Arsene Wenger: Uefa must come down hard on Man City

[3rdgenerationblue]

anyone who changes his name just to get a job can't be trusted.

 

[yeah whatever !!]

Has been.end of.

 

[Sigh]

Arnold Sneed, manager of the Limeside Spar just gave an interview to the Oldham Chronicle casting doubt on their moral integrity of the directors of Iceland for approving a 350 million cash upgrade to select locations to be known as "Super Iceland" whilst simultaneously expanding Iceland's home delivery service. Mr. Sneed, 66, who has a degree in Applied Random Statistics from the University of Rochdale, is also unhappy at Iceland securing an exclusive five-year contract with Dakota Prairies Inc. of Aberdeen S.D. to be the sole U.K. importer and distributor of their True American Bison[super]TM[/super] steaks. "Real Bison?" said Mr. Sneed, "Who is going to buy our Legit Organic Landmine-Free Angolan Blackish Angus[super]TM[/super] now? It's just not fair! We've got nice floors though, and we use sustainable methods of minimum-wage shelf-stacking. I think home-grown British-owned businesses like Spar need protecting from johnny-come-latelys abusing our liberties, our equalities, and our fraternities!"

 

[TonyM]

It's not the place of a football manager to make statements of that nature.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite, as he genuinely believes in self-sustainability. His rejection of PSG's advances and his opposition to Usmanov joining the AFC board are evidence of that.

I just want to clarify something about Fiszman and the 50 million.

50 million at the time constituted more than half of Fiszman's worth. He did not spend it on footballers. It was spent on acquiring the majority shareholding in the club. He also underwrote (guaranteed) the Bergkamp fee. That's it.

For evidence Arsenal's accounts from that period are freely available. There is no 50 million outside investment, no matter how often it is repeated on Bluemoon (based on a Tony Adams quote of all sources).

Even the Bergkamp fee was ultimately paid by the club. The likes of Henry, Pires and the new training ground were financed by player sales (Anelka) and increasing revenues. Again the audited club accounts bear testimony to this.

Fiszman did change the culture of the club though. Previously run by generations of Old Etonians as a hobby, it now became more business like.

I have no beef with the City way, the PSG way or the Chelsea way, nor do I think everything at AFC is wonderful. Apart from the ticket prices there is the trophy drought. In the decade pre-Fiszman/Bergkamp/Wenger the club won a lot of trophies. Over the last decade it obviously hasn't.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but the often peddled line that Fiszman was no different to the Royal families at City and PSG or Mr Abramovich at Chelsea is factually wrong, no matter how often it is repeated.

I hope the moderators will allow this post to stand.

Cheers.

Dress it up however you want but Fitzmans cash injection is the very reason you were able to challenge at the top.

Ditto Sheik Mansour.

I fully agree. Therefore I think Mr Stellation is deluding himself and others.

 

[SunJihai]

I'm not feeling the love here guys.

I'm not here to defend Wenger but don't you think you're over reacting a bit?

Whatever UEFA does or doesn't do is not going to be influenced one iota by Wenger.

So, chill.

PS I hope you beat Everton tonight btw

-- Sat May 03, 2014 11:39 am --

I agree with a fair bit of that but I don't think selling players if you believe in sustainability is hypocritical it is doing what you say

What Wenger has done though is bad for arsenal, bad for their fans, bad for their team and is also in its own way damaging. Ie stealing other teams kids for 500k is just as harmful as stealing their starts for 30m - I prefer wengers attitude to their fans and owners as at least with him I believe what he says the fans would sell their grand to spend 200m in a summer and are just the most bitter fans in football nowadays - now there is hypocrisy

Agree with you about Arsenal fans.

But how hypocritical is it that Wenger thinks it's morally reprehensible for someone, who obviously can afford it and is not laying debt onto the club, to invest in his own club and players, paying them big salaries, but then on the other hand turn around and receive the highest pay for a manager while charging their fans the highest ticket prices in England? All the while preaching about sustainability, moral obligation to fans etc, etc.

It would be one thing if the savings he earned his club were passed on to their fans in some way, but in the end it's all for the benefit of Arsenal shareholders and his own sense of superiority.

All generalisations are wrong, for example, I am completely different to Piers Morgan.

I'm sorry, you're right. Maybe I shouldn't generalize like that.

But I have to say all the Arsenal fans I know, many of whom are my friends, buy into the 'doing things the right way' hype and use it as a stick to beat City with. But when things don't go their way, like the start of this season, they start calling for Wenger's head, demanding big money buys, and it seems all the principles they supposedly stand for go out the window.

 

[Pam]

I'm not feeling the love here guys.

I'm not here to defend Wenger but don't you think you're over reacting a bit?

Whatever UEFA does or doesn't do is not going to be influenced one iota by Wenger.

So, chill.

PS I hope you beat Everton tonight btw

-- Sat May 03, 2014 11:39 am --

Agree with you about Arsenal fans.

But how hypocritical is it that Wenger thinks it's morally reprehensible for someone, who obviously can afford it and is not laying debt onto the club, to invest in his own club and players, paying them big salaries, but then on the other hand turn around and receive the highest pay for a manager while charging their fans the highest ticket prices in England? All the while preaching about sustainability, moral obligation to fans etc, etc.

It would be one thing if the savings he earned his club were passed on to their fans in some way, but in the end it's all for the benefit of Arsenal shareholders and his own sense of superiority.

All generalisations are wrong, for example, I am completely different to Piers Morgan.

I'm sorry, you're right. Maybe I shouldn't generalize like that.

But I have to say all the Arsenal fans I know, many of whom are my friends, buy into the 'doing things the right way' hype and use it as a stick to beat City with. But when things don't go their way, like the start of this season, they start calling for Wenger's head, demanding big money buys, and it seems all the principles they supposedly stand for go out the window.

Lounge lizard Islington. I like that place, though. Question for anyone who lives around there, btw. Does that deranged 1970's elvis loony still prowl the streets of Islington? The one that genuinely believes he actually is Elvis.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I'm not feeling the love here guys.

I'm not here to defend Wenger but don't you think you're over reacting a bit?

Whatever UEFA does or doesn't do is not going to be influenced one iota by Wenger.

You've summed up why we're annoyed. It's got nothing to do with him so he should keep his big mouth shut. He's also a representative of one of the old G14, who wanted FFP as a quid pro quo for (supposedly) disbanding to ensure no one could challenge them.

To turn it on its head, how would you feel if, every day, you read about Pellegrini or Soriano criticising Stan Kroenke, calling Usmanov a crook, saying that Arsenal shareholders have taken plenty out and put fuck all in or calling Wenger for failure to deliver trophies? I suspect your reaction would be pretty similar to ours.

Spot on.

Not only reading about City being critical of arse ,but watching as they leant on the governing body to try and stop them challenging?
I think you would be a tad annoyed what , old boy?

 

[Damocles]

It's not the place of a football manager to make statements of that nature.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite, as he genuinely believes in self-sustainability. His rejection of PSG's advances and his opposition to Usmanov joining the AFC board are evidence of that.

I just want to clarify something about Fiszman and the 50 million.

50 million at the time constituted more than half of Fiszman's worth. He did not spend it on footballers. It was spent on acquiring the majority shareholding in the club. He also underwrote (guaranteed) the Bergkamp fee. That's it.

For evidence Arsenal's accounts from that period are freely available. There is no 50 million outside investment, no matter how often it is repeated on Bluemoon (based on a Tony Adams quote of all sources).

Even the Bergkamp fee was ultimately paid by the club. The likes of Henry, Pires and the new training ground were financed by player sales (Anelka) and increasing revenues. Again the audited club accounts bear testimony to this.

Fiszman did change the culture of the club though. Previously run by generations of Old Etonians as a hobby, it now became more business like.

I have no beef with the City way, the PSG way or the Chelsea way, nor do I think everything at AFC is wonderful. Apart from the ticket prices there is the trophy drought. In the decade pre-Fiszman/Bergkamp/Wenger the club won a lot of trophies. Over the last decade it obviously hasn't.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but the often peddled line that Fiszman was no different to the Royal families at City and PSG or Mr Abramovich at Chelsea is factually wrong, no matter how often it is repeated.

I hope the moderators will allow this post to stand.

Cheers.

I bothered to look into this. It is nonsense.

Fiszman bought 7,500 shares of Arsenal before they boomed and though the price is private, the markets they were trading on valued Arsenal's stock at £1,350 at the time.

You're off by about £40m.

EDIT: Hold on, found his first purchase of 10,000 shares in 1991. Arsenal shares aren't floating at the time but if we presume their value doubled in that time which seems apt, then that's another £7m.

So Fiszman spent at the maximum £17m and the minimum £13m to acquire a share of Arsenal. He was not the majority shareholder at this point. He paid another £7m in 1999 to take it to 33%.

This does not explain his investment into Arsenal at all

 

[Henkeman]

It's not the place of a football manager to make statements of that nature.

It doesn't make him a hypocrite, as he genuinely believes in self-sustainability. His rejection of PSG's advances and his opposition to Usmanov joining the AFC board are evidence of that.

I just want to clarify something about Fiszman and the 50 million.

50 million at the time constituted more than half of Fiszman's worth. He did not spend it on footballers. It was spent on acquiring the majority shareholding in the club. He also underwrote (guaranteed) the Bergkamp fee. That's it.

For evidence Arsenal's accounts from that period are freely available. There is no 50 million outside investment, no matter how often it is repeated on Bluemoon (based on a Tony Adams quote of all sources).

Even the Bergkamp fee was ultimately paid by the club. The likes of Henry, Pires and the new training ground were financed by player sales (Anelka) and increasing revenues. Again the audited club accounts bear testimony to this.

Fiszman did change the culture of the club though. Previously run by generations of Old Etonians as a hobby, it now became more business like.

I have no beef with the City way, the PSG way or the Chelsea way, nor do I think everything at AFC is wonderful. Apart from the ticket prices there is the trophy drought. In the decade pre-Fiszman/Bergkamp/Wenger the club won a lot of trophies. Over the last decade it obviously hasn't.

Everyone is entitled to opinions, but the often peddled line that Fiszman was no different to the Royal families at City and PSG or Mr Abramovich at Chelsea is factually wrong, no matter how often it is repeated.

I hope the moderators will allow this post to stand.

Cheers.

I bothered to look into this. It is nonsense.

Fiszman bought 7,500 shares of Arsenal before they boomed and though the price is private, the markets they were trading on valued Arsenal's stock at £1,350 at the time.

You're off by about £40m.

So the cost of those shares was likely about £10 million? Interesting.

 

[Deleted member 58678]

Wenger found a niche in the transfer market in the late 1990s - find young talent from poorer leagues and sign them up for next to nowt (when the poorer club could sell the kid for millions more a few years later) leaving the poorer club wih very little money and less talent. It was terrible for football as these poorer clubs from poorer leagues were being asset stripped for almost no return. Everyone cottoned onto it and before long everyone operated that way which drove transfer prices up, that was better for football but worse for Wenger. Coupled with that, Wenger stopped winning trophies, and all he is now is just a proper whinging ****!

He can fuck off and so can Arsenal FC.