If they stayed....(Nasri & Fabregas)?

[LDG]

I was talking about Nasri.

Ah come on so he got offered a contract last summer, so what?

We'd just had another disappointing season, why exactly should he sign and commit more years...you've just admitted it was more money so if he was all about money surely he would have?

For some reason you're ignoring that point, you expect players to just jump up and sign just because more money is offered...even though a season has ended badly, that's not usually how it works with players who want to win stuff, they want to see you're making changes and signing the right players as well!

I don't see it like you at all, if we offered him more money last summer and that's all he cared about why not sign there and then (he hadn't pulled any trees out at that stage as you've said).

In short I disagree with you about Nasri. People more often than not turn it into a money argument when players wants to leave, sometimes it's true but there's also success to think about...that's why players go to Chelsea, Barca, Man U etc...not just money.

Because he wanted more than was offered. Which I'm sure you'll agree was wrong.

[Özim]

"words are words and often said in the heat of the moment"....be nice if you forgave a certain someone for that sometimes too..... (that's a differnet issue though)

There's a certain amount of brainwashing involved in this though for players though, good news is it wears off after while

[LDG]

There's a certain amount of brainwashing involved in this though for players though, good news is it wears off after while

:D

Good job it doesn't work on the rest of us then. Players must be really thick.

[Özim]

Because he wanted more than was offered. Which I'm sure you'll agree was wrong.

Sorry but yeah I disagree, at the time he hadn't excelled and hadn't he been injured for a while too?

I don't see why he wouldn't sign then, I reckon it's because he didn't want to commit another 4-5 years to a project that had so far yielded no results (especially when a manager chose not to spend on quality players).

[LDG]

Sorry but yeah I disagree, at the time he hadn't excelled and hadn't he been injured for a while too?

I don't see why he wouldn't sign then, I reckon it's because he didn't want to commit another 4-5 years to a project that had so far yielded no results (especially when a manager chose not to spend on quality players).

Fair enough. *hanshakes and agrees to disagree*

Have you ever admitted you're wrong by the way...not matter how silly it sounds?

[IBK]

You're assuming that he wants the money based on press rumours and nothing more than that.

His words are that he wants to challenge for trophies, and doesn't believe we're doing that or making the right steps to do so. Van Persie made the same noises.

If he was offered such a good contract before the season, which was 'much more than he was worth', why wouldn't he take it if he was all about the money?

Clichy who hardly strikes you as someone being interested in money went to Man Citeh. Why? For the football project.

This is the nub of it all, really.

Logic dictates that Nasri didn't take the contract offered because he thought he had nothing to lose by not doing so. He hadn't shown anything more than glimpses of his potential, but from his point of view if his form improved he would have a far stronger lever against the club with 1 year to go on his contract than with 2 years to go.

If his form didn't improve massively, well as long as he didn't do a Denilson, and go to shit, then the offer would still, in all likelihood be there, and if it wasn't he could have reasonable expectations of moving somewhere else decent.

The evidence suggests that trophies didn't come into it, as he said himself last Summer that he thought AFC was the best team.

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.

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.

[Boss]

Why wouldn't he take it?? Because he wanted more of course! Deary me. That's why he wouldn't sign it!

Clichy? Was on his way out anyway. Plus he was shit for us. And I really couldn't give two hoots about him. And if you wanna twist the tables....then if Wenger was desperate to keep hold of him, why didn't he do what he's doing with Nasri??? Tells you something dunnit??

He wanted more despite, according to you, having done nothing to warrant it? At that point it's unlikely he'd get higher elsewhere, so how was he going to get more with us?

Nasri said a year ago that he wanted to win trophies with us and recently said he wants to be in a team which is challenging for trophies, something that he doesn't think us capable of doing. Same as Clichy, same as Bendtner, same as Denilson, same as Van Persie (who wants major investment). He's not an Arsenal fan, he's not an unknown (even when he came to us) so he owes the club nothing.

If we hadn't stuck through Van Persie through his injury worries he'd probably be doing similar this summer, and both Walcott and him will do the same next if we carry on with the penny pinching. Henry got tired with it 5 years ago and although Nasri hasn't reached his level in the game, he could do if we supplemented his quality with similar.

If we sign players to strengthen the squad and he leaves to go to City (not United), then yes, he's a mercenary. Until then he's done nothing wrong.

[LDG]

Still have no answer about Clichy btw. Boss? Zimm?

Why hasn't Wenger done the same with him as he is with Nasri??

[LDG]

He wanted more despite, according to you, having done nothing to warrant it? At that point it's unlikely he'd get higher elsewhere, so how was he going to get more with us?

Nasri said a year ago that he wanted to win trophies with us and recently said he wants to be in a team which is challenging for trophies, something that he doesn't think us capable of doing. Same as Clichy, same as Bendtner, same as Denilson, same as Van Persie (who wants major investment). He's not an Arsenal fan, he's not an unknown (even when he came to us) so he owes the club nothing.

If we hadn't stuck through Van Persie through his injury worries he'd probably be doing similar this summer, and both Walcott and him will do the same next if we carry on with the penny pinching. Henry got tired with it 5 years ago and although Nasri hasn't reached his level in the game, he could do if we supplemented his quality with similar.

If we sign players to strengthen the squad and he leaves to go to City (not United), then yes, he's a mercenary. Until then he's done nothing wrong.

Have agreed to disagree on this with Zimm. Not going to bother.

[Boss]

Still have no answer about Clichy btw. Boss? Zimm?

Why hasn't Wenger done the same with him as he is with Nasri??

Because Wenger feels Clichy can be easily replaced (with Gibbs), he may not feel Nasri is in the same category.

Also, IMO Wenger is hoping we'll win something this season and that'll persuade Nasri/Cesc to stay, although we're nowhere close to doing so the way he's going.