All guesses but I choose to believe that if he did the former we’d have no need for the latter.
Wenger won things with money. Squad of 07/08 was competitive as hell. I think he could’ve kept going, he got top 4 without money, with it I think he would’ve done fine. I think starting to invest 8 years later was good but not enough, in combo with more competition and maybe a bit of decline on Wenger’s side and since it’s all damage control due to that decision, but the first 5 of those 8 years could’ve been great, Wenger could’ve gone out with a bang and we could’ve paved for a proper replacement etc. But who knows, all speculation.
I mean for tottenham they got a new stadium but they didn’t spend prior instead which had Poch take the hit, they more or less broken even in the same 2008-2018 period in net spend, so they chose to do it one step earlier with similar results and now they can spend like us. different but similar in some ways.
I agree but it just highlights the poor decision making by Kroenke.
To move to a new stadium and then refuse to invest in players that Wenger was desperate for, shows a complete lack of ambition.
It has meant we’ve fallen from title challengers to top six mediocrity, which in turn has made us less attractive to potential transfer targets.
But to watch spurs overtake us, while paying for a stadium that cost far more than ours and retain their best players, which we failed to do, is unacceptable.
The fact is, we’re a poorly run club and it’s down to Kroenke for why we’re in the position we’re in.
The move to the stadium began in late 90’s. Stan became a shareholder mid 2000s. He joined the board in 2009ish. He became majority shareholder in 2011. We signed Ozil in 2013.
I know but that didn’t have to stop Kroenke investing when we needed it.
He knew he wanted to become the major shareholder so he could have easily invested before then.
We might have signed Ozil but we still had an inadequate striker and the money we spent on him was poor compensation for the seasons of negligence and underinvestment.
This feels like something you should be posting on a Spurs forum not an Arsenal one. I don’t even care for these types of throwbacks about half of our own players. Nevermind those dickheads.
You’d be hard pressed to find any shareholder in football that would pump millions into something they don’t actually own outright (or at least a huge percentage of) and don’t have autonomy over decision making.
He owned substantial shares so surely it would be in his interest to put money in.
But even if he did wait until he was the major shareholder, it was still far too little too late.
I think around 2009 they jumped up to 29% and then in 2011/12 they acquired around 60% of the clubs shared.
But until that point they didn’t own anywhere near enough of the club for it to be seen as theirs. And when they did they’ve pumped money in and backed every manager ever since.
People believe their football clubs are so important that rich people should spend billions of their money acquiring them and then make hundreds of millions of pounds worth of charitable donations to them consistently while taking absolutely nothing back. It’s really bizarre and a bit pathetic tbh.
Rich people buy football clubs to make money but the money they get from the club is generated by supporters who spend vast amounts of their disposable income so they deserve something in return.
It doesn’t have to be a charity but when there is an obvious need for investment, it’s frustrating for supporters to see the owners do nothing.
It’s ironic that most club owners are often the only people sitting in the crowd who aren’t genuine supporters of the club they’re watching.
