Again, This is where i mainly disagree. If it was purely down to spending, then Manure should be doing far better than they are and Arsenal would be making progress over the years in the CL (we have still won more knockout CL rounds than they have in the last 4 years...).
No it's as much about coaching and Wenger's abilities in this area are clearly on the wane.
Man Utd are currently suffering from the fact that their spend over the past few seasons has been minimal. However their older players have moved on now (vidic, rio, schools, gigs etc). And they are obviously in a very expensive rebuilding stage. If they continue to spend like they are (and i think they will), they will move back into the top 4 and contend the title within a few years.
Manutd’s spending this year does not mean they should automatically be above arsenal. Firstly, over the course of one season, there is a lot of variance. Look at Liverpool and atletico. But also, its the ability to continually spend that makes teams like Chelsea and city uncatchable. I think man utd are showing signs that their £150m spending this summer is not a one off thing. Us and Liverpool have spent a similar amount for one window in past years (and have been static). Its not enough, thats why we’re still where we are. That also explains why arsenal haven’t moved on much despite spending big money on Alexis and Ozil.
The average football fan thinks spending 100m for a team like us, Liverpool or arsenal massively improves their chances of qualifying for top 4 or winning the league. But the reality is that this simply isn’t true. Look at the betting exchanges. They give a much more accurate picture of the reality. After this kind of spending, the above three teams only added a few percentages to their top 4 or title chances.
I remember a wenger quote from a few seasons back where he said at the top level (i think he was referring to the top 4), it costs around 100m to add roughly 3 more points over the course of the season. Thats the reality. The average football fan chats so much crap, and they have no clue on how football actually works. And it isn’t helped by rubbish pundits who perpetuate such nonsense.
Arsenal have an easier group than last year, have spent a lot to strengthen. Chelsea are doing as always. It could be argues that Emirates Marketing Project are unfairly given tough groups even though they are the actual league winners but that's for another debate. Liverpool? Well they've been absent for 5 years so they get a pass anyway, whilst Arsenal are stalwarts and are likely to get a hard last 16 tie and probably get knocked out again. Given their spending and their years of access to CL resources, so you not think it is an underachievement that they have not won a knockout round for nearly 5 years now, often due to them underachieving in the group stages? I bet in terms of money/resources there are many teams in Europe who had better records in that time. Again, limitations from limited coaching abilities.
Chelsea are doing as always? Arent arsenal doing as always too? Same with Emirates Marketing Project? Tough group or not, they aren’t doing any better are they? All your arguments applied to arsenal apply to city and Chelsea. All three have spent big money, but aren’t doing significantly better in the group stages than they have done previously. Liverpool being absent for 5 years is an excuse to be worse than Basel and be level with Ludogorets? Seems to me like youre just victimising arsenal/wenger and making all the excuses in the world for the other 3 english ucl qualifiers.
Arsenal not winning a knockout round for the last 5 seasons is obviously an underachievement. But, again the sample size is very small. And can be heavily influenced by the luck of the draw, refereeing decisions etc.
Again, the fact that they decided to spend nearly 80M in two positions that were not necessary (how many ACMs do they have now) and yet not spend even a quarter on that on a bonafide defensive midfielder and another CB is not a restriction of money and wages, it's poor planning. Their squad is the most imbalanced that I can remember in the Wenger era and that is his own doing and nothing to do with the spending power of Chelski and City. Remember that their wage now outstrips Chelski, their new sponsorship deals, 1M-a-match gate receipts and FFP mean they have lots of cash that they can spend without sanction and that they charge the highest for tickets as well so the 'pauper' excuse truly doesn't wash anymore.
That arsenal have spent their resources poorly is your opinion. I disagree. Look at other top teams, they have just an abundance of ACMs. Willian, schurrle, Salah hardly ever get a game at Chelsea for example.
Arsenal could have added an extra DCM but that may have meant that they couldn’t add an ACM. Or maybe there just wasn’t one worth getting in Wenger’s eyes. Its not that easy to get a DCM that would fit into arsenal’s philosophy that is clearly an upgrade on arteta, flamini, (Wheelchair, ramsey). Especially considering the fact that arsenal are working within a budget (transfer fee and wages).
The fact that arsenal have improved their sponsorship deals is largely irrelevant. Mansour and Abramovic are clearly willing to fund their clubs to such an extent that an improved £30m puma deal looks like peanuts.
I’ve always thought that Chelsea’s wage bill being smaller than Arsenal’s was a bit fishy. So i looked into it, and made a post on it. *its post number 315 in this thread
And i ask again. If Arsenal’s squad is so imbalanced (and has been for a few seasons), why do they finish exactly where you would expect them to given their financial capacity? The answer is simple. Arsenal play in an unorthodox way. Where some of the things they do badly seem so apparent to us (given our footballing education). But there must be things that arsenal really benefit from playing with unorthodox tactics that aren’t so obvious to us.
