Summer Transfers 2025 Missed Opportunities and Regrets

[KSE Comedy Club]

The point is if you spend a billion on players and recoup nothing then you should be a billion pounds of talent better off. If you spend a billion and recoup 350m then you're only 650m better off.

I'm sorry - but What????

If you send a billion pound on talent then yes you should be a billion pound better off. End of.
What you sell to recoup has nothing to do with the squad you have bought, what it is worth or how talented it is.

If I buy a car for £100,000 - then I expect to have a car that comes with everything to make it worth that amount.
It doesn't make it only worth £60,000 if I sell my old car for £40,000

[KSE Comedy Club]

Fair comments

[21_GOONER_SALUTE]

Fair comments

I agree that most of those players could have an important part to play this season if we gave them chances, especially Nelson and maybe even Kiwior.

But Lokonga, nahhhhh, please do whatever to get that kid off our books.

[HCZ_Reborn]

How much money the club has spent net or gross is for the club to worry about.

It’s where that money has been spent that concerns me. The foundations of a good team is its back line but too often that’s been over enforced and the attacking aspect of the team gets neglected, I imagine even with Madueke and Gyokeres the overall money we spend on goal creators and goal scorers is dwarfed by other teams

I personally couldn’t give a toss about Eze, he’s a player that would be nice to have rather than must have. It would be good to have a versatile player that can play centrally as well as on the wing but Eze himself is ok…and if we think he individually is going to raise the level around us, then we are already fucked before we’ve begun.


I think because we as a club have shown preference for clearing the wage bill over getting in transfer fees, the expectation amongst buying clubs is that they can get our players for cheap (where as Chelsea need to present the myth that they are complying with PSR/FFP…so their consideration is more about bringing in transfer fees)

The problem with our approach is that there does come a point where we need to actually make some money on transfers to allow us to spend what we feel we need to, to strengthen the squad.

That said I don’t agree with the idea that if you spend a billion on players and you get back 350 million that means you’ve got only 650 million worth of quality. The players we’ve sold have been considered to be surplus to requirement (although equally you also do have to factor in that some of the money we’ve got back comes from players we’ve spent a billion gross on to begin with)

[Letters]

In one sentence you are asking us to judge him on his effort in bringing in and selling players (the theory behind net spend), and when it is pointed out to you that practically all the players he has sold that have value weren't recruited by him, you say it's irrelevant

What I am saying is net spend is more relevant in terms of how much improvement we should expect to see in the squad.

I don't think your kitchen analogy really works but OK, let's go with that. Three scenarios:
- You buy a new kitchen for £30k, but your old one was worth £60k - in that situation you spent £30k but your kitchen is probably actually worse than before. I guess the football equivalent of that would be a club in financial trouble who has to downgrade the squad to keep their heads above water financially or comply with the financial regulations.
- You buy a new kitchen for £30k, but your old one was only worth £15k. In that case I'd now expect you to have a better kitchen or, in football terms, a better player. That should improve the squad.
- You buy a new kitchen for £30k, your old one was only worth £15k and you keep it. Now you have two kitchens. If something in one breaks - I guess that would be analogous to an injury - then you have another one you can use. Maybe not as good as the new one but good enough, better than having to use a camping stove.

In all 3 scenarios you have spent £30k - by your metric those 3 scenarios are equivalent. But the net spend is different in all 3 scenarios and the result is very different. The first one is a downgrade in quality, the second is an upgrade. The 3rd is too and you're adding squad depth. That's why net spend is the more important metric.

And one relevant thing is were you the best restaurant in town before the work on the kitchen? If you were then in the first scenario you might not be any more. In the second you should be even better and in the third you would too and you've mitigated against having to give a reduced service if something in the kitchen breaks.

Be honest, if this business was your family heirloom and he was your staff, how would you rate him on that?

I've already said that I think the ROI has been pretty poor under Arteta. 1 trophy in 5 years given the spend isn't great.
That said, he took over a side who finished 5th the season before he arrived and we had a very patchy start to the season which saw Emery sacked and him appointed. We were in 10th when he took over with a league record of P17 W5 D7 L5.
We were not the best restaurant in town.
From there he took us to the brink of a title. One could argue that "brink" isn't good enough, and that is a reasonable argument. But it's not like there's been no progress under him. I'd say last season was the real disappointment. Before that - the title challenge 2 years ago was unexpected. We ran out of steam and got mown down by the City machine but we're not the first side to have that happen to them. The following season we pushed City all the way. People point to the Villa game but I don't think you can really ask much more than P18 W16 D1 L1 in the second half of the season. We pushed City to the last day. But last season...City finally dropped off, it felt like the title was there for the taking. It's massively frustrating to have lost out to Liverpool. Yes, we had injuries but we also didn't do the right things in the transfer market last summer. If people want Arteta out on the basis of that season then I have some sympathy for that. Personally I'd give him this season but he has to deliver.

Also, we are both old enough to know that net spend became a buzzword because of AW

I don't know if that's true, but if it is then it's like saying that good diet and nutrition only became a thing because of AW. That might be true but he was right about nutrition and he's right about net spend for the reasons I've explained.

Why is everyone in agreement about Arteta needing to deliver now if he has done such a great job on netspend?

I don't think he's done a great job on net spend. Ours is still in the top 3 under Arteta. I've agreed that the ROI hasn't been good enough.
My only point in this exchange is that it is a more reasonable metric.

But if if you insist that we should judge him on this padded figure why are you only highlighting what Chelesa and United have done? Why not comment on the fact that the two clubs that have won the league (on multiple occasions since he arrived) have spent considerably less than us?

Again, this comes back to whether you start off as the best restaurant in town. City had already spent the money to make them champions over and over before Arteta arrived. The fact they don't need to spend as much to maintain that level is not relevant. Liverpool are probably a better example but I am not arguing that Arteta has done a wonderful job.

As for the style of football, my point was that we are retrogressing back to days of Graham slowly

Maybe in the sense of 1-0 to the Arsenal, but the style of play is nothing like Graham's route one. Did you not see the game on Sunday where we endlessly passed it round at the back? I actually thought the occasions we did break we did so with decent pace - that felt like an improvement on last season. But the final ball was non-existent or poorly played. It wasn't anything like the Seaman booting it upfield to be flicked on for Smith or Wright to get on to we used to play under Graham.

[IBK]

Ok that's fair enough, but I don't care what other teams have spent tbh



That's half true. Every club has a transfer pool of money that they can use without selling. Otherwise no one could do any business without selling players for fixed fees first to be able to generate their transfer funds.



I didn't point to net spend, Letters did. I don't use that as marker because it's for financial analysts & accountants. It's also completely variable as I have already explained.
Our competitors Kitchens are not the point and whataboutism.



True, I agree with you.



No issue with this either, I agree with what you are saying here - but again this isn't what sparked this initial debate.

It was that after all the money we have spent, we are still 1-2 players short

It matters what other teams have spent because we are not operating in a bubble. You are free to think what you like, but in a competetive league the resources available to other teams are highly relevant our ability to challenge for silverware.

I thought I was responding to NQ re net spend, but in answer to your reply, it is a very simple point. It is more accurate to factor in transfer fees generated by player sales to assess how much a club has spent overall than simply to look at transfer outgoings.

My other point is that if you are judging a manager by how much he has spent, you need also (if you are being fair) to look at how much ground they have had to make up. Without this any assessment is flawed. And Arteta had to make up a huge amount of ground on his competitors, and completely overhaul his squad. It's obvious to me that this was bound to cost more than refreshing already competetive teams.

I don't think I have misconstrued the criticism of Arteta's supposed underperformance as our manager by reference to his spending. But if the criticism is more nuanced - ie that despite spending, we are still 1/2 players short, then I would argue that similar points apply in the end.

If you accept that the club only has limited resources, whether owing to PSR; the owners or whatever - which I think most sensible people would - then that argument becomes that Arteta has misallocated these.

Does this argument really stand up? Without getting into individual players' percieved merits all of this Summer's acquisitions have been to address holes; provide vital backup or replace outgoing players. Even if we look to last Summer, suddenly Calafiori and even Merino look like sensible back ups (or in Cala's case rotation options) for first team players. The intention with any top team is to have a stand in for every position. So why are we beating Arteta up for working to this? We can argue that we need an Odegard back up, but we have signed Nwaneri on a decent contract for that position (and BTW Nwaneri, not Madueke is the reason why we colled on Eze).

We are certainly short at LW, but our inability to further strenghten there is because not despite what the club has spent so far! We cannot sign anyone else wthout getting rid of Reiss-Nelson; Kiwor; Zinchenko and possibly Trossard, and the market isn't there by all appearances. So why, in seriousness, is this £1bn figure being used to hang the manager?

[IBK]

What I am saying is net spend is more relevant in terms of how much improvement we should expect to see in the squad.

I don't think your kitchen analogy really works but OK, let's go with that. Three scenarios:
- You buy a new kitchen for £30k, but your old one was worth £60k - in that situation you spent £30k but your kitchen is probably actually worse than before. I guess the football equivalent of that would be a club in financial trouble who has to downgrade the squad to keep their heads above water financially or comply with the financial regulations.
- You buy a new kitchen for £30k, but your old one was only worth £15k. In that case I'd now expect you to have a better kitchen or, in football terms, a better player. That should improve the squad.
- You buy a new kitchen for £30k, your old one was only worth £15k and you keep it. Now you have two kitchens. If something in one breaks - I guess that would be analogous to an injury - then you have another one you can use. Maybe not as good as the new one but good enough, better than having to use a camping stove.

In all 3 scenarios you have spent £30k - by your metric those 3 scenarios are equivalent. But the net spend is different in all 3 scenarios and the result is very different. The first one is a downgrade in quality, the second is an upgrade. The 3rd is too and you're adding squad depth. That's why net spend is the more important metric.

And one relevant thing is were you the best restaurant in town before the work on the kitchen? If you were then in the first scenario you might not be any more. In the second you should be even better and in the third you would too and you've mitigated against having to give a reduced service if something in the kitchen breaks.



I've already said that I think the ROI has been pretty poor under Arteta. 1 trophy in 5 years given the spend isn't great.
That said, he took over a side who finished 5th the season before he arrived and we had a very patchy start to the season which saw Emery sacked and him appointed. We were in 10th when he took over with a league record of P17 W5 D7 L5.
We were not the best restaurant in town.
From there he took us to the brink of a title. One could argue that "brink" isn't good enough, and that is a reasonable argument. But it's not like there's been no progress under him. I'd say last season was the real disappointment. Before that - the title challenge 2 years ago was unexpected. We ran out of steam and got mown down by the City machine but we're not the first side to have that happen to them. The following season we pushed City all the way. People point to the Villa game but I don't think you can really ask much more than P18 W16 D1 L1 in the second half of the season. We pushed City to the last day. But last season...City finally dropped off, it felt like the title was there for the taking. It's massively frustrating to have lost out to Liverpool. Yes, we had injuries but we also didn't do the right things in the transfer market last summer. If people want Arteta out on the basis of that season then I have some sympathy for that. Personally I'd give him this season but he has to deliver.


I don't know if that's true, but if it is then it's like saying that good diet and nutrition only became a thing because of AW. That might be true but he was right about nutrition and he's right about net spend for the reasons I've explained.


I don't think he's done a great job on net spend. Ours is still in the top 3 under Arteta. I've agreed that the ROI hasn't been good enough.
My only point in this exchange is that it is a more reasonable metric.


Again, this comes back to whether you start off as the best restaurant in town. City had already spent the money to make them champions over and over before Arteta arrived. The fact they don't need to spend as much to maintain that level is not relevant. Liverpool are probably a better example but I am not arguing that Arteta has done a wonderful job.


Maybe in the sense of 1-0 to the Arsenal, but the style of play is nothing like Graham's route one. Did you not see the game on Sunday where we endlessly passed it round at the back? I actually thought the occasions we did break we did so with decent pace - that felt like an improvement on last season. But the final ball was non-existent or poorly played. It wasn't anything like the Seaman booting it upfield to be flicked on for Smith or Wright to get on to we used to play under Graham.

agree with all that. Too many absolutes these days. 2 things can be true. That Arteta has done a good job and that it's beyond him to win major silverware. This season will be the acid test of the latter. But this obsession with how much he has spent and writing off what he has achieved with this in getting us to where we are is IMO unjust.

[dostoy]

If they sell Kiwior then surely they will need to sign another CB.

They also need another attacking player as there is not enough goal threat with what they have.

[KSE Comedy Club]

It matters what other teams have spent because we are not operating in a bubble. You are free to think what you like, but in a competetive league the resources available to other teams are highly relevant our ability to challenge for silverware.

I thought I was responding to NQ re net spend, but in answer to your reply, it is a very simple point. It is more accurate to factor in transfer fees generated by player sales to assess how much a club has spent overall than simply to look at transfer outgoings.

My other point is that if you are judging a manager by how much he has spent, you need also (if you are being fair) to look at how much ground they have had to make up. Without this any assessment is flawed. And Arteta had to make up a huge amount of ground on his competitors, and completely overhaul his squad. It's obvious to me that this was bound to cost more than refreshing already competetive teams.

I don't think I have misconstrued the criticism of Arteta's supposed underperformance as our manager by reference to his spending. But if the criticism is more nuanced - ie that despite spending, we are still 1/2 players short, then I would argue that similar points apply in the end.

If you accept that the club only has limited resources, whether owing to PSR; the owners or whatever - which I think most sensible people would - then that argument becomes that Arteta has misallocated these.

Does this argument really stand up? Without getting into individual players' percieved merits all of this Summer's acquisitions have been to address holes; provide vital backup or replace outgoing players. Even if we look to last Summer, suddenly Calafiori and even Merino look like sensible back ups (or in Cala's case rotation options) for first team players. The intention with any top team is to have a stand in for every position. So why are we beating Arteta up for working to this? We can argue that we need an Odegard back up, but we have signed Nwaneri on a decent contract for that position (and BTW Nwaneri, not Madueke is the reason why we colled on Eze).

We are certainly short at LW, but our inability to further strenghten there is because not despite what the club has spent so far! We cannot sign anyone else wthout getting rid of Reiss-Nelson; Kiwor; Zinchenko and possibly Trossard, and the market isn't there by all appearances. So why, in seriousness, is this £1bn figure being used to hang the manager?

£1bn isn't being used to hang the manager at all.

It is being used to highlight that every season for the last 10 years we are always 1-2 players short of having a title winning squad.
The fact we have now spent close to such a large amount means we shouldn't still be in the same position squad wise that we have always been.

That isn't all entirely on Arteta, as that would be vastly unfair - but he's been here long enough and spent enough that should ensure we are not still in the same position.

[HCZ_Reborn]

If they sell Kiwior then surely they will need to sign another CB.

They also need another attacking player as there is not enough goal threat with what they have.

I don’t think so. I’d rather we didn’t sell Kiwior but Calafiori is a centre back and can cover there

This idea that we need eight defenders is silly for me.