User Tag List

Page 69 of 77 FirstFirst ... 19596768697071 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 763

Thread: Ozil - Do we need him?

  1. #681
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,548
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Power n Glory View Post
    No, I'm not suggesting we should have lost both players for free. Where did you get that from? For Ozil, I said we should have sold him when he had two years left on his deal. The focus should have been on trying to sign up Sanchez because he kept some sort of value even when he had less than a year on his contract. Value in his contribution on the pitch and his transfer fee. I can't say the same for Ozil or Ramsey. Neither have attracted any sort of attention in the final days. No swap offers, no low ball offers, nothing. If a player is in high demand, clubs don't wait until the player is out of contract so they can battle it out with Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern, PSG, in a bidding war. Way too much risk involved.

    But saying all this, it's a lose lose situation whatever the club does in your eyes. If we sell, you'd complain about it, if we keep them at all costs, you'll say we have handled business badly and overspent. Which is what we have done with Ozil. There is no outcome I can see here that would satisfy you. And I have no idea where this late loving for Ramsey has come from. The guy is pants.
    Well you were saying we shouldn't have offered Ozil a contract right here:

    I don't believe we should have signed a player up to a major deal if he consistently produces 5's, 6's and 7 performances on the pitch but you rarely see 8-10 performances from him and need to spend even more money on other players just so he can perform at that elite level.
    If you're not saying that, then what are you saying, he had 6 months left, we either signed him up or let him go for free?

    You're agreeing with me on the 2 year thing, so then it is the clubs fault, like I said I'd have got them to renew with 2 years left or sold them, at worst I'd have sold them with a year to go to recoup some money.

    To be fair Sanchez only attracted attention on the last day of the transfer window and only from one club last summer, so it doesn't always translate, it depends if the player wants to leave (clubs often speak to the player first indirectly), I can see the logic in signing the player up for less money.

    If we'd wanted to we could have sold Ozil and Ramsey, all we'd need to do is tell clubs they're available, we'd probably get a cut price fee but it's better than nothing. Now we'll get nothing and I'm pretty sure Ramsey will have no problem finding a club, he's done very well for Wales and people will have seen what he can do and take a chance, you're only using the argument there's no interest because you don't rate them, fact is it's more complicated than that.

    Sorry but that's nonsense, I say it how it is, the way I see it is we don't have a lot of money because we have an owner (which you seem to value incidentally) who basically has no interest in winning, putting his own money in or indeed football, this leaves us with using money we have generated, however if we just let our assets leave for free then we'll have even less money to spend which in my book is a terrible situation as I'm already unhappy with our lack of spending in the summer considering where we were last season and the fact we have a new manager.

    As I said I don't have a problem with what we did with Ozil, I'd have rather kept him than lose him, it's cost us but it's better than losing him on a free.

    I know you don't rate him but the fact is he's performed at better/bigger clubs than ours so he is good enough, it's up to the manager to tap into that. Ramsey I'm not fussed about, but I wanted us to get money for him rather than none, because in the end it affects our transfer budget which very much concerns me.

    Can you not see the problems with letting players run down their contracts, do you see it as a good thing? If not then you must recognise it's poor dealings by the club, why would you let an asset walk away for free when you have a limited budget?
    Last edited by Özim; 21-08-2018 at 10:53 AM.

  2. #682
    Member IBK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Highgate, London
    Posts
    3,728
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm going to play devil's advocate here. It's easy to blame the club for allowing players' contracts to run down, but it's not a one way street. I would argue that the principal reason why we have reached this position in recent years is our lack of success on the pitch. By all accounts this was the major factor in Sanchez wanting away; as it was for the likes of Van Persie; Fabregas; Nasri et al. For years we have been a once great club clinging to our 'top status', with very little on the pitch under Wenger in his later years to suggest that good times are round the corner. For top players, this means that they and their agents are always on the front foot in any negotiations. Add to this more illustrious clubs with deeper pockets waiting in the wings (either in reality or in the perceptions of players and their agents), and its easy to see why our best players in their prime will at the very least wait and see, and keep their options open, knowing that when they enter into the final years of their contracts they will basically be able to do what they want. Both financially and in terms of footballing ambitions, we have to accept that it has been and remains very difficult to convince our very best players that signing new deals with us is in their best interests.

    To this we need to add the Wenger factor. Again, it is generally accepted that firstly he had too much power and responsibility for player transfer dealings as well as managing the team on the pitch, and this affected our efficiency in managing contracts. Secondly, he was famously parsimonious in player valuations, and was always disinclined to offer the kind of money that might have helped our top players ignore any misgivings over our ability to win silverware. Lastly, he was always inclined to let players go if he felt that they wanted out - and even tended to put players before club in this respect.

    This is why we have had few problems tying down non-top tier players who could be regarded as being in the best place that they can achieve, but stuggled with the elite.

    That having been said, we have in a number of respects been damned if we do and damned if we don't. Fans have been up in arms at letting certain want away players go. Yet here we are bemoaning Ozil's wages when the club did make the necessary financial committment to keep him when we were struggling to remain a top four club. We tried to play hardball with Sanchez for a time, but it led simply to player instability and affected our performance on the pitch. We were underwhelmed by our Summer business, and many have criticised giving longer contracts to our 'lesser' players, but who is to say that the best players out there would be willing to join a club patently in transition?

    I accept the arguments that Ozil has not performed in the manner that we would expect of our best paid player; and that some of the contracts that we have given are to players that remain potential rather than proven performers, but this is not an exact scienceand there is always an element of risk when you award fat contracts to players whom you would expect to build a team around. It's not as though this doesn't happen at other clubs, is it? Maybe we have got it wrong too many times in recent years, but that too, to a large degree is down to a manager who either lacks the necessary foresight, or cannot get the best out of certain players.

    If a club can neither compete on a level playing field with more successful clubs, nor afford simply to pay more than those richer than it - and let's face it we cannot at present compete with the likes of Citeh; Manure; Liverpool and Chelsea in either respect - then keeping our best players is difficult, and to a great extent a lottery when we do.
    Putting the laughter back into manslaughter

  3. #683
    Member Power n Glory's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14,195
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Özim View Post
    Well you were saying we shouldn't have offered Ozil a contract right here:



    If you're not saying that, then what are you saying, he had 6 months left, we either signed him up or let him go for free?

    You're agreeing with me on the 2 year thing, so then it is the clubs fault, like I said I'd have got them to renew with 2 years left or sold them, at worst I'd have sold them with a year to go to recoup some money.

    To be fair Sanchez only attracted attention on the last day of the transfer window and only from one club last summer, so it doesn't always translate, it depends if the player wants to leave (clubs often speak to the player first indirectly), I can see the logic in signing the player up for less money.

    If we'd wanted to we could have sold Ozil and Ramsey, all we'd need to do is tell clubs they're available, we'd probably get a cut price fee but it's better than nothing. Now we'll get nothing and I'm pretty sure Ramsey will have no problem finding a club, he's done very well for Wales and people will have seen what he can do and take a chance, you're only using the argument there's no interest because you don't rate them, fact is it's more complicated than that.

    Sorry but that's nonsense, I say it how it is, the way I see it is we don't have a lot of money because we have an owner (which you seem to value incidentally) who basically has no interest in winning, putting his own money in or indeed football, this leaves us with using money we have generated, however if we just let our assets leave for free then we'll have even less money to spend which in my book is a terrible situation as I'm already unhappy with our lack of spending in the summer considering where we were last season and the fact we have a new manager.

    As I said I don't have a problem with what we did with Ozil, I'd have rather kept him than lose him, it's cost us but it's better than losing him on a free.

    I know you don't rate him but the fact is he's performed at better/bigger clubs than ours so he is good enough, it's up to the manager to tap into that. Ramsey I'm not fussed about, but I wanted us to get money for him rather than none, because in the end it affects our transfer budget which very much concerns me.

    Can you not see the problems with letting players run down their contracts, do you see it as a good thing? If not then you must recognise it's poor dealings by the club, why would you let an asset walk away for free when you have a limited budget?
    Come on Zim. I said the following. Why the confusion?

    We should have sold him when he had two years left on his deal, but I'm in the minority with that opinion. The argument has always been that if we surrounded him with better quality players, he'd flourish. I don't believe we should have signed a player up to a major deal if he consistently produces 5's, 6's and 7 performances on the pitch but you rarely see 8-10 performances from him and need to spend even more money on other players just so he can perform at that elite level. That wasn't smart and the club should have stepped in and stopped Wenger's madness a lot earlier.
    I already said the club should have sold him with two years left on his contract and not offered him a massive pay rise. He's not the player you want to retain at all costs because his performances don't reflect his value. The club messed up. But they messed up because of the demand from fans to retain their star player. As said you rate Ozil to this day and there is no way you'd understand why we sold him. Never. From you, it is always, 'why didn't we start negotiations earlier, why didn't pay the market rate, why didn't sell earlier'....then when the shit hits the fan 'why did we sell'. Every action the club takes, you'd see a negative. Especially if you rate Ozil and think the problem is around him and not actually the player himself. You also always seem to think that chucking money at the situation will solve the problem. But that's exactly why we're in this position with Ozil.

  4. #684
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,548
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Power n Glory View Post
    Come on Zim. I said the following. Why the confusion?



    I already said the club should have sold him with two years left on his contract and not offered him a massive pay rise. He's not the player you want to retain at all costs because his performances don't reflect his value. The club messed up. But they messed up because of the demand from fans to retain their star player. As said you rate Ozil to this day and there is no way you'd understand why we sold him. Never. From you, it is always, 'why didn't we start negotiations earlier, why didn't pay the market rate, why didn't sell earlier'....then when the shit hits the fan 'why did we sell'. Every action the club takes, you'd see a negative. Especially if you rate Ozil and think the problem is around him and not actually the player himself. You also always seem to think that chucking money at the situation will solve the problem. But that's exactly why we're in this position with Ozil.
    Well yes we're in agreement about that, but that wasn't an option as the club allowed him to run down his contract to 6 months, so what would you have suggested they do then, let him go for free in the summer, because that was the only option left.

    That's subjective, you don't think he is, others would disagree, if we'd lost Ozil on a free I'd be disappointed for sure, as I would if we sold him and didn't get anyone decent in, but if we sold him and brought someone of quality and explained he didn't want to sign on with 2 years left, I'd probably understand as long as we replaced him (which was the issue before, selling quality without replacing them with adequate quality).

    That's always my point, if you lose top quality, replace it with top quality.

    It's worked well enough for Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool, so why not us, I'm tired of seeing us left behind, even by Liverpool now, quality players cost a lot but make a difference, Van Dijk at Liverpool has made a huge difference for example, trouble seems to be we're not willing to do that, I suspect due to Kroenke.

  5. #685
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    do we need ozil - no not really. especially if he doesn't fit in to the way Emery wants to play. same as ramsey - I like him, he is a goalscoring midfielder, he could be someone like Lampard and every team needs a goalscorer from midfield.

    on contracts its like someone has said before a player wants to sign a new contract as well as the club offering the contract. if ramsey wants £200k a week then that is still £100k less than Ozil. he is one of our longest serving players and does offer something. but if emery cant see him fitting in then we need to sell.

  6. #686
    Member Power n Glory's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14,195
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Özim View Post
    Well yes we're in agreement about that, but that wasn't an option as the club allowed him to run down his contract to 6 months, so what would you have suggested they do then, let him go for free in the summer, because that was the only option left.

    That's subjective, you don't think he is, others would disagree, if we'd lost Ozil on a free I'd be disappointed for sure, as I would if we sold him and didn't get anyone decent in, but if we sold him and brought someone of quality and explained he didn't want to sign on with 2 years left, I'd probably understand as long as we replaced him (which was the issue before, selling quality without replacing them with adequate quality).

    That's always my point, if you lose top quality, replace it with top quality.

    It's worked well enough for Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool, so why not us, I'm tired of seeing us left behind, even by Liverpool now, quality players cost a lot but make a difference, Van Dijk at Liverpool has made a huge difference for example, trouble seems to be we're not willing to do that, I suspect due to Kroenke.
    You just said in your previous post that we could have sold Ozil if we wanted to even with just 6 months on his contract. So why didn't we? I'm not saying we should have let him walk on a free because there were other options. 1) Sell him with two years on his contract. 2) Sell him with one year on his contract at a cut price. For whatever reason, we couldn't and I guess it's tough for fans to accept that maybe nobody actually wanted the lazy bastard.

    Which brings us on to another issue. These are the stakes at hand when you spend big on players that flop. The club have done shoddy business in the past but on this occasion, they did the right thing but for the wrong player. You've done a pretty good job of deflecting for this debate. We lost Sanchez but brought in Mkhitaryan and Aubameyang. Has that slipped your memory? Top quality for top quality.

    But the past is the past. What do we do now about an overpaid player that his past his prime and doesn't look like he fits into the current system? Can he adapt or do we cut our losses?

  7. #687
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,548
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Power n Glory View Post
    You just said in your previous post that we could have sold Ozil if we wanted to even with just 6 months on his contract. So why didn't we? I'm not saying we should have let him walk on a free because there were other options. 1) Sell him with two years on his contract. 2) Sell him with one year on his contract at a cut price. For whatever reason, we couldn't and I guess it's tough for fans to accept that maybe nobody actually wanted the lazy bastard.

    Which brings us on to another issue. These are the stakes at hand when you spend big on players that flop. The club have done shoddy business in the past but on this occasion, they did the right thing but for the wrong player. You've done a pretty good job of deflecting for this debate. We lost Sanchez but brought in Mkhitaryan and Aubameyang. Has that slipped your memory? Top quality for top quality.

    But the past is the past. What do we do now about an overpaid player that his past his prime and doesn't look like he fits into the current system? Can he adapt or do we cut our losses?
    I'm not sure if we could, but 6 months is too late, the player has very little value then, we'd get peanuts and wouldn't be able to replace him and that's if we could find a buyer then.

    The two years thing wasn't an option, we left it till the last 6 months, so we only had two options, to keep him or lose him (for peanuts then or free in the summer), yes ideally we'd have sold him with 2 years, but the club messed up as they did with Sanchez and now Ramsey (and you could argue Wilshere when Man City came in form him).

    Sanchez didn't want to stay, he made it clear, if a player doesn't want to stay you and his contract has nearly run out you don't really have many options, Ozil was happy to stay that's the difference so that was the only option, so we could have lost Sanchez and Ozil or kept 1 and we managed to do the latter and made the best out of a very bad situation.

    Mhiki I'm not a huge fan of to be honest, he flopped at Man U and if not for Sanchez walking away for free we probably would have never gone in for him, we made the best out of a bad situation as mentioned, but he doesn't really fit into our team as what we needed was a winger not another central player.
    Aubameyang was good business I grant you.

    Well now Ozil can be sold for a fee at least as he's under contract, though I would think this won't happen, the club signed him up and will probably want to keep him (and Emery won't have any say in that I would think). As for the past, it's not really the past now as we've repeated the same thing with Ramsey unless we somehow sell him before the end of August, because we'll again get no money for a player we could get maybe 30-35 million for otherwise which is a waste IMO.

  8. #688
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    4,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ozil won't leave until his contract is up, nobody would pay his wages demand. We're stuck with him!

  9. #689
    Member Ralpheroo72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,073
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Agree, no one would touch Ozil now. He’s not performing, and the money we are paying him is madness and won’t be matched elsewhere.

  10. #690
    Member Power n Glory's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    14,195
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Özim View Post
    I'm not sure if we could, but 6 months is too late, the player has very little value then, we'd get peanuts and wouldn't be able to replace him and that's if we could find a buyer then.

    The two years thing wasn't an option, we left it till the last 6 months, so we only had two options, to keep him or lose him (for peanuts then or free in the summer), yes ideally we'd have sold him with 2 years, but the club messed up as they did with Sanchez and now Ramsey (and you could argue Wilshere when Man City came in form him).

    Sanchez didn't want to stay, he made it clear, if a player doesn't want to stay you and his contract has nearly run out you don't really have many options, Ozil was happy to stay that's the difference so that was the only option, so we could have lost Sanchez and Ozil or kept 1 and we managed to do the latter and made the best out of a very bad situation.

    Mhiki I'm not a huge fan of to be honest, he flopped at Man U and if not for Sanchez walking away for free we probably would have never gone in for him, we made the best out of a bad situation as mentioned, but he doesn't really fit into our team as what we needed was a winger not another central player.
    Aubameyang was good business I grant you.

    Well now Ozil can be sold for a fee at least as he's under contract, though I would think this won't happen, the club signed him up and will probably want to keep him (and Emery won't have any say in that I would think). As for the past, it's not really the past now as we've repeated the same thing with Ramsey unless we somehow sell him before the end of August, because we'll again get no money for a player we could get maybe 30-35 million for otherwise which is a waste IMO.
    Mkhitaryan flopped at Utd after one season of putting up unimpressive 'Ozil type' statistics for Jose Mourinho and you've written him off. Debut season he gets 11 goals and 5 assists despite Mourinho tinkering with his playing position and playing time.

    Last season Ozil got 5 goals with 14 assists.

    Last season for Mkh - 5 goals with 12 assist. Remember he played for us and Utd last season. Two different systems and under a manager that had zero faith in him and spent less time on the pitch than Ozil last season.

    But you still rate Ozil. Ok.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •