Ramsey is out for another 6 weeks, not 6 games, so there will still be a need for cover in midfield after that point, particularly with Wilsheres patchy injury status. Agreed we particularly needed cover for the next handful of games but it will still be useful to have him around after that period.
You just made the worse comparison. Your so stupid it's unreal. His question was "who signs an injured player" - that is why i brought up another player that is injured that the fanswanted us to sign. That had nothing to dowith the quality of the player. Honestly you talk a load of ****.
You are seriously not going to distinguish between a long-term contract and a loan player, in a time which the manager hinted we are in a more rush to sign someone after Flamini ban?
Your the second poster to totally miss the point. "who signs an injured player?" is the exact sentence i was replying to. I'm not drawing any comparison whatsoever to the quality of the players, the type of signings or anything else whatsoever. I was literally drawing upon the fact that they where both injured to argue against the "who signs an injured player?". I was not arguing themerit of thsi individual transfer by using Draxler as a comparison. Hopefully that is now abundantly clear.
So if he qualified it with "who loans an injured player?" you would have agreed then, semantics was your only objection? Honestly this Kallstrom discussion in our board should rightly cement our place among the most deluded fanbases in this board. Seriously, it has gone beyond pathetic with some of you here. If it helps, just detach yourself from being an Arsenal fan for a second and try to judge the situation as if it were happening to a neutral club. One you don't exactly hate, but aren't attached to either.
I just don't see the big deal. I don't think we have a desperate needfor signings, cover for midfield would have been nice. Seems wel inedthat up and at the last moment it turned out he wasn;t going to be available for part of the time we needed him, but we took him anyway to provide cover for the rest of the season rather than cancel the deal. I get that we particularly needsoem cover in our next handful of games but everyone is acting like it's some huge shambles, but really it isn't all that bad.
That's how I understood it too, as well as his medical bills. It's a zero cost loan too, so it was worth Wenger taking the gamble.
Despite Arsenal moving back to the top, Arsene Wenger's post-match news conference with dominated by questions about the signing of Kim Kallstrom. The 31-year-old Sweden midfielder was signed on loan until the end of the season from Spartak Moscow, despite suffering with a back injury that could keep him out of action until mid-March. "It crossed my mind to not do the deal," said Wenger. "I wouldn't have signed him if we had another two or three days, but it was on Friday at 5pm. We accepted to share the costs, so they will pay him for the first six weeks of his wages. There's a possibility he will not play, but also a possibility he will score a vital winning goal." If this was anyone other than Wenger, he would get berated for the way Arsenal conducted themselves in this January window. Not only did Arsenal do business at the last minute, but they also backed themselves in a corner where they had no one else to sign up but resorted to gambling on an injured player, to cover another injured player/and a banned one. I hope we learn from this mistake and do not repeat it again.
Nothing new.......Arsenal/Wenger's transfer policy is always criticized or commented on. It will be the same in the summer.
The thing that bothers me are the timings. Had we pursued this the second Flamini picked up his ban the we could have had KK in earlier and would have avoided the beach nonsense. Instead, we fanny-arse around until TDD to make the signing when everyone is in a rush. Yes it's unfortunate about the injury happening but why on earth did we leave it to the last minute. I also sincerely hope we're paying nothing at all for him whilst he's injured. The money the fans have to pay to watch football these days it's insulting to suggest that chucking any cash at an injured player (from another team) is money well spent. A fit and healthy player who is contributing then fair enough but...jeez!
I think it is easy to make the assumption that there was an alternative available to Kallstrom. The decision that had to be made was Kallstrom or no one. There was no alternative. In that context it makes the decision a bit of an irrelevancy. The problem with the January transfer window has always been that no one is going to let their top players leave. I realize that a lot of our fans are very down on our team right now, but they are top of the league and improving on them isn't easy. We need back-ups yes, but if we get someone in who hasn't been playing for his club then how good a back up is he going to be? I would have loved it if we had signed Messi as back up to Giroud, but I'm realistic enough to know that any player we signed in January would have been a risk in some way. My hopes were not high. We need to stop being depressed about our chances and believe in the team we have right now. The squad is a lot deeper than most people believe and players are coming back from their injuries all the time.
Turned into a real shambles this has. Too late in the day to sign anyone else, so it was him or nobody.
