Brendan Rodgers? Nuno Espirito Santo? Who exactly do Arsenal think they are?
Why would a manager leave Leicester, or Wolves, to work for Stan Kroenke at this time? How would an employer sell modern Arsenal to the chosen target?
Do they have a vision, a philosophy, do they have the necessary investment, are expectations married to what is realistically achievable?
Why would Brendan Rodgers leave Leicester to take charge of Arsenal at this moment?
The answer to each of these questions is no. Meaning Arsenal are some distance behind the clubs they seek to plunder.
Leicester are, simply, better than Arsenal right now. Better as a club, as an executive regime, better as a team, too.
As for Wolves, they have a strong and coherent recruitment strategy that expertly exploits one market in particular, the way Arsene Wenger did when he arrived in north London and revolutionised the English game.
While the modern Arsenal take Borussia Dortmund's cast-offs with varying degrees of success, Wolves have mined Portuguese talent through their links with the agent Jorge Mendes.
They are higher than Arsenal in the league and progressed more efficiently in the Europa League. Wolves know what they are about in a way Arsenal haven't for years.
Leicester are better than Arsenal right now - as a club, as an executive regime and as a team
So why would an ambitious manager go to Arsenal? History? What good is it to Rodgers that Wenger did the Double in 1998? What use is the Invincible season now?
All Arsenal's historic success has done is increase the pressure on Wenger's successors, because no ground becomes disillusioned quicker than the Emirates Stadium these days.
The empty seats that brought Unai Emery's time to a sudden end also spelled the finish for Wenger. Tottenham was not a happy place by the time Maurico Pochettino left, but there was nothing like the anger and resentment felt at Arsenal.
Yet any manager would look at that squad, consider those players, and know there cannot be a quick fix. Without great resources, patience is required. Arsenal present nowhere near the opportunity Jose Mourinho was given at Tottenham.
As the traditional elite have faltered, so Leicester have muscled in. They are recent title winners. They have tagged an exceptional Liverpool side more doggedly than most. Their owners are wealthy and back the manager with investments in players and infrastructure.
Yes, Leicester still lose individuals to rivals such as Manchester United, but so do Arsenal. Next summer, maybe in the next transfer window, there is more chance of Aubameyang's head being turned than Vardy's — and then where will Arsenal be?
Arsenal's sacking of Unai Emery last week was the action of a club that has lost its way
No doubt Leicester would fight extremely hard to keep Rodgers, having turned the club around in such a short space of time, but that is equally true of Wolves and Nuno. They are bound to the Portuguese model and the coach is a giant part of that.
Mendes may say he can deliver a replacement, but it would make more sense to put the current manager on a very lucrative contract and keep the regime intact. Wolves could be in the Champions League next season. Certainly, as it stands, they have more chance of it than Arsenal.
Sacking Emery was the action of a club that has lost its way. Daniel Levy knew the next step when he broke with Pochettino; Arsenal appear to be as confused as ever about what happens next. That is why this is no longer a club for a coach with aspirations.
There is nothing Rodgers or Nuno could do at Arsenal that they could not do with Leicester or Wolves. If anything, they've got more chance where they are.
Potentially, Arsenal are a great club. But not like this, not right now.
If Rodgers and Nuno are men of ambition, they'll stick.
Thank heavens we've been spared another Sven saga
At first sight, David Pemsel's persistent pursuit of romance with a younger former colleague seemed more a matter for his wife than his future employers at the Premier League.
There is a reason, however, that it was considered impossible for him to take up the chief executive role. It's a question of judgment. He didn't show any.
In a purely social context, the relentlessness of his quest did not make comfortable reading.
The relentlessness of David Pemsel's quest did not make comfortable reading
While the romantic film industry would be finished overnight if every man just took no for an answer, it was not a good look that Pemsel continued to pester the object of his affection repeatedly even when she had made it very plain she was not interested in a relationship with a married man.
Professionally, too, Pemsel came across poorly. On the brink of starting a new job, yet seemingly distracted by an opportunity that could only complicate his life and his diary.
Put it like this: had the FA been entirely aware of Sven Goran Eriksson's, ahem, interests away from football, they might not have rushed to give him the England job in 2001.
It's about priorities. The Premier League may be pleased they discovered Pemsel's sooner rather than later.
Blythin brings up standard question
Maxine Blythin, Kent Women's transgender opener, gave her first interview since being named the county's cricketer of the year.
Blythin said she was born with a condition that meant she never went through male puberty, and her testosterone levels were so low that she would meet the requirements set by the ICC for participation in the women's game, even at England level.
And that, really, is the end of it. She says she's a woman, she lives her life as a woman, she's a woman.
The science — having below five nanomoles of testosterone per litre of blood, as the ICC demands — backs her up, too.
Speaking publicly in difficult circumstances, Blythin came across brilliantly.
She was hugely articulate, open and sincere. It is terribly unfortunate that athletes have to reveal personal circumstances in this way, yet transgender issues in sport are a relatively new phenomenon and executive bodies are all struggling with issues of inclusion, fairness and balance.