, it would be totally different as alan sugar has no links whatsoever with BT.

your deal with etihad on the other hand, from the BBC:

"Etihad Airways, for example, is owned by the Abu Dhabi government. The oil-rich state's ruler, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is Sheikh Mansour's half-brother."

so basically the main man, the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who effectively owns the etihad company, is the man city owners half brother. hmmm

on top of that there was also investigations and allegations from uefa and other governing bodies around the deal. this shows it isn't just 'bitter arsenal fans' that thought the same thing.

obviously nothing got proved in the end as with a deal like this, done in a closed country such as abu dhabi, you are never going to be able to prove anything for definite.

you've let yourself down there, the reason the Etihad deal has been cleared is not because of any closedness but because there's nothing wrong, immoral or illegal about it in any way, shape or form. It is simply a good business deal by good businessmen utilising good contacts, it's a shame Kroenke has such little interest you for anything other than a paycheck that he won't call in any favours from say, Walmart, and get you good business deals.

UEFA only investigated because precious clubs like you wanted to protect yourselves at the top of the game and deny other clubs the right to compete, the fundamental right of football, which is far dodgier and sinister than anything our club has done.

 

[Ronuja]

Etihad is I no way shape or form directly related to our owner. It's like Alan Sugar buying Valencia, investing millions into the playing staff and infrastructure of the club and getting sponsored by a company like BT. Completely unrelated yet you fools can't understand that as all you see is an 'Arab'.

this shows a terrible lack of understanding of your own club.

if the scenario you described with alan sugar happened, it would be totally different as alan sugar has no links whatsoever with BT.

your deal with etihad on the other hand, from the BBC:

"Etihad Airways, for example, is owned by the Abu Dhabi government. The oil-rich state's ruler, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is Sheikh Mansour's half-brother."

so basically the main man, the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who effectively owns the etihad company, is the man city owners half brother. hmmm

on top of that there was also investigations and allegations from uefa and other governing bodies around the deal. this shows it isn't just 'bitter arsenal fans' that thought the same thing.

obviously nothing got proved in the end as with a deal like this, done in a closed country such as abu dhabi, you are never going to be able to prove anything for definite.

Were filthy rich ya bitter tarquin

The thing is, we are too. Fourth richest in the world if you believe Forbes.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2013/04/17/soccers-most-valuable-teams-real-madrid-dethrones-manchester-united-from-top-spot-at-3-3-billion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian ... 3-billion/</a>

6th according to Deloitte.

<a class="postlink" href="http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2013/08/arsenal-money-dont-matter-2-night.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2013/08 ... night.html</a> (you have to scroll down a bit for the relevant table.)

I guess some of us tarquins are bitter that you've suddenly become rich - I find that childish, short-sighted, and ignorant.

"Dennis Bergkamp

Bergkamp left Internazionale and signed with Arsenal in June 1995 for a transfer fee estimated at £7.5m. He joined Bruce Rioch’s Arsenal as an established 26 year old international footballer who looked to have his best years ahead of him. Back then, £7.5m was a huge amount to pay,"

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.soccerissue.com/2012/12/10/how-much-would-the-invincibles-cost-today/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.soccerissue.com/2012/12/10/h ... ost-today/</a>

Anyone who's bitter about that is just very silly. A more justified bitterness, in my opinion, stems from our unwillingness to show the money in recent seasons, pre-Ozil. Perhaps though, that is now gradually changing, and if that turns out to be true, you'll find much less of us 'bitter' about your recent prosperity.

 

[RandomJ]

I knew Arsenal would bottle it but I didn't expect it so soon. Their huge lead in the table spunked away in a matter of weeks.

 

[foetus]

Arsenal fans booing. Not surprising.<br /><br />-- Mon Dec 23, 2013 10:03 pm --<br /><br />

I knew Arsenal would bottle it but I didn't expect it so soon. Their huge lead in the table spunked away in a matter of weeks.

Haven't played well against the top teams have they? They'll settle into their 4th spot soon enough.

 

[worsleyweb]

And the pigment in their red padded seats is starting to fade!!

It's all going wrong!.

 

[Puppet Master Silva]

Pathetic display from both teams. Awful fans, awful football, players rolling around and negative tactics. Ourselves or Liverpool go out to score goals and entertain, the same can't be said for these two.