By our Chief Blogger @DazzledChica10
Blackburn Rovers have knocked Arsenal out the FA cup, a result no Gooner anticipated.
After the game Arsenal fans from all over the world had an opinion on what had gone wrong during the game and who was to blame for defeats against teams such as Blackburn Rovers and Bradford.
Some said it was all Arsene Wenger’s fault; he was to blame for the FA cup defeat. It was his fault because he sold Robin Van Persie to Manchester United. What most of them forgot was that even if Van Persie still played for us he would most likely have been on the bench being rested for the Bayern Munich game.
Arsene sold RVP because he no longer wanted to play for the club, with only one year left on the contract it was the smartest thing to do or he would have walked at the end of the year as a free transfer.
Should Arsene have kept RVP and forced him play for the club?
Van Persie was sold to a rival club and this is deemed unacceptable by many fans and from their perspective they are right to an extent. However if Manchester United were the only ones offering the right price and Robin was happy to move to them what could Arsene have done?
What should have happened after the RVP sale was this:
Arsenal should have paid out for big name players and improved the team. Giroud, Podolski and Santi were brought into the side and have had a huge impact, however no investments were made defensively and we have suffered for this.
‘Wenger out’ seems to be a lot of Gooners favourite catchphrase at the moment. If Arsene did leave, what would this change? The board would still be in place and it is ultimately them that dictate things at the club. A new manager would come in but the circumstances would not change, the board would not suddenly decide to go on a spending spree and spend £100 million on players.
Arsenal only brought one player in January, Nacho a Spanish defender who is extremely capable as any player that makes it into the Spanish national team would be.
Fans are disgruntled that more money was not invested in transfers and this is justified by fans as the team is not performing to expected standards. Has anyone thought that it is possible that Arsene does not in reality have the money to spend that is published in the press?
Wenger is the coach and manager of the football team however he has seniors above him in this case it is the board of directors. As in any organisation a manager is just the middle man/ woman, for example an office manager manages the office staff however has senior managers who decide and tell the office manager what they can and cannot do. They would also assign the budget for the year. How is this any different to what the board at Arsenal are doing with Arsene?
The Board are not bothered with trophies and silverware because their pockets are being filled with millions of pounds year on year, to them Arsenal FC is a business not a football club as it is to its fans.
The root of Arsenal’s problems is the board of directors.
After the game Arsenal fans from all over the world had an opinion on what had gone wrong during the game and who was to blame for defeats against teams such as Blackburn Rovers and Bradford.
Some said it was all Arsene Wenger’s fault; he was to blame for the FA cup defeat. It was his fault because he sold Robin Van Persie to Manchester United. What most of them forgot was that even if Van Persie still played for us he would most likely have been on the bench being rested for the Bayern Munich game.
Arsene sold RVP because he no longer wanted to play for the club, with only one year left on the contract it was the smartest thing to do or he would have walked at the end of the year as a free transfer.
Should Arsene have kept RVP and forced him play for the club?
Van Persie was sold to a rival club and this is deemed unacceptable by many fans and from their perspective they are right to an extent. However if Manchester United were the only ones offering the right price and Robin was happy to move to them what could Arsene have done?
What should have happened after the RVP sale was this:
Arsenal should have paid out for big name players and improved the team. Giroud, Podolski and Santi were brought into the side and have had a huge impact, however no investments were made defensively and we have suffered for this.
‘Wenger out’ seems to be a lot of Gooners favourite catchphrase at the moment. If Arsene did leave, what would this change? The board would still be in place and it is ultimately them that dictate things at the club. A new manager would come in but the circumstances would not change, the board would not suddenly decide to go on a spending spree and spend £100 million on players.
Arsenal only brought one player in January, Nacho a Spanish defender who is extremely capable as any player that makes it into the Spanish national team would be.
Fans are disgruntled that more money was not invested in transfers and this is justified by fans as the team is not performing to expected standards. Has anyone thought that it is possible that Arsene does not in reality have the money to spend that is published in the press?
Wenger is the coach and manager of the football team however he has seniors above him in this case it is the board of directors. As in any organisation a manager is just the middle man/ woman, for example an office manager manages the office staff however has senior managers who decide and tell the office manager what they can and cannot do. They would also assign the budget for the year. How is this any different to what the board at Arsenal are doing with Arsene?
The Board are not bothered with trophies and silverware because their pockets are being filled with millions of pounds year on year, to them Arsenal FC is a business not a football club as it is to its fans.
The root of Arsenal’s problems is the board of directors.
RSS Feed