Short-term loan with Arsenal paying majority of wages would be the only way in which any sort of deal for Chamakh could be construed as being good business. He's not a good player at all; even at Bordeaux, he scored only 78 goals in nigh on 300 games. Hardly prolific.
Played a lot of games as a wide forward for Bordeux. Not many mid table premier league sides will have a better third choice striker than Chamakh. I think more realistic fans will see it exactly as what it is - a good, solid, low risk signing that gives us different options.
Certainly, especially after what the West Ham owners' son has posted online: "I am very sorry about this news Chamakh has sign a 6 month loan deal! not my pick "
People are constantly making the mistake of assuming a player is useless because he's never performed for his current club. Chamakh has been good before and can be good again.
Chamakh started off quite well for Arsenal because he actually started games. Then RVP came back from injury and Chamakh was dropped.
Yeah what fools we look - adding experienced premier league players to our young group of players and adding depth to a team sitting safely in mid table.
Hey Trixter, what's your opinion on Redknapp's desire to sign Diame? I personally think he's deluded.
If Chamakh is free with most of his wages paid, it is a no lose situation. If we signed Joe Cole, I'd think he might do a job but I wouldn't put the bunting out.
Maybe a tad. It's always fun pointing out how much better we are doing than you though so I can live with it.
