so it doesn't tell you when the paperwork was sent it? i didn't realise you were an expert on loan contract negotiations. it wouldn't make a jot of difference as none of us have any idea how long the paperwork takes to complete. i expect there's also no evidence he was ever intended to play tonight aside from that same Sun article? this will be my last comment on this. i'm fast getting fed up with this forum. ja606 is suddenly starting to seem very appealing.
Jayram is no expert. The issues he raises are speculative nonsense, it's an attempt to wriggle out of his claim that Arsenal's 'shambles' were responsible for the paperwork delay. He does it because he can't admit he was wrong. More details are emerging today about why the Red Bulls have held up the paperwork in the Metro. Apparently we want Henry available for the Spuds match on the 26th Feb, but Red Bulls are stalling because they want him back for training by 20th http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/footba...turn-date-to-new-york-red-bulls#ixzz1iVdNGKUf
so they don't agree about return date. We want to include him here for Spurs , they don't. Surely we would have asked at the beginning. With a negative response we should have settled for 20th.
What has always been consistent with Arsenal since the year dot is their reluctance to issue any information on transfer/loan dealings until the deal is sealed, therefore any blame for delays in this transaction can only be speculation. I understand what Jayram is saying in that had we decided on a loan deal for Thierry a month ago the paperwork could have been put in place for 1 Jan but who's to say that AW didn't have other deals lined up that have fallen through and Thierry is his plan B or C or D ? It may be that when Thierry joined us for training in December he was 4 weeks conditioning off playing and AW decided to give him some time to prove his fitness ? There are a million things that could have impacted this, no-one in here knows the full story/stories.
You're right, the issues around when we should have started the negotiations are speculative and Arsenal don't release information until deals are signed. But the investigative journalism is another matter and they are suggesting that the Red Bulls are holding up the paperwork because of the return date. As Bergie Dutch says, we could have settled for the 20th date, but negotiations are just that, a series of requests that are debated. We may not know 100%, but what is certain is that it's not simply Arsenal's 'shambles' of an admin team who are to blame. It's expected that the deal will be finalised in the next 48 hours, let's hope it is. Then we can concentrate on looking forward to seeing Henry for the Leeds game.
Who's to say we're arguing it out though? It could be simply that we submitted a request and Red Bulls have sat on it because they won't agree to the date of the 26th. There's also the issue of Henry's match fitness. He wouldn't be ready until the Leeds game anyway. So he wouldn't have played in the fulham game regardless
The Metro are running the story too. They may not be 100% accurate, but they're a better bet than your claim that it was Arsenal's 'shambles' of an admin team who were responsible for the delay. Bergie Dutch. Match fitness in the context Wenger was talking about, doesn't mean playing matches - it means getting up to a fitness to be able to play matches. That's why Henry wouldn't have been ready for the Fulham game
I'd like to see the story on RVP that I 'ridiculed as not being worth a jot' - because I dispute that. Can you provide some evidence please? Wenger said that Henry needed two weeks to get up to match fitness. That was just before the new year. Thus he wouldn't have been available for the Fulham game.
If you read the rest of my post you would have noticed that I'd made the distinction between the Mail's story (pure speculation that RVP was going to join City based on him saying he wanted to win trophies) and Sky Sports running the same interview where RVP said that he wanted to win trophies with Arsenal. Thus, the Mail story was made up and had no newsworthy credibility. There is no hypocrisy. There is a clear distiction between fact and spin. So I was right to call you out then, as I'm right to call you out now for saying that it was Arsenal's 'shambles' of an admin team who are responsible for the paperwork delay, when in fact two separate news sources are saying that the delay is down to the New York Red Bulls.
No need to wriggle. The Mail made the story up - as Sky Sports proved when they actually published the interview with RVP
The mail are known for making stories up - they did with that RVP story as SKy Sports disproved it. It doesn't mean that they make every story up though. Anyway, the story about NYRB was in two separate newspapers, neither of them being the Mail.
The Mail are well known for making up stories - they did with that RVP story as Sky Sports disproved it. That doesn't equate to the Sun and The Metro making up the Henry paperwork delay story. The only wriggling going on here Jayram is you trying to wriggle out of the fact that you said that Arsenal's admin team were a 'shambles' for not completing the deal, when two separate news stories are saying that it due to the New York Red Bulls.
No the is because you are still trying to wriggle out of the fact that you can't admit you were wrong on the reason for the paperwork delay. Your subsequent rantings are simply hot air, designed to try and gloss over this fact.
There is no hypocrisy. The Mail made the RVP story up - Sky Sports disproved it. That doesn't equate in any way to a position that EVERY story the Metro publish must also be made up. That is a ridiculous suggestion. You blamed Arsenal for the delay in paperwork, but you could not admit that you might be wrong when two other news sources citied that it's the New York Red Bulls who are causing the delay. This is why you have ranted on for two days, because you don't have the humilty to recognise that your claim was baseless. Give it up now, this has gone on for too long
The difference is that they published RVP's words - from the Horses mouth, whereas the Mail attributed his words to try and support a totally made up story.
