BY the end, it was about as predictable as Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Change Treaty. Arsene Wenger’s new contract surprised nobody, prompting the same jokes about Groundhog Day that we have heard for at least half of his 21 years in charge.

The club said they believed Wenger was the right man to get the club back competing for the Premier League and the Champions League. Chief executive Ivan Gazidis talked about how he and Wenger sat down and reviewed every aspect of the club, identifying areas of improvement.

The cynics joked about how getting the club “back to competing” for the big prizes might have been simpler if they hired a time machine and travelled back to 2005. After all, since then, they have finished higher than third just once; that was in 2015-16, when they ended up 10 points off the top.

The more forensically inclined were justified in wondering just when Gazidis and Wenger did their root-and-branch review. After all, following the FA Cup final a week yesterday, the Frenchman had yet to confirm he was signing a new deal. Gazidis’ words came on Tuesday, which meant that thorough review took place in the space of 48 hours, making you wonder just how exhaustive it really was.

There had been rumours of a restructuring, of the club’s chief negotiator, Dick Law, leaving the club, of £280,000-a-week deals for Mesut Ozil and Alexis Sanchez and, most recently, a £87 million bid for Monaco wunderkind Kylian Mbappe. In fact, it feels like “bread and circuses”.

We haven’t heard a peep about the restructuring. If some new transfer guru is going to come in to replace Law, you would have imagined he would already be there. Those £280,000 mega-offers seem as improbable as they are ill-advised. And the offer for Mbappe – who is being chased by half the big clubs in Europe – is so “un-Arsenal” few believe it is real. Business as usual then.

In truth, there are a ton of question marks hanging over the club, from top to bottom, beginning with Ozil and Sanchez. The pair have Arsenal over a barrel. You either sign them to an extortionate deal – Ozil turns 29 in October and has been a favourite whipping boy in some circles while seeming to enjoy Wenger’s limitless admiration, like a latter-day Andrei Arshavin – or you lose them for far less than their worth; it’s either nothing in 12 months’ time or a cut-rate price this summer.

Central midfield remains a conundrum, as does Santi Cazorla’s health, and up front they can choose between a striker few seem to like (Olivier Giroud) and a striker who has been limited to 15 league starts over the past two seasons (Danny Welbeck).

While Wenger’s decision to shift to three at the back late in the season was hailed as some kind of genius move, sticking with it will require more re-jigging. Hector Bellerin doesn’t seem like an ideal fit at wing-back, they would need to sign at least one more centre-back to make it work and going 3-4-3 means there is no room for Alex Iwobi, supposedly one of the club’s more promising youngsters. In other words, there is lots of work to do. Just like there is most seasons in fact. And once again, Arsenal seem to be doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Which, according to Einstein, is the definition of insanity.

SOME of the early scare-mongering around Brexit’s effect on football concerned the issue of European Union players needing work permits and how many of them might not qualify. It’s actually a non-issue, because even if Brexit negotiations end with restrictions on the rights of EU citizens to live and work in the United Kingdom, the Premier League and Football Association can always work with the Home Office to relax work permit requirements. It is what already happens in financial services and if it is in the interest of a domestic industry, especially a lucrative one like football, they can pretty much re-write the rules any way they like.

What they won’t be able to do however is to get around Fifa’s Article 19, which regulates the transfer of minors.

Simply put, players under the age of 18 are not allowed to transfer to another country, with three specific exceptions. One is if they live within 30 miles of a national border, another is if their families move for “non-footballing reasons” and the third is if they are moving within the European Union or European Economic Area.

Manchester United chief financial officer Cliff Baty, speaking at a football finance forum in London last week, said: “There’s a practical, operational issue around Brexit with regard to bringing in players from Europe and losing competitive advantage from the likes of ourselves against Real Madrid and Barcelona. If you have 16 year olds going to play for them and if we have to wait until they’re 18 there are practical issues there. I’m sure that will be discussed and it’s certainly something the Premier League are aware of.”

Indeed, Manchester United’s website lists 76 players on the books of the first team, reserves and academy side. Of those, eight joined the club from European teams before their 18th birthday. Post-Brexit, that would not be possible and, because it is a Fifa rule, there is nothing the Premier League, Football Association or Home Office could do about it.

Yet while United talk about losing a “competitive advantage” – because acquiring 16-year-olds is cheaper than buying 18-year-olds – there is a broader point. Maybe Fifa’s ban on the transfer of minors should apply across the board to everyone, even within the EU. Maybe uprooting 16- year-olds who, frankly, remain a long shot to make it at the highest level, is not in the interest of the game or, indeed, of the kids themselves.

Atletico Madrid had a transfer ban upheld last week on that very point; in their case they were found guilty of transferring players from South America. Prior to that, Barcelona and Real Madrid were sanctioned. Is there really a valid reason, other than the opportunity for wealthy clubs to save themselves a few million, why minors ought to be allowed to transfer across national borders?