Arsenal Thread

[azania]

First topic message reminder :

Surprised the isn't one yet.

In

Carzola
Giroud
Podolski


Out

Deadwood (exept Squilacchi and Chamakh)
RvP/Berba clone hopefully

I actually believe that Arsenal are stronger than last year. Carzola is a great buy for us. Giroud, although he hasn't scored yet makes terrific runs and in time will score 15+ per year.

Our defense has been tightened by Bould's astute style.

My prediction? Arsenal will end up 2nd behind City. UCL semi and win something (CO-Cup).

Discuss.

[azania]

Arsene plays him as first choice. I'd rather take his views more seriously than posters on a message board.

In Arsenen we trust.

[Smirnoffpriest]

Yup Azania - I always find it funny that every year people are saying that certain Arsenal players are truely horrendous and should only play for League 2 sides - Diaby, Walcott, Gervinho, Denilson, Kosclieny, Fabinansky, Szczency, Gibbs, Mertasacker, Arshavin... ect yet most of these players have gone on to win international honours and when they hit good form then suddenly their amazing (like Diaby now being compared to Viera and Yaya Toure).

Also the same happens about Wenger, when his inability to compete financially means the team slips down the table then suddenly Arsenal are awful and need to get rid of Wenger (as he knows nothing) ASAP, and won't finish in the top 7. Then Wenger uncovers another gem, a lot of the players above perform really well and we're challenging at the top (until our dreaded March dip) and everybody says Wenger is brilliant again.

It's laughable.

[TopHat24/7]

Really? Don't think I've ever seen anyone critical of Arshavin (other than laziness).

Kos got a lot of plaudits last season (I'd have him ahead of Mert tbh), Gibbs is an exciting youngster who only get's criticised really because he'd not as good as Cole is/was. Denilson was fairly poor, a mid-table player, but not lower league standard.

Chesney is pretty well liked and respected too. And people are calling Diaby the new Viera!

Think you're being a little over-sensitive. Some players you've bought have been poor (every club has done the same) but plenty have been decent. In the mix there's also the odd gem. Such is life.

[Stella]

Wenger has taken lots of flak. Difficult to assess Wenger. On one hand, Arsenal were unbeaten in a season, only a few years ago and are now on a streak of no trophies in 7 seasons.
This is partly down to money but is it him not wanting to spend or the owners being tight?

[Fernando]

Denilson was screwed over at Arsenal to be fair, He got complained at for linking up the play and passing sideways which is exactly the same Arteta is now doing yet he's the best thing since sliced bread

[TopHat24/7]

I've always got the impression Wenger is reluctant to spend big and Arsenal fans refuse to acknowledge money is there and the club isn't in the doldrums of poverty as some make out. In fact, I posted elsewhere that Arsenal have actually been spending a packet but just on lots of £6-10m players rather than 1 or 2 £20m players.

Think Wenger is psychologically wedded to uncovering the next Anelka etc and still rues getting stung by buying big with Reyes who flopped. Hence why when Jags and Cahill were available for £10-11m (and arguably Jones at £16m) he went to the continent to buy cheap.

[Smirnoffpriest]

Arshavin has been booed and criticised by Arsenal fans for the past 2 seasons, and also I've seen it on message boards by other fans.

Yes people are saying Kos, Chesney and Diaby are good now - but when they 1st burst on the scene they were criticised, Diaby in particular for being very poor - people were claiming Denilson was much better and both should be shipped out as deadwood up to last season).

Same with Chesney and Fabinansky when they 1st started playing (Fabinansky was re-christened Flapinansky and Chesney didn't get much better).

I think these players are very good (maybe Gibbs and Diaby are a bit prone to injury). But I was highlighting how people will slate certain Arsenal players (particularly if it's fashionable), as their doing with Walcott, Giroud and Gervinho now - but the same has been done before with other players who have become integral to the team, I would not be suprised to see at the end of this/next season that people are singing Gervinho's and Walcotts praises.

The fact that you can't remember these players being slated is a point in case - people will forget how Gervinho/Walcott have been slated now and only remember how well their playing when they do hit top form.

[Stella]

I can still recall a friend of mine slating Henry when he turned up at Highbury!

A winger, we don't need a winger

[Smirnoffpriest]

I've always got the impression Wenger is reluctant to spend big and Arsenal fans refuse to acknowledge money is there and the club isn't in the doldrums of poverty as some make out. In fact, I posted elsewhere that Arsenal have actually been spending a packet but just on lots of £6-10m players rather than 1 or 2 £20m players.

Think Wenger is psychologically wedded to uncovering the next Anelka etc and still rues getting stung by buying big with Reyes who flopped. Hence why when Jags and Cahill were available for £10-11m (and arguably Jones at £16m) he went to the continent to buy cheap.

There's no way Arsenal can compete with Man U, Man C, Chelsea and Spurs (who out spent Man U in Harry's time) - but they do buy £6-10m players and then sell them on for a lot more money, and that is how they can afford the next batch of players. Cahill was available for £10m but you could very well argue that Vermaelen is better than him and roughly the same age, is a better buy on less money. We now have a good batch of CBs bought relatively cheaply. While if we went out and spent £16m on Jones (assuming we could out bid Man U and match wages), then we might not have been able to afford Koscienly and Gervinho/Santos, and as can be seen at Man U, Jones needed awhile to develop to the first team and come up to standard.

[Fernando]

Arshavin is criticized mainly because he is lazy and when he loses the ball he doesn't try to get it back unless he plays for Russia, no fan will tolerate laziness

Koscielny since i saw his 1st game against Liverpool always thought he'd be a top class defender very much been correct

Chesney is the only keeper ive seen in goal that i don't fear has a mistake in him despite the southampton game

I quite like bobblehead he's in the side for his dribbling (when it stays near him) and work rate

Diaby is either hit or miss he can go past 7 players then put the ball in the stand

Gibbs will be great when he stays fit hopefully under bould his positioning will get better

the standout for me so far is Jenkinson looking top class so far sagna could have issues getting back in the side

The only time the fans at the ground has been an issue for me was with Eboue which was unnecessary and completely uncalled for.

[TopHat24/7]

I've always got the impression Wenger is reluctant to spend big and Arsenal fans refuse to acknowledge money is there and the club isn't in the doldrums of poverty as some make out. In fact, I posted elsewhere that Arsenal have actually been spending a packet but just on lots of £6-10m players rather than 1 or 2 £20m players.

Think Wenger is psychologically wedded to uncovering the next Anelka etc and still rues getting stung by buying big with Reyes who flopped. Hence why when Jags and Cahill were available for £10-11m (and arguably Jones at £16m) he went to the continent to buy cheap.

There's no way Arsenal can compete with Man U, Man C, Chelsea and Spurs (who out spent Man U in Harry's time) - but they do buy £6-10m players and then sell them on for a lot more money, and that is how they can afford the next batch of players. Cahill was available for £10m but you could very well argue that Vermaelen is better than him and roughly the same age, is a better buy on less money. We now have a good batch of CBs bought relatively cheaply. While if we went out and spent £16m on Jones (assuming we could out bid Man U and match wages), then we might not have been able to afford Koscienly and Gervinho/Santos, and as can be seen at Man U, Jones needed awhile to develop to the first team and come up to standard.

But Vermalen wasn't the toss up. Mertesacker was. And when your central defence is in chronic shape and in desperate need of a solid proven player, to go cheap to the continent is a massive risk, one I don't think has paid off. You have a very good CB in Vermalen, a decent CB in Kos (I like more than most) and an ok one in Mert provided you're not playing a pacey team and are willing to sit very deep. I'd take Verms+Jags+Cahill over that any day of the week.

Nobody can compete with Citeh and Chelski, not even United who now sit in a kind of funding limbo between the Arsenal/Tottenham/Liverpools and the sugar daddy clubs. But I think Arsenal fans are guilty of over-playing their impoverished status. The money is there it's just the way it's spent that is different. Wenger would rather get 5/6 average to good players for £30m than just 2.

[Crimey]

Mertesacker was clearly a better option than Cahill though, he had 80 odd caps with Germany and was considered a world class centre back. Gary Cahill was playing for Bolton, having been rejected by Aston Villa and was only just breaking into the England side. I think Mertsesacker wasn't the cheap option, he was the sensible option, he's only a year older.

I'd still say that Mertesacker is the better defender now than Cahill who despite some good performances in the Champions League I'm still really not convinced by him.

[TopHat24/7]

Arsenal spending since turn of the century:

99/00: £22.85m
00/01: £35m
01/02: £15.25m
02/03: £6.6m
03/04: £20.5m
04/05: £4.5m
05/06: £36.9m
06/07: £13.9m
07/08: £31m
08/09: £15.75m
09/10: £10m
10/11: £14.5m
11/12: £53.15m
12/13: £44m

That's not a poor low-spending club.

[TopHat24/7]

Mertesacker was clearly a better option than Cahill though, he had 80 odd caps with Germany and was considered a world class centre back. Gary Cahill was playing for Bolton, having been rejected by Aston Villa and was only just breaking into the England side. I think Mertsesacker wasn't the cheap option, he was the sensible option, he's only a year older.

I'd still say that Mertesacker is the better defender now than Cahill who despite some good performances in the Champions League I'm still really not convinced by him.

Clearly??! A proven EPL CB coming off 2-3 excellent seasons who's been very good for Chelsea since he moved there versus a painfully slow CB from the continent with no proven EPL ability? Think too much is made of those caps, god knows how he's accrued them given how good they've been and how limited he is. A lot of sub-appearances maybe......

Both then and now I am no doubt that Cahill would have been a better purchase.

[azania]

Top

What did Arsenal make in that time from selling players? A net loss or gain? Compare that to Spurs, Liverpool, Newcastle, City, Chelsea, Manure or even Everton.

[azania]

I'd have Mertersacker over Cahill anyday. Cahill may be more blood and guts and "fighting" for the cause and all that. Mertersacker plays football and is a better footballer.

[Crimey]

Mertesacker was clearly a better option than Cahill though, he had 80 odd caps with Germany and was considered a world class centre back. Gary Cahill was playing for Bolton, having been rejected by Aston Villa and was only just breaking into the England side. I think Mertsesacker wasn't the cheap option, he was the sensible option, he's only a year older.

I'd still say that Mertesacker is the better defender now than Cahill who despite some good performances in the Champions League I'm still really not convinced by him.

Clearly??! A proven EPL CB coming off 2-3 excellent seasons who's been very good for Chelsea since he moved there versus a painfully slow CB from the continent with no proven EPL ability? Think too much is made of those caps, god knows how he's accrued them given how good they've been and how limited he is. A lot of sub-appearances maybe......

Both then and now I am no doubt that Cahill would have been a better purchase.

I'd hardly say excellent seasons, he'd been playing alright...for Bolton. He's just simply not as good as people make out. Mertesacker was regarded as one of the best centre backs in Europe and had played in the Bundesliga for many years, a league which is probably the closest in similarity to the Premier League as well as international football.

I don't know what Cahill offers that makes you think he is so much a better player than Mertesacker, while the latter is quite slow, Cahill is hardly that fast and I don't think he's a good enough passer to be a ball-playing defender, but not strong enough to be a Terry-esque defender.

[Smirnoffpriest]

I'd hazard that in a lot of those seasons Arsenal made a slight loss (and a few with big losses) from player sales.

While at the same time Spurs have spent £100m in one season, and £50M in quite a few. Even Portsmouth for example spent £30m in a season, and Sunderland have just spent £12m+ on one player - which is incidentally more than we spent in the entire 2009/10 season and only slightly less than the 2010/11 season we had quite a lot of sales in those seasons as well, which enabled us to use those profits to invest in the players we bought the season after and spend the £54m - which many other clubs such as Liverpool, Spurs, QPR & Fulham have spent - and none (though unfair on QPR in their 1st season) have qualified in the top 4 regularly.

[socal1976]

Diaby has always impressed but he just hasn't played much for the last couple of seasons. To be fair I thought Ya ya outplayed him and that the city match was diaby's worst match of the season. Not that he was that bad but he played so well in the other matches. Where will Jack Wilshere play when he comes back? Can't wait for his return.

[socal1976]

Arshavin is criticized mainly because he is lazy and when he loses the ball he doesn't try to get it back unless he plays for Russia, no fan will tolerate laziness

Koscielny since i saw his 1st game against Liverpool always thought he'd be a top class defender very much been correct

Chesney is the only keeper ive seen in goal that i don't fear has a mistake in him despite the southampton game

I quite like bobblehead he's in the side for his dribbling (when it stays near him) and work rate

Diaby is either hit or miss he can go past 7 players then put the ball in the stand

Gibbs will be great when he stays fit hopefully under bould his positioning will get better

the standout for me so far is Jenkinson looking top class so far sagna could have issues getting back in the side

The only time the fans at the ground has been an issue for me was with Eboue which was unnecessary and completely uncalled for.

Jenkinson has been spectacular, I'll be honest had no idea who he was till the start of the season. He is not easy to go around or get the cross by and he seems to have a real motor running up and down the wing.

[Nakatomi Plaza]

Arsenal spending since turn of the century:

99/00: £22.85m
00/01: £35m
01/02: £15.25m
02/03: £6.6m
03/04: £20.5m
04/05: £4.5m
05/06: £36.9m
06/07: £13.9m
07/08: £31m
08/09: £15.75m
09/10: £10m
10/11: £14.5m
11/12: £53.15m
12/13: £44m

That's not a poor low-spending club.

You haven't taken into account money brought in from player sales since the Premier league started, Arsenal's net spend is about £1m per season, which is hardly extravagant.

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-1992-to-today.html

[Nakatomi Plaza]

Arshavin is criticized mainly because he is lazy and when he loses the ball he doesn't try to get it back unless he plays for Russia, no fan will tolerate laziness

Koscielny since i saw his 1st game against Liverpool always thought he'd be a top class defender very much been correct

Chesney is the only keeper ive seen in goal that i don't fear has a mistake in him despite the southampton game

I quite like bobblehead he's in the side for his dribbling (when it stays near him) and work rate

Diaby is either hit or miss he can go past 7 players then put the ball in the stand

Gibbs will be great when he stays fit hopefully under bould his positioning will get better

the standout for me so far is Jenkinson looking top class so far sagna could have issues getting back in the side

The only time the fans at the ground has been an issue for me was with Eboue which was unnecessary and completely uncalled for.

The only thing I slightly disagree with here is Chesney. He seemed to lose some confidence at the end of the season, and made a real rick against Norwich, and in the Euros. I heard he was carrying some niggling injuries, so this may have affected him.

[Smirnoffpriest]

Arsenal spending since turn of the century:

99/00: £22.85m
00/01: £35m
01/02: £15.25m
02/03: £6.6m
03/04: £20.5m
04/05: £4.5m
05/06: £36.9m
06/07: £13.9m
07/08: £31m
08/09: £15.75m
09/10: £10m
10/11: £14.5m
11/12: £53.15m
12/13: £44m

That's not a poor low-spending club.

You haven't taken into account money brought in from player sales since the Premier league started, Arsenal's net spend is about £1m per season, which is hardly extravagant.

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-1992-to-today.html

Interesting that we are well below the other established prem teams that have been in the league since the 90s. And also a lot of tewams that have only been in the prem for a few years - such as wba and stoke

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Arshavin is criticized mainly because he is lazy and when he loses the ball he doesn't try to get it back unless he plays for Russia, no fan will tolerate laziness

Koscielny since i saw his 1st game against Liverpool always thought he'd be a top class defender very much been correct

Chesney is the only keeper ive seen in goal that i don't fear has a mistake in him despite the southampton game

I quite like bobblehead he's in the side for his dribbling (when it stays near him) and work rate

Diaby is either hit or miss he can go past 7 players then put the ball in the stand

Gibbs will be great when he stays fit hopefully under bould his positioning will get better

the standout for me so far is Jenkinson looking top class so far sagna could have issues getting back in the side

The only time the fans at the ground has been an issue for me was with Eboue which was unnecessary and completely uncalled for.

The only thing I slightly disagree with here is Chesney. He seemed to lose some confidence at the end of the season, and made a real rick against Norwich, and in the Euros. I heard he was carrying some niggling injuries, so this may have affected him.

I was there for that game, and he was all over the place. Which I found strange because I think he could be one of the Top 5 GK's in the world on his day

[Crimey]

I think losing his place in the first game at the Euros, and now losing his place at Arsenal to Mannone have ruined his confidence. Plenty of time to come back as in goalkeeper years he's about 17.

[TopHat24/7]

Arsenal spending since turn of the century:

99/00: £22.85m
00/01: £35m
01/02: £15.25m
02/03: £6.6m
03/04: £20.5m
04/05: £4.5m
05/06: £36.9m
06/07: £13.9m
07/08: £31m
08/09: £15.75m
09/10: £10m
10/11: £14.5m
11/12: £53.15m
12/13: £44m

That's not a poor low-spending club.

You haven't taken into account money brought in from player sales since the Premier league started, Arsenal's net spend is about £1m per season, which is hardly extravagant.

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-1992-to-today.html

Interesting that we are well below the other established prem teams that have been in the league since the 90s. And also a lot of tewams that have only been in the prem for a few years - such as wba and stoke

'92 to today is fallacious as it takes into no account inflation. Football today is totally different to football in 1992 and the revenues from TV and advertising are spectacularly different, hence why new EPL entrants occupy a falsely high position on such tables.

However all this is irrelevant as my main point has been that none of this really demonstrates how rich/poor Arsenal are, it's all Wenger's transfer attitude. He's desperate to keep unearthing gems and the club are happy for to carry on this way because they make so much money when the players are later flipped at a profit. The problem, as I've been saying, Wengers unwillingness to spend big despite the money being there.

£53m last season and what did you get for it? Ox at £12m is an excellent investment in potential but after that you got a ponderours albeit reliable defender and a good but not great poor man's Fabregas. The season before Citeh bought Yaya and Silva for a combined total of £49m. You'd still have had enough for the crappy shirt-seller Park!

[Smirnoffpriest]

Arsenal spending since turn of the century:

99/00: £22.85m
00/01: £35m
01/02: £15.25m
02/03: £6.6m
03/04: £20.5m
04/05: £4.5m
05/06: £36.9m
06/07: £13.9m
07/08: £31m
08/09: £15.75m
09/10: £10m
10/11: £14.5m
11/12: £53.15m
12/13: £44m

That's not a poor low-spending club.

You haven't taken into account money brought in from player sales since the Premier league started, Arsenal's net spend is about £1m per season, which is hardly extravagant.

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-1992-to-today.html

Interesting that we are well below the other established prem teams that have been in the league since the 90s. And also a lot of tewams that have only been in the prem for a few years - such as wba and stoke

'92 to today is fallacious as it takes into no account inflation. Football today is totally different to football in 1992 and the revenues from TV and advertising are spectacularly different, hence why new EPL entrants occupy a falsely high position on such tables.

However all this is irrelevant as my main point has been that none of this really demonstrates how rich/poor Arsenal are, it's all Wenger's transfer attitude. He's desperate to keep unearthing gems and the club are happy for to carry on this way because they make so much money when the players are later flipped at a profit. The problem, as I've been saying, Wengers unwillingness to spend big despite the money being there.

£53m last season and what did you get for it? Ox at £12m is an excellent investment in potential but after that you got a ponderours albeit reliable defender and a good but not great poor man's Fabregas. The season before Citeh bought Yaya and Silva for a combined total of £49m. You'd still have had enough for the crappy shirt-seller Park!

Yum Inflation actually makes Arsenals recent spending look a lot better - giving the huge false inflation in the Prem recently - whereas Arsenals transfer record of around £18m on one player would in the 90s seem huge, it is these days miniscule.

And it's just down to Wenger that we don't spend? Sorry I thought it was down to the fact that we self funded a huge new stadium in London (which has some of the most expensive real estate in the world), and we are tied in to a Stadium and kit sponsorship deals which are a fraction of our competitors. Also we are run sutainably and don't run up millions of debt that we can't pay off.

I fail to see how Arteta is a poor signing when he's been one of our best players or how he's a replacement for Fabergas just coz he's a midfielder - Santi is more a Fabergas type player. Mertasacker has been very good for us this season, so good that he's keeping Kos out of the team in fact - and is just what we needed, experienced, solid and tall.

It's ridiculous to say we could have bought Yaya or Silva, as we were looking at Yaya (and had tried to sign him before) but when Citey came in it was clear we wouldn't get him as there's no way we could get anywhere near the 220k they offered him a week.

[Crimey]

Yum Inflation actually makes Arsenals recent spending look a lot better - giving the huge false inflation in the Prem recently - whereas Arsenals transfer record of around £18m on one player would in the 90s seem huge, it is these days miniscule.

That's not how it works. The point is inflation has made an £18 million fee acceptable in football now, but in the 1990s it was far from the norm, in 1995 the world record was £15 million. That shows that Arsenal spent a lot of money in the late 90s when you actually take into account inflation.

It's ridiculous to say we could have bought Yaya or Silva, as we were looking at Yaya (and had tried to sign him before) but when Citey came in it was clear we wouldn't get him as there's no way we could get anywhere near the 220k they offered him a week.

I do agree with this, some people see transfers as too simple. There was a lot more to the Toure and Silva deals than simply the transfer fee, you had the allure of challenging for the Premier League, massive wages, certain players being at the club, the manager, being a part of a growing football team and franchise, your role within that team, so many different things. It is so simply just to say, £49 million spent on these two players, this team has spent more than £49 million therefore they could have signed them.

[azania]

I think losing his place in the first game at the Euros, and now losing his place at Arsenal to Mannone have ruined his confidence. Plenty of time to come back as in goalkeeper years he's about 17.

He lost his place for Poland because he was sent off and subsequently banned from playing for 3 games. Nothing about form. Lost his place to Mannone due to injury and not form.

[Crimey]

I think losing his place in the first game at the Euros, and now losing his place at Arsenal to Mannone have ruined his confidence. Plenty of time to come back as in goalkeeper years he's about 17.

He lost his place for Poland because he was sent off and subsequently banned from playing for 3 games. Nothing about form. Lost his place to Mannone due to injury and not form.

I believe the red card only led to him missing one game, but the other goalkeeper played so well that he was allowed to start the third and final group game. Euro 2012 was supposed to be his arrival on the international stage and prove himself to the world and he got sent off in the first game, I imagine he will have lost quite a bit of confidence.

There is already talk of Mannone replacing Szczesny, something that would have been laughed off last year.

[Smirnoffpriest]

Yum Inflation actually makes Arsenals recent spending look a lot better - giving the huge false inflation in the Prem recently - whereas Arsenals transfer record of around £18m on one player would in the 90s seem huge, it is these days miniscule.

That's not how it works. The point is inflation has made an £18 million fee acceptable in football now, but in the 1990s it was far from the norm, in 1995 the world record was £15 million. That shows that Arsenal spent a lot of money in the late 90s when you actually take into account inflation.

It's ridiculous to say we could have bought Yaya or Silva, as we were looking at Yaya (and had tried to sign him before) but when Citey came in it was clear we wouldn't get him as there's no way we could get anywhere near the 220k they offered him a week.

I do agree with this, some people see transfers as too simple. There was a lot more to the Toure and Silva deals than simply the transfer fee, you had the allure of challenging for the Premier League, massive wages, certain players being at the club, the manager, being a part of a growing football team and franchise, your role within that team, so many different things. It is so simply just to say, £49 million spent on these two players, this team has spent more than £49 million therefore they could have signed them.

Yum if you actually compare it to Man U's spend - when they broke the transfer record almost every season in the late 90s, it's incomparable - we didn't spend over £10m until after the millennium - so yes £18m was a lot of money in the late 90s - but to Arsenal £18m is still a lot of money today

[Smirnoffpriest]

[quote="Crimey"]

It's ridiculous to say we could have bought Yaya or Silva, as we were looking at Yaya (and had tried to sign him before) but when Citey came in it was clear we wouldn't get him as there's no way we could get anywhere near the 220k they offered him a week.

I do agree with this, some people see transfers as too simple. There was a lot more to the Toure and Silva deals than simply the transfer fee, you had the allure of challenging for the Premier League, massive wages, certain players being at the club, the manager, being a part of a growing football team and franchise, your role within that team, so many different things. It is so simply just to say, £49 million spent on these two players, this team has spent more than £49 million therefore they could have signed them.

So why did you compare our outlay of £53m on lots of players to Man C's buying of Yaya and Silva - when as you say their transfers came with a huge amount more money and outlay?

[Crimey]

[quote="Smirnoffpriest"]

It's ridiculous to say we could have bought Yaya or Silva, as we were looking at Yaya (and had tried to sign him before) but when Citey came in it was clear we wouldn't get him as there's no way we could get anywhere near the 220k they offered him a week.

I do agree with this, some people see transfers as too simple. There was a lot more to the Toure and Silva deals than simply the transfer fee, you had the allure of challenging for the Premier League, massive wages, certain players being at the club, the manager, being a part of a growing football team and franchise, your role within that team, so many different things. It is so simply just to say, £49 million spent on these two players, this team has spent more than £49 million therefore they could have signed them.

So why did you compare our outlay of £53m on lots of players to Man C's buying of Yaya and Silva - when as you say their transfers came with a huge amount more money and outlay?

I didn't. That was somebody else, I was agreeing with you.

[Smirnoffpriest]

Ahh apologies, didn't mean to mix you up with Top Hat (I thought the context had changed in the reply LOL) - I should really check closer before responding!

[liverbnz]

Of course Arsenal could have signed Toure in 2003 for bascially nothing.

[jbeadlesbigrighthand]

Arsenal spending since turn of the century:

99/00: £22.85m
00/01: £35m
01/02: £15.25m
02/03: £6.6m
03/04: £20.5m
04/05: £4.5m
05/06: £36.9m
06/07: £13.9m
07/08: £31m
08/09: £15.75m
09/10: £10m
10/11: £14.5m
11/12: £53.15m
12/13: £44m

That's not a poor low-spending club.

You haven't taken into account money brought in from player sales since the Premier league started, Arsenal's net spend is about £1m per season, which is hardly extravagant.

http://transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-1992-to-today.html

Interesting that we are well below the other established prem teams that have been in the league since the 90s. And also a lot of tewams that have only been in the prem for a few years - such as wba and stoke

'92 to today is fallacious as it takes into no account inflation. Football today is totally different to football in 1992 and the revenues from TV and advertising are spectacularly different, hence why new EPL entrants occupy a falsely high position on such tables.

How is it fallacious to quote a wider range of years (although your limited range seems rather arbitrarily chosen), but not fallacious to quote spending out of context of sales?

You mention Arsenal spending £50m in one year, but don't mention that they sold players to the value of c.£70m.

You may also be interested to know that Arsenal's net spending between the 00/01 and 12/13 seasons you quote averages at -£1,000,000 per season (from http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/arsenal-transfers.html). That's a low-spending club.

As for the fact that Arsenal don't spend big on a single player - you're correct, that's Wenger's choice - presumably he believes he gets more value for money that way. It doesn't change the fact that Arsenal aren't big spenders, however.

[Smirnoffpriest]

Of course Arsenal could have signed Toure in 2003 for bascially nothing.

I thought he turned us down

[Smirnoffpriest]

Apparently Wilshere will be playing a u21s game on Monday and is close to a return - together with Frimpong coming back it's great news and gives us A LOT of competition in midfield.

[liverbnz]

Of course Arsenal could have signed Toure in 2003 for bascially nothing.

I thought he turned us down

Not totally sure on the story myself but I can remember Wenger not being too impressed with Toure during his trial.

[azania]

Yaya had visa issues and was sent to Portugal or somewhere else in europe to get the permitted immigration status resolved. I believe he didn't want to play reserve football at arsenal and went to Holland and then Barcelona.

[Smirnoffpriest]

Cheers Azania

[socal1976]

Apparently Wilshere will be playing a u21s game on Monday and is close to a return - together with Frimpong coming back it's great news and gives us A LOT of competition in midfield.

Can't wait for Wilshere to come back how do you think he will be utilized with the new players and diaby when he does come back. If he plays well who is the odd man, whose role could change?

[Smirnoffpriest]

I reckon Wilshere will experience what Ramsey experienced last year - where he wasn't quite up to speed for quite awhile and his form wasn't great.

As a result I reckon he'll be used as a sub mostly but will come in when players are rested.

BUT

If he does start firing straight away, as if the last 14 months were nothing then I can see a scenario where you either have a team of

Podolski Santi Gervinho/Walcott
--------- Arteta
Wilshere ---- Diaby

or have

Podolski Giroud Gervinho/Walcott
------- Santi
Arteta/Wilshere ---Diaby

But I think fitting Wilshere in will be more a problem for next season or later this season.

[Smirnoffpriest]

At the moment I'm just happy that we've got a nice lot of strength in depth - in the League Cup game we had a good strong side, but at the same side only 1 player was really 1st team (Giroud) and many of the other senior players hadn't played at all/much this season (Arshavin, Santos, Walcott, Chamack, the Oxe, Djourou).

Whereas in previous years we'd played teams comprising entirely of youth players (which was good as it brought through a lot of players), we can now field stronger sides (where players like Frimpong, Coquelin, Yennaris and Miquel have experience but are still young/developing) which have a good chance of winning, but all the players still need game time.

[socal1976]

I reckon Wilshere will experience what Ramsey experienced last year - where he wasn't quite up to speed for quite awhile and his form wasn't great.

As a result I reckon he'll be used as a sub mostly but will come in when players are rested.

BUT

If he does start firing straight away, as if the last 14 months were nothing then I can see a scenario where you either have a team of

Podolski Santi Gervinho/Walcott
--------- Arteta
Wilshere ---- Diaby

or have

Podolski Giroud Gervinho/Walcott
------- Santi
Arteta/Wilshere ---Diaby

But I think fitting Wilshere in will be more a problem for next season or later this season.

Good explanation, you are right it is unlikely that he will come in and be the same player right away. Similar to Ramsey he is going to have to regain his match fitness and the confidence in that leg to not hold back. It would be nice if both Ramsey and Wilshere are playing well and healthy that we can utilize both of them in the same midfield. Along with Arteta and Diaby but it seems you have to many central midfielders maybe push ramsey wide? I don't know just speculating at this point.

But our depth is something that I really like, as you said it is a crowded midfield but unfortunately in most seasons that problem works itself out when invariably a couple of them go down to injury. It is a rough game and a long season and Arsenal in particular has had it rough when it comes to a flood of injuries.

[User 774433]

Arsenal have the best squad they've had for a while IMO.
Cazorla especially have been great for them, and if Gervhino/Girould become a bit more ruthless they have a superb attacking partnership on their hands.
If they had kept RVP they would be title favourites imho, now they are still in contention.

[socal1976]

IMBL, they could still win it. City and their hundreds of millions didn't look like they had a real talent advantage over arsenal. But I agree Arsenal need a lot more out of Giroud in particular. As for RVP he was the focus and star for last couple of seasons and as great as he is no one player wins a title no matter who he is.

[azania]

Time for Walcott to play as a striker. His pace will kill Chelsea and his finishing is superb.

[socal1976]

Yeah give Walcott a proper chance to me he is a player defenses dread having on the pitch. All it takes is for him to break by them just once or twice in a match. Lets try him out in that role who knows we could be pleasantly surprised.

[Smirnoffpriest]

Social1976 - Yeah I'm hoping that both Wilshere and Ramsey fulfill their potential after their horrible injuries - that goes for Diaby as well, whose had (I think) 2 broken legs in as many years.

It's a good point about Ramsey being pushed out wide, as if we feel we'll be tested down the flanks then we can replace Gervinho with Ramsey, have a 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1) and Ramsey would protect the LB/RB a lot better, and you could even play Santos on the Left Wing (he's played there before for us) then have a front two of Giroud and Podolski or even Podolski and Walcott (which is an exciting prospect)

[Sponsored content]