Jump to content

Arsenal


cubeadvance
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wenger very antsy in the post-match stuff. He's right though, people are obsessed with transfers and while we do need a couple of players, I really don't see that as the primary issue with this side. The way he's setting the current team up is a much bigger issue and has been for some time now. Static forwards; horrible structure when building attacks; an isolated centre forward who doesn't seem to know what he's mean to be doing; a midfielder who is purposefully uninvolved in the build up phase, meaning we have to attack with nine outfield players; no real discernible style of play; inherent conservatism in lineups, which somehow doesn't translate into a solid defence. A couple of players will help but they won't completely solve all these issues with our play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought the problem with selling the more mediocre members of the squad at Arsenal was Arsene's policy of a more socialist wage structure, its not fully flat wage across the board but these guys are on mega wages compared to their peers of a similar talent level. 

 

Its not just the fees

 

Apparently we're all influenced by the media and Arsene has a team of people working on bringing in new players. They don't appear to be the most productive unit on current evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gotters said:

I always thought the problem with selling the more mediocre members of the squad at Arsenal was Arsene's policy of a more socialist wage structure, its not fully flat wage across the board but these guys are on mega wages compared to their peers of a similar talent level. 

 

Its not just the fees

 

Apparently we're all influenced by the media and Arsene has a team of people working on bringing in new players. They don't appear to be the most productive unit on current evidence.

 

Obviously he has a team working on it. They're probably working harder than any of their equivalents at other teams too because they've been asked to find all-but-non-existent players.

 

They've clearly been told they can't spend more than £25m on a defender, but they've found Mustafi who fits the other criteria. Everyone knew more or less what Mustafi would cost "a little bit under £30m" and if that's too much then don't bother showing any interest. But they've got no other ideas, so they're trying it. It's massively disrespectful to the player, his club and our fans and makes the club look like a laughing stock.

 

It's exactly the same as not going back to Liverpool and saying £60m, then £75m for Suarez. Yes, we had the legal highground but that was clearly not going to help so if you want the player, pay for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Rev said:

 

Obviously he has a team working on it. They're probably working harder than any of their equivalents at other teams too because they've been asked to find all-but-non-existent players.

 

They've clearly been told they can't spend more than £25m on a defender, but they've found Mustafi who fits the other criteria. Everyone knew more or less what Mustafi would cost "a little bit under £30m" and if that's too much then don't bother showing any interest. But they've got no other ideas, so they're trying it. It's massively disrespectful to the player, his club and our fans and makes the club look like a laughing stock.

 

It's exactly the same as not going back to Liverpool and saying £60m, then £75m for Suarez. Yes, we had the legal highground but that was clearly not going to help so if you want the player, pay for him.

 

Oh mate c'mon, not this Suarez thing again. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying there are literally no transfers ever whereby a player had a fixed release clause, but a club ended up paying massively over that clause just because they really, really wanted him.

 

JWH said the £40m clause existed (though I believe the PFA doubted how watertight it was, should it have ever gone to court). We activated the clause. Liverpool chose to ignore it and basically said to Suarez "take us to court if you don't like it, but it'll take months to sort out". Suarez obviously couldn't be arsed because it's not like Arsenal was some dream move for him, so just stayed put and eventually got a much better move anyway.

 

Liverpool weren't going to sell him to us at any cost and JWH has said as much. Offering £75m wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference and I can't believe this is still getting rolled out to this day.

 

As for Mustafi, I don't really see it as being disrespectful to the player. By all accounts we have agreed personal terms with him. Essentially we think Valencia will cave on their valuation because they have FFP obligations to meet by a certain point, and we'll be able to save a few million on the price. Disrespectful or prudent? Depends on your outlook I guess.

 

I've seen it suggested that not signing Mustafi has cost us points but I don't understand that logic. He wouldn't have been ready to play against Liverpool and we kept a clean sheet against Leicester, so in terms of points on the board I don't think he'd have made any difference thusfar. If it drags on for much longer though, that point may end up having some merit and that would be much harder to justify. We need to draw a line under it at some point and stump up if Valencia really aren't budging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, hercules said:

Because no one wants to pay what we want for a player. That's why we always struggle getting rid of surplus players. 

 

Is that right? I think we have just become terrible sellers. We've gone from having all our top players nabbed on annual basis, to never selling anyone at a decent price. Can it really be down to wages? I can see how we had trouble shifting the likes of Arshavin and Podolski who were on fairly big money, but I don't believe for a second that Joel Campbell is on an outlandish salary, certainly not by current market standards. I bet we could sell him for £15m+ if we wanted to in this inflated market, considering that he put in a few good performances last year and seems to have a decent attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Fox said:

 

Oh mate c'mon, not this Suarez thing again. I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying there are literally no transfers ever whereby a player had a fixed release clause, but a club ended up paying massively over that clause just because they really, really wanted him.

 

JWH said the £40m clause existed (though I believe the PFA doubted how watertight it was, should it have ever gone to court). We activated the clause. Liverpool chose to ignore it and basically said to Suarez "take us to court if you don't like it, but it'll take months to sort out". Suarez obviously couldn't be arsed because it's not like Arsenal was some dream move for him, so just stayed put and eventually got a much better move anyway.

 

Liverpool weren't going to sell him to us at any cost and JWH has said as much. Offering £75m wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference and I can't believe this is still getting rolled out to this day.

 

As for Mustafi, I don't really see it as being disrespectful to the player. By all accounts we have agreed personal terms with him. Essentially we think Valencia will cave on their valuation because they have FFP obligations to meet by a certain point, and we'll be able to save a few million on the price. Disrespectful or prudent? Depends on your outlook I guess.

 

I've seen it suggested that not signing Mustafi has cost us points but I don't understand that logic. He wouldn't have been ready to play against Liverpool and we kept a clean sheet against Leicester, so in terms of points on the board I don't think he'd have made any difference thusfar. If it drags on for much longer though, that point may end up having some merit and that would be much harder to justify. We need to draw a line under it at some point and stump up if Valencia really aren't budging.

 

They put the £75m clause in his next contract he signed pretty promptly, that was clearly the amount they wanted for him. If you offer that much and they say no, no harm done. Everyone will blame/praise Liverpool, not laugh at Arsenal and that's fine. It's exactly the same thing as the Mustafi deal, we are being a bit tight and it makes us look like a laughing stock.

 

How does getting personal terms agreed and then saying "actually we want x, y and z if they don't budge" not disrespectful? "This is our new signing, the one we said wasn't worth the amount we had to pay for him. Please buy a shirt with his name on the back, they're £79 thanks"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only people who mock Arsenal over the Suarez deal are people with an agenda, or people who don't actually know or care about the facts. Also, could we actually have committed to £75m plus £35m in wages back in 2013? Obviously subsequent TV deals have meant we'd have been fine, but at the time I suspect that sort of money on one guy might have been a risk.

 

It's probably hard to know if we're just "being a bit tight" over Mustafi as so many different things are coming out about the situation. John Cross is now saying Valencia want €50m for him, in which case I don't think it's as simple as us trying to scrimp on a couple of million quid.

 

I dunno. I just think it's easy to say we're tight arses and useless in the transfer market, but we have so little info to base that on really. Most of the stuff in the papers is hearsay. I'm sure we can be hard work, and I think Arsene doesn't like to overpay in his own mind which can complicate matters, but I find it hard to form strong opinions on all this stuff because we just don't know the truth of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rev said:

How does getting personal terms agreed and then saying "actually we want x, y and z if they don't budge" not disrespectful? "This is our new signing, the one we said wasn't worth the amount we had to pay for him. Please buy a shirt with his name on the back, they're £79 thanks"

This is the tricky bit isn't it?

 

I follow you logic and agree. But we can't necessarily cave on 50m Euros (if that's a real rumour)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Fox said:

I think the only people who mock Arsenal over the Suarez deal are people with an agenda, or people who don't actually know or care about the facts. Also, could we actually have committed to £75m plus £35m in wages back in 2013? Obviously subsequent TV deals have meant we'd have been fine, but at the time I suspect that sort of money on one guy might have been a risk.

 

It's probably hard to know if we're just "being a bit tight" over Mustafi as so many different things are coming out about the situation. John Cross is now saying Valencia want €50m for him, in which case I don't think it's as simple as us trying to scrimp on a couple of million quid.

 

I dunno. I just think it's easy to say we're tight arses and useless in the transfer market, but we have so little info to base that on really. Most of the stuff in the papers is hearsay. I'm sure we can be hard work, and I think Arsene doesn't like to overpay in his own mind which can complicate matters, but I find it hard to form strong opinions on all this stuff because we just don't know the truth of it.

 

Obviously spending £75m on Suarez would be a risk, spending a fiver on him would have been as he could have the rest of the (delicate) Arsenal squad out for the whole season if he got a bit bitey in training. But, srsly, I don't mind that we didn't get him at all. There's no way he'd have been as good for us as he is at Barcelona because he's settled and happy there in his personal life as well as on the pitch. We definitely could have chosen to afford him though, even then.

 

If I was Valencia and I'd been asking for around £30m after it being dragged out like this I'd definitely be asking for more, not less. Anyone would, surely?

 

Basically my opinion is that there's more to looking after a football club than just spending carefully. How things look from the outside matter, it affects confidence and morale of the players and both those are the easiest way to make a team veer from good to shit and vice versa.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Valencia have publicly said we can have Mustafa but must meet his buy-out of £43m.

 

Now its understandable that Wenger openly responded to questions about this and said we hope to sign him this week.

 

Will Valencia cave in? Let's hope so because it seems VERY unlikely that Arsenal will...

 

Johnny Evans anyone ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just us as fans who will be looking at our inaction over the Summer. If you're Ozil and Sanchez, you wouldn't exactly be chomping at the bit to sign a new deal would you? While you're watching your rivals drop £50m+ on world class players, and bringing in world class managers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think players are obsessed with transfers like fans have been conditioned to be. I keep banging this drum but we have bigger problems than signings right now. If I was Özil I'd be more concerned that the manager can't ever seem to get the team prepared for August fixtures, and can't seem to assemble a modern, cohesive midfield that functions as a unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could offer them £60m for Alcacer and Mustafi. That nudges both towards being kinda reasonable-ish. I'm not really convinced Alcacer would be any improvement on Giroud, but he's different and I think he'd work well in the Premier League.

 

I am aware this is the least likely thing that anyone has typed in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Fox said:

 

 

 

Mine requires business nous and negotiating for two players at once. Yours only requires Kroenke to get really fucking drunk, which is unlikely but at least isn't impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that like he's got his hand grasped around the purse strings, but to be fair to old Stanley he may not be interested in putting any of his own money in and is therefore no more than a parasitic investor, but there's no actual evidence that he's in any way responsible for us not using close to our full 'warchest' over the past few windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought it was said Wenger had full and final say on the playing budget - that is the amount that can be paid in either fees or wages.

 

Sure Silent Stan being paid £3m a year in management fees doesn't increase the playing budget, but he's not got the club in hock in the same way that the Glazers did at Utd with their leveraged buy out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.