Robin van Persie

Status
Not open for further replies.
yamo123x said:
Do many of us honestly think van Persie will sign for utd??
Click to expand...

It feels far too similar to last summer. Headlines: Nasri prefers Utd, Arsenal won't sell unless they get the right money, Papers say Man Utd confident of bringing him in and then he went to City.

I think he will be a City player but wouldn't be as pissed off as I was with Nasri.

RVP might think that after Nasri went he became a bench warmer and was behind Silva in the pecking order which might make RVP think twice.
 
My feeling is this - we will get Lucas if we really want to
As for van Persie - I think it will be Hazard all over again. We will get a bid accepted but he will eventually go to someone else
 
yamo123x said:
Do many of us honestly think van Persie will sign for utd??
Click to expand...

Nope....

this week: value speech by SAF

next week: City / Real etc come in and sweep up all our targets

week after next: Gill's annual speech about there being money to spend evidenced by us being in for 'targets' who included Lucas and RVP. Manager happy with squad etc
 
I just think Ferguson is looking at RVP and sees a potential bargain. We'd be stupid not to try to get him for under £20m, he's a world class, Premiership proven player. If it starts to get around the £30m mark then we would be right to pull out because we don't need him that badly. He's a luxury signing.
 
adam118 said:
It feels far too similar to last summer. Headlines: Nasri prefers Utd, Arsenal won't sell unless they get the right money, Papers say Man Utd confident of bringing him in and then he went to City.

I think he will be a City player but wouldn't be as pissed off as I was with Nasri.

RVP might think that after Nasri went he became a bench warmer and was behind Silva in the pecking order which might make RVP think twice.
Click to expand...

Nasri took time to settle but he was first choice when it came to the crunch at the end of the season. Both Nasri and Silva started and it was silva being substituted and not Nasri.
 
adam118 said:
It feels far too similar to last summer. Headlines: Nasri prefers Utd, Arsenal won't sell unless they get the right money, Papers say Man Utd confident of bringing him in and then he went to City.

I think he will be a City player but wouldn't be as pissed off as I was with Nasri.

RVP might think that after Nasri went he became a bench warmer and was behind Silva in the pecking order which might make RVP think twice.
Click to expand...

Thats because Silva is better than Nasri but RVP is a better finisher than the strikers they have.
 
Pexbo said:
I just think Ferguson is looking at RVP and sees a potential bargain. We'd be stupid not to try to get him for under £20m, he's a world class, Premiership proven player. If it starts to get around the £30m mark then we would be right to pull out because we don't need him that badly. He's a luxury signing.
Click to expand...

Spot on Pex, that is exactly how i see it.
 
Pexbo said:
I just think Ferguson is looking at RVP and sees a potential bargain. We'd be stupid not to try to get him for under £20m, he's a world class, Premiership proven player. If it starts to get around the £30m mark then we would be right to pull out because we don't need him that badly. He's a luxury signing.
Click to expand...

Factor in a £7.5m a year contract over 4 years and a £5m signing on fee we'd probably have to pay and you're looking at a £55m outlay over 4 years and with his injury record and past he might well be useless by the time he's 32 or 33. It's all well looking at a transfer fee we'd have to pay but his wages would be double what other players would earn which adds £15m extra at least and signing on fee adds another £5m. Signing him for £20m would be financially equal to signing a midfielder or another forward for £35m on wages under £100k a week.
 
Sarni said:
Factor in a £7.5m a year contract over 4 years and a £5m signing on fee we'd probably have to pay and you're looking at a £55m outlay over 4 years and with his injury record and past he might well be useless by the time he's 32 or 33. It's all well looking at a transfer fee we'd have to pay but his wages would be double what other players would earn which adds £15m extra at least and signing on fee adds another £5m. Signing him for £20m would be financially equal to signing a midfielder or another forward for £35m on wages under £100k a week.
Click to expand...
City allegedly agreed personal terms at £220K/week back in March.
 
Sarni said:
Factor in a £7.5m a year contract over 4 years and a £5m signing on fee we'd probably have to pay and you're looking at a £55m outlay over 4 years and with his injury record and past he might well be useless by the time he's 32 or 33. It's all well looking at a transfer fee we'd have to pay but his wages would be double what other players would earn which adds £15m extra at least and signing on fee adds another £5m. Signing him for £20m would be financially equal to signing a midfielder or another forward for £35m on wages under £100k a week.
Click to expand...

Andy Carroll aside, show me a single £35m player who would accept wages under £100k a week. That is the single reason your argument is flawed.


£55m in total over 4 years is good value these days. £13.75m a year for signing on fee, wages, transfer fee ect ect of a World Class player, that's value.

Compare that to Hazard at £34m, £6m agent fees, £5m signing on fee? £10.4m per year wages over 5 years is £19m per year for a player who hasn't even kicked a ball in the Premier League.

You can see why it's seen as value.
 
Pexbo said:
Andy Carroll aside, show me a single £35m player who would accept wages under £100k a week. That is the single reason your argument is flawed.


£55m in total over 4 years is good value these days. £13.75m a year for signing on fee, wages, transfer fee ect ect of a World Class player, that's value.

Compare that to Hazard at £34m, £6m agent fees, £5m signing on fee? £10.4m per year wages over 5 years is £19m per year for a player who hasn't even kicked a ball in the Premier League.

You can see why it's seen as value.
Click to expand...

I still live by the past wages but my arguments stands I think - van Persie will have to earn £40k to £50k a year more than other players due to his contract situation and City's interest.

Hazard is on £200k a week? I doubt it. And you could spread that fee over 7 or 8 years at his peak or near peak he might spend at Chelsea, with RvP we could probably expect two or three good seasons at most.
 
Sarni said:
I still live by the past wages but my arguments stands I think - van Persie will have to earn £40k to £50k a year more than other players due to his contract situation and City's interest.

Hazard is on £200k a week? I doubt it. And you could spread that fee over 7 or 8 years at his peak or near peak he might spend at Chelsea, with RvP we could probably expect two or three good seasons at most.
Click to expand...

Just looked it up, £180k a week.
 
Zarlak said:
That's heading for the going rate these days. Why fans can't get used to it I have no idea. That's just the way it is now.
Click to expand...

Because that's sad and means wages have doubled since City joined the market. Obviously you'll still find people on here who will find City's influence positive though. :wenger:
 
Zarlak said:
That's heading for the going rate these days. Why fans can't get used to it I have no idea. That's just the way it is now.
Click to expand...

This does not mean it is acceptable or should be accepted from the fans.
 
If Man City do want him then he's going there, feels like Nasri all over again. City can pay the top wages which is for most players, most important, then they have top players there and are champions as well, its a big draw. The stadium/history thing seems to matter less so. Blackburn, Chelsea and now City have showed that.

If Man City want to, they can beat us to most players now, its just the way it is these days.

Regarding us, would be great if we got him but we probably don't need another striker, more other areas to look at first so we wouldn't miss out on a lot because playing him means Welbeck or Hernandez miss out. So not too bad if City do get him overall. They already have loads of strikers anyway. Money spent on Van Persie could get a top CM player to sit next to Carrick.
 
If we really wanted to rap this up in cognito then we should have offered Arsenal something less insulting than £12.5million, it was almost certain they were going to reject that and go public with it too, alerting all our rivals of our interest.

As mentioned above if City are interested too he's going there (assuming he stays domestic).
 
newtonheathdave said:
Regardless of what he looks like, he is a terrific player. No one is saying he is the yardstick but surely any rational man could see that Tevez and Van Persie are a similar level of player. Tevez has 2 years on his contract and is younger than Van Persie. If Tevez is worth round the 20 million mark, would you not agree that Van Persie is worth less than that?
Why would anyone buy Van Persie for 25 million when they could get Tevez for round the same amount (apart from the rags for obvious reasons)
Click to expand...

In all honesty there a very very few clubs that would take kettleneck at any price.

Who wants a player that will be aggitating for a move the moment the weather changes, refueses to come off the bench, takes an unautherised 4 month holiday in the middle of the season, undermines his manager, and has constantly said he wants to retire at 27?
 
iSparky said:
This does not mean it is acceptable or should be accepted from the fans.
Click to expand...

Sarni said:
Because that's sad and means wages have doubled since City joined the market. Obviously you'll still find people on here who will find City's influence positive though. :wenger:
Click to expand...

Obviously in an ideal world it wouldn't be happening, but it is.
 
Sparky_Hughes said:
In all honesty there a very very few clubs that would take kettleneck at any price.

Who wants a player that will be aggitating for a move the moment the weather changes, refueses to come off the bench, takes an unautherised 4 month holiday in the middle of the season, undermines his manager, and has constantly said he wants to retire at 27?
Click to expand...

Thats the point I am trying to make. It comes down to more than just ability as to what determines transfer value. Ability wise, Tevez is worth a fortune but because of all the other stuff, he is worth no where near as much as he should be.
The same applies to Van Persie. he is a great player but because of his circumstances he is not worth the 20+ million prices that are being banded about.
 
yamo123x said:
Do many of us honestly think van Persie will sign for utd??
Click to expand...

No.

I don't think he'd come to us in general, certainly not over what City will offer him. I think we'd be the last club except Spurs that Arsenal (Wenger) would be willing to deal with, and I'm still not convinced how he'd work with us in regard to our squad (not wishing to restart that debate, I just remain unconvinced).
 
Antisocial said:
No.

I don't think he'd come to us in general, certainly not over what City will offer him. I think we'd be the last club except Spurs that Arsenal (Wenger) would be willing to deal with, and I'm still not convinced how he'd work with us in regard to our squad (not wishing to restart that debate, I just remain unconvinced).
Click to expand...

Can someone explain to me why Arsenal would be so against dealing with United? I have seen a few people say this yet I don't understand what the big deal would be.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Can someone explain to me why Arsenal would be so against dealing with United? I have seen a few people say this yet I don't understand what the big deal would be.
Click to expand...

The fierce Fergie-Wenger rivalry that peaked from the late nineties till mid 2000s. Granted it's no longer what it used to be but I'd still say both clubs would be very reluctant to sell key players to one another (I wouldn't really classify Silvestre as a key player). Many Arsenal fans for whatever reason also consider us to be their biggest rivals along with Spurs..not sure how much of an influence that has on Wenger but there you go.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Can someone explain to me why Arsenal would be so against dealing with United? I have seen a few people say this yet I don't understand what the big deal would be.
Click to expand...

I think this used to be the case tbh, as it was always Arsenal and United battling it out for the title many years ago, but that has changed now. I shouldn't see any reason why Arsenal would want to deal with City and Chelsea, but not United.
 
Man Utd are the most vulnerable of the other top 4 (Chelsea and City can throw money at the problem) that's why we won't sell you van Persie.
 
RedKaos said:
The fierce Fergie-Wenger rivalry that peaked from the late nineties till mid 2000s. Granted it's no longer what it used to be but I'd still say both clubs would be very reluctant to sell key players to one another (I wouldn't really classify Silvestre as a key player). Many Arsenal fans for whatever also consider us to be their biggest rivals along with Spurs..not sure how much of an influence that has on Wenger but there you go.
Click to expand...

So apart from the fact that United and Arsenal were once title rivals there is no real animosity.
Arsenal are hardly City, Liverpool or Leeds when it comes to animosity between clubs.
 
newtonheathdave said:
Thats the point I am trying to make. It comes down to more than just ability as to what determines transfer value. Ability wise, Tevez is worth a fortune but because of all the other stuff, he is worth no where near as much as he should be.
The same applies to Van Persie. he is a great player but because of his circumstances he is not worth the 20+ million prices that are being banded about.
Click to expand...

Fair enough :D
 
newtonheathdave said:
So apart from the fact that United and Arsenal were once title rivals there is no real animosity.
Arsenal are hardly City, Liverpool or Leeds when it comes to animosity between clubs.
Click to expand...

Not from my point of view anyway. We sold them Silvestre a couple of seasons ago, so It's not like we don't don't ever do business. I think you could say that we probably would have got Nasri, but for the player wanting the money of City.
 
newtonheathdave said:
So apart from the fact that United and Arsenal were once title rivals there is no real animosity.
Arsenal are hardly City, Liverpool or Leeds when it comes to animosity between clubs.
Click to expand...

The rivarly's on their part. I actually have a bit of a soft spot for Arsenal thesedays.
 
Van Persie's much better than Tevez. That's not sour grapes, I found him a frustrating player when he was at United as I often said on here. Brilliant player to have on his day, and one who relishes big pressure games... but not quick enough or a consistent enough finisher to be a regular starter for a top club, and too emotionally turbulent to have on the bench.
 
There's a difference between selling to a club with unlimited resources who you can't hope to compete with (City), and selling to a club you should be aiming to match and better (United).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.