As I've already said, in my opinion we will only submit a bid if we have assurances that he's not interested in joining anyone else.
Nasri To City - Done Deal!
- Thread starter evra
- Start date
- Status
First, some papers report that City have distanced themselves. It's not necessarily true, especially as other papers still believe a bid is imminent.
Wenger mentioned United because he was asked about United. Because the rumour was, at the time, that United wanted Nasri. Which may or may not be true. L'Equipe prints rubbish, too. Not as much as the Sun but no less than, say, the Guardian.
The Berbatov transfer was three years ago, City were a newly rich, mid-table club then. A 27-year-old player, who wanted trophies, did well to avoid them, seeing he did not have much time to wait for some grand project. This time it's different: their financial clout is the same but now they have a trophy to show for it and Champions League football and big players. They have a huge pulling power, whether we like it or not.
Chelsea seem more unlikely at the moment but if they fail with the Modric chase, they could be back in it.
We're signing Modric and Sneijder, too? We haven't distanced ourselves from either. Or mentioned at all.
Why would it matter? We submit a bid, if he wants to come to us he accepts it, if he doesn't he declines it and we move on. It doesn't matter if he is interested in anyone else. If 3 clubs court him he will be interested in all of them. Footballers at lower teams wanting success won't get far if they only have an interest in one club and decline all transfer offers until that one club comes up, because that club may never come up and they will end up stuck there. If we don't make a bid and Chelsea do, he will be interested in them because we haven't expressed an interest and someone else has given him an opportunity to leave a dead end club.
It doesn't quite work that way. We'll let Nasri know we're interested and we'll seek assurances from his representatives that he wants to join us and us only. If he's just desperate to leave Arsenal for a bigger wage and the better chance of trophies, we probably won't make a bid because we don't want to end up in a bidding war with the likes of City.
If Nasri's heart is set on joining United - a very unlikely scenario, in my opinion - then he'll let us know that and we'll make a formal bid.
I'll cheer up when I see a post that amuses. I'll probably have to stay away from yours for the time being.
Or, we can just submit a bid to Arsenal and if they accept it then we offer Nasri a contract and if he courts 3 clubs at once we can walk away. What difference does it make if he is open to all clubs.
Who gives a feck about City, if we follow your logic we will never sign a player again who City might want despite coming out and saying they don't want just in case they end up in a bidding war. We can make a bid and if we get messed about we can withdraw it. Simples.
Stop being so scared of City outbidding us, shit happens, if it does it does and we can walk away, if it doesn't then we sign a player. End of story.
Everything depends on Samir's ambitions. He really might aswell play the role of victim without bigger trophies to sign a very lucrative contract with Gunners for the next 4-5 years.
If he will officially state after talks with Wenger that he wants to find another club, Man United are prepared to automatically make bid for him and enter in tough negotiations with Arsenal.
One thing that we surely need are quotes from the player and managers. We know already that Arsene won't give up on him, even when City or Chelsea make huge bids.
Man United's successful campaigns on almost every football front may be the decisive factor, indeed but it's Nasri who will decide in the end.
To put it shortly... In terms of football, we are the best team for him. In terms of money, he can feck off to City, Chelsea and Madrid.
If he will officially state after talks with Wenger that he wants to find another club, Man United are prepared to automatically make bid for him and enter in tough negotiations with Arsenal.
One thing that we surely need are quotes from the player and managers. We know already that Arsene won't give up on him, even when City or Chelsea make huge bids.
Man United's successful campaigns on almost every football front may be the decisive factor, indeed but it's Nasri who will decide in the end.
To put it shortly... In terms of football, we are the best team for him. In terms of money, he can feck off to City, Chelsea and Madrid.
He's not the one in a position to accept any bid, that would be his club.
According to the media preliminary talks have already taken place between ourselves and the player's representatives weeks ago.
It matters because that's the way we appear to conduct our business, we don't waste our time with bidding wars or chasing lost causes. We establish that the player wants to join us first and then we submit a bid.
Spot on.
I get your point, but there is no bidding war, only a potential one, that won't stop us from making a bid, we will try and sign the players that we want and IF a bidding war actually happens, then it might change things.
why are we a small club?
There are plenty of reasons why he might want to join United. We can speculate all day. We could suggest the wage demands a smokescreen because we've already talked to him and he has already decided. The fact is when you are in your final year, the idea of a bidding war isn't as great as you imagine because the 'selling' club would not have as much power, not if they're not willing to lose a player for free. You only have to look at the Udinese situation with Sanchez to see that. When a player has a year left, I don't think a bidding war is realistic. It is in the interests of the selling club to get a replacement in asap. They can't afford to drag things out and clubs won't be willing to pay silly money when a year later you can get him on a free.
It's the muppet logic at work: if United have not made an official club statement that they are not interested in a player, then they must be trying to sign him.
The implication of such logic is that we must be trying to buy back Paul McShane.
My point essentially is that we won't make a bid at all if we think the player himself would entertain other offers.
That doesn't make much sense, many players who want to move to a bigger club are open to more than one club.
If a player thinks 'Manchester United, that's all I want' then they shoot themself in the foot if Manchester United never come round and they miss out on a move to another big club that can match their ambitions and end up stuck in the place they don't want to be.
Nasri may well want to move to United being sick of Arsenal but prepared to go elsewhere if we don't bother making a bid.
I think there'll be a lot of disappointed people in here.
We establish all that through preliminary talks before making a bid.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Only if a player is only ever focused on one club, which isn't the case.
It's really simple, if we want Nasri we make a bid, if Arsenal accept it then they accept it. We offer a contract to Nasri, if he accepts then we sign, if he dicks us about we walk away. That's how a transfer works, we don't get scared off on the off chance that City may make a bid despite saying that they aren't interested. We may not get involved in a bidding war if a bidding war arises, but right now there isn't a bidding war. There is nothing to not get involved in.
It's really simple, if we want Nasri we make a bid, if Arsenal accept it then they accept it. We offer a contract to Nasri, if he accepts then we sign, if he dicks us about we walk away. That's how a transfer works, we don't get scared off on the off chance that City may make a bid despite saying that they aren't interested. We may not get involved in a bidding war if a bidding war arises, but right now there isn't a bidding war. There is nothing to not get involved in.
I just can't see us signing him, steady guys don't pin too much hopes on it.
That also works by way of people assuming that we are doing nothing because we're not publicly mouthing off about our targets, a la 'Arry.
I disagree. I think in this situation the way to sign Nasri is for the player to negotiate a contract with Arsenal, that break down, a transfer request be put in by the player and then clubs make bids. I don't believe for a second we'd make a bid prior to that as it would only be rejected. We'd talk to the player/his agent prior to the transfer request but not arsenal. It's tapping up but it happens and it's the only way to go about it.
We don't mention anything about transfer rumours or distance ourselves from them. That's the true United fashion.
That phrase has been on the website for years.
Like we did with Hargreaves? At the time prior to us signing de gea with speculation all over the shop, Sir Alex is on record as making it obvious we'd be signing him....
How many really had Samir Nasri pinned down as the answer to our central midfield woes at the end of last season?
I think most people are aware that this is an Arsenal player trying to play hardball for a better contract. Wenger has staked his reputation on him not playing at United. I therefore see no chance of a sale to United
Did we sign him yet?
Yeah, it was brilliant, he was given the no. 18 shirt, he cried while signing the contract.
No, he hasn't said he wants to leave Arsenal yet.
Then again we might be after other targets and not him.
Whatever the odds are on him staying at Arsenal if i were you lot id put a hefty bet on it.
This will end in tears.
I wonder why we abandoned that for Joe Cole?
yeah just so you could collect when he signs for United. Sneaky Allforone. Sneaky.
I agreed with the points you were making until that final sentence, you're being overly pessimistic however and again the French Paper has no need to mention United as much as the English rags do.
City may have been mid-table but it was clear to most they'd force their way towards the CL. Just because they're suddenly in it, assuming everyone, Nasri especially, want to go there is just sheer assumption. The United links have been on-going for weeks, after L'Equipe reported it so did most of the more trustworthy English papers. Where as all the trustworthy English papers seem to be downplaying potential City interest. Why we're completely out of the running because of supposed City and Chelsea interest is complete and utter bollocks no matter how you package that notion. Yes they have huge pulling power, are you saying we don't, because if so, that's sheer madness.
Anyway, the last sentence is so overblown I'm not sure it's worth addressing. We haven't been half as linked to Sneijder or Modric as we have Nasri recently.
Perhaps because he knew the deal was done? When VDS thought of changing his mind and went to see Fergie didn't he tell him that the new goalkeeper was being sorted the following week.
Anyway they don't deny any transfer specualtion so it makes no difference.
I'll remind myself not to get into a battle of wits with one so razor sharp as you, eh?
What did you do to upset acnumber9?
Wouldn't you!
All this talk of Nasri what about signing the midfield player that we desperately need? 
I predicted we'd bid for Nasri at a certain time. A horrible and malicious post on my part that deserved to be shunned and irked by someone. Which thank god it duly was.
All this talk of Nasri what about signing the midfield player that we desperately need?
Next week, we'll get him next week.
- Status