Summer Transfers 2025 Missed Opportunities and Regrets

[HCZ_Reborn]

I would too.

Oh and if we do end up signing Eze (which I doubt will happen anymore, especially since Madueke helps fill the homegrown quota), I'd take Eze+Isak over Eze+Gyok+ Madueke.... a bit funny, but isn't when you really think about it.

So your complaint is based on what you think could be the case rather than what you know to be the case

Fair enough, for similar reason I was annoyed at us signing a defender (and I still think it’s absolutely unnecessary…I wanted this to be a defender free window…it’s ridiculous how much we’ve spent on defenders).

But the way you’ve edited this post suggests that no matter what we do, you’ll find something to be upset about. It feels like to me like you decided this club is wholly incompetent and therefore everything it does needs to be appraised through that narrative.

I think this club like any club, makes terrible decisions and good decisions. And anyway, sometimes it’s hard to know which will be which in the immediate aftermath.

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://www.skysports.com/football/n...nce-reiterated

Looks like Isaak going nowhere, and Liverpool instead going after Ekitike

[IBK]

Interesting views, but there is little you have said that deflates any of the arguments against this deal (and more importantly something you avoid saying).

Now if you'll allow me to focus on the thing you have not said, which is usually the first comment anyone makes about any transfer, but surprisingly for this particular transfer it's the last ( and TBF, most supporters of this deal have done the same thing of conveniently excluding this talking point).

Are you happy to pay £50m for Madueke, is he worth it? Again, I am asking of your valuationof the player and not AFC, like you keep falling back on. Is he worth £50m and are you happy to make a proper footballing argument that he is.

If the answer is "yes", then supporters of this deal would do better stressing that point....as this is the first transfer I have come across where not one single gooner, in fact not one single Chav, believes he is worth the money we are paying.

Even The Havertz and Pepe deals had people who were glad to stake their reputations that they were worth the money, but not one single person of note has stated this is a good/great deal.

To be clear, your argument so far has only said, it's a good deal because it allows us to rest Saka. Well if that's the case we could have gone all out to get another 20 players that would allow us to do the same thing for less than that, probably even some from the women's team (I'm sorry, I couldn't help it).

So really, lets just go back to the basics, is Madueke worth paying £50m for? If so stress that going forward and we'd enjoy your usually brilliant arguments using stats and other things we might have missed; as it would probably help calm naysayers like me down.

Lets not forget that initially, slightly more fans wanted Sesko than Gyokores (at least he won the Skysports poll) and I am pretty sure the fact that a substantial amount of us and majority of pundits feel that Gyokeres is worth the money we are spending on him has calmed those who disliked the deal and player.

And there you have it. This whole anti-Madueke thing is about fans' personal valuations of the player. And the thing is that while everyone is entitled to their opinion on value, this opinion is largely uninformed.

I think you have misunderstood both the thrust of my argument and the points I have made to support it. My difficulty is the overblown criticism of the club for completing the Madueke deal and the suggestion that we paid over the odds, and failed to negotiate this in the club's best interests. My opinion is that if we identified the player as having the attributes needed to strengthen our squad (and by all accounts we had been tracking him for some time) - so wanted him - and his price was within the club's valuation and does not prevent us from securing another target then there is nothing to get so exorcised about.

I am not 'supporting' the deal per se, as I am not party to the reasons behind the club's decision. I am merely prepared to give the club the benefit of the doubt. For all fans' previous assertions that we paid over the odds for the likes of White; Ramsdale and Havertz, not to mention the large section who believed that Raya was not worth signing, Arteta proved these to be unfounded. In fact, while the manager has made mistakes at times (no manager hasn't), he has a decent track record in this regard and I am neither going to write Madueke off nor claim that the club has been ripped off by Chelsea for his transfer fee. Like I say I do not care about what Chelsea fans think. they have no idea how the player will perform in a very different environment under a very different manager, in a very different system and team. As for Gooners, there are plenty of moderates and commentators more knowledgable then me who point out that Madueke's stats aren't bad, and see potential in the player.

You say that I have argued that this is a good deal because it allows us to rest Saka. I have not done so. I merely pointed out that finding decent cover for Saka (as well as the matters you have ignored - pace; unpredictability and a potential LW option) might be regarded as equally important as filling the striker position, and that this need might provide some context for the deal.

So to my valuation. The problem with ascribing a personal valuation to any player is that this is hostage to the very factors that I am trying to reason against. To give an example - the prevailing view that all Chelsea 'cast offs' must be duds. To give another that a 'big name' from a celebrated club will most likely succeed at Arsenal. Or another (that very much applies in the case of Madueke) that his value must be lower than more exciting players with whom we have been linked. This might be boring, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Like almost any signing, Madueke might disappoint at Arsenal in which case I will have to accept the view that £50M was too much to pay. Or he might justify his price tag. For now, all I would say that it seems to me, based on his age; profile; that he is an England international and an EPL tried and tested player, and that he had 5 years to go on his deal at Chelsea £50M would seem to be around the going rate for him. Certainly not something to justify what I regard as a gross over reaction to this transfer.

Finally, I want to highlight something that demonstrates how one-sided things can get when transfer business is evaluated. In your later post you speculate that the club must be paying Madueke £150K a week, which to me seems to be clear confirmation bias. As far as I am aware we do not know what his wages are. When it comes to a transfer, the fee is only part of the equation. Wages are an important part of any overall deal. So I don't even think that Madueke's transfer fee can even be evaluated accurately without knowing what he is set to earn. I would be surprised if we are tripling what Madueke earns at Chelsea (remembering that he had 5 years remaining on his deal there). It is more likely that given his previous modest wage there that he will earn a more modest relative wage at Arsenal. If so, then his transfer fee would need to be seen in a different light.

[IBK]

I would too.

Oh and if we do end up signing Eze (which I doubt will happen anymore, especially since Madueke helps fill the homegrown quota), I'd take Eze+Isak over Eze+Gyok+ Madueke.... a bit funny, but isn't when you really think about it.

I don't think Madueke counts as homegrown.

[KSE Comedy Club]

Surprised to see you cave in so much, you've been talking a lot of sense so far

I'm far from satisfied, while I think the defensive signings were necessary, we have definitely overpaid for Madueke who should have been no more than £40m, also unless we also get both Gyok and Eze (neither of which are official yet) or at the very least Gyok and Rodrygo, it will be an underwhelming window for most fans I think

I'm reading Spuds are in for Eze plus Liverpool might go for Mateta, which means Palace would be more reluctant to sell Eze - we need to pay up and get on with that signing

Either way, Madueke will be on very thin ice with the fans, not least because we overpaid for him (something people like Arteta never seem to bear in mind when spending too much money on players)

I’m not caving in, but my problem was with then lack of any action to address problem areas.
I would say that the club are trying to address that now, at least.

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

And there you have it. This whole anti-Madueke thing is about fans' personal valuations of the player. And the thing is that while everyone is entitled to their opinion on value, this opinion is largely uninformed.

I think you have misunderstood both the thrust of my argument and the points I have made to support it. My difficulty is the overblown criticism of the club for completing the Madueke deal and the suggestion that we paid over the odds, and failed to negotiate this in the club's best interests. My opinion is that if we identified the player as having the attributes needed to strengthen our squad (and by all accounts we had been tracking him for some time) - so wanted him - and his price was within the club's valuation and does not prevent us from securing another target then there is nothing to get so exorcised about.

I am not 'supporting' the deal per se, as I am not party to the reasons behind the club's decision. I am merely prepared to give the club the benefit of the doubt. For all fans' previous assertions that we paid over the odds for the likes of White; Ramsdale and Havertz, not to mention the large section who believed that Raya was not worth signing, Arteta proved these to be unfounded. In fact, while the manager has made mistakes at times (no manager hasn't), he has a decent track record in this regard and I am neither going to write Madueke off nor claim that the club has been ripped off by Chelsea for his transfer fee. Like I say I do not care about what Chelsea fans think. they have no idea how the player will perform in a very different environment under a very different manager, in a very different system and team. As for Gooners, there are plenty of moderates and commentators more knowledgable then me who point out that Madueke's stats aren't bad, and see potential in the player.

You say that I have argued that this is a good deal because it allows us to rest Saka. I have not done so. I merely pointed out that finding decent cover for Saka (as well as the matters you have ignored - pace; unpredictability and a potential LW option) might be regarded as equally important as filling the striker position, and that this need might provide some context for the deal.

So to my valuation. The problem with ascribing a personal valuation to any player is that this is hostage to the very factors that I am trying to reason against. To give an example - the prevailing view that all Chelsea 'cast offs' must be duds. To give another that a 'big name' from a celebrated club will most likely succeed at Arsenal. Or another (that very much applies in the case of Madueke) that his value must be lower than more exciting players with whom we have been linked. This might be boring, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Like almost any signing, Madueke might disappoint at Arsenal in which case I will have to accept the view that £50M was too much to pay. Or he might justify his price tag. For now, all I would say that it seems to me, based on his age; profile; that he is an England international and an EPL tried and tested player, and that he had 5 years to go on his deal at Chelsea £50M would seem to be around the going rate for him. Certainly not something to justify what I regard as a gross over reaction to this transfer.

Finally, I want to highlight something that demonstrates how one-sided things can get when transfer business is evaluated. In your later post you speculate that the club must be paying Madueke £150K a week, which to me seems to be clear confirmation bias. As far as I am aware we do not know what his wages are. When it comes to a transfer, the fee is only part of the equation. Wages are an important part of any overall deal. So I don't even think that Madueke's transfer fee can even be evaluated accurately without knowing what he is set to earn. I would be surprised if we are tripling what Madueke earns at Chelsea (remembering that he had 5 years remaining on his deal there). It is more likely that given his previous modest wage there that he will earn a more modest relative wage at Arsenal. If so, then his transfer fee would need to be seen in a different light.

So in summary, you want to give the club the benefit of doubt as personally you can't come to an opinion on this signing, or should I say his valuation for some odd reason.

Like I said in an earlier post, a lot of fans are just not being honest with themselves, and this goes for both sides.

I have already stated that the most virulent hatred expressed towards this signing is fueled by other grievances and now some of you that apparently have no issues with the signing, have suddenly lost the ability to evaluate players and state what you think they are worth!

I mean I understand why you might not necessarily have an opinion of a player from the Brazilian league that Arteta wants to recruit, but not one that has been in our face for the last 2 years like Noni. I mean even if you don't , is it wrong that others do and are bold enough to say he isn't worth it in their eyes and express their opinions non-violently?

Also, I'm pretty sure if you heard we wanted to sign Yamal or Musiala you would not sit on the fence the way you are now. Nor did I see this kind of conflict within you on valuations when you earlier complained about our dithering when it came to agreeing a deal on a striker.

Personally I have said this Madueke situation is being overblown. Fans don't want the signing and want the club to look for someone else, but it means nothing as the overwhelming majority will support him once he wears the shirt.

However, if he fails to deliver, rightfully fans will point to the fact that they predicted it and will be able to honestly question their manager and club's decisions. Just like the way some of us predicted in the beginning of last season that our transfer strategy was a fail and we would struggle without the addition of a striker (way before the injuries) and were proved right.

Lastly, if you've not noticed, I'm extremely explicit about my biases and feel no need to sugarcoat or hide them on a faceless internet forum. I clearly stated that we'd be better off recruiting someone from the women's team over Noni, so I believe that should have been the neon sign that declares I am happy to express my bias towards him.

So I am a bit unsure why your last paragraph is built on a premise that I need more reasons to validate the bias especially since I never stated the "club must be paying Madueke £150K a week", seeing as the aim of that particular post was to point out that I was "wrong" about a previous post that claimed that wages means the deal makes less sense.

[Marc Overmars]

New deal for Nwaneri pretty much done.

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

I don't think Madueke counts as homegrown.

You are right about this.....and I'm pretty surprised. Its clear Arteta really rates this kid.

https://www.football.london/arsenal-...n-32018831.amp

[Mac76]

Its clear Arteta really rates this kid.

Which in itself makes me worried

He also rated Havertz but only by accident has he turned out to be a half-decent striker, he looked lost in the role Arteta saw for him

He thought Zin was any kind of LB - he isn't

He thought Cala could play LB - he can't

He thought Merino would be good in MF, but he's underwhelmed and really only been useful as an emergency striker - because Arteta neglected our attack for two years

He really really wanted to spend ridiculous amounts on Mudryk

He also really wanted to spend £30m on a backup keeper

He bought Vieira then threw him away like an unwanted toy

He still counts Jesus as a 'striker' when clearly he can't hit a barn door from a yard out unless it's against Palace - when he's fit that is

He wanted Sesko rather than Gyokeres - slightly more marginal decision but most of us agree Gyokeres made more sense

TBF i agree with Norgaard, Zubi and Mosquera but how much is that Arteta and how much Edu/Berta - Zubi I think was certainly mainly sorted by Edu

[IBK]

So in summary, you want to give the club the benefit of doubt as personally you can't come to an opinion on this signing, or should I say his valuation for some odd reason.

Like I said in an earlier post, a lot of fans are just not being honest with themselves, and this goes for both sides.

I have already stated that the most virulent hatred expressed towards this signing is fueled by other grievances and now some of you that apparently have no issues with the signing, have suddenly lost the ability to evaluate players and state what you think they are worth!

I mean I understand why you might not necessarily have an opinion of a player from the Brazilian league that Arteta wants to recruit, but not one that has been in our face for the last 2 years like Noni. I mean even if you don't , is it wrong that others do and are bold enough to say he isn't worth it in their eyes and express their opinions non-violently?

Also, I'm pretty sure if you heard we wanted to sign Yamal or Musiala you would not sit on the fence the way you are now. Nor did I see this kind of conflict within you on valuations when you earlier complained about our dithering when it came to agreeing a deal on a striker.

Personally I have said this Madueke situation is being overblown. Fans don't want the signing and want the club to look for someone else, but it means nothing as the overwhelming majority will support him once he wears the shirt.

However, if he fails to deliver, rightfully fans will point to the fact that they predicted it and will be able to honestly question their manager and club's decisions. Just like the way some of us predicted in the beginning of last season that our transfer strategy was a fail and we would struggle without the addition of a striker (way before the injuries) and were proved right.

Lastly, if you've not noticed, I'm extremely explicit about my biases and feel no need to sugarcoat or hide them on a faceless internet forum. I clearly stated that we'd be better off recruiting someone from the women's team over Noni, so I believe that should have been the neon sign that declares I am happy to express my bias towards him.

So I am a bit unsure why your last paragraph is built on a premise that I need more reasons to validate the bias especially since I never stated the "club must be paying Madueke £150K a week", seeing as the aim of that particular post was to point out that I was "wrong" about a previous post that claimed that wages means the deal makes less sense.

Nope. I want to give the club the benefit of the doubt because the signing clearly meets its valuation; the player appears to be one that has been identified by the club and I'm happy to see how he does.


I've stated my opinion that what we have paid is within what I would expect for the player in the current market. Also that if he fails to deliver I will obviously have to accept that we paid too much.


I don't consider myself to have any valid right to assess the merits of Madueke, because I do not watch Chelsea games. This is not dishonesty on my part. It is simply accepting that the club knows much more than I do, and will have conducted a rigorous assessment of what he is capable of and the benefits that he can bring to our team.


I did indeed lament the club's apparent dithering over transfers a few weeks ago, I don't recall basing this on valuations per se, albeit IIRC I stated that we often seem to quibble about fees to the detriment of landing a player we want. Which is precisely why I am not going to complain now when we did not do this over Madueke. I don't think I'm sitting on the fence here. My point is that I think it's unfair on the one hand to accuse the club of failing to make, or vacillating over signings, but on the other lose our shit (I'm not accusing you of this extreme) when we do the opposite.


The confirmation bias I referred to was your statement that 'I'd be surprised if it's less than £150k'. This seems to me to be a figure plucked out of the air that would underpin an argument that we are paying over the odds for the player. I try not to get personal, so my intention was not to accuse you of bias against Madueke - you have indeed made clear your antipathy to this signing - but to highlight that (1) we cannot assess the transfer deal in total without knowing what deal was reached re Madueke's wages, and (2) that it's easy to overreach when taking a position.


At the end of the day, this debate seems to me to be about £10-£15M that some fans think we have overpaid for the player, because had we signed Madueke for £35M plus add ons I'm not sure the angst would be so pronounced. Unless it is shown that this alleged overpayment has prevented us signing say Eze, then I really am at a loss to understand what all the fuss is about.


Anyways, I'm sure we are boring people now - been good to debate with you