Seems to be a lot of discussion around Arteta's future

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly.

---

I couldn?t help noticing Iraola serving notice to Jack it in over at Bournemouth.
Behind the scenes talks at The Goring, hopefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7sisters

I couldn?t help noticing Iraola serving notice to Jack it in over at Bournemouth.
Behind the scenes talks at The Goring, hopefully.

---

We would be level on points at the top of the table with 5 games to go. 5 winnable games. You don't sack your manager then and you certainly don't expect that some other poor sod can come in and improve things in a week.

You wait until he blows it with 5 more pitiful performances and then you sling him out on his ear the day after the final game- or the minute it is mathematically finished.

Personally, I would sack him in the summer even in if we did win the league, but that is just me :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pjlincs

That was then. This is today's Guardian:
'with Manchester City breathing down their necks again and major doubts about when talisman Bukayo Saka will play again due to an achilles issue' plus 'and, in the absence of Saka for the foreseeable future'.
Apparently instead of bringing your lunch it's going to be 'No fear, pure fire' tonight :shrugs:

---

**** Sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

**** Sake.

---

At least we know why Saka has been playing so badly for months. He has been injured, and Arteta has kept playing him, running him into the ****ing ground.

No surprise that Rice is now ****ed.

Piss-poor management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

At least we know why Saka has been playing so badly for months. He has been injured, and Arteta has kept playing him, running him into the ****ing ground.

No surprise that Rice is now ****ed.

Piss-poor management.

---

Not management is it, silly man. The medical team advise the coach who can/cannot play.

Apparently it was England's medics who identified him as being in the red zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Not management is it, silly man. The medical team advise the coach who can/cannot play.

Apparently it was England's medics who identified him as being in the red zone.

---

The medical team advise the coach and the coach makes the decision. Of course it is down to him.

They tell him a player is in the red zone. They dont tell him they cannot play.

If he can get them out there with the hope they can make it through 70 minutes, he does it. And this is the result.

And if the medical team are that ****ing useless......well, need I say more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

The medical team advise the coach and the coach makes the decision. Of course it is down to him.

They tell him a player is in the red zone. They dont tell him they cannot play.

If he can get them out there with the hope they can make it through 70 minutes, he does it. And this is the result.

And if the medical team are that ****ing useless......well, need I say more?

---

Well really that just emphasises the threadbare nature of our attacking options.

A must address in the summer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Well really that just emphasises the threadbare nature of our attacking options.

A must address in the summer.

---

We addressed it last summer. We spent 170 million on new forwards. We have loads of attacking options. Unfortunately we dont really do any attacking other than controlled pressure.

I doubt we can afford to do it again. And I doubt it would make any difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

We addressed it last summer. We spent 170 million on new forwards. We have loads of attacking options. Unfortunately we dont really do any attacking other than controlled pressure.

I doubt we can afford to do it again. And I doubt it would make any difference.

---

170m barely buys you one good forward these days. What we bought was depth (which was badly lacking last season with Jesus and Havertz missing the whole season - give or take).

This summer is about adding superstar quality. The same quality that Man City, United, Liverpool, Chelsea all have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

170m barely buys you one good forward these days. What we bought was depth (which was badly lacking last season with Jesus and Havertz missing the whole season - give or take).

This summer is about adding superstar quality. The same quality that Man City, United, Liverpool, Chelsea all have.

---

What superstar attacking quality did City, United or Chelsea pay more than 100 million for?

Haaland, Cherki, Marmoush, Semenyo and Doku....

They cost roughly the same in total as Havertz, Gyokeres, Madueke, Jesus and Eze.

So if they have world class attacking talent and we dont, it isnt because of money. We must just be **** at spending it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

What superstar attacking quality did City, United or Chelsea pay more than 100 million for?

Haaland, Cherki, Marmoush, Semenyo and Doku....

They cost roughly the same in total as Havertz, Gyokeres, Madueke, Jesus and Eze.

So if they have world class attacking talent and we dont, it isnt because of money. We must just be **** at spending it.

---

Haaland's singing on bonuses (on top of transfer fee) included 50mill for Raiola and 30mill for his father. It's well publicised that it will cost them over $500million to keep him for his contract. They have also spent 100mill on Grealish. 80m on Marmoush. 65m on Semenyo. 70m on Reijndners and the list goes on and on and on.

Don't try and defend Man City who are the most significant proponents of financial doping out there. And it seems that they'll have to face the music this summer in regards to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Haaland's singing on bonuses (on top of transfer fee) included 50mill for Raiola and 30mill for his father. It's well publicised that it will cost them over $500million to keep him for his contract. They have also spent 100mill on Grealish. 80m on Marmoush. 65m on Semenyo. 70m on Reijndners and the list goes on and on and on.

Don't try and defend Man City who are the most significant proponents of financial doping out there. And it seems that they'll have to face the music this summer in regards to that.

---

I'm not defending them. I'm politely pointing out that their attackers didnt cost more than ours.

Grealish doesn't play for them anymore, and we spent 100 million on Rice. Not relevant.

You've massively overstated the fees for Marmoush and Reijnders.

My point is that spending vast sums of money has given us an attack that you think is useless.

And you think the solution is to pay bigger fees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I'm not defending them. I'm politely pointing out that their attackers didnt cost more than ours.

Grealish doesn't play for them anymore, and we spent 100 million on Rice. Not relevant.

You've massively overstated the fees for Marmoush and Reijnders.

My point is that spending vast sums of money has given us an attack that you think is useless.

And you think the solution is to pay bigger fees?

---

Our front three comprises Saka (free), Martinelli (4million), Trossard (20million), Gyokeres (50million). It's not remotely comparible to them / their options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Our front three comprises Saka (free), Martinelli (4million), Trossard (20million), Gyokeres (50million). It's not remotely comparible to them / their options.

---

Now that is financial doping. Deliberately selecting our cheapest forwards and ignoring the expensive ones.

Jesus, Havertz, Madueke, Eze. 230 million quid, right there. And, according to you, part of a useless attack. Bad spend :-(