That's a fair question but if you look at both Carrick and Barry (Man U and Man C's DMs) and that Parker has overtaken both of them in the England squad then it's fair to say he is at least as good as them. I also feel he would do a better job than Mikel for Chelsea. You already know my opinion about Parker v Song but maybe you didn't sign him because of his age (probably very likely come to think of it). Transfers work in weird ways. Look at Jose Enrique. Do you not think he is a better player than Andre Santos? Yet you didn't go for Enrique but went for Santos.
In that case how did Rooney get into England squads for a major tournament at a younger age? Even Lennon went to the World Cup at 18. Parker is also always called up when fit now (suggesting Capello realised he made a mistake by not calling him up). Song better than Essien?? I guess your entitled to your view but I'm not sure many would agree considering this was Essien at his best before his injuries.
I still think he can improve certain aspects of his game mainly his shooting. He has scored wonder goals for Croatia and us this year so I hope it something he working on. My father in law (arsenal fan) said that modric looked a typical arsenal player when he signed for us
No that's not my logic, I thought Assou Ekotto was French (well that's Wikipedia for you!) - i know he grew up in France anyway. Parker is not a definite starter for England at all. (If Capello goes for three in the middle Parker might get a look in but he's probably below Barry in the pecking order) Wilshere is a starter for England however (and at 19 has probably brought a premature end to Frank Lampard's international career). But yes I do agree on Scholes, I think the guy was completely under-rated.
Different Managers were in charge when Rooney and Lennon were picked at that age and Jack was barely 18 when the last world cup came about. I cannot speculate on why one manager chose Rooney and Lennon while the other did not choose Wilshire. Also Lennon was 19 when he was called up. In regards to Parker I would find it interesting if he keeps his place once Jack returns some might argue the reason he's been playing more regularly for England is because Jack is injured
TBF French 4th choice is not too bad. I'm surprised you rate him that highly considering some of the quality left backs France has. Evra, Abidal, Mathieu, Sakkho, Clichy...It shows you do rate him at least! I have to disagree about Parker. In recent games he's become a nailed on starter. Capello has dropped Barry for a few games recently.
People who were saying Van der Vaart is a Real Madrid reject are being a little silly in my opinion. The club changed coach and presidency and as a result changed their marketing strategy. The Dutch contingent (Van der Vaart, Sneijder, Robben, Huntelaar) no longer fitted in with the image of the club and so were replaced with more glamorous 'galacticos' like Ronaldo, Kaka and Benzema. Kaka and Benzema were far less impressive in their first two seasons than VdV, Sneijder and Robben were in their short time at the club.
Gunners fans are very negative. They accuse Wenger and the club of a lack of ambition and then say he is crazy when he talks of challenging for the title. I would say: 1. The Arsenal defence is an awful lot better than everyone makes out. Terry/Cahill/Rio/Vidic have all made more and worse mistakes than Metersaker this year. 2. The loss of Fabregas and Nasri was not felt as badly as many feared. 3. Losing away to Spurs and Manchester United was not as big a deal as losing to Liverpool at home. 4. I can't think of a single player in the Spurs team that I would want at Arsenal, or that I think would fit in the Arsenal system, but I can understand if you said the same in reverse. 5. I am fairly sure Arsenal will finish in the top 4 again. In fact I am 14 years certain. 6. I am not qualified to say whether Spurs will finish in the top 4, so I can't say who will be best placed at the end of the year. But I think that their fans are counting on Arsenal's drop, rather then their rise, to get above us. 7. Arsenal are not a one man team, but right now I am not confident that thay have a good replacement for RVP should he be injured or need a rest.
Mostly money recuperated from sales And to all the Arsenal fans saying we have had a fully fit squad for the past few games - you're wrong. Our Injuries: Kranjcar, Gallas, Corluka & Huddlestone. Basically, get your facts right before you start spouting ****.
No sugar on your cornflakes this morning sweety? You must forgive us as it is hard to differentiate between the players at WHL - they all play like they are injured reserves tbh, which is why you will not be in the CL next year
Not compared to the teams around us. People always ignore the biggest expenditure when compiling these figures, which is wages. As they sent your club bust, I thought you'd have realised that.
It was actually about £43m from the last figures and Arsenal's combined spending has actually been far higher. The difference in transfer spending would be evened out by about 3 years of the difference in wages.
The difference over the last few years has been £43m, £44m and £48m. It's actually come down a little. £300m less on transfers over the decade? Really? It's closer to £100m, as far as I can see. I agree with your final sentence, though.
Just browsing their list of transfers I can see quite dramatic inaccuracies. They've got our net expenditure for the 08/09 season down as £50m, putting some massive mark ups on the figures and omitting Malbranque's transfer to Sunderland altogether. Bale and Bent's moves the previous summer have been similarly increased, from their actual figures of around £7m and £16m to £12m and £21.7m. Not a reliable source.
In Bale and Bent's case, it was the BBC. The figures that Transfermarkt have claimed are far higher than any media report.
