You can’t just use Arsenal as a reason for our own strategy being wrong. I would say a lot of their success, and a lot of their stagnation in equal measure came down to Wenger. He was first the reason for immense success, then he was the reason for important preservation of the status quo as they moved into the new stadium, and then he was the reason they moved backwards, because the game evolved, his approach got tired and they didn’t move him on quickly enough.
It’s really nothing to do with us. Them selling RVP is our equivalent of selling Kane. That isn’t what is happening. Poch is one reason we are overachieving, and Levy is another reason, providing the platform to enable that to happen.
So, you want proof that you're as full of bluster and ill-thought out opinions as you accuse others of being? Fine.
Why?
You've been proclaiming that what I've been saying has been ill-thought out and 'bluster'. But, in this case, can you not see that you've done exactly the same?
So, why? Arsenal's strategy is the same as ours right now - in fact, they probably started out on more solid foundations than we did. For all his faults, Wenger wasn't averse to spending money to ensure success - he spent big on any number of players, ranging from Henry to Lauren, Wiltord, Jeffers, Van Brockhorst and Reyes. He also created a style of play that persisted in its effectiveness right down to 2014-ish, when it finally started coming apart - for all the laughs about Arsenal's trophyless era, that 'Wengerball' approach was clinically, almost unstoppably effective when it did come off, and I challenge anyone to tell me that they weren't worried when Arsenal made the CL final in '06, or when they came within four points of the title in 07/08.
What that style of play did require to ensure success was ready-made, world-class players, capable of playing in that concentrated style. And that was what he could not acquire, simply because the finances weren't there. Additionally, what players he did develop or turn into gems were sold off to rival clubs in the same league, which weakened Arsenal and strengthened Arsenal's rivals at the same time.
This wasn't Wenger's choice - he's said it multiple times, and nothing he's done since he's had money to spend has convinced me that he was actually some Levy-esque penny-pincher all along. He's gone out and bought Sanchez, Ozil, Aubameyang, Xhaka, Mustafi and so on for big fees and big wages.
Wenger was constrained by the stadium, which is why he didn't spend money while his style was still effective. And it was, all the way up to about 2013-2014 when the pressing game finally came into fashion. But he was also constrained by losing his best players to his rivals in the same league, which doomed his attempts to keep them as the precedent set meant that they all expected domestic moves when their turns came.
That is why their story is a *perfect* comparison to our own - we need to learn from the mistakes they made during this process. And their mistakes didn't include 'keeping Wenger' - as I mentioned, this idea that he stopped being an effective manager is only true from 2014 onwards. Prior to that, he was as relevant as anyone else in the league.
But their mistakes *did* include selling to their rivals without making them bleed in return. Which we are poised to follow with Toby. So, in that sense, it is doing exactly what they did. And, with regard to selling RVP being like selling Kane, apart from the positional similarity, there's really nothing in that comparison, imo. But selling RVP and selling Toby? There are similarities there, including the contract situation, the buyer and the marker that it set in terms of signalling to every club in the league exactly what Arsenal were.
I have to ask you what the alternative is? Is it keeping players that don’t want to be here and can’t be convinced otherwise, like Walker? Fine - what is your answer when that affects the standards and culture of the club? (And please don’t write it off like it’s nothing). Is it to keep players that have disrespected the leading authority figure at the club, when his authority is one of the reasons we have done so well? Fine - what is your answer when other players do it, again affecting the standards and harmony? Is it to spend more money, making higher bids earlier in the window? Fine - what is your answer when another Willian situation happens? Or is it to loosen the wage budget so we don’t have these problems at all? Fine - what is your answer when we maybe have a fantastic initial season and then run into financial problems, where we can’t flex the budget anymore or can’t move on older players to bring in replacements, because their wages are prohibitive and we can’t sell them for good fees - setting us on a downward cycle? Or - when we start having massive discrepancies in what players are earning - again affecting harmony and standards?
The alternative is to sell outside the league, or to impress upon the player that it's either being sold outside the league, being sold within the league but on terms that favor us (i.e, we get Martial for Toby) or staying at Spurs.
As for Walker, what's there to say? He was sold, wasn't adequately replaced, and we suffered a lowered performance for it. Nobody can really dispute that, not even the most ardent Trippier fans. Meanwhile, Walker sauntered to the title and racked up 100 points with the most dominant City team in their history. What did we do *right* there?
That was a mistake too. But in that case, Walker had personal connections with the north that limited our options. In this case, I find it extremely hard to believe that Toby would value Manchester over Paris, Munich, Madrid or Barcelona.
As for the 'standards and culture of the club', honestly, that's just not likely, imo. I'm sure Modric permanently tarnished the 'standards and culture of the club' when he ended up being our best player after his move to Chelsea was denied. Did Dier end up being a sulky so-and-so when his move to United was dismissed out of hand? No, because he knuckled down and had a good season.
At its heart, not many clubs will want a 25m, disruptive 30-year-old player who's spent a year and a half in the stands. Players have a personal incentive to avoid that sort of image (given how it impacts on their own likelihood of being transferred), and there's nothing to suggest that Toby will be happy making that mistake if we do end up keeping him.
And do bear in mind, that's only in the event that we don't sell him *at all*. Once the English window closes, there are three weeks to sell him somewhere else in Europe, and Toby may well find that Paris et al. are suddenly more attractive than Manchester.
Same thing when it comes to 'disrespecting the leading authority at the club', like it's a fudging high-school cheerleading team and everything runs on gossip and innuendo. He's a professional. Poch is a professional. The solution to 'disrespecting the leading authority at the club', is to *respect* the leading authority at the club - to make up and train as hard as possible, and to rebuild bridges. This idea that any player that disrespects Poch has to be instantly sold is just f*cking counterproductive, because it *encourages* players who want moves to be disruptive. Want a move? Great, just betray Poch and he'll immediately bench you, which will lead to you being transferred in the next window. Hell, save yourself the wait and do it while the window's open.
