What words come to your mind when you hear the name Arsene Wenger? Perfectionist? Visionary? Legend? Or perhaps words closer to stubborn, stingy, and naive? As Wenger completes the most scrutinised decade of his managerial career, the only thing that hasn't been questioned of the dubbed 'Le Professeur' is his loyalty to Arsenal. Yet in an era of football where even the most successful managers chop and change as fast as a Sadio Mane hat-trick, does loyalty offer anything to a club whose manager has been compared to Einstein's definition of insanity? 

The answer to that question might not be as obvious as it first seems, which will be no surprise to any fans who have delved into this topic in the past. On the face of it, as many rival fans, Mourinho, and even some Arsenal fans have never failed to point out, one major trophy in 10 years for a club of Arsenal's stature is horrendous. Even if Wenger succeeds in retaining the FA cup on the 30th May, it will still represent an era that might only correspond to success for a mid-table club. So how can something as clear-cut as that possibly cause such deliberation? Well, most of it centres around the fact that the start of this trophy-lacking era began when Arsenal were trying to control the finances whilst purchasing the Emirates stadium, worth £350-400 million. 

Prior to the beginning of this transformation, Wenger had won five major trophies in his last four seasons as Arsenal manager, a truly astonishing achievement. So the effects of mounting stadium debts was an undeniably massive factor, with Arsene being forced to sell his best players year after year to balance to books. Some have argued that he did not necessarily have to sell all of the players that he did, but that's without taking the demands of his player's into consideration. When you're unable to match the ambitions of a top player by investing heavily on new team members, their desire to leave is always going to be inevitable. Unless of course you have someone with the loyalty of Francesco Totti, Steven Gerrard, or somewhat ironically, Arsene Wenger himself.

So if this decline in success was going to be an obvious outcome as a result of a new stadium, does that make the move to the Emirates a mistake? Wenger's reply to that would be something along the lines of '10 years of pain for 100 years' gain'. You could argue that success isn't inevitable with a new stadium, which is absolutely true, but what Wenger would mean by that is Arsenal have a better platform to challenge at the top for the foreseeable future with the investment of the Emirates. When you consider the fact that Highbury stadium had a capacity of 38,419, and compare it to the shiny, gloriously appealing 60,272 seater Emirates, you can understand this perspective. On top of that, when you measure Highbury stadium's capacity to that of the biggest clubs in the world, such Manchester United, and Real Madrid, you see that it contained less than half of their seats, meaning that Arsenal were heavily financially inferior to them unless something was done about it.

When you look at Arsenal's last decade with that in mind, only the most biased of opinions would reject any justification for Arsenal's move to the Emirates, or indeed the effect it has had on the club. Others might even be as short-sighted to point to Chelsea's success with a stadium containing only 41,837. In the same way that history shows Arsenal's decline beginning with the initiation of the Emirates, Chelsea's rise has never been suggested to be due to anything other than the takeover of billionaire Roman Abramovich. Whilst Wenger may have predicted the restraints that the Emirates would initially give to Arsenal, what he couldn't have foreseen was this era of billionaires taking over clubs and pumping endless cash into their squads. Roman Abramovich was the first of this wave to do just that, with similar events later occurring with clubs like Manchester City and PSG.

Perhaps the most unlucky part of all for Wenger was that Abramovich's arrival was simultaneous to the beginning of Arsenal's endeavour against stadium debt. When you consider that Arsenal were the most successful club in English football in the recent years preceding to these changing occurrences, it would seem like the smartest time to instigate a massive club transformation for the best chance of sustainability. Undoubtedly, these unpredictable scenarios taking place concurrently at other clubs was incredibly bad luck for the Arsenal manager. 

Is that to suggest that Wenger's challenging last decade as Arsenal manager has all been down to necessity and bad luck? Absolutely not. During these years, Arsenal managed to reach the Capital One cup final twice, and the cabinet-missing Champions League final once, failing to claim the trophy on any of these occasions. Although the Capital One cup might not represent the most glamorous of trophies, it is still considered a major piece of silverware that would have been considered an additional success to their current lone FA cup that they have to show for the last 10 seasons. The Champions League trophy would have also been historic for Arsenal and Wenger himself, putting them on the list of teams winning the biggest tournament in European club football. In addition to this, although the Emirates financially restricted Wenger's flexibility to invest in players, a lot of his criticism has been aimed at his stubbornness to spend the extra few million to reach an asking price for players who would have drastically improved his team. Whilst Wenger's responsibility with Arsenal's funds has been somewhat admirable during this vulnerable period, his reluctance to take a slight risk has hampered the club's ability to win trophies at the same time. He's also highly associated with being tactically naive, constantly favouring attractive football over pragmatic approaches. 

So with Arsenal concluding the end of this painful 10 seasons with a back-to-back cup finals, does this signal progress now that the stadium debts have cleared up? Perhaps to some degree, although many would point to the fact that they are still yet to finish above third place in the league during this period. Though in direct response to that, just last season Liverpool finished second place in the league, only just missing out on the title itself. They are now concluding this season in fifth place, with no trophies yet again, whilst also struggling to keep their best players happy for consecutive years. Sound familiar Arsenal fans? This is quite simply because trophies do not ensure long-term success.

Wigan Athletic won the FA Cup only two seasons ago, next season they will be playing football in League One. Wenger's vision has always been to ensure Arsenal have a stable platform to compete with the best teams in the world long term. They have started to build an exciting team, making expensive investments in big players like Mesut Ozil and Alexis Sanchez. This is not Wenger suddenly taking risks, it is his patient plan finally coming together. His claims of the top four league positions being like a trophy are argued to be unjust by many, and understandably so. After all, if you're no way near to winning a competition is there much point in being involved? However, Wenger knew the importance of sustaining the appeal of being involved in the biggest competition in club football, not to mention the financial rewards that would speed up the issue of the Arsenal's debts.

So has Wenger been perfect during his last 10 years as Arsenal manager? Far from it. Should he have done more to ensure more success during the last decade? Absolutely. Has he got an Arsenal board who are too lenient with his control on the club? Without a doubt. But could anything ensure Arsenal have the platform to challenge the biggest clubs in football for the long-term future the same way that the Emirates can offer? If you don't know the answer to that question, ask Tottenham Hotspur why they have been going through troubling legal battles for a new stadium of their own.

Whilst that is far from suggesting that the last decade has been a success for Wenger, from his perspective, to some degree at least, it has almost been a necessary failure for the good of the club. Will he now act upon all of his hard work and invest heavily in the transfer market? Will he become more tactically pragmatic when necessary? Can he ever win the Champions League? These are the big questions, and his career up until now suggests that this might not be the case. Nevertheless, he has been successful before, which is easily forgotten, and there have been more shocking things in football. Only time will tell if Wenger is the man to get the club back to the top of English football but whether he is or he isn't, with or without him, he is the sole man that has provided Arsenal the platform to challenge top clubs for the next century.