So who do you rank as good as the Ox currently at the club. I dont for one moment think he is great but I suspect another manáger may well work with improving him substantially. However I do not believe we have players at the club who are currently good enough.

By the way 25 days until our first match.

I think it's reasonable to suggest other managers might get more out of Chamberlain than Wenger has. If self-improvement as a player is a significant part of his motivation, as one would hope it is, I can understand why he might think moving on could be beneficial.

With regards Sanchez I wasn't referring to his position in the team but his influence on the team especially since he started his childish antics. As a player I agree there aren't many better but do we need a winger or a striker afaic as a winger he wasn't all that but as a striker he was untouchable.

Assuming AW sticks to a back 3 which I think he will Chamberlain on the left, I prefer Monreal orIwobi on the right I prefer Ballerin or Walcott. Pray tell me why you consider we should keep Chamberlain, do you expect him to improve? We need to blood Maitland-Niles and a couple of others so afaic he is surplus to demand.

Selling City our only worldclass player for less than his market value is madness, allowing him to join in a years time for free is even more crazy unless we can afford to lose the money. We are basically stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Imagine us getting Aguero for <£50m, we'd be jumping for joy.

It's a right mess with all these players entering the last year of their contracts. It may well be a damage limitation exercise now.

Sorry, but on the left Sanchez was all that. He spent the majority of his time at Arsenal on the left and has been a terrific player. I'd rather Chamberlain than Walcott, and I think we should keep him because of his adaptability. It won't be easy to find a player who can cover right midfield, left midfield, central midfield and right wing back as well as him. The idea that Maitland-Niles could do it straight away looks over-optimistic in the extreme, to me. The latter can be given chances, whether or not Chamberlain stays.

Mid June and all the gossip is about Sanchez and Chamberlain leaving, while we've signed a defender. Not a dickie bird about Özil.
I hope Wenger, Law and Gazidis are working hard to sort some signings out, as we were promised change but so far it's all been depressingly predictable.

The London Live channel is currently showing The Arsenal Stadium Mystery, a murder whodunnit movie made in the late thirties. To be honest, I didn't really get into it from the bit I saw. But I did look up what Wikipedia says about the film.

The start of the second paragraph on Wikipedia says "The film is a murder mystery set, as the title suggests, at the Arsenal Stadium, Highbury, London, then the home of Arsenal Football Club, who were at the time one of the dominant teams in English football." Am I right in thinking that implies Wikipedia no longer consider Arsenal one of the dominant teams in English football? Oh dear, are we in such decline that an independent online encyclopedia no longer considers Arsenal as even 'one of' the dominant football clubs in the country?

Everybody knows you can't trust Wikipedia, but to be fair that comment is right. We have not been one of the dominant teams in English football since the period 1998-2005. We do win the FA Cup a fair amount though. So, Wiki's words are nothing to do with decline, just an accurate statement.

Lift your chin off your chest! Don't worry - we'll sell Sanchez, Ox and any other semi-detachee and use the money to buy Ronaldo. Simple. Win the quadruple next season; Wenger manager of the year; England win The Ashes and Continuity Corbyn takes over at Number 10.

Sorry but periods of not being one of the best teams does not, in my view, stop a club from being one of the dominant forces. I think Liverpool still warrant being seen as such, as did Manchester United pre-Ferguson and still now post-Ferguson. If Wikipedia is right and Arsenal are genuinely not one of the dominant forces, then I see that as a decline. Moreover, I see it as a reason to get rid of the person or people responsible for that decline. If that is one of Wenger or Kroenke, I'd like to see the back of the guilty party. If it's both of them together, which personally I believe it is, I hope they both bugger off.

I accept Wikipedia said team, not club or force. But would they imply Manchester United are no longer one of the dominant teams? I doubt it, despite their disappointing run in the league since Ferguson left. That's because, my guess would be, they still perceive them as one of the biggest or dominant clubs, with the same thing applying to Liverpool even though they haven't won the league for donkey's years. But they said it about Arsenal, and I do think a possible reason is what they perceive as our decline as a club.

You sure do read a lot into a few lines about a 1930s film written on an online 'encyclopaedia' that anyone can contribute to! And if Liverpool are currently a dominant team/force/club then the meaning of the word has changed beyond all recognition.

Time to take the anti-Wenger/Kroenke pot off the oven - you'll burn the stew.

Liverpool are a huge club though. Look at the size of their fan base. Is it only about the state of the current team for you? If so, how many years of having an under-performing team does it take for you to downgrade a club? Because it only took some three or four years, maybe five, of Abramovich's ownership (I'm pretty sure it wasn't that long after Cole's departure because that was a justification you used) for you to declare Chelsea as a bigger, and presumably thus more dominant, club than Arsenal.

By the way I'll keep going about Kroenke and Wenger because they're the people I see as primarily responsible for Arsenal's current problems.

Liverpool are about as dominant as a Theo Walcott performance

Chile playing Cameroon in Moscow. Sanchez on the bench I think, earlier heard a report he had an ankle injury.

It's on ITV4 if anyone wants to watch it.

They're still the second biggest club in England though. As I asked hoy, are you only seeing the word 'dominant' as relevant to the quality of the current team?

Not just the current team. All they have won in the last decade is a single League Cup. They haven't won the league in 27 years.

'at the time one of the dominant teams in English football'? Ha! We won the league five times in eight years. We were the dominant team. Great work, Wikipedia - you suck.

But hoy said Wikipedia were correct in not calling Arsenal dominant by whatever measure they were using. I was surprised. I think Arsenal and Liverpool both should be. If they're not, it represents a decline that needs to be sorted out, although I don't care if Liverpool fail to sort themselves out.

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