He's improved undoubtedly and he's surpassed my expectations of him (though they were admittedly rock bottom when we signed him). He does have some value. The issue is, we've put him on a huge contract with large financial outlay and when his terms are (likely) up for renewal next Summer, he's probably going to want an increase in pay (as every person in their line of work normally would). Can you honestly sit there and tell me it's worth giving him £300k a week and a 4/5 year extension? Because I think it would be a big mistake if we did.
I don't know what type of crack the negotiating team were smoking when they signed Havertz, crazy transfer fee and even crazier wages ! Considering at the time we were buying essentially a dud from Chelsea. He has proved his worth at Arsenal, I guess we will have to play it by ear when it comes to renewal time, how is he performing, what other options are there out there, etc.
With Saka, he's probably been our best player (excluding defenders). We've really missed him during he repeated injury spell. The injuries worry me as they now seem recurring, so probably on his last chance to prove he can stay fit. It's similar to Jesus - one of the top players in the Emirates era in terms of minutes per goal contribution.. better than the likes of Aubameyang - but with him he's gone too far on the injury side.
A dud?.. he won the UCL under Tuchel. Havertz was at Chelsea for three years, during that time he had three managers: Lampard, Tuchel and Potter all with different ideas - I don't think a single forward player in that squad excelled during this time. Chelsea paid £72million for him - we paid £65. I think that's about reasonable fee.
In all seriousness though Bear, I don't get how or why you think that level of financial outlay on Havertz is reasonable. He had 3 years at Chelsea where he was relatively uninspiring and yes, he had 3 different managers, but he also didn't show any consistency at all to justify the amount of money we paid for him. He won the Champions League sure, but that in itself isn't enough to justify £65m spend and a £285k p/w contract. I am still of the belief that the money we forked out on him would have been better distributed elsewhere. Even though he has proven to be better than I thought, what he's shown hasn't been enough to make me change my mind on this.
How much do you think a versatile 20 goal EPL forward should cost?.. because that's what Havertz is now. 14 goal 5 assists last Season missed 3+ months. Tottenham signed Richarlison for £60m & Solanke for £65m. Ekitikewent to Liverpool for £80m Waltemade went to Newcastle for £69m United signed Sancho for £73m and Sesko for £70m. Chelsea signed Joao Pedro for £63m, Pedro Neto for £60m, Mudryk for £70-90m He's WAAAY better than you are giving me credit for being. Havertz is a class.
He has been a great signing to date and honestly, £65m seems cheap. This was one of the most highly rated young players ever from Germany, which is why Chelsea forked out as much as they did for him. When you consider players like Wirtz being bought for 100m plus, £65m is very reasonable. In the false 9 position, Havertz was contributing to more goals per game than any player in England over a sustained stretch prior to his injury. Some crazy Arsenal fans hated the guy from the moment we signed him, something I can't understand. At Chelsea - his form went up and down.. .buy when he hit form he was their best player. His challenge now coming back from injury is maintain form for longer stretches , something he has already done for us prior to the injury. He needs to keep that going.
