I've had a feeling this deal wouldn't happen but Pete's insistence that Nasri will stay and if not he definitely won't be sold to United, teamed with Pete always being wrong, has me now convinced it'll happen.
Nasri To City - Done Deal!
- Thread starter evra
- Start date
- Status
Any news? Is he getting closer to us?
All up in the air I'd guess. Wenger doesn't want to sell especially to a PL rival, Nasri wants to move for trophies and possibly more dosh, he may possibly prefer to go to United but we have no idea how much or how hard he will push it. We also have no idea what will happen if he either demands a move in general, a move to us (or whoever) in specific and/or threatens to run his contract down by staying for 1 more year.
I think United suspect that they are very very reluctant to sell to us which is why they haven't been back with a bigger offer and are waiting to see how it plays out.
I think United suspect that they are very very reluctant to sell to us which is why they haven't been back with a bigger offer and are waiting to see how it plays out.
You, like the rest of us, know very little about what is going to happen.
This statement is based on your own frustration, possibly at your inept manager and his unsettled squad.
If the player wants to go to United and SAF wants him, then that is where he will end up..... even if it is the last day of the transfer season. Arsenal can ill-afford to throw £20/25 million away and would rather spend that money on another Wengeresque bargain.
Things will happen and I don't think we will have too wait too long for the player to decide his future.
The very fact that we have made a bid suggests to me what his intentions are.
Agreed.
It tends to be the way SAF works, although I am unsure about the Udinese debacle, if there ever was one.
Very good point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess we usually only put offers in for players when we know they are interested, to spare us the embarressment of possibly losing out after it's known publicly that we bid?
I think a few weeks ago the line, admittedly from the newspapers, was that we wouldn't bid unless we knew he wanted to come.
Didn't Arsenal say yesterday that nobody has actually made a bid yet, only us have made an 'enquiry'?
It's been widely enough reported (including by the BBC) so I think the bid is real.
The Telegraph are reporting that discussions two weeks ago between David Gill and senior figures at Arsenal resulted in Gill lodging a verbal bid, which would explain why Arsenal are able to deny that any formal bid has been made.
I think Arsenal would have probably denied it anyway, all part of the game.
That certainly seems to be the way we do business.
I don't think it's anything to do with sparing us embarrassment though, I think it's more to do with the fact that SAF wants players who want to play for United as opposed to players who wait for the best offer.
The whole 'we won't sell to you' is a nice threat, but does it really hold in reality? If the player doesn't want to go to another league - the PL is the best in the world, so you could understand why - and has a year remaining on his contract, you know he will end up at another PL club. Question is do you sell him now and at least make good money, or keep a player for a year when he's nearing the end of his deal (never a healthy thing), knowing he'll end up leaving for nowt - and still play for one of your rivals.
Yeah, you can say you won't sell to a rival. Show some muscle. It's good - for a while. Eventually you know you have to make a choice and it's pretty simple.
Yeah, you can say you won't sell to a rival. Show some muscle. It's good - for a while. Eventually you know you have to make a choice and it's pretty simple.
That's what I would have always thought, that ultimately the player holds all the cards but our steadfast refusal to allow Heinze join Liverpool does seem to indicate that the club the player is contracted to still has a major say in their next destination.
He will lose the player as a free agent
Heinze didn't have a year remaining on his contract (I think), but the major thing is he wasn't a 20-25m player threatning to leave for nothing. There are some similarities, but Nasri holds many more cards here.
Bottom line is, they can keep him for a year, then lose with for nothing with him still playing for United. You've gained nothing here.
Yeap. Though we were able to hold off that move because we were prepared to throw him into reserves and lose any transfer fee. Arsenal can ofcourse force Nasri to stay another season but that will involves the same two riders: unhappy key player in squad and losing any transfer fee. Was easier for us to hold of Heinze given only 6-8m were at stake and it was not just our rivals who wanted him but Liverpool- the enemy.
I'm not sure a guy that spends his spare time sliding off a pirate ship, on a massive inflatable slide, in a pair of hot pants will show the same steely resolve are Fergie though.
I think it's probably a bit of both. The point you raise about only signing players who want to play for us is very true. But knowing Sir Alex he wouldn't want anything in the press that would undermine the club, or make the club seem somewhat vulnerable (like a player turning us down).
Think we'll flog him abroad. Wenger will make sure of it.
Exactly this, even if they insist on keeping him to the end of his contract, he could still come to us for nothing next year as a free agent.
They have nothing to gain by keeping him, unless they can actually manage to win something this season & he changes his mind.
Its good business for them to sell him to us.
Really depends on Nasri's intentions. If he has his heart set on a particular club and you won't sell to that club then it's in his interests to run his deal down. I still think he might sign a new deal mind.
I wouldn't agree with that.
How much would it cost them if they were to fail to qualify for the Champions League?
He can try. I can't see Barca or Real getting involved. And if he doesn't want to go to Italy - it's not the best right now - then it doesn't leave that many options. It's not as if you're telling the player to move for a year. He'll be signing a contract for a few years where ever he goes. If he's set his heart on staying at England, he won't accept something else.
All it means is they should make sure they replace him properly. We're still talking about accepting a 20m property will be worth 0 in a year.
There has been very little talk of clubs abroad being interested. To me that stems from the player and his agent and it sounds like he wants to stay in England and why wouldn't he? He's won nothing here.
Ramsey, Aaron.
I hope you are right and that Nasri will push the deal through.
It's not inconceivable that if they were to lose Fabregas and Nasri together that they could fall out of the Champions League places.
I suspect that would cost them substantially more than £20m.
If Wenger doesn't want him to join us then I can understand that.
However, if Nasri really does want to join us (I not if this is true) but say he did. Then he doesn't have to agree terms with any club that he doesn't want to, regardless if those are the only teams Arsenal want him to go to.
He could in theory stay for the extra year and then walk and join whoever he wants. Arsenal will then lose out on the large transfer fee they could get. Thats where Arsenal need to decide whats best. Roughly £20m from Man Utd, or no where near as that come next year.
Its a tough call.
All that is based on the fact Nasri really wants to join United and only United obviously.
However, if Nasri really does want to join us (I not if this is true) but say he did. Then he doesn't have to agree terms with any club that he doesn't want to, regardless if those are the only teams Arsenal want him to go to.
He could in theory stay for the extra year and then walk and join whoever he wants. Arsenal will then lose out on the large transfer fee they could get. Thats where Arsenal need to decide whats best. Roughly £20m from Man Utd, or no where near as that come next year.
Its a tough call.
All that is based on the fact Nasri really wants to join United and only United obviously.
Don't we usually complain when players try to force transfers?
Was he not interested in joining us?
Ideally, United could just sign Sneijder this summer & Nasri in the next summer.
Like Berbatov did?
I think when good players want to play for you (it seems), then your upset at first but you get over it hehe
Sources on Twitter say he is going to Asia with Arsenal.. But that doesn't mean the deal is off..
I think that means the deal is less likely myself..
I think that means the deal is less likely myself..
why is that? You can't leave the player behind, it only fuels the speculation. Arsenal have not said he's for sale/they don't want to sell him. It's logical he goes with them
It means nothing, just that as a current Arsenal player, he's obliged to train and remain professional until this saga is concluded one way or another.
My money is on Nasri ending up at OT, but probably towards the end of the window, possibly deadline day. Arsenal will probably drag it out as long as they possibly can.
You and a few others seem to have forgotten our club announced we had signed Aaron Ramsey.
Arsenal would be stupid to do that. They should be taking the £20m now so they can get a replacement in and get him into pre-season training.
Sounds like a plan.
Get Nasri to sign a pre-contract agreement to come to us next year on a free, and then we can really have a good laugh at Arse. It would serve them right tbh...
- Status