Profit before transfers. Confirmed.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

FIFA Fair Play rules, maybe??

Possibly. It's funny but we're almost in a weaker position because those Fair Play rules are reliant on the clubs showing they aren't making greater losses every season. We have a lot less leeway than other clubs do.

[Coney]

I hate these fucking articles, because you know half of it's shit, twisted and sensationalist.

I can't imagine anyone suggesting that kind of stuff from the Daily Heil.

[Fist of Lehmann]

Does the article quote Wenger directly? No.

No? Aren't the sections in quote marks 'quotes'?

[Syn]

So what none of them were English? Two of them were involved in the Unbeaten season. You mentioned players like Vermaelen, Koscielny, Sagna. Your whole argument since we've been on GW is that we should have more of those players afraid to try outside England. It's only ever the players not from England that will want to go abroad is becoming more and more obsolete as Citeh's money is too tempting for us.

My argument is that having your star players as foreign youngsters is more likely to backfire than if your star young players were English. I've already said the two involved in the unbeaten season were as good as English in the sense that they had been at the club a long time, but it was our decision to get rid of them and they weren't better-than-average for a CL level club. Nasri and Adebayor forced moves and were better-than-average for a CL club and so their loss would've hurt us and benefited Man City (though luckily as it turns out, it seems neither have made much impact so far). They were sold to an English club - and you're right that my general argument is more that foreign youngsters are more likely to move because they're more likely to move abroad. But the difference is in whether they forced moves. Toure and Clichy as the 'English' players we had didn't force moves. They didn't poach Clichy or Toure, we were more than happy to sell to them because they wouldn't have improved Man City. And they haven't. They're just fillers that they could've got anywhere else. And losing Toure or Clichy hasn't weakened us. Losing Toure quite obviously hasn't affected us. If we didn't lose Clichy we wouldn't have got Santos. And I think most would agree Santos is the player we'd rather want at LB - it's unfortunate (well...maybe not given it's Arsenal) that he has got injured.

It'll happen that we sell an English player to Citeh if we continue the way we're going. Does that mean to say the trend is irreversible and that we we will never get back to where we were? Of course not but this fearfulness of buying players that might go on to leave in a few years is silly if in those few years we get back to somewhere approaching where we were. You don't seem to be getting that mentioning Rooney going abroad is silly because Man Utd are always near to winning something, granted that's probably because of their manager but I now realise there's not going to be a danger of Rooney going whilst they still win things (and I think they will win the league). We aren't in that position anymore, we'll be like where Tottenham were after they sold Carrick to Man Utd. Their English players have the safety blanket of being at least one of the two best sides in the country.

The day our most valuable players; Ramsey (premium), Walcott (premium), Vermaelen, Van Persie, Wilshere or Oxlade to Man City, I'll start to re-think my view. Until then, I'm not concerned about Man City poaching our players unless they're highly-rated, highly-talented youngsters. The concern with slipping down the table and becoming a feeder club to the top teams isn't relevant, I don't think, because I am proposing that we are more likely to get success without buying the top rated talent out there. Because with the top rated talent, they won't stay until we win, they will leave as soon as they can, setting us back in 'transition' to fill the void left. That is what has been happening. I know you'll say that it is then our job to get in more of those top rated talent and ensure we win something so they stay. I've never felt that is true. I don't think Ronaldo or Tevez or whoever else felt inclined to stay because Man Utd were winning and I don't think Rooney or Ferdinand stayed because they were winning. It's deeper than that. I wouldn't describe it as 'loyalty' because Rooney isn't loyal. But it's just an unwillingness to go outside the comfort zone. Of course, as you say, if Man Utd had slipped down the table - outside the CL spots - then of course they would likely be off.

Clichy is not a superstar, nor will he ever be but he is a player of what we probably have a similar level of now. Tottenham point blank refused to sell Modric (to Chelsea), we (initially) point blank refused to sell Cesc but on Wenger's recommendation we eventually waivered.

In the case of Man Utd selling Ronaldo for such a huge figure has probably set them up for a good few seasons, I think in the long run that one has payed off for them!

I've talked about Clichy. About Cesc - I don't believe we could realistically have kept him. It was clear he wanted to leave and his performances (arguably his motivation) had dropped considerably last season after his heroic 09/10 efforts. I would've loved nothing more than for Wenger to say "you've got this contract, and you're staying" but when he gets to 26 or 27 you lose him on a free after a few seasons of sub-par performances. Not ideal for club or player IMO. About Modric - as I've said, I don't believe he is relatively 'highly-sought after' and I think he's a tier below the level of talent I'm talking about. I know it probably looks like I'm adding these player-ratings ad-hoc to suit my argument But I'm trying to call it like it is - I don't think Chelsea would be too concerned and would be looking to attract players like Mata; he's not worth the effort stalking over like Barca with Cesc.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

My argument is that having your star players as foreign youngsters is more likely to backfire than if your star young players were English. I've already said the two involved in the unbeaten season were as good as English in the sense that they had been at the club a long time, but it was our decision to get rid of them and they weren't better-than-average for a CL level club. Nasri and Adebayor forced moves and were better-than-average for a CL club and so their loss would've hurt us and benefited Man City (though luckily as it turns out, it seems neither have made much impact so far). They were sold to an English club - and you're right that my general argument is more that foreign youngsters are more likely to move because they're more likely to move abroad. But the difference is in whether they forced moves. Toure and Clichy as the 'English' players we had didn't force moves. They didn't poach Clichy or Toure, we were more than happy to sell to them because they wouldn't have improved Man City. And they haven't. They're just fillers that they could've got anywhere else. And losing Toure or Clichy hasn't weakened us. Losing Toure quite obviously hasn't affected us. If we didn't lose Clichy we wouldn't have got Santos. And I think most would agree Santos is the player we'd rather want at LB - it's unfortunate (well...maybe not given it's Arsenal) that he has got injured.



The day our most valuable players; Ramsey (premium), Walcott (premium), Vermaelen, Van Persie, Wilshere or Oxlade to Man City, I'll start to re-think my view. Until then, I'm not concerned about Man City poaching our players unless they're highly-rated, highly-talented youngsters. The concern with slipping down the table and becoming a feeder club to the top teams isn't relevant, I don't think, because I am proposing that we are more likely to get success without buying the top rated talent out there. Because with the top rated talent, they won't stay until we win, they will leave as soon as they can, setting us back in 'transition' to fill the void left. That is what has been happening. I know you'll say that it is then our job to get in more of those top rated talent and ensure we win something so they stay. I've never felt that is true. I don't think Ronaldo or Tevez or whoever else felt inclined to stay because Man Utd were winning and I don't think Rooney or Ferdinand stayed because they were winning. It's deeper than that. I wouldn't describe it as 'loyalty' because Rooney isn't loyal. But it's just an unwillingness to go outside the comfort zone. Of course, as you say, if Man Utd had slipped down the table - outside the CL spots - then of course they would likely be off.


I've talked about Clichy. About Cesc - I don't believe we could realistically have kept him. It was clear he wanted to leave and his performances (arguably his motivation) had dropped considerably last season after his heroic 09/10 efforts. I would've loved nothing more than for Wenger to say "you've got this contract, and you're staying" but when he gets to 26 or 27 you lose him on a free after a few seasons of sub-par performances. Not ideal for club or player IMO. About Modric - as I've said, I don't believe he is relatively 'highly-sought after' and I think he's a tier below the level of talent I'm talking about. I know it probably looks like I'm adding these player-ratings ad-hoc to suit my argument But I'm trying to call it like it is - I don't think Chelsea would be too concerned and would be looking to attract players like Mata; he's not worth the effort stalking over like Barca with Cesc.

A move can only be 'forced' so far, if a club has no willingness to sell to the buying club then it just won't happen. It also becomes a sliding scale, you show that you're willing to do business with one club, the next time they come along another player probably realises there is a possibility of it happening. We've done it enough times to other clubs, Citeh will be able to do it to us from now on. That those players have not gone on to particularly proven themselves just means it's a transfer that hasn't really favoured anyone but as Barca have shown (after Hleb particularly) they will keep coming back for our players and we'll keep selling.

In Rio's and Rooney's case, I'm not attempting to call it loyalty, I'm not even saying they are still there because they're likely to achieve success, it's more that it's a concern they don't even need to think about. The success there is second nature, not even considering the fact it's Manchester United we're talking about.

Chelsea have a willingness to find quality alternatives to those that they can't get, we don't.

And you didn't answer my closing question, who will we have left to sell, if it is true it's a necessity to make a profit?

[LDG]

Maccy, do you not think that the "making profit" bit is more a broad brush statement though? He's saying we need to clear the decks in order to fund a transfer of that magnitude.

I.e. get rid of some of the also-rans, making a quick buck on players like Clichy and Toure, who were surplus to requirements.

What I get from all of this, by way of his comment "at the start of the season", is that he needs to have a surplus of cash, plus a bit more in oder to balance the squad, balance the books, and maybe (if this is linked to his Hazard comments) to fund a big money buy....but let's not forget, he also says that it is his job to determin whether someone like Hazard is worth the price tag.

This is why we have Arteta instead of Mata for instance....value for money v's what they give each team is quite a stark contrast when you consider the sums of money involved....and it's clear we don't have free cash to spunk.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Maccy, do you not think that the "making profit" bit is more a broad brush statement though? He's saying we need to clear the decks in order to fund a transfer of that magnitude.

I.e. get rid of some of the also-rans, making a quick buck on players like Clichy and Toure, who were surplus to requirements.

What I get from all of this, by way of his comment "at the start of the season", is that he needs to have a surplus of cash, plus a bit more in oder to balance the squad, balance the books, and maybe (if this is linked to his Hazard comments) to fund a big money buy....but let's not forget, he also says that it is his job to determin whether someone like Hazard is worth the price tag.

This is why we have Arteta instead of Mata for instance....value for money v's what they give each team is quite a stark contrast when you consider the sums of money involved....and it's clear we don't have free cash to spunk.

It could be solely limited to players going out and coming in it's true but then we also know that we post profits in a financial year including everything. We do all the 'clearing' even without ever making a transfer of that magnitude.

[fakeyank]

Wenger is to blame tbh..

[Power n Glory]

Journo's aren't doing a good job, but what else is new. Someone should really pin him down on that quote and get him to eloborate.

[LDG]

Journo's aren't doing a good job, but what else is new. Someone should really pin him down on that quote and get him to eloborate.

I agree.

I think it's one thing every Arsenal fan wants. To be told exactly what is going on regarding cash....because if they came out and said, sorry, we're skint, and we can't afford it....we have to make do with what we've got, then most people would be "fair enough"....