Managers were put on this earth to be fired.
Just ask @Jamiewednesday …
1 Like
Even lowly West Ham have won more… 
3 Likes
Good to see the banters started early gentlemen 
5 Likes
West Ham have just been relegated, The Spuds finished 17th twice either side of their European triumph and Chelsea as European conference winners and World Champions finished 10th the following season all three have sacked the managers that won those trophies and though I can’t speak for West Ham both the Spuds and Chelsea with another new manager each are in the process of spending more hundreds of millions of pounds to catch Arsenal at the top of the Premier League.
Continued success is not gained by scoring points on social media, hugely overpaying for players or winning the odd cup competition nor is it gained by reliving old glories it is achieved by making tough decisions and sticking by them by the slow building of a squad that grows together and then adding the right players you cannot buy that by getting Jordan Henderson in as cheer leader.
4 Likes
That’s a weird argument. If you look back over 20 years then the title has arguably been won all of 3 times by a team in an actual competition with teams at or near their peak i.e. City in 11/12, 18/19 and 23/24. Despite that, most of us probably prefer the years Liverpool and Leicester won it. As a title winner, the quality of your opposition isn’t your problem. You lift the same trophy regardless.
To turn it round, it could be argued that you weren’t relegated because it turned out you were good enough to stay up. You were just lucky that Burnley and Wolves abandoned their seasons fairly early on.
I’ve some sympathy for @Bobthebuilder here, The attempts to demean a title winning manager don’t look good on anyone. If he’d been sacked for coming 2nd there would have been outrage given the obvious upping of standards since the end of the Wenger era.
I don’t agree with Bob on how you build success. There are multiple ways to do so far beyond slowly building a squad. If they work then they’re all valid. Buying success is what all teams have done since time immemorial so there’s little point in anyone getting self-righteous on that front.
As the thread has largely been reduced already to London clubs v London clubs plus @bhoyo and @Andyblain it might be time to accept that Arsenal won the title fair and square and move on?
I think that some will continue to dispute the “fair and square” part. Some may dislike some of the tactics used extensively by Arsenal and creeping into the game, though perhaps nowhere near as bad as the anti football that we saw by some nations at the WC.
Winning the PL is a big achievement given it is arguably the most competitive top league in the world and it is over 38 games. Arsenal won it, at last, so they deserve the same acceptance as any other winner.
My issue with Arsenal is their long standing culture of accepting second best. There were many years, particularly towards the end of Wenger’s reign, where Arsenal ended up 4th or otherwise just scraping into Europe through play offs. I would say that not much has changed since and Arteta’s success is a bit ‘mid’.
I didn’t like how Arsenal won the league last season but at least they finally showed enough determination to get over the line. Let’s just hope they are up there again this season, but with some more attractive football.
I’m a big opponent of the idea of anti-football. Football is about winning. It rapidly becomes tedious when everyone plays the same way. Some of the negativity from previously positive teams at the WC was bewildering but for me the diving and time-wasting is more anti-football than playing in a way some don’t find entertaining and which is ultimately just a different way of playing.
As inferred from my previous post, the PL is nowhere near competitive. There are effectively 3 mini leagues and the title itself has only been truly competitive in 3 out of the last 20 years. The rest of the pyramid plays over 46 games so zero applause for 38 games, especially since they’ve spent 3 decades avoiding their promise to reduce to 18 teams and 34 games. The PL is just rich. People don’t actually like competitive. If you want actual competitive then look at the Championship and the National League.
This fits in with my comment on the post from @Wugged_Woy . Singling out Arsenal is weird in a league which has Liverpool, United and Spurs in it. Even weirder when you consider that, far from “accepting second best” Arsenal were very clear that the building of a new stadium would inhibit them for a number of years. How do you define “accepting”? Is that the fans accepting or os it not just the reality that what you accept is defined by your ownership.
They won it fair and square, Mike.
What I don’t agree to though is that Arteta is some sort of genius. He has won the league once, and has blown the league three times.
1 Like
I was thinking more about “set piece shenanigans”, exploiting the inability, unwillingness or just difficulty of officials to manage it. There are other annoying tactics (not singling out Arsenal) such as kicking spare balls into play, delaying free kicks, mysterious injuries from goalkeepers, etc. Yes, it does spoil entertainment but that is just one consequence.
In terms of entertainment though, I much prefer going to see my team (Man City) play Liverpool, say, rather than Arsenal. Usually against Liverpool it feels like two heavyweights slugging it out, but Arsenal matches are more irritating.
I specifically referred to top leagues because there tends to be a wider imbalance of financial resources. It is much narrower in the PL compared with Bundesliga etc.
Please be careful when describing someone’s opinion as “weird” as this can be deemed offensive. I gave my reasons regarding Arsenal, so there is nothing more I will add on that point.
1 Like
I can sort of accept that but let’s not underestimate how hard it is to win.
Goes on at every level and, if anything, the PL belief they’re somehow better or purer, means they’re late to the show. I used to watch ex Wrexham captain Shaun Pearson. At every set piece bar none he would make a run like a human skittle and plough into/through half a dozen players. No care for where the ball was. It was straightforward assault but he’d claim he was fouled every time.
That’s absolutely not the case. The disparity in the PL is way bigger.
No ad hom intended on my part when using the word weird. I acknowledge that you explained why but my point stands i.e. the things you single them out for are not just not exclusive to them. They’re pretty much universal. That suggests they’re being singled out for something else, which I think chimes with Bob’s objections to some of the comments.
City had the league in their own hands at one point and ‘blew it’ to coin a phrase - that’s the ‘best’ manager in the world. If I was a Gooner I’d sit back, pour another cold one and smile while fans of clubs with worse managers than Arteta spend their time trying to convince them that Arteta is anything less than a great manager. Some of their worst tactics - deliberate fouls on the GK at corners etc - have been wound in I think across the season and when they want to they play some terrific football. They’re worthy champions and are no less deserving for taking several seasons to achieve their goal. Your own manager and performance doesn’t improve by rubbishing a.n. other manager.
The hype around the EPL has changed over the years I think. Moving from best to most competitive. It is competitive in as much as no team, however wealthy, can rock up and just expect to win. It’s not really competitive in terms of who’s likely to win the league itself. That’s long gone - Foxes was a freak and they employed as much dark art as anyone off field to even get into the competition.
As a supporter of the ‘last true champions’, someone who’s seen my club win 3 top division titles, an FA Cup, League cup and 2 European Trophies in my lifetime without ever being a member of the big 6 I feel decently well qualified to say ‘the game’s gone’ 
Infantino is just a manifestation of that. Money (not Govt. or Associations or Committeees etc) runs everything now. We, supporters, are but pawns in a much bigger game.
6 Likes
I have to debunk this idea that Arsenal had a long standing culture of accepting second best. At the peak of probably one the very best Premier League team’s powers after winning three league titles one unbeaten and three FA Cups in 7 seasons Arsenal moved into a new stadium and without a billionaire owner to pay for it they had to go to the bank and borrow the money.
Repaying that loan would prove financially restrictive but on top of that the decision was taken to self develop their old ground Highbury (more borrowed money) in the hope that the profit from the residential development would help to off set the stadium loans.
At the end of each season if the loan repayments where not met and they usually where not even with Champions League football Wenger was forced to sell the teams best assets Abu Dhabi FC supporters will remember well the list of players the Sheiks millions bought from us.
On top of that the World banking crisis eat right into the profits Arsenal had hoped to make from Highbury and behind the scenes Sam Kroenke and Russian billionaire Usmanov battled for full control which meant neither was prepared to invest any of their own money into a club they might not end up owning.
Add to all this the Billions being pumped into Abu Dhabi FC and Chelsea and Arsene Wenger still managed to finish fourth every season whilst still selling out the stadium most of the time he has described those two achievements as his greatest above any trophy.
As the younger fans brought to club on the backs of Henry, Bergkamp and Viera got bored of waiting for success the blame fell at the feet of our greatest ever manager not our supports finest hour.
And so after almost 20 years when you finally find your club competing again for the highest honours with a manager and a team you actually like and can believe in it is something to celebrate and not at all part of a culture of accepting second place.
4 Likes
I asked Chatgpt the following question:
How does the distribution of income by football club compare English premier league versus bundesliga
Its summary of quite an extensive response, including backing by established statistical metrics was:
“The two leagues have very different philosophies for distributing income. The Premier League is relatively egalitarian by the standards of European football, while the Bundesliga allows considerably greater differences between clubs.”
In a nutshell, it is absolutely the case. Unless your interpretation of “financial resources” is completely different from mine.
Instead of using AI use actual research and use the word “revenue”. The PL pays superficial lip service to being egalitarian but does so knowing that the big six have branding and global opportunities that others do not. Thus if you were to go back and ask AI about the disparity between the top and bottom of the Bundedliga versus the top and bottom of the PL you’d get both a different and more accurate answer.
While the Premier League is the richest league in the world, its top to bottom internal broadcast distribution is fairer than the Bundesliga’s. The revenue distribution ratio between the #1 club and #20 club in the Premier League sits at roughly 1.6 to 1. The Bundesliga’s distribution ratio from top-to-bottom sits much wider at 3.3 to 1.
However, despite the TV rights distribution being more egalitarian in England, the total revenue disparity is distorted by massive commercial sponsorship and Champions League money. The global brand power of the English “Big Six” allows them to build vast financial advantages over newly promoted clubs that even the fairer domestic TV revenue sharing model cannot fix.
1 Like
We don’t have a history of agreement Bob but that’s an excellent, accurate post and I’m just sad that it even needed explaining.
1 Like
Chatgpt had interpreted my usage of “income” as meaning “revenue”, so I think that you are trying to split hairs without success.
I hadn’t included all of its original response, but it did say:
“The best-known and most authoritative ranking is the annual Deloitte Football Money League which ranks clubs by total revenue (excluding player transfer income). It combines:
-
Matchday revenue
-
Broadcasting revenue
-
Commercial revenue (sponsorship, merchandising, etc.)
It is generally regarded as the standard reference for comparing football clubs’ financial strength.”
So the picture remains unchanged.
I note that you have not provided any evidence of any “actual research” to support your claim.
1 Like
The point on competitiveness is interesting. Sadly, it all comes down to money. This applies to ANY league, whether the Premier League, Championship or the National League. Chelsea will finish above Hull next season, West Ham will finish above Lincoln next season. Because they are wealthier, and can afford better players. The football rules are currently not addressing this inequality. I hate to have to say all that, it is sad but true…
1 Like
Brilliant proof of people’s enduring willingness to give themselves over to AI and equate it with research when it isn’t. I don’t need to provide “actual research” as you’ve done it for me. Instead of quoting what AI tells you about the Deloitte assessment I strongly recommend reading it directly instead.
Within you will note that, far from splitting hairs, it notes that whilst the PL is more equitable/egalitarian on paper, in practice, “… While the Premier League boasts a more equitable distribution of revenue, lower-tier English teams incur greater financial risks through higher wage expenditures and capital expenditure on entry to the PL which pushes them to the very brink of financial destruction .”
1 Like
You say that but about 10 teams would have been predicted to finish below the spuds the past two seasons as well as Man U under Amorin and at least 5 below Chelsea last season.
1 Like