This is a daft argument really. Every club, even United, has sold players that went on to turn out good. Piqué and Rossi are two examples for us.
Nasri To City - Done Deal!
- Thread starter evra
- Start date
- Status
They got more money and won more things, I don't really see what any other footballer want from his career. To play well?
I thought he came before Toure left? Anyhow they have a weaker defence now than they did a couple of years ago due to poor purchases.
Are we any closer to signing Nasri than we were 3803 posts ago?
I said that many english players leave english clubs for other teams in England making somebodys claim that Wilshere wouldn't leave Arsenal because he is English a bit pointless and based on nothing. Never said many english players have left Arsenal in recent seasons once. Mainly because you have not had many quality english players Ashley Cole would certainly be the best and he did leave.
Pete's had a bad year at predictions.
Just putting that out there for us muppets.
Just putting that out there for us muppets.
That's incoherent rubbish, for example Anelka probably funded the Henry purchase. Now what about your shit buys; Shevchenko, Kezman, Crespo, Mutu, Boulahrouz, Veron, Zhirkhov, SWP + a load of crap fullbacks, Torres - I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. ?
They haven't had a good defense since about 2005.
The point though is that Arsenal have not replaced players that they have let go very well. You lost Tevez and now have Berbatov and Hernandez, Arsenal on the otherhand let Adebayor go and now have Chamakh.
Indeed, it has got weaker year on year since they last won the league, Vermaelen aside they are weaker than at any point in well over a decade in defence.
We sold him for £30M and he's been crap like that long list of Chelsea palyers you're ignoring.
But what have you spent that £30 Million on? Whilst Adebayor spent the Spring at Real Madrid you had to rely on the likes of Bendtner.
Chelsea and City can afford mistakes galore - United and Arsenal can't make too many mistakes.
A lot of really good players Arsenal let go of rarely looked as good again, and they've done quite well to hang on to Vieira and Henry for a long time, just about until their level started dropping, especially with Henry.
But every situation is individual. Fabregas will leave in his (relative) early twenties. Nasri's contract doesn't leave the club with a whole lot of leeway. Those two look far more like a Cole (who's done brilliantly for Chelsea) than an Overmars or a Hleb.
But every situation is individual. Fabregas will leave in his (relative) early twenties. Nasri's contract doesn't leave the club with a whole lot of leeway. Those two look far more like a Cole (who's done brilliantly for Chelsea) than an Overmars or a Hleb.
Indeed though the players above have been replaced with better ones, our players have won 8 trophies since you last won the league, yours have won one.
Fair enough. I thought Pete was making the argument that Arsenal don't let players go in their prime, using that as evidence that Nasri won't be allowed to leave.
If we're talking about them not replacing players then you just need to look at their defence. They once had great defenders such as Adams, Keown, Campbell, Cole etc. but now have none of that calibre. Most other clubs make sure replacements are in place in anticipation of players leaving, yet Arsenal don't seem to do this.
As you can see above. Vauxhall and Ford are the biggest selling car companies in the UK. The Chelsea approach is analogous to Vauxhall getting an injection of outside cash, dropping their prices by 50%, selling more cars and claiming to be more successful.
This is so true. The George Graham defence served Arsenal well for about a decade, Campbell was a superb acquisition and Toure looked the shit in his early years. Those two has a couple of excellent years at Arsenal and defensively they were sound. Since then it's got progressively worse - Gallas was decent but Toure started to rapidly decline and since his exit, no-one has got remotely close to being the class required bar perma-crock Vermaelen. Senderos, Djourou, Koscielny and Squillacci have all failed, at least so far.
You can add Silvestre to that list..
It's not about how a player does after leaving a club - as a fan I couldn't care less. I'm more worried more how it affects the club once a certain player leaves. Pete's got his argument wrong way round IMHO.
The argument is aimed at Samir Nasri.
With the backing of a billionaire to the tune of £800mil+ while being paid salaries no one could compete with. Our clubs operate on completely different scales, we have a wage structure in place and limits to our financial potential in the transfer market. We can't afford to have players on 100k salaries sitting on the bench..you can. We operate on a tight budget while you've spent lavishly for your recent success. We're run as a responsible business, we operate within our means and that's meant having to concede trophies. Enjoy your success, I get the feeling you're not completely satisfied. Patience is a virtue, we'll have our time again where any success will be the result of the hard work done over the years and not living off a criminal's bank account.
This.
Okay, now where has that got you?
It's not all about where it's got you. I'd rather be an Arsenal fan than a Chelsea fan. Some things are more important than trophies.
It isn't our fault that Arsenal are not willing to plough its very significant profits back into the club, and that Wenger has made some very poor signings in recent years - your defence is a shambles for reasons entirely internal, the same goes for your strikers.
Man United's net transfer spending has been pretty much flat for five years but do they have the problems you do? Absolutely not.
I'd rather be an Arsenal fan than a Chelsea fan, but not because of the trophies.
It still has some logic to it, you see the chest beating about the finances like it takes a moral high ground but they've still gotten nowhere with it. 'We run ourselves well' yeah but what have you got for it, 'well nothing, we just run ourselves well' well come back when you've managed both, and then you'll have something to actually brag about, you'll actually have an achievement. We could stop competing and clear our debts as well, it's not hard if you give up success.
Tell Nasri or any player who demands a move to another club that some things are more important than trophies. It's the reason the vast majority of footballers today play football.
We're too quick to jump on our success and our history which is based on success to defend ourselves, but now it's not about trophies?
I am I the only one that suspects the Fabregas is crocked?
I just get the feeling that he is a bit of Michael Owen.
Yeah but clubs like you and City have spent hundreds of millions more, and not got much further.
I mean Arsenals wage bill is tiny compared to yours.
Are you suggesting we bid ridiculous money for every cnut and his dog, and offer him a £120k salary when it's clearly not financially viable? Hardly chest beating or taking the moral highground is it..absolute bollocks.
On the contrary, if we gave up success our debts would threaten the club a lot more than they do now. We need success to keep the club afloat (just look at the figures earned by Champions League finalists).
Not got much further? Three titles and five domestic cups in the last seven seasons, finishing above them every season, being a class above them is more than 'not got much further'.
As far as I am aware Arsenal have a wage bill around £120 Million, for a smaller and less talented squad than that which costs Chelsea £150 Million a year.
I'm suggesting that having a positive balance when you're not spending any money isn't an achievement. It's common sense. If you win the league and trophies without spending any money then you've done something worth talking about, while you don't spend money and keep a positive balance you're not doing anything worth mentioning, you're just doing what you'd expect to happen from not spending any money. Your post came across to me like you were saying Arsenal are better than Chelsea because they haven't spent all this money, when really that doesn't make any sense. You're better than Chelsea if you don't spend the money but emulate their success. It's your own problem if you hoarde money and don't succeed.
If I don't spend my wage and I can't afford a new car but I've got money in the bank but my mate goes and blows all his on a car then I can say to him 'yeah but I haven't spent all my money, I'm running quite well.' I can say whatever I want to him to make it sound like I'm the better one but it won't matter when he waves to me as he goes off down the road and I'm waiting for the bus at the bus stop.
Nah, Arsenal just have a rubbish fitness regime and use him too much.
He's a bit of a crock but Arsenal tend to rush him back too quickly.
Plus unlike Owen pace isn't really a part of his game. He's pretty pedestrian as it is and he's still one of the top 5 midfielders in the world.
I think your spot on with the comparison with Owen - played far too much football at an early age and the hamstrings aren't reliable
Young players need to come through slowly
Young players need to come through slowly
Is this still the Nasri thread?
No.
I find myself really wanting us to sign Nasri but when I really think about it, I'm not really sure that he's the right fit for us. If it wasn't for his contract situation and the subsequent links to us, I don't think many of us would think of him, possibly due to the Arsenal connection.
Had a great 6 months last year but overall he's been far from 'spectacular'. Still, he's young and will improve further so think he'd be a good long-term buy.
Had a great 6 months last year but overall he's been far from 'spectacular'. Still, he's young and will improve further so think he'd be a good long-term buy.
cant argue with that.
- Status