- Joined
- May 7, 2015
- Messages
- 190
- Supports
- Arsenal
Continue to employ him until matches start, it's not his fault matches aren't happening, and you can obviously afford to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's what the other 19 clubs in the league have managed to do? Or, at the very least, have been smart enough to realise how bad it looks to do that on the same day they spend tens of millions of pounds on a player.
But, as I have repeatedly said, if you want to defend it with that line of reasoning fine, but you have absolutely no right whatsoever to demand anything of Ozil. You've decided what you're happy with your club being, and you should therefore accept how that means players should treat you.
The whole thing has been blown out of proportion and no one seems interested in looking at the fine details surrounding this situation. Jerry Quy works as one of several people at Arsenal who puts on the Gunnersaurus suit, and he was let go from his role as supporter liaison for away games since there are no fans. The club have already been quoted as saying he will be welcome back once fans are back. His role was part-time and he's a director of a private company so I doubt that he was banking on dressing up as Gunnersaurus to pay off his mortgage. Obviously spreading the news that Gunnersaurus has been sacked generates more clickbait than providing an actual representation of the situation.
Arsenal's are hit the hardest by fans not being allowed back into the stadiums. 25% of Arsenal's revenue comes from matchdays which is the highest in the premier league with Tottenham coming second at 18%. If fans aren't allowed back into stadiums anytime soon then you should expect redundancies at other clubs as well.
The Arsenal executive team agreed to wage cuts of more than 33% whilst the playing and coaching staff are on 7.5% cuts. Ozil was one of three players not to agree to the cuts and obviously, he received the most attention since he's on insane wages. I'm not going to deride him for that as I don't know about his financial commitments and he's within his right to do what he did. But I'm not going to give him praise for deciding to pay wages of a part-time worker in what clearly is just PR move.