The club that changed football
Looking for a terraced house in Northamptonshire?
By Anne
There is a group of people in the media who were responsible for such infamous scripts as the “Arsenal in crisis” narrative, and of course, the unforgettable masterpiece: “Arsenal needs to splash cash in the transfer market to end its trophy drought.” Not to mention every other “transfer saga” that has ever revolved around an Arsenal player. They’ve just changed their tune a little bit this time around (but in a very interesting and revealing way).
And while I could be wrong (as always), I personally feel completely confident in saying that these same people also fabricated the Robin van Persie “statement” in the summer for the express purpose of scripting the Robin van Persie “transfer saga” narrative around it. The reason I feel so confident in saying this is because of the specific way that this “statement” was disseminated through the media, and also the way that the separate segments of the “statement” were used tactically in conjunction with pre-planned “talking points” regarding what Robin actually “meant” by the “statement.”
However, before I get into that analysis, I have some more updates to get through first about other things that have happened since the “statement” was published, and the conclusions I have personally drawn from them.
My second update, following the quote from Arsene Wenger, is to present you with the rebuttal to my argument from the parties that I’m alleging to be the true fabricators of the RVP “statement.” For some reason, this job appears to have been delegated to Bleacher Report, who recently published an article bearing the impressive headline:
“Robin Van Persie Transfer Saga: Finding the Truth Amongst the Fiction”
It sounds like a good idea at the outset. However, Bleacher Report’s idea of the “truth” amongst the “fiction” differs somewhat substantially from mine. I’ll just go ahead and let them tell you (and since the author seems to be sounding a lot like me for some reason, I’m going to specifically designate between their comments and my response):
Bleacher Report:
“According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary journalism is defined as writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.
The reason I checked the true meaning of journalism is because there seems to be very little of it in connection with this summer’s biggest football soap opera. The ongoing saga of where Robin van Persie will be playing as of September 1st continues to rage non-stop. The only thing that is certain is that the majority of stories covering the subject appear to lack facts and be based more on interpretation.
Anne:
Uh, ok… Lacking “facts” and based on “interpretation” would certainly be one way of putting it. Although I’m not so sure I agree with (or even fully understand the logic of) this next part.
Bleacher Report:
“The one true fact at the center of it all was the announcement that van Persie would not be signing a new contract with Arsenal. The statement was published on van Persie’s own personal website, but even that has been questioned. Speculation still exists that the ‘update’ was actually released by van Persie’s agent Kees Vos on behalf of his client.
Outside of this announcement the reporting has been comical at best.”
Anne:
Well, I suppose that puts me in my place. Let’s try to summarize this argument: The entire RVP “transfer saga” is complete rubbish, except for the RVP “website statement.” This “statement” is the “one true fact” at the center of the “transfer saga.” Except that it might not be, in which case, the “statement” was fabricated by Robin van Persie’s agent Kees Vos (and definitely not the media, we swear).
Wow, Bleacher Report… Is that the best you can do? Sounds to me like somebody has a guilty conscience…(Incidentally, I would like to thank Bleacher Report for their open admission here that, aside from this one possible element of truth, the RVP “transfer saga” did not contain any other “true facts.” I would have had a hard time proving that otherwise).
And just to underscore this absolute certainty that the RVP “website statement” was entirely above board, and that nobody has anything to hide, the entire Robin van Persie “official website” appears to have now been taken offline. Which means that nobody can see the “statement” as it appeared in its original context, or the questionable website on which it was published.
This is actually a bit slippery, because in making my argument to prove that the “statement” was, in fact, fabricated, I have to be able to show you the original wording of the “statement” as it was published on the website. But now I can’t, because someone has decided to take my evidence away. (Which actually does more to validate my argument than anything I could possibly say. So, thanks again for that, whoever you are). And I can still tell you what the “statement” said originally. It’s just that you’re going to have to take my word for it now. Sorry, not my choice.
However, before I move onto my analysis of the “statement,” I want to take issue with one other specific aspect of this Bleacher Report article; namely, the fact that they represent the RVP “transfer saga” as “this summer’s biggest football soap opera,” and make the claim that, at the time their article was published, the “ongoing saga of where Robin van Persie will be playing as of September 1st continues to rage non-stop.”
Perhaps the “transfer saga” they were watching was different from the one I saw. Because I was actually under the impression that the Robin van Persie “transfer saga” had come to a grinding halt shortly after my initial article alleging the fabrication was published. And I suppose that this is something that’s open to interpretation in a lot of ways. However, in the following segment of this article, I’m going to describe the somewhat different RVP “transfer saga” that I observed.
You can decide whether they saw my version, Bleacher Report’s version, something else, or something in between. But here’s what I saw:
The Robin van Persie “transfer saga” officially launched on the Fourth of July (an American patriotic holiday, interestingly, celebrating America’s victory in war over the British Empire), and announced its arrival on the scene with all of the fanfare of a global media fireworks display (accompanied by a marching band playing “The Stars and Stripes”).
Overnight, Arsenal fans were suddenly inundated by a deluge of media reports telling us that we all hate Robin van Persie now, because he insulted the noble and valiant Arsene Wenger, and the heroic Ivan Gazidis, by releasing a “statement” on his “official website,” where he dared to suggest that Arsenal needed to “splash cash in the transfer market” to end its “trophy drought.”
And while I can’t speak for how other Arsenal fans might have interpreted the credibility of these statements coming from the media (in light of their past behavior), my personal response was to not believe a single word of it, and also to become so angry at this attempt to defame Robin van Persie while pretending to be “real Arsenal fans” that I still don’t have the adequate words to describe exactly how angry I was.
So, again, I can’t speak for anyone else. But for me personally, nothing the media has ever said about Arsenal has made me as angry as this “transfer saga.” And while the rest of the published response in the media and blogosphere would give the impression that nobody else felt the same way I did, the actions the media took in response to my initial article on the subject give an entirely different impression. Because they ended the “transfer saga,” didn’t they? And I can’t see why they would have done that unless they were afraid that, in truth, everybody felt the same way that I did.
Specifically, after my article was published, the whole thing came to an abrupt end, and we were treated to weeks of nothingness, in which the most exciting thing that happened was the following:
No offers yet for van Persie: Wenger
Basically, to sum up the storyline of this “soap opera:” Robin van Persie might be transferred to either Manchester City, Manchester United, or Juventus, but nobody has made any offers yet. That’s pretty much it (I know that I was riveted by the drama of this “soap opera,” weren’t you?) However, one thing that this “soap opera” failed to do was to offer any explanations for why Robin van Persie had to be transferred in the first place. And it also failed to explain why Robin van Persie had completely disappeared from the Arsenal lineup, and hadn’t been seen in public since the conclusion of the Euros.
Based on my concerns about Robin’s unexplained absence, in conjunction with some extremely threatening-sounding reports that had emerged in the media as part of the Fourth of July extravaganza, I published a follow-up article on 6 August (Opting out of Arsenal: the media’s agenda behind the transfer sagas), in which I (among other things) expressed my concern for Robin’s personal safety, and requested that Arsenal fans be allowed “to see Robin, just to make sure he’s alright.”
Shortly after that, Robin van Persie turned up again to play for Arsenal against Cologne (where the media informed us that he was booed by Arsenal fans. But we’ve all heard that one before, haven’t we?) And then, 9 days after my follow-up article was published, on 15 August, the transfer to United was announced, and Robin accordingly turned up in public again, where he was photographed signing autographs for fans outside of the hospital in Manchester (And it makes me wonder, why is it that Arsenal players always seem to turn up at the hospital at the conclusion of their “transfer sagas,” following lengthy disappearances from public view?)
In the end, the only explanation that Arsenal fans were given for the series of events described above was along the lines of the following:
Robin van Persie Treads The Dark Path – Changes Allegiance From Arsenal To Manchester United
“Robin van Persie was a man to ‘look up to’ for any Arsenal fan. He had often stated that he always wanted to win trophies with Arsenal, and not with any other club. Finally, the devil (read – Agent) triumphed over the assured and calm van Persie, and made him do whatever he did.
A preposterous statement later, he made his position untenable at the club – wherein he had no choice but to move forward. Never ever did he envisage a possibility of jumping ship to the biggest rival Arsenal had in the Premier League era; however, it happened. Robin van Persie became the first Arsenal player under Arsene Wenger to ‘transfer himself’ to Manchester United, a hefty 24 Million transfer fee being the only consolation for the club and the fans.”
Uh…right. Robin van Persie “transferred himself” to Manchester United by making a “preposterous statement.” Based on the evidence currently in the public record, I would actually agree that the transfer of Robin van Persie to Manchester United was most likely “forced” in some manner of speaking. However, the transfer was most certainly not the result of a dubious “statement” on a website, which Arsene Wenger himself has stated publicly that he does not believe to be authentic. At least, not unless Arsenal is run by a bunch of timid pussy cats who allow themselves to be pushed around in business negotiations (which it isn’t, because such persons would never be running Arsenal in the first place).
So, media, over to you: What’s the real story behind this “soap opera?” Specifically, why was Robin van Persie transferred? And it was, in fact, a “forced transfer,” who forced it, and exactly what methods did they use? Were these methods legal or extra-legal? Arsenal fans are waiting… Because in case you didn’t notice, the official “transfer saga” has more holes in it than a piece of swiss cheese.
(Incidentally, I would also appreciate some answers to these questions from Arsenal’s new American owners, who were, after all, the ones who officially signed off on the van Persie transfer).
Overall, the most important question left open by the Robin van Persie “transfer saga” is the question of “why?” Because if Robin van Persie didn’t force this transfer, who did? And why is the media trying to cover up their involvement? And if the truth is that nobody “forced” the transfer, then why is the media helping Arsenal to avoid questions from fans about the Club’s own decision to transfer van Persie? Perhaps the real truth here is that the party the transfer was “forced” on was Robin van Persie himself, rather than Arsenal… Or maybe it was “forced” on both?
To stop beating around the bush, what I’m specifically getting at here is as follows: What agenda might the persons controlling this media network have that relates to forcibly controlling the movements of football players between clubs in the EPL, while hiding from the public the fact that they are doing so?
For me personally, the term “human trafficking” is the first and only that springs to mind in response to that question (after all, it’s not as if it’s never happened in football before). And I’ll be returning to explore this subject more closely as a possible agenda for this media campaign in subsequent articles. And of course, this is all just a hypothesis at this point. But when the “fiction” is as strange as what we’ve been observing, how strange must the real truth be?
For the time being, this conclude my updates. I’ll move on in the next article to the fabrication of the van Persie “statement” itself.
- Arsenal 9 Southampton 3
- Saint Santi, the killer of the Saints
- Us v Them. Billy the Dog takes a look at the game, and the Isle of Wight
- FINALLY – We present the referee bias tables for last season
- End of Season top of the table predictions
bob
I never painted the sale of Song as a positive. Just not necessarily a negative. Or at least that there are unknown factors.
I don’t really care how much we spend or make in the window. The media’s turned football into a circus mostly based around the money aspect, and I’d much prefer to avoid it.It didn’t always used to be like this. The only worry about money that I’d really have i that we’re not being mismanaged so as to make our existence a doubt.
For the ‘investment in the team’ (that’s a fairly new term, well popularised) there have ALWAYS been calls for more players, or better players at Arsenal as far as I can remember. We were all clamouring for a centre back the year before Kolo Toure was converted into one. There were calls for Kanu and Wiltord being replaced by better players since they weren’t good enough. Edu wasn’t considered anywhere near good enough until his last season with us. Fans will always feel they are short of a player or two. Or lack quality in certain areas.
I don’t really care about the zero spend. One, it isn’t zero investment. There’s just a realignment of resources. Would you rather pay RVP 130k or Cazorla 120k over 4 years?I’d pick the latter option, especially since we bought Podolski and Giroud too. We all agree that the salary structure needs a revamp. The best way to free up resources is to statr from the top, IF you can do it in a fairly stable manner.
The blowup of the team started when we sold Fabregas. Our team is almost completely different to what it was 2 years ago. I think it’s a planned process, of which the sales of Song and RVP are a continuation (not that it was inevitable that they would go, but the club chose to go down that route). And when you consider most of our purchases since then, they’re of players at near their peak age. Keeping RVP and Song would help the team (if they were committed to the cause) but might have delayed the realignment process. I’m not saying I’m happy they were sold. I’m saying this obsession with money is wrong, and we should try and look at it from the playing and team building aspect as to what the club might be trying to achieve.
Keeping Van Persie, and Song, would strengthen the squad. It would strengthen any squad if you simply ADD players to it. But ManU didn’t add Cazorla. Chelsea didn’t get Giroud. Every team has a limit to what what they can buy and retain. I think we’re making pretty good use of our resources.
P.S. As for buying fullbacks at the start of this season. I wasn’t for it. I didn;t think it was required. We can’t plan for Sagna not coming back without having any adverse report from the doctors. Jenkinson was always going to improve, and if not, we also have Coquelin and Yennaris who’ve done well there, without even requiring Koscielny or Djourou to move there. And I would be surprised if Santos actually went to jail considering there was no damage to property and no one was hurt. Although the courts in Britain have surprised me before. The positions I felt we lack in was DM and striker/winger. Dm I’m less worried about, and hopefully Wilshere, Frimpong and Rosicky can come back soon. but striker/winger is one position I’d like to see filled. (Though Gervinho did well there)
I warn you though. I think we’ll buy someone in Jan, but we’ll sell Walcott too. Which would raise the zero spend spectre again.
Shard,
I agree that it’ll be Walcott for whomever equals zero spend. What this is doing – football wide – is making a total mockery of the traditional mode of being/becoming emotionally attached to the players on your/our teams. This is down to corrosive money. So that, imo, it becomes highly problematic – except for non-rational tribalism that loves its badge regardless of who wears it – to be a fan (to say the very obvious, but I’ve felt like it’s worth saying out loud). I mean, if players and management are so money-driven, then what then are we rooting for? Perhaps a useless passion, but I do like a bond that lasts a while (or a clear-cut one night stand, so to speak).
Good stuff, as ever.
Sorry bob. I stand by every word said and would prefer it if you spared me the patronising tone. Words and phrases can have different meanings? Thanks for that. Human trafficking was a thoroughly inappropriate expression for describing the predicament of a pampered celebrity. Inappropriate, insulting, disgusting. This is football, g et a grip This site and Anne have published great stuff in the past. I know this. These articles are not great or even good. Stop falling over yourself to defend what is essentially a poor series of misguided articles which fail to address all the obvious questions to be asked in response. Yet again, why no statement from him denying responsibility?
@Arvind, bob in case you missed my comment on previous Anne’s article:
“The truth behind Alex Song’s departure from Arsenal #AFC
Alex Song was sold by Arsenal, rather than him leaving being another player ‘leaving’.
The problem’s started last season, when Song became agitated about his contract situation and it started to affect his on-field performance. The management were furious with his lack of defensive discipline and laziness towards the end of last season, in particular after the loss of Mikel Arteta to injury. Song didn’t jet off to his summer holidays on best terms with the Arsenal staff.
Pre-season began, and Song’s Agent (Darren Dein) approached Arsenal for talks over improved terms for his client. Arsenal let Darren Dein know that Song had 3 years remaining and would only be willing to sit down with him once other situations had been sorted. After that, Song’s attitude in training became a serious problem.
Song had always been a bit flashy and was sometimes late & slow, however he’d now become disruptive and was deemed to not be working hard enough, openly bragging about how much Barcelona want him to his teammates. This problem came to a head in Cologne, where Steve Bould, Arsene’s new right-hand man, “almost had Alex Song by the throat for being lazy and not listening to instructions”. Alex Song’s Arsenal career was in the balance.
The tipping point for Arsenal was when they found out his Agent, Darren Dein, had been offering him around Europe to other clubs; Barcelona in particular. They believed Dein agreed a contract for Song with Barca to force their hand into giving him improved terms; however, it did quite the opposite with Arsenal being “disgusted” with this behvaiour. A few days after the First-Team had returned from Cologne, Alex Song was told he could leave.
After knocking down approaches earlier in the Summer, Arsenal let Barcelona know that Song was now available at the right price, and they were happy to negotiate. Barca came in, and a deal was wrapped up relatively quickly for two clubs who don’t hold the best working relationship.
It was Arsenal’s choice to sell Song, and although to the naked eye it seems he’s gone on to better himself, the fact Arsenal have let him go with 3 years left for a fee they could have easily commanded next year, shows how they were happy to let him go and he was no longer part of their plans.”
From @AFCAMDEN, one of the respected ITK. He’s pretty much correct in many Arsenal issues and has good insider info. I believe his version more than Telegraph Darren Dein’s version though both versions contain some same facts with different presentations.
@Arvind
I worried about Anne coz I almost could feel her pain. It seemed like she tried too hard to justify her own view: that Van Persie was the victim of his transfer not the actor/director. Her argument has big flaw from the very beginning: she refused to acknowledge the 4th July public statement came from Van Persie himself.
Whoever wrote it doesn’t matter coz it was written with his consent and published with his approval. Just like whoever can write Obama’s speech but still it is Obama’s speech.
And to suggest he’s involved in human trafficking in this whole transfer saga is really insulting the reader intelligence. I hope Anne could stop for a moment, think again about her own view based on the readers comments here. When you publish your own view in public just like what Van Persie did, you’re bound to challenge of others. Especially if your argument doesn’t make sense at all.
The sooner she can accept that Van Persie is the author of his own statement, the easier she can let her go. That’s why we keep posting objections here and asking her to move on.
“let him go” I meant…
@Anne
This club statement easily rejected your suggestion that Van Persie statement was fabricated by other parties beyond he and his agent:
http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/club-statement-robin-van-persie
Club Statement
[Wednesday, July 04, 2012]
Arsenal Football Club has issued the following statement with regard to Robin van Persie’s future:
“ We have to respect Robin’s decision not to renew his contract. Robin has one year to run on his current contract and we are confident that he will fulfil his commitments to the Club.
“We are planning with ambition and confidence for next season with Arsenal’s best interests in mind.”
bob,
Here’s the article by swissramble that I was referring to:
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/10/arsenals-finances-21-questions.html
My bad, it was last year:)
About Song, here are 2:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1303850-attitude-problems-reportedly-led-arsenal-to-sell-alex-song
http://justarsenal.com/have-arsenal-lost-patience-with-song/15420
Now, I’m not saying this was the only factor. Wenger stated repeatedly that our midfield is overcrowded and he can do with one player less. We’ll probably never stop speculating, but imho it was merely a sumum of contributing factors.
Sorry for the delay, had a really busy day at the office:)
Sign Benham up!
Or get Anne to write more b’lcks so that we get some great research on a subject. I understand the background to the the two big summer transfers out far better now.
I’m not sure what Anne meant by the human trafficking part, but in my view, it’s not RVP or any other transfer that she’s talking about per se, but the money generated from it. (At least that’s my interpretation of it)
Now, I am more than willing to believe that a lot of the money from transfers isn’t really accounted for. Agents’ fees, endorsements and image rights etc are complicated. Factor in offshore accounts and secrecy laws and you are bound to have some money go ‘missing’ (Ask the tax authorities on Harry Redknapp, who’s still low down in the larger scheme of things) Also, there is generally a wide discrepancy in reporting of transfer fees, and they seem to often be pulled out of thin air, until one figure gets universally accepted. Maybe Anne’s indicated what that ‘missing’ money is being used for? Once again, I must say I don’t know what she means. I’m trying to figure out what she means before I refute it (or agree with it)
As for the Song story. Any ITK, no matter how reliable, himself relies on ‘sources’. these sources will also have their own agenda. These ITK’s (even if genuine people) then become another way of spreading the narrative that these sources want to spread. Who are these sources? Could be anybody. At the club? Maybe not directly at the club but someone who has more access? I don;t know. neither does anyone. So while the information from these sources isn’t useless. It must be seen in context and not as the ‘truth’.
However, reports of Song’s bad attitude were going around many of the trusted blogs as well. Now, the chain of possibilities. 1) True, and the truth just came out. 2) True, and club leaked it (with what purpose?) 3) Untrue, but someone (maybe the club) planted that story. With what purpose?? No way of knowing.
So again, Song’s bad attitude is just one possible factor in it all. Even if it’s true, there might be other factors to it.
bob
Indeed. The emotional attachment to players is under threat with the constant trades etc. But I don’t think we should accept that. I mean, so what if a player you gave your affections to decides to leave (or is sold)? there will a;ways be others. It shouldn’t change how you feel about the game because otherwise, we’ll definitely be just left as ‘shells’ of fans who pay money to watch a ‘product’, and that too only out of force of habit than any other reason.
What is a little worrying is that, as it is player transfers seem to be increasing with player power. And while Tony showed surprise in clubs voting for the 25 man squad rules, what it does is force more player trading, since you can only retain a finite number of players, forcing you to sell 26-30 year olds who you can’t find space for, or 21-22 year olds who just won’t be able to get a game if you don’t let go of players who’re ahead of them in the pecking order. (though loans will also go up, but the point still stands)
As we know (or think we do) transfers increase the likelihood of money going ‘missing’. (If people don’t believe that, they need to do some research) So these rules in fact force more transfers on the clubs, meaning more scope for agents (and others) to make money (and take money out of football), while of course as fans, reducing our ability to connect emotionally (in a positive manner) with the sport (or business as it is to them) I don’t know which way Arsenal voted for the rules, but Wenger has been a very vocal opponent.
@Shard someone at the club briefed the press (could be intentionally). You’ll get the same story of Song on BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail and The Mirror. But the best chronological presentation is from the post I pasted above.
That’s why Song’s agent responded with his own version in Telegraph. He refuted the bad attitudes but had the same fact as above article: They released an ultimatum to Arsenal to offer new contract before Sept 1st.
We’ll never know the truth except Wenger or someone credible in the club comes out in public with it. Wenger won’t do it. He’s too good to his players for doing it. But we can choose to trust whichever version based on our own judgement of the source. For the Song’s case I chose to trust AFCAMDEN and John Cross than Darren Dein.
For the 25 players rule on the contrary I believe it would reduce transfer activity. By limiting the number of players a club can have, the rich clubs won’t stockpile good players. Thus the transfer activity over time would be reduced.
benhan
The rich clubs can still stockpile players. Remember these rules apply only for the league. Not the cup competitions. And most of the rich clubs don’t really give game time to their young players anyway, and in some cases even established players just sit on the bench, and they will continue to do this more, except that because of the homegrown aspect some will get game time. But the stockpiling of talent will continue. If only to stop other clubs from buying good young talent.
As for the story. I’m not saying Song’s attitude was great. just saying that any story comes with some riders, because people leak different versions, and the press report according to their agendas too.
For those of you who live in the UK. This is happening frequently. The question is why?
http://www.romea.cz/english/index.php?id=detail&detail=2007_3568
This could construed as the British authorities trafficking children.
http://researchingreform.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/concerns-raised-in-slovak-republic-over-forced-adoption-in-the-uk/
Maybe the British government is thinking ahead to the baby boomers demise?
@Adam
Oh God. That’s terrible.