Printable View
Aye, which is why we should sell Nasri now and get the cash on board. Though I like the sentiment of telling City to fuck off regarding our better players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss
Shame. Would like to have seen Nasri go and Mata come in. I'd have spunk everywhere if that happened.
See my post above. That also deals with this concept of 'doing wrong'. Want away/manipulating players rarely do anything wrong, in the strict sense of the word. They are operating withing the rules, and are free to approach their affairs as they wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss
There is a massive difference between this concept, and implying that fans are wrong to feel aggrieved when players openly manipulate their club.
:Adebayor:Of course of course :/Adebayor:Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG
Agreed. I am uncomfortable with this issue of principle. We should not be keeping Nasri and running down his contract to show the world we are a 'big club'. Selling him and getting in another talented player would send out the same message - and the sale would be seen as a good bit of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG
I worry that the seeming determination to keep a want away player who did little to justify the wages he feels he is worth when we needed him to last season is another example of AW being too close to his players, and clinging to an unshakeable belief that this current team will somehow 'come good' when little has happened to justify this belief.
Agreed. Although it's looking at the club more as a job than an 'family' etc (which is what football is to the fans), I don't think there's much wrong with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Berg Kamping
He may have done so at the time but given our regular collapse happening, he may not believe it to be the case anymore (as VP doesn't either, given his comments).Quote:
The evidence suggests that trophies didn't come into it, as he said himself last Summer that he thought AFC was the best team.
That's assuming the only reason he's leaving is money, which I don't believe to be the case. The difference between what we're apparently offering (90k) and what he apparently wants (110k) is not a lot (roughly a million per year) and he wouldn't make much more at any other club bar City (even though perhaps not, given Clichy's making the same amount at City as he was with us*). He'd also prefer to go to United*, and I doubt Fergie would pay much more than 110k per week for a player that has achieved relatively little.Quote:
What people are sore about is the calculated nature of Nasri's positioning, and the fact that it shows complete indifference towards the club. The same way that Manure fans were upset when Rooney did the same. The difference is that in Rooney's case, he had established far more goodwill previously by the extent of his contribution to his club up to that point.
(* According to press rumours)
IMO two things matter to players in the game:Quote:
Sure, you can say that players being calculated and indifferent is all part of the modern game - and fans must live with it. But this line of argument ignores 2 things. First - supporting a club is an emotional investment, and players' behaviour will generally therefore provoke an emotional response. Fans should not be censured for this.
Second, on the surface at least - the level of manipulation that Nasri and his advisers are indulging in, on a very opportunist basis, given that we have had no more than 4 months of real form from him is still a relative rarity in the game. It is not the norn.
a) Money
b) Trophies
Which one is first depends on the player, but generally players will pick a club with a decent chance of trophies and lesser money than one with a lower chance of trophies and more money.
Our wage structure causes problems in the sense that most of our squad is paid similar rates, so our top players (who may be on 80-100k per week) look at the rest of the squad and see the likes of Diaby / Denilson / Bendtner earning not much lower than them and also at others in the Premiership where wages are spread on a 'fairer' basis and who's top players may be getting 1.5/2x what they are.
There's also the point that Manchester City, while in the past may have been an option to players only for the money, now is an option for the chance to win stuff (indeed they won more than us last year and are more likely to do so this). So I don't think you can call players wanting to go there anymore just interested in money, as the case of Clichy shows.
Does the time spent with us show what a player is interested in? Henry left us to go to Barcelona, I don't think you can say that was for the money. Same with Fabregas wanting to go. Just because Nasri hasn't spent as much time with us, it doesn't mean that it's all he's interested in. He may have clued on sooner than the others that it's unlikely we're winning anything anytime soon.
Again, in my opinion the only way we'll know whether or not Nasri was in it for the money or not is if a) we sign 2-3 top class players this season and he still wants to leave or b) we win stuff next season and he still wants to leave.
Both of which look unlikely, to say the least.
If you mean in letting him run down his contract...then there's two point here for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG
1) Clichy never cost us a big transfer fee so in a sense we weren't losing out outlay
2) His performances as a defender had been disappointing, whilst attackers get away with switching on and off defenders don't get the same luxury as they can cost goals.
Clichy had become unreliable, letting him run down his contract made more sense when his value was never going to be that high, Nasri s younger and has more natural ability and thus is a greater loss.
I didn't mean "letting him run down his contract" as it's clear Wenger has no say if a payer doesn't want to sign. He can't make him sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsMe
I meant in the context that he's willing to keep Nasri regardless, but willing to sell Clichy. I was responding to the assertion by TEG that if it wasn't all about money, then why did clichy go.
Either way, your answer 2) is what I believe. Whether Clichy had lost faith in the team or not, I think he was on his way anyway.
Whether or not Nasri wants to go for the money or to better his chances at winning trophies is obviously debateable, and its probably a mix of the two, but to be perfectly honest both of these excuses piss me off!
I hate this attitude of footballers who seem to think that it's everyone else's fault and they're better/bigger than the club.
He was great for us last season when things were going well, but as soon as things got tough he's nowhere to be seen. Don't get me wrong, I too lay the blame for the end of season collaspe mainly on the manager, but did Arsene tell Nasri to look utterly disinterested in the Carling Cup final? Did Arsene tell Nasri to bottle it when clean through on goal at 1-1 against Bolton?
Nasri was just as guilty as the rest of them for bottling it towards the end of the season, if not more guilty due to his ability.
But instead of holding his hands up and admitting his own failings and working hard for the team, he'd rather just jump ship for an easier chance of winning where he doesn't have to put too much effort in. His attitude on the pitch since March has been one of "sod this, I'll just leave in the summer". Work-shy little twat!!
(Anyway, I'd better get back to work...)
I think that in your defence of Nasri you hit upon an important issue. I accept that for most players, glory is a factor as well as money, although the evidence suggests that the sticking point that AFC had when they went into this was that Nasri wanted parity with Cesc to stay at the club - so I do wonder how much of a 'convenient' feel there is about the trophy factor being raised now. (IIRC Rooney's statements about wanting evidence that the club will match his ambitions halted abruptly when he had levered the club into his massive pay rise, and ain't it funny how in these situations its always Citeh mentioned as a possible destination).Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss
But if you are criticising Gooners' reactions to the situation, it is only fair to look at the other side to the question. If a player is ambitious, then what have they done to achieve that ambition with their own club? In Nasr's case precious little. And this is a real problem at AFC. We can and have criticised AW for last season's collapse, but the players have to take their share of the blame too.
Its comes as no surprise whatsoever that football fans feel antipathy to players whose attitude is that they will not stay unless players are brought in to achieve glory for them. There is a need for the players themselves - particularly the best/most senior ones to take responsibility.
How can guy that is able to create a chance in a split second slow down our play? You saw the games where we played without Cesc, there was no difference, we created less chances in fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG
As for the Nasri and money thing...you'll be saying the same thing when RVP refuses to sign a new deal. Both RVP and Theo should be offered new contracts now, but if they refuse to sign, would you say it's because they want more money?
Something is wrong within the camp and people seem to think it's just indivdual cases, when there is more to it.