As far as I can tell, there is nobody here saying; “How dare you criticise Arsene”.

What Ambrosia (and so many others) get taken to task for is that their evaluation of the state of things is misguided and not useful.

An example is the failure to accept the notion that clubs exist to win trophies,a nd if you’re not winning trophies you’re doomed. And that’s just wrong.

Then there’s the I-Know-Brigade who know everything the manager should be doing. Eden Hazard should be playing for Arsenal and not Theo Walcott. This person shouldn’t be on this sum of money. All having no real knowledge of the situation. It’s silly and it’s destructive.

Then there are those who just want money spent as if spending money guarantees anything.

Then there are those just distorting what has happened in the last 4 years. That’s the one that gets to me. They blame Wenger for not keeping the invincibles, whereas it was clear after 2 years of poor performance in 2006 that Arsenal had to rebuild or fall out of contention altogether.

They gloss over relative success and want us to believe that if we’d for example won the Carling Cup in 07 and 09 it was, in terms of success, of more weight than reaching the CL semi-final and final, and being one victory away from winning the league. All that is glossed over as if even relative success is no success at all.

Sure, it’s not enough to reach finals, but it is still an achievement. Now we’re a seeded team in Europe, one of the top 6 rated. Someone wants me to think that’s a disaster.

Then there is the lie that football is winner-take-all scenario in which you either win trebles or die. And it’s so untrue. Manchester United won a double 2 seasons ago, and made a huge loss. And even in that year, their revenue from that footballing success amounted to something like £20M more than Arsenal got from winning no trophy.

Then there is the crude idea that the manager shouldn’t think of the health of the club. The idea that the manager should be like the child who thinks you just have to get to the ATM to get endless cash, and should hold no concept of where the money he spends comes from.

This one idea is madness. Arsene’s job is not to balance the books they say. Well, his job is to succeed as best he can with the resources the club has.

And the club being £300M in debt should not like Liverpool or Man City be getting into ever increasing debt to buy players, especally if success only nets you £20M more.

We need a reasonable, comprehensive discussion of the situation at Arsenal with everybody accepting the underlying realities.

Re: Walcott, I think I already explained that he is extremely marketable. That’s all I said.

When you say it baffles you why Hazard doesn’t make as much money but is more skillful a lot of it comes down to marketability. That’s the way of the football world a lot of the time.

I don’t know where this “spin machine” comment is coming from. I don’t feel affected by it – I form my own opinions. We’ve had a good discussion and I think saying that at the end is a little bit unfair.

On the pitch, Walcott hasn’t yet arrived for Arsenal, but he is on big money. Imagine we saved some of those lofty wages for a bigger player? It just puzzles me incredibly that we say there is no money, yet we pay over the odds on wages.

Eden Hazard may not be well known, but he has the complete package on the pitch, at 18 he is a leader, already L’equipe bemoaning him playing so well as he will have to leave the league because of them, he is on peanuts, and a player older than him doesn’t have the same skills is on way more, really baffles.

Just shows, the spin machine at arsenal can make folk think differently.

Walcott is on a high salary because he brings a level of marketability to Arsenal that players like Hazard or even Busquets just can’t. Walcott has the potential to be England’s best player and everybody wants a piece of him, he is paid more because he has the potential to bring in a lot of interest from all around the world into Arsenal. While I can’t really comment on Ramsey I would say that the reasoning behind his salary situation is that by paying him more as well as having him on my books we were able to stop him from joining United. It seems like a contradiction to criticise our unwillingness to spend but then overlook the fact that, in a different way, we have spent and brought in players like Ramsey and Walcott who have massive, massive potential and British marketability. Additionally, those players will help rid the club of the media’s “Arsene is anti-England” bias which can provide a positive effect for the club in a different way.

If you read any French publications, or follow the French league, he only signed his first pro contract earlier this year, and £5k/week was the figure issued, in any case, it is waaaaaaaaay below Walcotts £60k, and he is already a more complete player than Walcott. I may/may not watch Hazard, you may believe me or not, no worries for me.

Same applies to Busquets, he is on around €25k/week, way below the figure of Ramsey, and he has already shown his quality on the grand stage.

I won’t say Wenger has bought ’spectacularly well’, some haven’t shown they are able to elevate us to compete for titles.

Money is not a bigger issue for me, if we had a good tactical system, and found a solution to win, then we won’t need the money.

I am sorry, I haven’t bought into the spin from the club, the fact is we haven’t won anything in ages, and between 2005-2009, we have only challenged for the league once, this cannot be acceptable. If the board allow Wenger not to spend money and instead focus on property deals, and say it is fine, just finish 4th, they need to ask themselves if they are still focussing on sporting ambitions or another motive, i really hate not winning, or looking like we can really win, it really sucks big time. It sucks because we choose not to improve, but chase a vanity project.