Future Residents of Manchester... The Arsenal Transfer Thread

It's a twitter 'exclusive' from some dude I don't know so it's unlikely it's real. Just was posting it as I haven't seen the name before and , well, we haven't been linked with much dudes lately so why the hell not.

 

Hmm yeah... that looks more correct. Shame on me for trusting Wikipedia...

 

It is a troll. May be we should sign Optinho as well..
That way, they can take care of teeth and eyes in their spare time.

 

Sanderson is only reliable for some youth football stuff. He is often wrong elsewhere. John Cross last summer showed why he isn't reliable. Some seem to have some good information, afcamden is one, but the rest are clowns who are trolling.

The overall point I am making is that when something "is spreading on twitter," it usually means f all. Just be patient and wait.






Also, the club not selling Theo is down to the fact that the transfer fee would come in a tribunal, unless he found a club on the continent.

 

I think the leaked news that Wenger and Walcott have come to a secret handshake agreement is a ploy to raise Theo's price before Friday's deadline.

 

A firefox modification apparently. I saw someone do it with their own username.

 

You have to know what question he meant to ask, not the one he did ask.

Hence why I just stopped responding.

 

When I saw the news for a 'potential' Cabaye transfer, I Googled his name to get more on it. ON the left in the organic searches, I saw his Wiki came up first with the lead paragraph saying:

However, on the right hand side in the column, there was a quick bio that read:

It's since been edited and now reads Newcastle again.. Thought one of you guys would have caught it, so I didn't screen cap it.

 

Aren't these two things kind of offsetting?

A three step scenario:

1) Player A signs five year deal.
Club immediately asks to sign extension.
Player A: No, I think I'll let this contract run out in five years.
Club: OK, then we will sell you to club X, Y or Z.
Player A: No. I don't like any of them.

2) Repeat conversation each year until within 12 months of contract ending.

3) Enter journos, pundits and us, criticizing club for "letting him enter the final year without an extension" while we ignore that they were working for four years to extend the player.

Yes, an extreme example but nonetheless plausible (except the start of the negotiations, well unless you are Song), right?

The reality is that players now have all of the power.

 

Isn't that a pretty typical employer/employee relationship?

 

Not exactly typical. Employees usually don't have that much leverage in the corporate world.

 

No, it's not that simple. It's a competitive market place, if the club can offer the player a competitive wage and an environment where he has a chance to achieve his goals, then the player may be enticed to sign at any one of those talks. For the player, it's basically a choice btw money now and money later. Through peer pressure, family obligation, pride, etc., players usually choose the money now. All the club has to do is make the bait sweet enough, early enough. Something I'm sure we have not done. Hell, we wouldn't even talk to Song with 3 years left so there is no reason to think they've done anything different with Theo.

From the clubs perspective, it is basically a choice between outlay now or outlay later. By giving players higher salary in return for longer contracts, value is insured. So, we got way more for Song than we would have if he only had 1 year left...the result is enough money to sign a replacement. Even if Theo is sold, I doubt we would find a replacement for what we will get for him.

Also, Theo is a bit special. He has a good image and that is helped b/c he is English. The marketability of a player like Theo is far superior to almost anyone else on the squad except maybe Wilshere and AOC. He probably expects to be paid accordingly, and I'm sure the club is balking at compensating him for this facet.

We'll have to wait and see, but I will bet either 1) He leaves for a paltry xfer fee in the next 5 months 2) we sign him as our top earner, or 3) he stays the year and leaves for free to go to Chelsea or 'Pool next summer.

 

Or, maybe his fantasy of becoming the next Pires is over and he just wants a money grab before others catch on. Theo Walcott, English International, 15 goals + 15 assists per season, has a ice ring to it unless you watch him week in week out like us. I think 75K is a very generous offer for what he has to offer. He is a good lad. Good player or AFC quality? Jury has been out for 5 years now.

 

That was sarcasm wasn't it?

 

On a related note, Javi Martinez transfer to Bayern is finally confirmed. Great addition for the
Germans. However, I wonder is Schweinsi would not become available and expandable with that move?
Anyway, with Gustavo, Kros, Schweinsi, Javi M, Tomas Mueller and others, they have a glut in midfield and some may be expandable.
I heard more than once that Arsene was a big fan of his. If he can regain his mojo of a couple of years ago, he could be a fantastic player to have. He is 28 now but he still has 3 to 4 good years of football left in him.

 

Crazy, you are not accurately capturing the complexity of the choice the club has to make, from my opinion.

You are giving voice to the pervailing opinion here and at the club that lead to us putting players who turned out to be mediochre on realtively high wages. Incidentally, it also shares much in common with the housing crash so not exactly a rare opinion.

"By giving players higher salary in return for longer contracts, value is insured."

No, it isn't. Costs are fixed but nothing else is. A longer contract for a higher wage is exactly how we landed with average players at high wages. We assumed that their values would go up (just like people in varaible mortgages assumed that the truism of the past would hold sway and homes values could go only one way - up).

Now we cannot unload players like Bendtner and Denilson because we locked in costs assuming constant increases in talent (and therefore value) which no one else (being able to see current talent that we had to project as future talent) wants to pay for.

What should happen is effectively a bid/ask spread. The club wants to pay 75 and the player wants 100. Both parties accept half the risk and settle at say 87.5. Both sides have eliminated one form of risk (player - a drop in form and a drop in value and the club - a rise in form and a rise in value) in return for a fixed cost/revenue.

But, due to scarcity, the bid/ask gets squeezed in the player's favor and the club has to pay 100. that shifts the risk curve upward but doesn't eliminate it (player's risk now starts at 100, not 75 so a small rise in value is baked in but the club's risk also starts at 100 with no drop in form baked in).

That would be bad enough but that isn't even happening. Now, the player gets 100 and then, when conditions are favorable, wants to change the terms. The club does not have any opportunity to do the same when conditions are favorable to them (hey, you've sucked for 6 months so how about you take a cut, yes?).

This is now like buying a stock and, between trade and settlement, the value goes up so the seller wants you to pay a new/higher price but has no similar obligation when it drops.

Or a dealer at a casino shows a king so blackjack is now 20 but still 21 when you show a king.

What happened was that Flamini did this to us and the outcry was "Never again! Sign all the promising youth to long-term deals!" But the good ones (even those good for only a year or two - Nasri, RvP and Song, I am talking to you) decided that the terms were suddenly unacceptable the minute they were good enough. Others played like donkeys (Bendy, Denilson, Djourou and others - I am now looking at you) and just kept cashing those checks.

A club should be punished when its "good bets" are less than its "bad bets" but this system punishes both. How is that the club's (or even the "clubs'") fault(s)?

 

Must have been 16 goals in 4 games in other competitions.

 

Too much money would be awesome but too much... how about Fellini.. seriously Everton will balk if the price is right..

 

This is City's problem. The have players that Mancini doesn't really want, but they have a hard time getting rid of them to make room for players Mancini does want, because they are on high salaries.

 

to be fair to the guy he plays a useless position here and a guy that fast who can get things right with his feet from time to time might be more useful outside of the army of darkness bunker vs. 12 pass attack slowplay paradigm where he sits really high and has no room to run into

he's a good player to have around against teams that try to attack us, because let's be honest with our defensive record relative to the other big clubs the fact that other teams buttplug themselves is nothing to complain about and it's a good thing to have a guy who induces the big guns to sag back a little bit. I'm not interested in Silva + Toure camping in front of the semi-circle. he's dangerous often enough that I wouldn't want him sold unless we're going to junk the unsuitable x-wing system we play now. one of us

if Moussa Dembele is worth 15 mil + salary to a club in contention then Theo mustn't feel unfair in demanding tens of thousands more per season

 

No, I'm not of the opinion that Theo is mediocre. I think considering his play for the past 2 seasons, his professional manner, his marketability and for various other reasons he is worth being one of if not our highest earner now that RVP is gone.

Giving Denilson and Bendtner more money was a gamble, I agree. But, I never rated either of them so I won't be lumped in with those that would have advocated taking measures to keep them around or "ensure" there value. You can keep younger players around without putting them on huge wages.

The club should be judicious with respect to salaries and contract terms, but if theo doesn't get sorted we will have seen 3 automatic starters in one summer out the door because of a failure in this department.

At this point, we will not get much money for him (maybe zero). We have offered 75k/wk or about 20m total over the 5 year deal. He wants 26m if we are to believe the 100k rumors. Let's say we pass and sell him, probably in Jan and we'd be lucky to get 10m for him. So, by selling him we'd be plus 35m in projected cash flow spread over five years. Show me where we could find a replacement for 35m all included over the next 5 years. Maybe Navas could be had for as little as 15-20m. He is unproven in the league, risky b/c of his problems, not as marketable in our markets, is a risk of effing off to Barca in 2 years for a shit fee, and would need a good salary himself...60-70k as a guess but I have no clue. So, even assuming he would come as good as Theo, we'd go through all that to save almost nothing--factoring in the risks and I'd say it would be a loss.

The club seems to have this problem where they are not thinking of values in terms of replacement costs. Theo is a player, that if paid, will stay at the club for life. He's not going to whinge about Barca or Madrid, rainy london or UK taxes. If we win some trophies and stay in the CL year after year, he will stay with us indefinitely.

 

That was the price they paid to enter the world of the "big clubs". Now that they are winning/competing for honors, I won't expect this to be quite as big of a problem in the future.

 

According to the Daily Mirror, Theo Walcott is set to sign a new 5 year deal at Arsenal after Wenger won the battle over the contract situation.

 

John Cross is saying we now have no plans to sign any new players

If that's true I really have no words

 

YIKES! that sounds horrid.