AdHominista: 1) I don't know inner dealings of anyone, but I will end your argument to this point by reminding you that Wenger stated categorically that he wouldn't sell Fabregas or Nasri because that would send out bad signals and Arsenal couldn't be classed as a "big club" if they sold them. Do you remember that ? You should do. Fergie sold Ronaldo for £80m. Every player has his price. 2) Truth be told, there is no like for like replacement for Cesc anywhere in Europe - maybe Sneijder, Arteta is not a straight replacement for him but he is at least creative. The main problem I have isn't with the replacements, but bringing them in AFTER the season has started, they missed the first league games and our pre season, which in turn has hurt us massively. I'd rather we had Cesc instead of both Arteta AND Benayoun but I understand we have a stronger squad as a result. Its the timing I am upset about. 3) Its the principle behind the matter. They sold a player at least as important for them as Cesc was for us and invested quickly in 2 players, much like we did with Cesc for Benayoun and Arteta, the point is they did it quickly in a far smaller transfer window too. If they can do it, why couldn't we ?? 4) Perspectives fall into line when you know exactly what it is you are looking for. The move to the Emirates was always going to be a mid term project. Short term can only be a few years, 5 to 10 years is mid term, more than 10 years must be long term. When talking footballing projects you pretty much know how long a short, mid and long term project is. 6 years can never be described as a short term project by any stretch of the imagination in football. 5) "Crisis" are subjective, they are also relative. A team who have had their worst start in 58 years AND are 1 point above relegation AND have played CL football for 14 consecutive years must be seen as being in a crisis !
By your logic nobody would ever question anything wenger/arsenal do then, because obv none of us know the whole story/are actually anything more than armchair football managers. Marv. Thanks for the feedback
Erm....... we've only got 3 points from the last 2 games But worse still, 4 points from 5 games would give us 30 points for the season.
There are certainly areas of our transfer policy that can be questioned. Such as why we waited until the last few days in August to sign Mertesacker/Santos when everyone knew we needed defensive signings. But we really have no proper idea as to the inner workings of the Nasri deal so it is best not to speculate too wildly. I find it as frustrating as anyone that Wenger and Arsenal are so close-lipped about our transfer targets and dealings, but I prefer it to the alternative of being classless and arrogant, ala Barcelona. There must be a middle ground between these two extremes. And my armchair football manager comment was a harsh. I probably wouldn't write it again if I had the chance.
Whilst this tight lipped policy can be frustrating and raise questions from the fans, it is also the correct way to do deals. The arrogance of Man City over the Nasri signing when openly discussing where he would fit into their team and how much he would get paid etc some weeks before the deal was finalised is wrong, the belief that because they have more money than anyone they can do/say/buy anything. There are strong reports that we got £25m for Nasri because City knew they'd tapped him up and wanted to avoid league investigation etc. I too got frustrated that our signings arrived only on deadline day but I am sure the groundwork was done some days/weeks beforehand, it's unlikely to be a case of '8-2 defeat to Utd, best we buy a few now'.
I gather from a discussion with James Olley of the Standard on LBC that Arsenal had placed a couple of club record bids for players over the summer but that these came to nothing. The blame for this was pointed in the direction of the negotiating team of Gazidis and Law. Reason for the breakdown was not known and one could presumably speculate that wagers may have something to do with it - yes, that constant stumbling block of Arsenal FC. It was also apparent that up until Vermaelen was injured, Arsene had shelved plans to bring in players in defensive positions not unlike the manner by which he is resisting calls for a defensive coach. The man has tunnel vision. You really cannot live in and on the past. If you do, Arsenal will be left behind as it already is. Our form going back to March is ample evidence of this.
I also agree that Arsenal do deals the correct way, but it is depressing how other clubs seem to flaunt the rules currently in place. Few would disagree that since the Sheiks took over the club Man City have become extremely arrogant and distasteful in the way they act towards other clubs. I suppose a club in many way resembles its ownership. Man city are owned by a billionaire royal autocrat who has never failed to get what he wanted irregardless of cost. This is reflected in quite clearly in Man city. I have no doubt that there was some tapping up involved in the Nasri deal. I have absolutely no faith that any of the powers who run the game will do anything to correct the system as it currently operates. The status quo, and the money it provides, is too entrenched. I also have a feeling that Arsenal were almost forced to wait until the last few days of the transfer window to make moves for players. The reason for this was to negate the risk that a richer club that could offer bigger wages swooping in and hijacking the deal. Who knows?
Adhominista Man City are the new Chelsea. The behaviour of Chelsea players, staff and owner over the years has been poor, they've repeatedly ignored league rules and behaved in an arrogant way. Didn't they get a transfer ban which was obviously rescinded because Roman has more money than FA/EUFA/FIFA and can buy the worlds best lawyers to blow any case against them. Authorities are powerless to change some clubs behaviour because of teh sick money they are prepared to throw at legal challenges. People are sick of Man City and the way they behave well it's been going on in West London for 10 years, we've got years of it to come as well....
I think blaming City for tapping up Nasri is a bit hollow. I think it is criminal to allow your second best player to almost run down his contract! If Nasri had a long term contract, this issue would not have arisen. Look at the Modric case, Chelsea wanted him, he wanted to go, but he was on a long term deal. City saw an opportunity and they exploited it. Arsenal should get its house in order. What really irks me is that, the world knew Fab was going to leave..... you would have expected a club with its finger on the pulse to tie up his replacement to a long term deal..... Can you see this shambles at Manure?
omogooner - Arsenal offered Nasri a new contract in January, 18 months before his current contract ran out', this is when he said it wasn't about money and started the long sequence of deceipt against the club. The trouble is people criticise AW for having too many average players on good wages and this is a fair argument, but if you have a talented player with huge potential (say B52, Gibbs or Denilson) at a very young age you have to make the choice between offering them big/long contracts and looking a bit silly a few years down the line, or if you're not sure risk losing them on a free. Nasri was highly rated and offered £100k a week or thereabouts in Jan, he stalled because his agent knew that Man City/Man Utd/Chelsea would be happy to double that and of course he ended up at City. And contracts don't work both ways really - if you have a good kid on a long term deal and he turns out to be outstanding, you have to offer him enhanced terms even though he's just signed a contract he was happy with. So basically clubs get screwed if they get someone on a long term deal and get screwed if they don't...
Precisely my point, 18months before his contract ran out.... You could afford to take such risks with players like Bendy, Eboue etc etc, i.e. fringe players.... I think his contract should have been re-negotiated with minimum 2years to go. I seem to remember Wayne Rooney had 2yrs left on his contract last season, and if he had not signed, Manure were to ready to hawk him to the highest bidder..... I hear RVP has 2yrs left on his contract as well, I know with our luck he will stay injury free this season and refuse to commit himself next season, thus forcing our hands again.....
To be fair to AW Nasri was nothing more than a injured but talented squad player before last season, I don't remember him standing out as the clubs future backbone before the start of 10/11. I think clubs are on a hiding to nothing - getting someone to sign a 3 or 4 year contract and then starting negotiations on a new one before the term is half complete might be the way things get done for money no object clubs, but then they're not concerned with paying someone £100k+ a week to warm the bench. You have to have players who want to play for the club, the mercenaries (and I include Nasri here) like Flamini and Hleb will always want to walk because their agent turns their head and promises them increased fortune and naturally thinking of his own commission. On Rooney, he held a gun to the clubs head and said make me the highest paid footballer in the world or I walk - strange attitide to have when the club you play for have made you a multi millionaire and you are contracted to do yoru job for another 2 years at the rate you previously agreed...
