egafd.com

Chelsea and Man City are the playthings of billionaires who have put in approximately half a billion into their clubs in net transfers alone . If their owners lost interest with the clubs, both clubs would sink like a stone. Arsenal has had to fund the building of a brand new stadium, the Emirates.

The genius of Wenger is that in the 10 years up to 2011-12 season he still has a better trophy record than Man City, for example, and is currently top of the League even though City have spent 10 times as much.

1) The reason City have spent a lot is a short time is to close the gap between the teams who have had the Champions league money and themselves.

2) City will not sink like a stone. The owners of City are investing huge amounts of money not only in City but also the area of Manchester that they are based. The Etihad campus is being built so that they can attract and find the best young players so they no longer have to spend over the odds for players.

3) Funny how you went back 10 years, lets call it 5 years. Wigan and Birmingham spent a lot less than Arsenal and won trophies. Some Arsenal fans may like that the aim is to finish top 4 but I think most would prefer a trophy or two. As would the players.

4) Don't think he should step down though.

"1) The reason City have spent a lot is a short time is to close the gap between the teams who have had the Champions league money and themselves.

Well the main reason they have spent so much is that they are a vanity project for Middle Eastern billionaires. Porto won the Champions League. I'd be surprised if they spent half a billion in just over 5 years.

2) City will not sink like a stone. The owners of City are investing huge amounts of money not only in City but also the area of Manchester that they are based. The Etihad campus is being built so that they can attract and find the best young players so they no longer have to spend over the odds for players.

If their current owners walked away, there is absolutely no doubt that the club would sink like a stone. Do you seriously think that if Man City went back to the level of spend of their previous owners, they would be able to pay the current wages for the huge range of footballing stars they have, as well as fund the spending on an academy on a ground attendance capacity that is well below the Emirates and Old Trafford?

3) Funny how you went back 10 years, lets call it 5 years. Wigan and Birmingham spent a lot less than Arsenal and won trophies. Some Arsenal fans may like that the aim is to finish top 4 but I think most would prefer a trophy or two. As would the players.

Well I am quite happy to go back 5 years. If you look at the table I provided a link to, Man City have spent roughly 440 million in the most recent 5 years listed and Arsenal have a net spend of -15 million. A staggering difference in 5 years. As to winning the League Cup which Wigan and Birmingham did, I doubt if winning a League Cup would be preferred by their fans to year in year out qualification to the Champions League and seeing the top sides in the world at the Emirates even if they have never won the Champions League.

4) Don't think he should step down though.

Agreed

"Really? What makes you think Walcott is a better finisher than Podolski?"

It's all a matter of opinion. Podolski and Walcott up front would be better than just Giroud who tends to miss the target most of the time. Podolski has a very good goalscoring record. Walcott is wasted on the wing.

I agree with you that Walcott is wasted on the wing, for club and country. Simply because you know as well as I do that once he is behind the opposition defence you aint going to catch him, and must be a nightmare for defenders.
I wouldn't mind seeing him up front with Podolski sometimes but Wenger has his system of playing one up front which he has done for quite a few years now.