Boxscarf » Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:16 am wrote:Wenger does spend money though. Podolski, Giroud and Cazorla have cost Arsenal around £40m. Wenger spent £48m last season albeit he was forced to because Fabregas and Nasri left for pastures new, but if you wind the clock back he's spent plenty of money. He spent £15m on Nasri, £17m on Arshavin, Hleb £11m, Reyes cost around £16m, Wiltord £13m. So he has spent money, however increasingly with Wenger he seems to be making the wrong signings.
Did he really need to invest £40m on three attacking players when Arsenal's major problems are in defence? This is a team that conceded 8 goals against United, and conceded 35 goals in their last 33 games with Arsenal scoring 5 own goals. If Vermaelen gets injured then they're in major trouble. Still if they fall by the roadside this season along with Spurs, it makes it easier for us to try and clinch 4th. Hopefully Spurs lose Modric and then it's happy days.
That's also been part of Arsenal's problem: failing to address the right areas of the team by signing the right sorts of player in the transfer market. For years they have been crying out for more robustness and experience in their ranks, particularly in defence and midfield, but also in goal, to give a better balance to a squad that is plenty capable in an attacking sense. To address those problems as well as finding replacements for all the key players they have sold over the years takes money that they either haven't had or haven't been prepared to spend. I think Wenger is as good as almost any manager out there at getting the most from a given group of players, but he can only do so much on a limited budget. Whether that is self-imposed or not, I have no idea.
