They're the reason you're battling it out with Spurs, Everton, Newcastle and Liverpool for fourth place instead of challenging United for the title every year.
We wouldn't have challenged.
We'd finish 2nd, but we wouldn't get close to 1st.
Suarez
- Thread starter KM
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss three 1-1 draws.
The first got us knocked out of the FA Cup, the next puts us in a good position in our Round of 16 Europa League game, and the latest was an actual decent performance against Arsenal at Old Trafford.
All hopes for the season now rest on the Europa League - does Amorim have the squad to win it?
- Status
We wouldn't have challenged.
We'd finish 2nd, but we wouldn't get close to 1st.
Well your lot could celebrate second place finishes on the final day rather than fourth place ones so.
fecking hell, Al. I'm not defending you anymore. It's the naked capitalism that you admire, isn't it?
Look. They've screwed us over a bit, but I think this idea that they're the reason we haven't won the league in 8 years is wide of the mark. Nasri would have gone to United instead. Hazard would have gone to United.
Just me?
Just me.
Just me?
Just me.
Will Arsenal go as high as £50 million for Suarez? That seems to be the figure Liverpool would be willing to sell him for.
As great a player as old toothy is, he'd still represent a huge gamble for Arsenal due to his mental health problems.
As great a player as old toothy is, he'd still represent a huge gamble for Arsenal due to his mental health problems.
Alastair you do know Abramovich's money came good directly after your best ever season?
He is arguably the worst thing to happen to Arsenal in the last decade and he's the reason for the power shift down in London.
I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure had he never taken over an English club, United and Arsenal (Liverpool most likely would've been there or thereabouts too) would've extended that rivalry and you guys wouldn't be trophyless for the last 8 seasons.
Then City came and really hammered a few nails into that coffin.
But hey...as long as United aren't winning it doesn't matter right? The old ABU in you is out in full force.
Anyway, Suarez what a cnut. Great banter from Arsenal with that bid. Scousers think he owes them. Etc etc
He is arguably the worst thing to happen to Arsenal in the last decade and he's the reason for the power shift down in London.
I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure had he never taken over an English club, United and Arsenal (Liverpool most likely would've been there or thereabouts too) would've extended that rivalry and you guys wouldn't be trophyless for the last 8 seasons.
Then City came and really hammered a few nails into that coffin.
But hey...as long as United aren't winning it doesn't matter right? The old ABU in you is out in full force.
Anyway, Suarez what a cnut. Great banter from Arsenal with that bid. Scousers think he owes them. Etc etc
Look, I think everyone is missing my point here.
Regardless of the money bags clubs, we'd be spending net zero for 8 years.
One could argue that in 2005, we'd still have won the league. We were better than United.
But we would have sunk eventually, but to 2nd, not 4th. For me, it's basically identical. You're still not winning.
It's typical Caf - you say something quite obvious and everyone takes it as some kind of insult.
I'm not insulted, I'm now even more baffled that 'sinking' to 2nd is basically identical to becoming 4th place trophy moral victors.
I'll leave this.
It's just Arsenal fans endlessly say we'd have won pot after pot without the oil clubs, and I tend to think that's not true. That's all I'm saying.
Taking a break.
It's just Arsenal fans endlessly say we'd have won pot after pot without the oil clubs, and I tend to think that's not true. That's all I'm saying.
Taking a break.
There really isn't a lot of difference in finishing 2nd or 4th. They never had any trouble getting past the CL qualifiers so it's almost irrelevant whether they finished 2nd or 4th. Their financial constraints would have been the same regardless, al is right about that, I'm not sure how it is even up for debate.
Spurs on the other hand were fecked by the sugar daddy clubs. They could be CL regulars at this point.
If it's only United that Arsenal compete with, I can see Wenger and the boards push the spending bar a bit more and see what would happened in all of those barren years.
But what's the point to do this, when Chelsea and City could spend 100m net easily in a season (almost) every year, while destroying the wages cap in the league. It's better to invest on their stadium, put a constrain on spending but still good enough to get that CL money pot. Then, patiently wait for the right time when Arsenal can compete financially with these sugar daddy's team and United behemoth financial strength.
But what's the point to do this, when Chelsea and City could spend 100m net easily in a season (almost) every year, while destroying the wages cap in the league. It's better to invest on their stadium, put a constrain on spending but still good enough to get that CL money pot. Then, patiently wait for the right time when Arsenal can compete financially with these sugar daddy's team and United behemoth financial strength.
Suarez wanted to leave Liverpool to escape the English press so he's agitating to go to...the capital of England!? How must the scousers feel after defending him to the hilt through all his cak?
I hope we bring in Ibrahimovic, altough I'm not sure what wages he's on at PSG, I'm afraid they could be a bit high.
Yeah the article seems to be comflating two points IMO
In criticising Arsene for abandoning his policy the first point is that he's abandoning his financial prudence by spending £40million on a player. As Cina and others have said though he shouldn't be criticised for that, it's about time Arsenal got some real investment in players.
The second point is that he's spending it on Suarez i.e. a massive prick. But then that isn't abandoning anything because Arsene has had absolute collosal pricks at Arsenal before, that side with Keown and Parlour was horrible
Good idea and take the stupid argument with you. We'd have won the league in 2005 for starters. Aside from City and Chelsea inflating wages and taking Cole and a string of players off us, we'd only have to compete with Man Utd for Hazard, Silva, Mata & co (and they couldn't sign them all).
The money clubs definitely fecked Arsenal, far and away more than any other club. Sadly, I'd much rather have Arsenal as competition than either of those two shitc**t clubs.
The fact an Arsenal fan doesn't see it is staggering.
The fact an Arsenal fan doesn't see it is staggering.
You'd have got better players and kept some of the ones that left because you went 9 years trophyless. Nasri, Cole and van Persie would probably still be in your team, three players who improved teams who finished above you last season and you could say that one of them is currently the best player at champions. Besides you'd be able to attract better footballers, you were pretty much on par with us between 1998 and 2004 and would have remained there.
So. The clause has been tested and pretty much poo poo'ed.
Suarez can take his injustice to the ENGLISH prem league, I'm sure they're an understanding bunch.
And 50mill + transfer request is still the minimum starting position. Anyone getting bored now?
Suarez can take his injustice to the ENGLISH prem league, I'm sure they're an understanding bunch.
And 50mill + transfer request is still the minimum starting position. Anyone getting bored now?
I am.
can't wait for him to go awol
Or probably some bold statement "I'll bite my way out if you don't sell me"
Or probably some bold statement "I'll bite my way out if you don't sell me"
Al's heart is in the right place like I said earlier imo. You'd all be fecked once he starts playing for Arsenal. (If it happens of course) You'd have no choice but to support him if he hits the ground running and does well. It's like any cnut in football.
Very much true. Arsenal's position was self inflicted. They accepted a lot of short term pain for their long term gain.
In fact I would argue that the oil clubs have done as much good as bad for Arsenal. Without City does anyone really believe that they'd have gotten a total of £70m for Adebayor, Clichy, Nasri, Toure? This £70m would have been halved if they weren't involved, which means that they'd have £35m less to spend over the last 5 years. That means the likes of Koscielny, Cazorla, Vermaelen, AOC etc probably wouldn't have been attainable.
Likewise during this period United would have still signed RVP, we'd have also weakened Arsenal further by signing Nasri. It would be a similar situation than is currently occurring between Dortmund/Bayern... Why buy a top player from a club abroad when you can have the added benefit of weakening your closest opposition if you buy their top player?
The biggest damage of City/Chelsea is to Liverpool, Spurs and/or Everton. Clubs that have been pushed out of the Champions League places and therefore lost out on £30m+ season on season. Arsenal on the other hand would be in a worse financial position without City/Chelsea because of their exploiting of City's spending.
We wouldn't necessarily have sold all those players if it weren't for City turning their head. Also if we were finishing second every year I don't think those players would've necessarily been gunning to leave as much, including Van Persie.
Same here, but lets not pretend that Arsenal didn't have their share of cnuts too when they were at the peak of their powers.
That's not my reason though. I'd rather compete with them due to how I view them as a club and how they're run. I respect them more than a club only really competing because of financial doping.
Yeah I get what you're saying. I've always had respect for Arsenal, even when they were our biggest rivals for the title. I've never and probably never will respect City or Chelsea.
Yes. There was indeed that specific team of insufferable twats at Arsenal 10 years ago, but they've all left and other than that I don't have much against the club. Their fans are silly nob-heads, but they're not the sort of scum you find at Chelsea or Liverpool.
Mind you, as I've said earlier, if Suarez is indicative of the sort of player they're bringing in to get back to competing with us, I could soon find myself hating them again!
I highly doubt RVP leaves Arsenal if they're finishing 1st/2nd annually. Could say the same for Fabregas, Flamini, and possibly Nasri although he's a money grabbing twat and someone would have enticed him to leave (probably not United considering they would have probably signed a Mata or Silva or whomever).
Among all the clubs in the world, who'd have thought Arsenal/Wenger are the one who desperate for a headcase like Suarez. And amazingly, they don't mind to break the bank and pay 40+m for him. It's hard to believe this is Wenger's decision.
Your fans are knobs too, that's human nature, it's not particularly indicative of any club.
But respect. Respect is what counts.
Respect Each Other.
Respect Each Other.
While you'll find examples of any particular style of dickhead you wish to look for in any large club's fan-base, it's fair to say that different groups of fans do tend to have a different vibe.
For example, due to places I worked in London I've spent plenty of time on tube trains rammed full of both Arsenal and Chelsea fans and they genuinely live up to certain stereotypes. The Chelsea fans were largely properly scary racist meat-head bastards, abusing passers-bye etc, while most of the Arsenal fans came across as nice but slightly clueless middle-class guys who probably worked in media... a lot more agreeable, but pretty comedic as a bunch.
... And all United's supporters second language is English. Am I doing this right Sir A1ex?
(Although your stupid generalization aside, I agree with the sentiments in your above post)
(Although your stupid generalization aside, I agree with the sentiments in your above post)
Eh? what else was there in the post?
I'm just talking from the experience of my own eyes and ears. If you've regularly been on the Metro on a matchday and noticed all our fans are foreign (they are), then feel free to push ahead with your generalistion too.
It's "deserved" because a sponsor pays a market value for their product to be associated with a brand. The brand's worth is what makes it deserving of the sponsor's money.
Yeah, I can't really get behind this "only the rich should get even richer" kind of thinking. The aristocrats have a divine right to money, the rest should know their place, right?
£45m would be a fair price in 2013 imo
- Status