Winter Transfer Missed Opportunities and Regrets

[HCZ_Reborn]

So, I suppose the question is did KSE explicitly stop Arteta from signing an attacker in the summer and the answer to that question is No. I think there may have been discussion about how much an attacker might have unbalanced the wage bill but there was definitely no veto there. However I think where their responsibility lies is that it was probably not a unilateral decision on Arteta’s part to approach the summer the way we did, it was most likely agreed to take the risk on the players that had scored 90 + league goals last season, and it was believed that if injuries were going to happen it would be defensive or in midfield. There’s no proof of this, it’s speculative but it feels to me anyway a reasonable explanation.

As to Edu, we have heard that he objected to the signings of Merino and Calafiori, now was this an objection to those players in particular or to the positions we were strengthening. The answer is of course that we don’t know. Personally I wouldn’t be too quick to cast Edu in the role of a man who left the club in principled opposition to the types of players we were signing. The summer was but one transfer window amongst many where we left ourselves too short in attacking options (and unless we are saying he was always superseded by Arteta and last summer was the final straw, well he is just as responsible as Arteta in my view)

Edu the only real way to look at his departure is someone left presumably for more money, for more responsibility.

I don’t think in the grand scheme of things his departure is that much of a problem nor do I attribute his absence to our lack of signings in January.

I think January simply came down to not feeling like we could get the kind of player we wanted for the long term in that window, and not being able to do a deal to bring someone in on loan.

I think there’s clearly a conclusion that is reasonable to draw that Arteta does not place the same premium on attacking players that he puts on defensive players. But in some ways that’s a reflection of the direction football has taken, 25 years ago it was the standard for clubs to play two up front….now we have a lone man or an interchangeable front three where the traditional striker doesn’t exist.

That a club like Man City went around two years without a recognised striker is instructive. It doesn’t excuse what we haven’t done, but it does sum up the overall priorities in football currently.

[HCZ_Reborn]

However the fact is that Arsenal is not a PLC anymore, anything we speculate about will remain speculation because KSE does not feel it owes us an explanation. The most important thing for them was our continued appearance in the champions league for the club to be an appreciable asset. Because that objective is being met, it may not be a case of saying that’s all the money you get but it’s more likely a case of not going to rock the boat when its own objectives are being met.

Arteta has put a target on his own head by saying we are short in the attacking positions, short of a miraculous upsurge in goals from the attacking players we do have remaining to us….whatever his positional priorities…I don’t think you’ll have the same army of Zombified fans saying “trust the process” if this upcoming summer goes the same way the last one does.

It will be a difficult one, because clubs will know we have money and not only that we’ve got to make sure we are able to fend off overtures for Saliba from Real Madrid. It’s not just a case of rejecting their offers, it’s how the player himself decides to behave.

[IBK]

I find your OP (first post above) a bit curious, and I think that this is because of the way it is framed. Owners are unlikely to 'explicitly' stop managers from signing players. They may or may not agree to make additional funds available, and I think it is unlikely that the Kroenkes simply refused to do so. If we accept this, then you are suggesting that they were actively complicit in the decision to take the risks that we did - in that they were an active part of this decision making process. I find this also unlikely, given what we know of our owners. It's far more likely IMO that the Kroenkes simply accepted the position adopted by the manager and the executive (by which I mean active drivers such as the manager; Tim Lewis and Jason Ayto). This would be pretty normal at most football clubs - certainly one with pretty absentee owners like ours. It would be extraordinary for owners like the Kroenkes to actively insist on player acquisions, and neither do I think that they would refuse to fund purchases deemed crucial by the manager and the executive.


So we come to the executive. Managers and coaches generally favour signings without considering finances (and so they should), and by all accounts Arteta (who is both) has a good deal of sway at the club. As far as the Summer goes, I think that it is more likely than not that Arteta had limited striker targets and when those were not possible he (with his natural bias to MF/defensive players that you highlight - not to mention an obsession with multitool capabilities) ultimately decided that he would stick with what we have rather than spend money elsewhere. I think that his much reported views on player fatigue may go some way to explaining the club's decision to take this risk.


I am not sure that I would go as far as to call Edu's departure the result of 'principled opposition', but neither do I think it's far fetched to attribute his parting of ways with the club to disagreement over where the emphasis should be. Further, it has been suggested in some quarters (and this is by no means implausible) that Edu had become disenchanted with a tilting of executive decision making and strategy re the team towards Arteta, when previously their input had been more evenly matched. If this is the case - and l do think there may be truth in this - then I think this situation is a concern. We need only look at late Wenger to see what can happen when unchecked decision making is left to a manager.


I feel also that you underplay Edu's 'schmoozing' ability and contacts. One example of this is that Arsenal scouted and reportedly discussed a potential transfer move for (now Citeh's) Vitor Reis ahead of this January. Reis is regarded in many quarters as the next potential Saliba, and given what we have known for some time about RM's interest in Saliba, this is precisely the kind of longer term 'hedge' that might have suited Arsenal in this difficult potential situation. It is by no means implausibe to think that Edu might have made the difference here. Edu is known for his charm and persuasiveness when it comes to transfer targets, and the evidence suggests that the club is lacking this since his departure.


I am not saying that Edu got everything right, but over recent years him and Arteta seemed to make a good team - much like Dein and Wenger. I cannot definitively counter your underplaying of Edu's role, but I am saying that one of the foundations of a successful club is balance, construtive questioning and a mix of talents at board level, and I think you abandon this at your peril. This January is hardly an endorsement of the effectiveness and organisiation of the executive at Arsenal post Edu, and I have concerns about the circumstances that led to his departure just as, we thought, the 5 stage plan was going to come to fruition.


I agree with you about the difficulties we now have when approaching transfers given our lamentable lack of squad strength up front. Perhaps more worryingly when it comes to trying to keep our best players I have real doubts as to whether the club has the direction and bravery required to navigate this. For example if Saliba is not ready to commit to a new contract then a club run with the efficiency of say Bournemouth; Brighton or Brentford would already have a plan for accepting the inevitable and ensuring that it maximises the transfer fee and spends this to mitigate the damage. It would take bravery; planning and the efficiency to ensure that a suitable replacement was brought in. Our forward debacle does not suggest that these attributes are particularly present at our club. Neither does the fact that after 3 months there is no indication that a 'top' sporting director's arrival is imminent.

[Niall_Quinn]

@IBK - agreed on all that, not least these two bits above, I'm concerned about the Edu departure too, I posted on here at the time about how he said something about not agreeing with the direction the club was going in: https://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/s...=1#post4596986

It's possible it was to do with Arteta's being obssessed with defensive players and Edu knew they needed more up front - I said at the time he was maybe a bit weak but I'm starting to think he's a real loss

Much more likely, given what we can measure in hindsight, he was concerned about the screeching 180 degree that saw us go from a club making investments on the pitch to a club pinching pennies to the point of negligence.

[IBK]

Much more likely, given what we can measure in hindsight, he was concerned about the screeching 180 degree that saw us go from a club making investments on the pitch to a club pinching pennies to the point of negligence.

Like I say, I disagree with you if you are arguing that it's the owners penny pinching. In their US teams, they have shown a will to spend money to win things. I think the Kroenkes are wedded to Arteta, and if he had given them an ultimatum and insisted on funds being made available for a striker in Jan they would have backed him. IMO the owners refusing to spend is the least likely explanation for the situation we find ourselves in.

Arteta has been backed in building a defence and MF with depth. It doesn't make sense that the under investment further up the pitch is owner led. Instead it points squarely at this not having been a real priority for the manager - or at least being something that he was happy to delay addressing - for whatever reason. That's why I have little sympathy with Arteta bleating over the past couple of weeks that he needs a striker. IMO he - and the active executive made this bed.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Where I disagree is that KSE make no input into transfer matters. Just as we need their blessing when we do want to make a big signing, my understanding is that transfer strategy in general is discussed with them through Josh Kroenke. And if they simply green lighted the decision made by Arteta and others at the club to go forward with what we had up front, then as owners they do take some responsibility for this.
Frankly even if Arteta decided this unilaterally without consulting anyone they would take responsibility, it is their club after all and he is just an employee.

[IBK]

Where I disagree is that KSE make no input into transfer matters. Just as we need their blessing when we do want to make a big signing, my understanding is that transfer strategy in general is discussed with them through Josh Kroenke. And if they simply green lighted the decision made by Arteta and others at the club to go forward with what we had up front, then as owners they do take some responsibility for this.
Frankly even if Arteta decided this unilaterally without consulting anyone they would take responsibility, it is their club after all and he is just an employee.

I have not said that KSE have no input. Anyone holding purse strings has an input, and of course transfer strategy will be discussed with them via Josh Kroenke for this reason.

But we are not talking about consultation here. We are looking at who is responsible for a transfer strategy that has left us so short. The Kroenkes are not football people, and will inevitably be led by those at the club who are, those who are charged with day to day oversight. Are they part of any decision making process? Of course. They are the club's owners. But they are far more likely to be people who (as you say) rubber stamp our strategy (trusting the active executive) than direct it. I think that it's far fetched to expect KSE, in our circumstances, to demand we acquire players if they are told that we should wait to achieve long term targets. And as such I think their 'responsibility' for our current situation is diminished, rather than them refusing to fund purchases and therefore being the primary reason for this.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I feel like we’ve had this dance a few times where we don’t know whether the owners or the coach is primarily responsible for lack of spending, and this was before anyone had even heard of Kroenke. I think in many respects the gamble we took is not that much different to the gamble Liverpool took and the gamble City have taken. If there is a difference it’s that we as a club decided to thin out the squad. Smith Rowe, Nketiah, Vieira and Nelson probably would have been quite helpful to have in terms of them playing the cup games and some of the champions league home games so that players like Havertz and Martinelli weren’t playing constantly.

If you want a particular type of striker and want to wait until you can get that person that’s one thing, making it so there’s no sufficient backup for who you have is another matter entirely.


Ultimately though I’m 41, and at almost no time has it ever felt the club has done sufficient business in the transfer market. This encompasses for me George Graham, Rioch, Wenger, Emery and Arteta.

[IBK]

I feel like we’ve had this dance a few times where we don’t know whether the owners or the coach is primarily responsible for lack of spending, and this was before anyone had even heard of Kroenke. I think in many respects the gamble we took is not that much different to the gamble Liverpool took and the gamble City have taken. If there is a difference it’s that we as a club decided to thin out the squad. Smith Rowe, Nketiah, Vieira and Nelson probably would have been quite helpful to have in terms of them playing the cup games and some of the champions league home games so that players like Havertz and Martinelli weren’t playing constantly.

If you want a particular type of striker and want to wait until you can get that person that’s one thing, making it so there’s no sufficient backup for who you have is another matter entirely.


Ultimately though I’m 41, and at almost no time has it ever felt the club has done sufficient business in the transfer market. This encompasses for me George Graham, Rioch, Wenger, Emery and Arteta.

We don't, know, but I guess its somenting to debate when there's little else around...

I actually agree with you re other club's gambling...and our biggest problem being increasing ours by having a player clearout last Summer.

Given that Ornstein now says Havertz is out for the season, we are now completely screwed in any case...

[Niall_Quinn]

The asking price for Watkins was 60 mill. Josh doesn't have to deny the manager anything, he can sanction a bid between 32 mill and 45 mill (depending on who you listen to) and scupper the deal right there. He's not telling the manager no, in fact he's doing what the manager wants but, Oh dear! - Villa wanted more than we're prepared to pay. Which isn't automatically bad, because say Villa asked for 200mill then of course we don't entertain it. Given recent developments, 60 mill for a proven striker that could hit the ground in his first match and be out out for the rest of the season? STILL WORTH IT! Because maybe he wouldn't have been injured, maybe he'd instead score the goals we need to hand on to Liverpool's tail and maybe scare a few of the bigger clubs in the CL. But he could ONLY do that by being at the club. And he's not, because they wouldn't make a serious offer.

A sensible owner looks at the summer then looks at the squad and then looks at the table. Within reason he gives the manager what he needs to address the emergency situation that has developed. Tried and tested striker, 60 mill, he'll also do a job next season and maybe the one after that? Okay, we won't get a big sell-on fee, but we need him now - it's an emergency not a leisurely round of fantasy football. And if we progress in the CL we immediately start clawing back some of that expenditure.

Instead the higher-ups and, you have to think Josh Kroenke too considering he he's the boss, have said fuck it, roll the dice with what you have, see what happens. That's either a complete lack of awareness or profit driven negligence or both.

In fact we should have triggered Gyokeres' clause and brought him here last month. Paid him what he wanted, gave him a signing bonus like he'll get in the summer when he goes elsewhere. We should have done that the minute the window opened. That would have been the clear sign of intent required to push us on into a serious challenged on 2 fronts and also lock down the striker issue for years to come.

But they just won't spend the money in the crucial moments when it needs to be spent.