What in the world are you blabbering about? Right before we bought Parker we were severely short of central midfielders. Against Charlton, when Parker couldn't start, we played Lampard and Nicolas in central midfield. Who's Nicolas, you ask? I'm not even entirely sure. Parker played a lot last year - part of the problem is that Ranieri kept trying him on the right, a position to which he is completel unsuited. He started CL games for us! As for taking down Charlton - we were far ahead of everyone but you and ManUtd when we bought him. What did we care about a reasonably decent team with an outside shot for 4th? We wouldn't buy Gerrard to hurt Liverpool, we'd buy him because he's Gerrard. Of all conspiracy theories I've heard, this one's as reasonable as that one about the donkey, lipstick, the thin man in a moo moo, three sautering irons, George Best's liver, Juve's bribed referees, the Knights Templar and sunken doubloons off the coast of the Spanish Maine.
Scott Parker has participated in only 2 premiership games this season. He has played a total of 71 minutes in Europe during 2 appearances. Hardly what I would call a starter, or a need for the guy. 4 Appearances in 17 possible ones. The theory stands. And Charlton was within very few points at one time, and still within striking distance of Chelsea when you bought him. Also Chartlon were the only team would possibly could have done it. Straight from Curbishleys mouth "'Perhaps Chelsea see us as their rivals, because the team below us is 13 points behind them. Perhaps they're trying to unsettle us,' he suggested. "
Ledley will never be a gunner. If he was to leave, I'd say he'd be more likely a Chelsea or Italian/Spanish club target.
Whether or not I agree with nicephoras' point or not is besides the point, I just hate posts where people don't actually debate points that are brought up and just go with whatever they want to think of at the time. I'm seeing nicephoras talking about the time of the transfer, which was last year, and you're arguing whether or not he's a starter this year. Can you elaborate more on how that argument backed up your theory? Eww, I just sided with a Chelsea fan. I feel . . . sullied.
See daedalus's point. He was bought LAST YEAR. And by Ranieri, who's not our current coach. Ranieri played him. What? At no point after the first two months was Charlton very close to us in the standings. By that definition, so were Leeds. You mean besides ManUtd and Arsenal? Or Liverpool? Or Newcastle? Or Boro? They were 12 points behind us at the time, and we weren't leading the league then, as I recall. Perhaps this is just Curbishley trying to make light of a painful situation. After all, he would be a bit biased, don'tchathink?
Although R.A. has the clout at CFC to do it, I don't think we will enter the 1980's "Player War" that Juventus and AC Milan entered into, whereas they would buy top quality players and sit them on the bench just to prevent other teams from buying them. I still fancy that SC23 will stay put. He wants to win things and there is more chance of that being accomplished at Arsenal than anywhere else in the EPL.
Thats what you lot said about Sol a few years ago! By the way when does Ledley's contract run out? I think were gonna get him in a year or two. All this about Sol to chelski is just crap...chelski don't need any more defenders they need strikers. But if they want him they can have him - just as long as they give us john terry in a swap deal
First off, the whole reason Chelsea would want Sol is not so much as that they need him, they don't, it's that our defense sucks without him. I've always thought Sol was good, but I'll admit I never knew how important he was to us until this season.
if you ever get him, it's either gonna be from someone else, or you're gonna pay alot for him. if sol taught us one thing (and i'm pretty sure we learned the lesson), it's 'sign him or sell him - before it's too late'. i'm not so naive as to think that if players like king's and defoe's statures continues to grow, and spurs' fortunes do not, that they'll still be content to stay at white hart lane indefinitely. we re-upped him a year or two back with, i believe, a five-year deal. so it's quite right to think that he may be on the market within a couple of years. if we can't re-sign him a year or more before his current deal's up, he'll be dealt. and while arsenal could certainly qualify as a candidate for his services, he won't come cheap. your first point is fair. we didn't think sol would be a gunner. but you know the old saying, "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me". the chances of arsenal (or anyone else) getting ledley from tottenham on a free (like sol) are roughly zero.
Sol did it once he might do it again! To stay at Arsenal will cost him about £50,000 a week. Money brought and I would not be suprised if money will take him away!
AMEN, my fellow Goonah! Sol is the man and more importantly OUR man. He helped build this fantastic dynasty, why on Earth would he leave?
We tried to sell Campbell in 2000 to Man Utd, but he wouldn't go. There was nothing we could do. We couldn't force Campbell to leave, quite rightly so. While I hate Campbell for his betrayal, he was not owned by Spurs and was well within his rights to refuse a transfer.
precisely. and that's the exact situation in which arsenal now find themselves. sol's salary is inflated, and he's not going to sign another contract (with the arse or anyone else) unless it's equally inflated. he's got the bull by the horns. despite a handful of lengthy posts to the contrary, i really don't spend all that much time obsessing about sol campell's contract. the more i do think about it, however, the more convinced i am that he's staying. i see it like this: arsenal have three choices. 1) re-sign him, 2) sell him, or 3) let him go on a free. well, 3's to be avoided at all cost - despite the fact that sol's already gotten close enough to the end of his contract that option 1 will still cost arsenal inflated 'transfer + wages' amounts of cash. that leaves 'sign him or sell him'. but 2's not really an option, either. a) sol's not going anywhere if the wages don't match what he's on. b) no other club (with one exception) has the revenue and the impetus to pay inflated wages + a transfer fee for campbell's services. and c) that one club is chelsea, with whom, for obvious reasons, they simply cannot afford to do the deal. that leaves option 1 - re-sign him - which they'll have to do from over a barrell; but do it nonetheless. so arsenal are, in essense, going to have to pay a tranfer fee for their own player. but they'll do it. one envisions a gnawing at the gut of mr dein at the prospect, and a smile through gritted teeth as the cameras flash at the presentation. he had informed mr campbell, if i recall correctly, at the last signing that this was a one-time deal, and has been made to look (in a very limited way, but one which will be pronounced at the moment of signing) like a chump. but he can solace himself with the thought that (at this point, at least) he really has no choice - not to mention the fact that more silverware, if obtained, will more than offset the expense. and the odds for that aren't too bad. sol's staying. post script: there is one possible alternative that i can envision. that is that arsenal could currently be lining up some other world class centre-half to bring in to highbury come january. that way they could try to sell campbell to chelsea when the window opens, and recoup a portion of their investment in sol. but i think this is highly unlikely, as it's a gamble whether sol would go (just like when he wouldn't go from spurs to man u). and it's also a gamble that chelsea would pay a transfer fee for him if they suspected that he'd be available on a bosman in just a matter of months (which they would suspect if they knew that arsenal was working a deal for another world class defender). i'll stick with "he's staying". did i mention that i'm not obsessed with all this?