Both Arsenal and Liverpool have gone into decline. There is no doubt about that. Liverpool's fall is considerably greater.

yes it is a bit of mystery Dec ...they mention Ngati Tuwheretoa bloodlines which seems a bit vague instead of saying his grandmother was Maori . http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=11482487
His trial at first five eight was a bit of a disaster , he is a very potent player for the Chiefs at full back

Ruminating on the subject ; vaguely remember a mate of mine [ now dead ] mentioning he had a Maori mother and you'd never have guessed .

We are looking good in the America's Cup but there is a five day lay over ; so time for Larry Ellison to fly in every yachting expert on the planet , build a new boat , spend two billion dollars in chump change , arrange a three day rap concert outside the Kiwi hotel
...... all to massage his enormous ego .... he's worse than Kroenke

Why ..... on reflection I'm at a total loss as to the hysteria surrounding that comment .

It is not as if I've called anyone a n******ger .

"The KKK liked nothing better than to lynch a few n********gers ........." ISIS likes nothing better than to behead a few infidels " ?

Yes I would agree that they've gone into decline. I couldn't care less about Liverpool, but that's why I would like to see the back of those responsible for Arsenal's decline. I see that as both Wenger and Kroenke. Who else is there? But size wise, I believe they should both be domineering clubs.

A multitude of equations can be used here .... you could pitch your argument either way . I don't see any problem with their wording we were dominant then , A Sahara desert from '53 to 71 .... the Gobi desert from 72 to 89 except for the oasis of 1979 .
Are we a dominant now ...not really but then again it depends how many teams can be fitted into the dominant equation .
1990s we were now the mantle can be held by Man U , City , Chelsea

If we hadn't beaten Chelsea we definetely wouldn't qualify .

All manner of criteria can be cobbled up to fit any dominace discussion ...fan base , buying power , stadium size , recent success , type of trophies won , history .

Typically you've moved the goalposts. Of course Liverpool are a huge club but they are not dominant, which was where you started with a tenuous reading of the content of a Wikipedia film article! In defining dominance in football there is only one measure that would mean anything to 99.9% of people i.e. great, even overwhelming success on the pitch. Size of fan base, history, income generated may be of interest but do not equal dominance.

As for Chelsea and Arsenal for well over a decade there is no argument that the Blues are the more dominant team in terms of their general success, meeasured by trophies, and their record in games between the two sides. Regrettably they are now the bigger club too. Fuelled of course by rotten money.

No! You are getting your wires crossed. I agreed with the Wiki comment that Arsenal were one of the dominant teams in the 30s, and as has been pointed by McQ that is an understatement because at that time we were the dominant team - nobody else came close.

Kiwi - no one has been at all hysterical in pointing out that the use of that word on here is out of order. You surely can't be at a total loss as to why there have been objections. To carry on repeating it is shameful.

Hoy, do you no longer consider Manchester United dominant?

Also, as you no longer see the word as relevant to Arsenal, why do you not equate that with a decline?

Let me try and make my position clearer on the debate. I started off undecided about some aspects of it. But overall I think Arsenal have declined in recent years, so on that I'm certainly more in agreement with dec as unless I misread it, hoy wanted to avoid associating Arsenal's non-dominance, or lack of dominance, with a decline. That's how I took his comment "Wiki's words are nothing to do with decline, just an accurate statement." I can't help wondering if he did that to not open Wenger up to any blame, although only he knows the answer to that and I might be wrong.

However, I do believe Arsenal is easily a big enough club, and as kiwi pointed out there are various factors that contribute to how big a club is, to be one of the dominant forces in English football. Therefore, if we are falling short of that I'd suggest we are underachieving, which was the reason I brought up wanting to see the back of both Wenger and Kroenke, which hoy made reference to.

What I will say is that I don't think a country need only have a single dominant club, even when over periods one club has had more success than another or others. Scotland have traditionally had Rangers and Celtic; Spain have had Real Madrid and Barcelona; Italy has had Juventus, AC Milan and Inter; while England have traditionally had Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal. But it's also a changeable list, and I'd accept Chelsea are now a dominant force in English football. If they've replaced Arsenal rather than added themselves to the list, it's what I find disappointing. Maybe Liverpool have fallen off the list as well? If they have I would make the same point about them as I did Arsenal. They are easily a big enough club to be one of England's dominant forces. Have City joined it yet?

I'm sure you must have seen the film. What do you think of it? Allison had a talking part in it.

I agree, it wasn't anything amazing. I didn't watch the whole film for that reason. I did see George Allison's speaking scene, although for all I know maybe he had more than one and I missed the other or others through my giving up watching it. I just looked him up, yes on Wikipedia. I didn't realise he was originally from Teesside. When I saw him talk on the film, I didn't notice a north-east accent.

Hi Bernard, Arsenal included a dvd of that movie a while back in the membership pack. It was pretty standard fare for movies of the age. I enjoyed the shots of the stadium but I think they missed an opportunity to really show it off a bit more. There's still some interesting scenes from an Arsenal historical point of view.

Ex thanks for the recommendation, never heard of that one but I'd be interested to see the Arsenal related footage...if that movie can still be found.

Did they? Good lord, I obviously never watched it.

You've obviously been missing out on other Arsenal goodies when renewing.
Did you use your leather passport holder?

No.
The main thing I used was the sort of tweed bag they gave one year. Exiled kindly gave me a spare.

Was it the same bag Chris Armstrong used to enjoy in the 90s...oh sorry you said 'tweed bag' lol

Cheers Ex. And thanks also for sharing your Flickr page. Loads of treasures there, currently reading George's book.

I still use it to this day to carry programmes and such like in. It's really useful. Maybe it wasn't tweed, but a sort of linen-type material like that.

Most people would say United are not dominant in the way they were a while back when they used to regularly win the league or cups without too much trouble. These days it is shared out between them, City and Chelsea, and even us when it comes to the FA Cup.

Arsenal decline? Depends where you want to start with that. It could be argued we have been on the downward slope ever since our true greatness of the 30s when to call us dominant was accurate. Ever since then we have had periods of success, and none more so than under Arsene. We have declined since his peak year in 2004, but nowhere near as steeply as we did between 1958-1968, when only once did we finish in the top six and only once got as far as the sixth round of the FA Cup.

Whilst I'm a fan of Özil and Sanchez you can't deny that what they are currently doing is extremley damaging for the club and totally inconsiderate.

Basically we've made 2x 300 grand a week life changing offers but they will both drag this out now to the last moment on the off chance the club might add ten percent or something. This means that we can't plan for additions or squad building until they let us know if their both arseholes or not.

You absolute spunk monkeys, how much *%^@*** money is enough. I mean seriously.

Ox gets a pass on this, I'm genuinely surprised arsene hasn't tried him in goal yet as he's played everywhere else. That's gotta piss you off

It's a business. Look at what Ronaldo is doing.

Ox wouldn't get a pass from me at all. He has never put a decent run of games together. He says that central midfield is his position but he has yet to show the composure, passing ability or positional sense to play there.

Seriously how much *%^@*** money is enough ?

If your getting 280 grand a week why behave like a prize *%^@ to get another 20

You always seem to try and compare Arsenal's current state with absolute low points in the dim and distant past to try and lessen how bad things may be getting under Wenger.

Rather than comparing ourselves to a decade from the late fifties, what performance on the pitch next season you you consider unacceptable for Arsenal and worthy of Wenger getting sacked? Nothing to do with any revelations about his personal life or corruption, which I simply don't believe there will be. I'm talking about the performance of the team on the pitch. Is there anything that would make you support his sacking?

Don't be restricted by the unlikelihood of some things. If it would take nothing less than relegation for you to support his dismissal, that's fine.

Good to see you're beginning to smell the coffee......................

50% scorecard ...first totally wrong , far from a problem I think Sanchez would fit seemlessly into the Man City lineup . Better than Aguero in my book
Second correct ....... the Ox , to be applauded for his speed and work ethic , but some of his passing and shooting is abysmal ...not sure who replaces him though like for like

I wasn't "shamefully" waving it around like some red rag in front of a bull , and I am at a total loss , it must be the only word in the English language to have that distinction . People can F &^% and C*&^ quite happily on here ...but I value your slow paced narritives and takes on most things Old Man ..... so will never utter it again and leave you to concentrate on your current battle with Bernard ... Good Luck

Too late for a Newk v Bungert result I feel ... I'd liken an argument with Bernard to gently slipping into a quagmire with an octopus clamped over your face

You have to keep the retorts short , decisive don't leave him wriggle room a chance to move the goalposts , the ground , the venue ...and don't get me wrong ; I like Bernard .

How have I moved the goalposts? It was he who decided to associate decline with a decade from the late fifties.

Well I did actually say in the post above that we have declined since his peak year in 2004, which is not too far in the past? We see things differently. You are now obsessed with getting rid of the manager, whereas I am not overly-bothered either way because he will be leaving sooner rather than later anyway. The issue for me during all the airplane and wanting the team to lose nonsense, was not wanting to see him hounded out in a poor and undeserved way. Also, I couldn't see another obvious available alternative manager big enough to take over and improve Arsenal. I am a positive Arsenal fan, and after the brilliant win over Chelzee, my spirits are up. I am not interested in negativity.

Hi Kiwi - I've had my say on the n word and am moving on. You are right about 'debates' with Bernard - always five sets with tie-breaks along the way. And plenty of 'You cannot be serious' thrown in. Makes Passarell v Gonzalez look like a quick affair. I suppose I must like Bernard too - I keep on keeping on with him, at the risk of my own mental health. I sometimes wonder if he'd taken up that generous offer in Bryantwood Road all those years ago, might he be a less intense debater? I mean, a thing like that could change your whole outlook on all sorts of matters.

I feel obsessed is far too strong a word. I'm a long way from being his strongest critic on here. However, I do think he's doing more harm than good to the club, so would welcome his departure. Although that won't happen for another two years at least.

Don't know that you have ; but your reputation for meandering dialogue , splitting hairs , moving the goalposts , going off on a tangent precedes you

Think back to the famous epics on here Wiltord v Ljungberg , Supply and Demand , Terry Mancini [ your one defeat ] Bayern Munich and now Dominant clubs ...... protracted struggles all

They all have one common denominator ..... YOU

Sanchez, Özil and the Ox have done nothing wrong at this time. They have a contract for another year.

You lead by example, and the leader chose to leave it until less than 8 weeks from the end of a contract to deal with the issue of extending his own contract. Just because you throw a pile of money at them does not mean they must sign a new contract. If Alexis is really dealing with the next 4-5 years of his life by signing a new contract he will also need to believe that he will win something. Özil likewise and the Ox will want regular starting in one position.

Why should they sign - apparently at our club, 8 weeks before it expires is acceptable or is there one rule for Wenger and one for everyone else.

The whole idea that you can sell someone because they have a contract with you is strange and I think borders on illegal. Still football seems to get away with it.

23 days until our first match. I hope the changes Gazidis promised are operational by that time and our top top signings are available and working within the squad. We don't want to give our competitors an advantage.

It’s definitely bizarre. If Kroenke has no desire to interact with the players, why be around the team at all? And if he has no desire to be around the team, why own it?

Tweed/linen/khaki manbags are quite the 'in' accessory I believe. Have you updated the Barnett accordingly?

Actually that's a good point, that I hadn't really thought of in any great depth. Wenger apparently delayed signing a new deal until he received firm assurances that there will be no, or at most next to no, changes in his level of power, authority and control across the club (I read even bloody Gerry Peyton is keeping his job, who I'd count as a barely noticeable sacrifice for Wenger to make from his assortment of lemmings under him). So why isn't it okay for Sanchez and Özil to delay renewing their contracts until they have whatever assurances they're looking for (your guess that it's having more chance of winning the bigger trophies at Arsenal might be a reasonable)? As you also say, why isn't it okay for Chamberlain to wait until he gets assurances about his first team place?

I suspect Sanchez' position may be complicated a little if dec is right that he simply prefers not to hang around the same place for too long. But if he is going to sign a new contract at Arsenal, why not look for the sort of assurances you outline before putting pen to paper? They weren't the same type of assurances, but Wenger did after all.

Bernard, I await OMOH's response. I think Alexis has a different way of thinking about life and I would understand if he moves on. The dogs might be bored with the current walks they have and may need new challenges in their life. Alexis has an FA Cup medal, a Copa America medal and probably would love to add an EPL medal and WC winners medal. The last he may have limited chance of owning but you just never know. As someone who moved a few times in my career for challenges not necessarily money I can understand his mind set. I am sure Kiwi probably understands the need to move on to avoid staleness. He has probably been to many countries and companies before they run him out of town.

How any of you can compare to Wenger is beyond me, it's unbelievable.

Wenger has been nothing but a true Gooner, unfortunately not the right Gooner to drive us on, while Sanchez has behaved like a spoilt brat.

well put together

... saw Passarell play in the doubles with Bob Lutz at the Aussie Open ....... I thought he was the ultimate in cool , Lutz as well ...good serve and volley nice no nonsense economical style .