Olaf
Posts: 23364
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41°N 93°W
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: superdan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Olaf
quote:
ORIGINAL: superdan
Yet in 100 years time they'd still have their name on that trophy, when all the players (and possibly the stadium) are long gone. Trophies, unlike everything else, are permanent.
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned about all this, but for the life of me I can't get my head around the idea that winning a trophy comes second to anything.
I'm not buying this for two reasons. a) the team doesn't make a conscious effort to not win trophies, so pitting it as superior to a top-four finish is a largely pointless exercise. and b) most importantly of all, trophies aren't the only permanent thing in football. Arsenal have had longer trophy droughts in their history - try eighteen years without a domestic trophy between 1953 and 1971, followed by sixteen years without a trophy between 1971 and 1987 - but we're still considered one of the greatest clubs in English football. And anyone who tries to tell me that moving to a new £500m stadium (before Chelsea, Liverpool, Spurs etc have even started building) while constantly maintaining our top four status won't be remembered as one of Arsene Wenger's greatest achievements is frankly delusional, if you ask me.
I never claimed maintaining a top-4 finish wasn't an achievement. I simply made the point that it isn't something to be admired or striven-for more than a trophy. Obviously they haven't made a conscious effort to not win trophies, but you can't deny they have made finishing fourth a priority over winning (some) trophies. As such, the argument that the money it brings will allow them to compete rings hollow, since the last near-decade has been barren (albeit with a couple of finals they Munsoned).
I think there's an important distinction to be made regarding the idea of top four money allowing us to compete. A more accurate way of putting it would be that it allows us to not *not* compete, if that makes any sense - we've had our hands tied behind our back financially as a result of the stadium move, and even then that's required us to sell our best players on a regular basis. If we didn't have that CL money consistently throughout the last eight years, we'd be in a much worse position now, for all the talk of our current 'crisis'. We signed a bunch of low-ball sponsorships to get us the money up front to build, but those deals are being renewed (£170m from Puma, £150m from Emirates) and the debt is at a sustainable level - we're very clearly in place to invest and compete in the next few years, in a way that we haven't been since the stadium move. Basically it was a gamble that would only pay off if we had a manager who would continue to make us one of the three/four best teams in the country, with minimal expenditure. As something that's been achieved not just as a one-off, but consistently for a decade and a half, I don't think it's *that* inferior to a cup win.
quote:
ORIGINAL: superdan
It's a metaphor dude. An awkward one sure, but a metaphor nonetheless. Also, what is YOLO? I'm not au fait with all the internet acronyms 
I know, but my point was more that you can't claim the superiority of a trophy win on the grounds of permanence, and then say that the club needs to take risks a la Portsmouth and Wigan for some short term success. Of course I'd love us to win something tangible this season (what fan doesn't?), but I feel that a lack of trophies shouldn't be used as a stick to beat our current achievements with.
_____________________________
I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.
Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE
|
Printable Version
RE: Arsenal - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread