Are we the lower league Arsenal?

Was reading an article on the Guardian website earlier asking whether Arsene Wenger and Stan Kroenke's relationship is 'too cosy' and it got me thinking about whether, in a funny way, Arsenal and ourselves are in similarly frustrating situations, albeit at either end of the football pyramid.

Firstly, the obvious point. We've both had long-serving managers who brought great success initially (Wenger until 2006, Tisdale until 2011) but since then have struggled to replicate it. Yes, Arsenal have won the last two FA Cups and we've had our own success in cup competitions this year, but both fanbases feel that more can be achieved.

Both sides look set to disappoint in the league again despite having their best squads and finances in years. Arsenal's aim was the title, especially with their traditional challengers being so poor, whilst City were confident of finally getting into the League Two play-offs. Neither have materialised, leaving fans frustrated.

Also, both managers have excellent relationships with their respective owners & chairman, too cosy and safe in some people's eyes. Almost to unsackable status despite limited recent success and perceived underperformance in the league.

Thoughts? (Apologies if this is a late-night ramble.)

This thread is another one which'll descend into a 'Tisdale Out' thread, but quite apart from that, I fail to see how any comparisons can be drawn between Wenger and Tisdale except their long service. Also "both managers have excellent relationships with their respective owners and chairmen"? Not altogether accurate is it?

Good post memo. I think there are plenty of parallels. What it comes down to, for Arsenal fans as for ourselves, is whether stability, living within your means, and long term planning are good things or whether you should be following the more 'boom and bust' model followed by most other clubs.

For me, I will accept our mediocre form as the price for having my club - but I appreciate that others might well prefer to take more risks.

It's like one of the old GCSE History 'Compare and contrast' questions.. except the scales the two have been operating at could not be much more different.

Wenger has overseen the team through the building of a new stadium, and very effectively developed cheap continental and African talent during that time... and now has money to spend again with a monied American owner having taken over from the Board. .

Tisdale built a team of which an integral part was young talent taken from clubs higher up the league, but abandoned that in favour of a mixture of Dad's Army and home grown kids that he is reluctant to play... and the club, still run by a supporter's Trust, have fumbled and fudged their way to a new grandstand (nearly!)

Nah.. Don't think so, memo...

Late-night ramble or not, I think that this is pretty well observed.

Of course you can't compare the financial circumstances etc, but in particular on the manager front both have long-serving managers, well-embedded in the Club structure, rather detached and cerebral and sometimes pretty difficult to fathom out. Although both Clubs have achieved some good successes, there's the feeling that it could have been so much more (so far!).

PeteUSA said:

Also "both managers have excellent relationships with their respective owners and chairmen"? Not altogether accurate is it?

Click to expand...

I mean Wenger and Kroenke and Tisdale with Tagg.

Fareham Grecian said:

Good post memo. I think there are plenty of parallels. What it comes down to, for Arsenal fans as for ourselves, is whether stability, living within your means, and long term planning are good things or whether you should be following the more 'boom and bust' model followed by most other clubs.

For me, I will accept our mediocre form as the price for having my club - but I appreciate that others might well prefer to take more risks.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be a 'boom or bust' club to have success though. Our mediocre form has nothing to do with the fact that we live within our means.

Fareham Grecian said:

Good post memo. I think there are plenty of parallels. What it comes down to, for Arsenal fans as for ourselves, is whether stability, living within your means, and long term planning are good things or whether you should be following the more 'boom and bust' model followed by most other clubs.

For me, I will accept our mediocre form as the price for having my club - but I appreciate that others might well prefer to take more risks.

Click to expand...

You can't compare the two clubs, Arsenal have always been financially stable and had plenty of success before Wenger came along. The only parallels are of two manager's overstaying their time and becoming stale. Neither club should have any guilt of asking for resignations as both have been well rewarded for years of underachievement after a period of success. It's argued that the longer you have a manager, the more stable and successful you will be, but Fergie is the only one that this applies to.

One has managed to build a new stadium, the other is struggling to replace one stand. I don't see much similarity apart from both having stubborn managers.

Long serving managers who run the club from top to bottom mostly because of early success and weak leadership above them. Both therefore unsackable and know they are. Both make really odd comments to the press and are hopeless at taking any form of critiscism

I also wouldnt trust either with transfer fees. Wenger has wasted a lot on some pretty average talent and is best when polishing youth. Whilst Tis hasnt had the chance to waste fees as such, we have singed some veryt average and underused players at times.

Both prefer style over substance on the field and as a reuslt neither are in the position in the league that the squad on paper suggests they should be