Agenda-obsessed Arsenal becoming Prem’s most unlikeable

Ian Watson
Arsenal boss Arteta

We have mails on Arsenal’s paranoia, Steven Gerrard’s vocabulary, Frank Lampard’s struggles, and a new era for Chelsea.

Get your views in to


Unlikeable Arsenal
On a weekend when Jurgen Klopp managed to still whinge about match officials despite having being gifted a place in the last four, congratulations must go to Arteta, his team and a large portion of Arsenal fans on making themselves more unlikeable than Liverpool to the neutral.

It took an awful lot, but you guys managed it. Bravo
John, Shropshire


Arsenal and their agenda
Had to quickly chip in on John’s comments in the Mailbox yesterday. Now, he quoted Blade, so he’s clearly a man of taste, but “add to that we
questioned referees for their inconsistency of applying rules to Arsenal vs other clubs”.

Stop. Please. For the love of God. Stop. Arsenal fans and the ‘Agenda’ against Arsenal is bordering on the insane. There is no agenda against
Arsenal. Every team can look back over the course of the season and point to why their club hasn’t had the rub of the green but Arsenal fans seem to be going to a whole different level on this. And it seeps through the club from management to fanbase. Arteta the other day complaining that Arsenal’s fixture list (think they’ve played 8 games in the last 11 game weeks) is the PL against Arsenal and no one would get the same treatment. Yes, no team in the history of the Premier League played midweek and then again on the Saturday at 12.30. Tottenham definitely didn’t have that last month playing Burnley and then Leeds at 12.30 Saturday for example. Definitely not.

This isn’t meant to be kicking off a whole ‘Spurs/Arsenal’ thing either, just stop with the Agenda against Arsenal though, it’s embarrassing.
Grumpy Dip


Steven Gerrard knows getting injured hurts – why the bluster?


Mings should’ve walked
No-one mentioned this in either mailbox on Monday, so I thought I would… First of all, Gerrard’s comments about Saka toughening up are not helpful, and not what I’d like to see the manager saying. My main point, however, is Tyrone Mings’ yellow card. In the scheme of that particular match, it didn’t really matter, but as a League (sport?), are we happy that a challenge that gets the ball as cleanly as that is even a foul, never mind a yellow card?

Strangely, all the sky presenters seem to think it was definitely a yellow, but not a red. But what was the actual infringement here? I presume the ref has considered it a reckless tackle (“careless” would be foul but no caution), but for me (Clive), if that’s considered reckless, then any sliding challenge must also fall into the same category.
Oli (Game’s gone) AVFC

Misleading results
Enjoyed the misleading results article. Seeing as though Liverpool have a few results on there, I have one to add. Man Utd 0 – Liverpool 5. Should have been a bigger margin of victory.Regards


Everton are 17th in the league and just a single article from f365 on how much of a terrible job Frank is doing. I genuinely wonder why. He was never qualified for the Chelsea job, which was overwhelming obvious after Tuchel took that same squad, I must emphasize that same squad to win the champions league. He sure as hell wasn’t qualified for this job if not for the same blind spot afforded to him, which shows in the drama when he was appointed. My main point of writing is that whether you choose to admit it or not, everton are in real danger now more than ever to be relegated.Here are a few reasons
1. Everton remaining fixtures is the hardest in the league; West Ham, Burnley, Man Utd, Leicester, Liverpool, Chelsea, Leicester again, Brentford and Arsenal.
2. Burnley are very slowly, trending in the right direction, fewest goals conceded among lower half clubs and the attack is very slowly coming along(thanks to Weghorst).
3. Lampard is simply a bad coach, drawing a blank on Benitez blaming losses on his players for a lack of bollocks and I am sure there are more delusional excuses.
4. Everton is a very poor run club, hiring lampard was a mistake and it is very evertonian not to admit a mistake and quickly correct it. Not even sure what correcting the mistake would look like.
Ace(obviously not in the UK)


Sweary Steve?
I’m not sure why Lampard’s interview was censored on BT Sport after he suggested his team needed more bollocks after their 4-0 defeat to Crystal Palace. And I’m not sure why Football365’s Facebook page also censors the word.
It is not a swear word. It may be considered coarse, but so is Sean Dyche and he’s not illegal.
A quick check online has bollocks in seventh place, trailing behind f***ing, sh*t, f**k, bloody, hell and f**k off. B*stard, bitch and damn are in eighth, ninth and tenth position.
Of those, I’d say joining bollocks in the non swear word category would be bloody, hell and b*stard.

So the next time Lamps, or anyone, says bollocks, can you just write it down as said? If you do get any commotion about it then tell them they’re just talking bollocks.


Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich
Roman and a new era
This is the first time I have written into Football365 although have long read and enjoyed the articles/associated comments. I am a Chelsea fan and have been upset by what has happened recently regarding the owner/club, and the articles surrounding them both.
Before going on I consider what has happened in Ukraine as abhorrent and fully agree that everything should be done to try and stop Russia and bring peace to the region as soon as possible. In principle I agree with sanctioning individuals/companies that can be shown to have endorsed the Russian invasion but am concerned by some of the measures taken.

With Roman Abramovich there seems to be overwhelming public support for the actions taken by the UK government which shows a surprising belief in both the integrity and moral compass of your elected officials. There is an irony that the public are willing to allow a Russian model of governance in which a statement can be released and a person’s assets be frozen instead of the traditional “innocent until proven guilty” approach. That laws have been enacted so that the government do not have to produce any evidence to support their allegations in a court of law nor provide Roman Abramovich with an opportunity to defend himself, and possibly have his assets returned, certainly has allowed the UK government to be judge, jury, and executioner in this case. No matter what you think of Roman Abramovich, he should be entitled to legal recourse and spare a thought for those who could be in the government’s cross-hairs next.
Even captured German’s at the end of the Second World War were afforded a trial to defend themselves. Despite the horror’s inflicted while they were in power the victorious Western Allies knew that to differentiate themselves from that regime they would have to provide proof that these people were involved individually, or were responsible for the decisions made, regarding the atrocities committed. How times change.

Reading through the sanctions statement itself there are two main parts, one linking Roman Abramovich to the Russian Government/Putin due to favourable transactions between them in the past (also with other sanctioned individuals), and the second part concerning his major shareholding in Evraz PLC.
Regarding the first part what should have to be identified is his endorsement of Putin invading Ukraine not that he knows or has ties to Putin. I imagine that there would be a lot of people with ties to Putin over the period he has been in power (including a lot of non-Russians) as it seems in order to do business at scale with that country Putin would be involved somewhere along the line. As Roman Abramovich is neither a Russian government minister, in charge of some part of his military, or on his advisory council then this is essentially guilt by association (we will likely never know if Putin sought oligarch approval prior to the invasion but it seems unlikely given his penchant for control). In addition if guilt by association is the criteria for sanctions then the UK government themselves, along with most of western europe, would need to face sanctions as they continue to pay Russia for oil and gas despite knowing the despot they are paying and what these funds will likely be used for.
The second part of the statement is ambiguous at best. Evraz PLC is a publicly listed company so, being a major shareholder, Roman Abramovich would have an influence on the election of directors but as he is neither CEO, nor on the board of directors himself it is unlikely he would have any say in the day to day running of the company. If Evraz PLC had potentially supplied steel to the Russian military which may have been used in the production of tank’s the most important thing to clarify in order to give context is timeframe. Was this supplied after the Ukraine invasion, or in the lead up but with the knowledge that Russia was going to invade. If so the salesperson should face persecution not one of the shareholders. If supplied any time pre-invasion (and with no knowledge of it going to happen) then this sale is totally irrelevant. The use of the words “potential” and “may” would indicate that it is far from certain if Evraz PLC has ever supplied steel to the Russian military and if they did whether this had indeed been used specifically for tank production. This part of the sanctions statement seems to be a deliberate (and fairly effective) ploy to put an image in the public’s mind of Roman Abramovich along with a column of Russian tank’s in Ukraine.

Getting away from the ins and outs of what has happened with Roman Abramovich it is with some positivity that I look forward to new ownership of the club. I had felt a few seasons back that RA’s interest was waning, and he may have considered selling. The appointment of Frank Lampard, challenges due to a transfer ban, and subsequent use of academy players seemed to rejuvenate his support. In all likelihood a sale back then would have resulted in similar ownership to other large clubs in the premier league so it feels like Chelsea have a real chance of following a different path. The hope is that fans representatives will have a greater say in the club going forward including holding a golden share. I am also very excited at the possibility of Stamford Bridge being redeveloped. I used to go regularly when living in London and had my wedding reception there in 1999 (with photos of me swinging off the goalposts. Wife wasn’t best impressed !). This is definitely one area that the club has fallen behind its rivals so will be great to push forward with getting a new larger capacity stadium built.

In summary, although disappointed with the causes of the enforced change, a page will be turned, the club will continue to exist and, despite the hopes of some rival fans, could possibly thrive under a new (UK government approved) owner.

Glenn, NZ