Rich>>>>>

[R.C. Celebrating the return of Trophies]

The part that I dont get is you sycophants accepting this as nearly signing someone.

By that logic I nearly bought a porsche yesterday by offering the owner £20
You're so simple it hurts my brain descending to your level.
Keep eating up the bull**** my friend if it helps you deal with the failures of the last few years.

[Pat Vegas]

[R.C. Celebrating the return of Trophies]

[Rich]

would never offer Lille what they wanted?

You realise that agents discuss just the personal terms of their client, don't you? He would not know what Lille were asking for him nor what Arsenal had/were going to offer.

They would have just been discussing personal terms for the player.

How do you know Arsenal hadn't had a bid accepted along with Chelsea? hmm?

Your main problem is your lack of basic knowledge. You need to understand what you're talking about. It means that your foolish opinions are misguided every time.

[Berni]

[R.C. Celebrating the return of Trophies]

nearly signing someone is agreeing a fee with the selling club but not agreeing personal terms...

Ok, got it.

Nearly signing someone is doing half of what is required to actually sign someone

[Pat Vegas]

in the street in Morocco.

I give you best price my friend.

[R.C. Celebrating the return of Trophies]

[Pokster]

to pay that, but being prepared to pay a tfr fee and being close to signing the player are not the same thing..... length of contract as well as salary and add ons have to be considered, we could have been a huge way off what the agent thinks he is worth and that is not close to signing him.... not everything is clear cut imo.... the fact we paid £42m and a large salary 12 months later shows the mony is there and 2 yrs ago we would have known the money would have been there 12 months later, so if we had really wanted him we could have signed him imo.

[Rich]

future of the club, potentially falling foul of FFP rules at the same time, just to sign one or two top players?

A bit short sighted, no?

[Nicosia Gooner]

[Monty91]

Can you offer any precedents of non-billionaire backed clubs out-bidding billionaire-backed clubs for Hazard-level players?

Also, are you sure Hazard would have wanted to join us over Chelsea?

[Nicosia Gooner]

[Nicosia Gooner]

[Pat Vegas]

[Pokster]

[Nicosia Gooner]

too, don't you trust anyone anymore?

[Pokster]

wouldn't have done that

[Nicosia Gooner]

guessing

[Pokster]

just that we knew we had a very large increase in revenue in the next 12 months or so, so we could have spent it then without any risk to our long term future

[Monty91]

For the fourth time, can you offer any precedents of non-billionaire backed clubs out-bidding billionaire-backed clubs for Hazard-level players?

[redgunamo]

want to play for Wenger; when we don't it's because someone else offered them better money.

Complicated.

[Pokster]

and kit manufacturer so would have been well informed what sort of deal they could have been looking at...they also knew that SKY were trying to renew their deal and if our board didn't have a good idea what that would raise they aren't doing their job properly

[Pokster]

And how does anyone know which clubs are really trying to sign players?

[R.C. Celebrating the return of Trophies]

you really have fallen hook line and sinker for all that ****e haven't you.

Going back to the original post of saying 'I nearly signed X'
What's the point.
It merely highlighted the unwillingness of the club to compete (at all levels) as a serious football club who want to win.

Thankfully that has now changed and we are paying silly money in wages and transfers ( and it worked, we challenged for a long period of time this season and are in a cup final)so how do you feel about that?

All you c**ts going on about prudence and ffp. The first time we play with the big boys in the market we have our best season since Henry left.

Your argument is blown

[Nicosia Gooner]

[Monty91]

convenient!

Even if Man Utd did want Ozil (despite quotes from their manager to the contrary), they operate under financial constraints. Chelsea, who signed Hazard - a player you think we should have pushed the boat out to get - do (or did) not.

For only the fifth time, Can you offer me a precedent? Just one would do :-)

[Nicosia Gooner]

[R.C. Celebrating the return of Trophies]

we chose not to spend it

[Pokster]

my opinion is that the board knew we were going to have a considerable increase in revenue from 3-4 new or improved income streams, so they could have spent some of that money without risking the long term future of the club.

there is not one person on here that can say that is true or not, it is an opinion, it seems some on here (mainly Monty and Rich) think it isn't true, I think they are incorrect :shrug:

[Rich]

Ozil?

You don't think it was down to the fine form of players such as Ramsey and Walcott as well as the good injury record we had in the first part of the season?

You think it was just down to Ozil? Most fans of your ilk have been moaning about him and saying he's been a let down.

Go back to the drawing board and come back when you have a sensible argument to make.

[Classic Jorge]

[Pokster]

but our board and manager saying they could spend serious monmey on tfrs over the last season is not to be taken at face value.

Liverppol got Suarez, how do we know nobody else wanted him?
I assume you include Monaco in your billionaire clubs?


Chelsea haven't failed FFP so money certainly is an object to them, didn't they make a small profit last year?

[Pokster]

would have known roughly what ours would be worth. I am fairly certain that is why company's employ commercial departments

[Classic Jorge]

http://matthewashton.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/howardpaxman.jpg

[Monty91]

Indeed for the sake of argument, I offered a scenario whereby they did want him.

Suarez is a weak example, not least because there is no evidence of interest from a Chelsea or City-type club (I could equally say that how do we know Cazorla - a £20m player - was not wanted by one of these clubs?), but also because he wasn't at the level of Hazard (excellent player though he was at Ajax).

So, is that the best you can offer?

[Pokster]

[Monty91]

for Hazard. I think there is a strong onus on you to give a legitimate example of this having happened before.

If you can't, then is it not reasonable to question why this may be, and whether the answer could be that it is not realistic to expect a club that operates under financial constraints to outbid one that doesn't?

So for only the SIXTH time, can you?

[Pokster]

hence why they made a profit recently.

Please list which clubs you include on your billionaire owners list just so I don't have you being pedantic about any possible answers.

I assume you are discounting our billionaire owners, and Spurs, and Liverpool... but do you include Man U, Monaco???

[Monty91]

Monaco spent £140m the year they were taken over.

Man Utd and those other clubs you mention with billionaire owners clearly operate under different models.

So we are talking about a select few clubs for whom - until now - have operated with no financial constraints. Primarily Man City and Chelsea, but now also including Monaco and PSG.

This is the kind of club you are saying we could/should have outbid for Hazard.

So, for the SEVENTH time can you offer a precedent?

[Pokster]

Chelsea haven't come close to failing FFP so do not operate the same way as PSG, City etc, the figures you quoted for his salary, do you know these asre true? If so, we certainly could have afforded that

[Monty91]

that City, Chelsea, et al have not (until now).

Chelsea may not have fallen foul of FFP, but they have still accrued huge losses - just not as big as City and PSG. To suggest that they have somehow been parsimonious is absolutely laughable, and you know it.

As I understand it, FFP essentially prevents a club from receiving an enormous influx of cash and becoming very successful very quickly. This is why City and PSG have fallen foul, but Chelsea, whose investment has come over 10 years, have not.

So, for the EIGHTH time, any chance of that precedent?

[Luis Anaconda]

[Pokster]

but you include Chelsea who for the last 2 years (which iuncludes the Hazard Tfr) have operated in a far more prudent way...

Didn't Man U keep Rooney and pay him more money when Chelsea thought he would sign for them???

I am not going through the history of tfrs to try to prove/disprove anything. we had money and chose not to spend it, if that is the correct thing to do I will let you decide

[Pokster]

[Luis Anaconda]

it was down to a one-off windfall payment coinciding with Champions League win and then it was only a very small profit. They have still spent massively over the past 18 months

[Monty91]

[Luis Anaconda]

but he was beginning to annoy me :-)

[Monty91]

[Pokster]

the known increase to revenue from the SKY deal that means the bottom placed club now gets more money that last seasons title winners???

[Pokster]

[Luis Anaconda]

quite desperately. Presumably therefore United's bid was more desirable. Not everything is about the cash

[Pokster]

[Luis Anaconda]

I have a tax return to sort out

[Pokster]

[Pokster]

[Monty91]

[Monty91]

that transfer.

This, of course, is also Arsenal's hinderance. Even if we can match certain clubs for cash, we can't match them for prestige.

[Pokster]

we can't match billionaire clubs but when you are given a great example of a player who chose a well run club over them, it doesn't count because Man U have more prestige than city??? It could also be because who their manager was (a think v Persie mentioned this) so are you saying Wenger is unable to use his standing in the game to get players over richer clubs?????

[Pokster]

[Monty91]

if they a) wanted him badly enough or b) thought they could get him, they wouldn't have offered more than £22 million.

So it is not a like-for-like comparison with Hazard. £32 million+ would have smashed our transfer record and wage structure. Van Persie for them would have been just another signing.

[Pokster]

he wanted to go to Man U

We spent £42m a year later, strange how the increase in revenue must have been such a shock that we thought, oh the hell with it, let's spend £42m + smash out wage structure 12mths after not being able to sign a player we wanted.

[Monty91]

City could perfectly well have beaten had they wanted him badly enough or thought they could get him.

In the Hazard case, we would have had to blow away our transfer record to sign him, and there is little reason to think Chelsea would not have matched whatever offer we put down.

With Van Persie, there was clearly no bidding war.

[Nicosia Gooner]

[Monty91]

for Ozil's transfer. It does seem it was rather an opportunistic signing that was made possible by a coincidental series of events that arose with no strategic planning on our part (which is another story in itself).

Anyway, it is a touch odd to hear someone complaining about Wenger not pushing the boat out to get players whilst at the same time using an example of him pushing the boat out to get a player!

[Pokster]

so once that had been agreed it is down to wages, and v Persie chose Man U... it is pure guessswork from yourself that City didn't really want him that much as he was expedcted to sign for them until the last moment

[Luis Anaconda]

people with less money. Probably not worth asking 8 times tbh

[Pokster]

the increased SKY deal was signed in June 2012 for the 2013/14 season, we could easily have used that increased revenue to finance larger transfers before last summer imo... especially as we knew the short/kit sponsorship was going to increase dramatically

[Monty91]

One factor that hasn't been mentioned is the knock-on effect of breaking your wage structure in terms of other players commanding rises.

You have to assume that has also played a role in our reluctance, until the signing of Ozil, to buy that level of player.

Paying a well-established marquee player £150k p/w may be sustainable, but we'd have had to pay that to Hazard who wasn't even established in a top league.

Are you sure you have a strong enough grasp of our finacnes to confidently say that you think we could have sustained this?

[Monty91]

[Monty91]

We spent £20 million on Cazorla, a hugely gifted and well respected Spanish international, £11 million on a German striker with 90 caps, £12 million on Giroud, £8m on Spain's second choice left back..

Who should we have bought?

[Pokster]

we saved a fortune on wages that summer when players like Almunia left (50k a week :yikes)

[Monty91]

Personally I do not believe you have enough knowledge to say with any confidence that Arsenal can sustain paying unproven 21 year olds from the French league £150k per week.

[Pokster]

players that summer?

[Monty91]

That we also recouped a large amount by selling a player who was approaching the end of his contract does not automatically mean that money should have been reinvested. Squad balance, composition and of course wages is very tricky and there is no reason why a manager should always spend every penny he has available.

Oh and you have to name names if you are to be credible, i'm afraid. Sorry to be a pain.

[Pokster]

as I suggest you have no idea if we could have sustained it either

[Pokster]

and none of the other signings were the sort of names you get excited about... Ok I will say Hazard then :-) Just the sort of player that we should have signed

[Monty91]

certainly unsustainable.

We sign Hazard on £150k+ p/w and you are looking at vast discrepancies across the squad. City and Chelsea have avoided these discrepancies by being able to pay their lesser players far above their market value.

For us it is more complicated. Hazard comes in on £150k and he immediately dwarfs even our highest profile players. What do you think happens next?

It doesn’t take a brain-box to know that very quickly we would be forced to give significant increases to a large portion of the squad (as we have seen to an extent with Ozil already - the difference being that Ozil arrived as a true marquee player which makes his salary far easier for other players to stomach).

Even with improved commercial deals and overall revenue, it would not take a lot for our wage bill to spiral into FFP-contravening territory.

[R.C. Celebrating the return of Trophies]

You really are a simpleton.

As for suggesting I've been critical of Ozil, you couldn't be more wrong.
As for ilk, I have none on this board. You are all sycophant arselickers with not a spine amongst you.