Arsenal Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 12/13 MOD POST #232

tayto lover

extra gravy wrote: »

Some of the transfer rumours are hilarious. Iker Casillas is the latest name being linked.

Yes loads of rumours but no action as yet.

dvemail

extra gravy wrote: »

Some of the transfer rumours are hilarious. Iker Casillas is the latest name being linked.

Well we have been linked with just about everyone else that plays football, why not him.

AnCapaillMor

extra gravy wrote: »

Some of the transfer rumours are hilarious. Iker Casillas is the latest name being linked.

Well he is in doghouse with Maureen, throw in Ramos as well sure.

Quazzie

Fat Frank is being linked with us now

extra gravy

Quazzie wrote: »

Fat Frank is being linked with us now

At least he wouldn't be afraid to shoot instead of trying to walk the ball into the net.

tayto lover

Quazzie wrote: »

Fat Frank is being linked with us now

And Butland the goalkeeper.

gnfnrhead

Quazzie wrote: »

Fat Frank is being linked with us now

Better not be for January, he's out of contract in the summer!

Over 200 goals from midfield, he wouldnt be a bad signing imo.

emergingstar

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Better not be for January, he's out of contract in the summer!

Over 200 goals from midfield, he wouldnt be a bad signing imo.

Would prob help our midfield
But I hate him so fcuk that

Sergio

Id take Lampard in a shot now. Very experienced player like him might steady the ship and bring a bit of stability to the midfield.

wandatowell

I have Lamps without a doubt. Quality professional footballer with an eye for goal.


Apart from being a tool at times he's be a fantastic footballer his whole career.


How many goal from midfield?

Ed Winchester

I agree, I'd take lamps in a heartbeat. I've always thought he comes across well. Complete opposite of that ...less than desirable fellah... he's so often associated with.

batistuta9

Ed Winchester wrote: »

I agree, I'd take lamps in a heartbeat. I've always thought he comes across well. Complete opposite of that ...less than desirable fellah... he's so often associated with.

Harry Redknapp?

:pac:

Pierce_1991

No way will we get lampard. He's won every club honor a player can win in England, he'll most likely leave Chelsea in the Summer and get one last big pay day

emergingstar

Slow enough day for arsenal news

Looks like villa is a no
That's about it

MaxPower89

Looks unlikely we will sign at this stage...

andrew241983

not really worried about getting villa coming to the end of his career and hasn't been playing regular i def don't want lampard .. if people are undecided about taking villa at 31 i wouldn't touch lampard imo.. i think the 2 we will prob get are lopez and mbiwa and it remains to be seen if they are the answer.. as for walcott i couldn't care less if he went he is far too hit and miss... scores a hat-trick against Newcastle then goes missing against Southampton and Swansea.. and people will say oh the supply was terrible he was in good passing + shooting positions a couple of times the other night and made an arse of it... the best strikers(especially the ones demanding 100k p/w) only need one chance or even half a chance and they take it i.e podolskis goal who i would much rather have playing up front than walcott, would get twice as many goals.... but this is just my opinion im sure everyone else will have there own

keano_afc

Lopez would be a complete waste. Left sided attacker, poor goalscoring record.

Actually, he's ideal. Sign him up.

gnfnrhead

MaxPower89 wrote: »

Looks unlikely we will sign at this stage...

It's the 8th......

MaxPower89

gnfnrhead wrote: »

It's the 8th......

Thought is was over in a few days after looking at the countdown timer on SSN, but that must a clock since the start.....:o

cson

Very disappointed in the club tbh. There's keeping your cards close to your chest and then there's just not playing the hand at all. It appears to be latter unfortunately which we're doing.

Arseblog alluded to it earlier today; we knew January would be busy, we knew the squad needed bodies in and bodies out, we knew the players were getting leggy. It wouldn't have taken much to put the wheels in motion about players you'd hope we had already lined up and have it done and dusted by the first week in January.

At this stage I'm skeptical if we'll sign anyone and this is a squad that already looks tired, is short numbers and has 8 games to play in a little over 4 weeks. I applaud the board for shipping out non contributory members of the squad, I abhor them for not having the ball rolling on improving the squad. The fact of the matter is we've been pretty blessed injury wise (Diaby is Diaby tbh and we've had no one else out for any tangible period of time, Gibbs maybe, Rosicky maybe) and I can't see that lasting.

Unless something drastic happens then we're looking at using about 14 players for 8 games in 4 weeks which is ****ing insane. It really is like Groundhog Day at the club when you think of the amount of times this has happened in the past. The funny thing is, I don't blame AW, I suspect he's towing the party line with most of his comments on it, and the real elephant in the room is Stan Kroenke. Look at whats going on at Villa; sidelining the big earners in favour of cheaper youth (Given, Dunne, Ireland, Bent, Hutton). Its difficult to argue that asset stripping of some description hasn't gone on at Arsenal when you look at the departures over the years. To those who say AW controls the purse strings; he gets paid his £7.5m a year regardless, why would he have any hang ups on spending money that isn't his when its there to spend? Riddle me that. I'm pretty convinced at this stage that its the powers that be in Colorado that are dictating whether money is spent or not. If the oft mentioned cash pile was there; why the hell wouldn't you spend it? Its as clear as day the team needs investment. Of course AW has his faults like persisting with Diaby but he has splashed the cash too - Reyes and Arshavin weren't cheap.

You reap what you sow, and we sowed **** all in the summer except to underline our position as a selling club. Like it or not, its a stigma that we now have and one prospective signings will be all too aware of; we're a bridging point in careers (Nasri) or a bumper pay day for passenger ex internationals (Squillaci). Long term I really do think this misguided policy will cost us more than the £24m we'd have lost by holding RVP to his contract or the circus that is Walcotts contract.

I'd love to be proved wrong this window, but I doubt I will.

On the bright side, should the Yank ever decide to get rid (and I suspect that has been his intention all along) then we are an attractive proposition for an investor.

gnfnrhead

I'm really wondering if Usmanov would be a better owner for us. We thought Kroenke would be best due to his sports history but that hasnt turned out very well. Looking at Usmanov's page on Wikipedia and it says he has invested a ton of money into fencing since he got involved in it. Surely he would do the same for a football club? Especially one he claims to support. Also, his estimated fortune at $18 BILLION(!!!!) is more than four times that of Kroenke. Not like he couldnt spare a bit :pac:

Not going to happen any time soon (Usmanov is only 30%, while Kroenke is over 60%), but I'm really thinking Usmanov would have been the better option.

cson

You run the risk of the club being used as a status symbol for him though a lá Abramovich. London based club, new stadium, rich history, (alleged!) pretty football, there's a lot to like.

Personally I'd abhor using the club as a Billionaires plaything but its hard not to be somewhat attracted to the fact we'd likely be able to keep players and spend a lot getting quality ones in.

Marty McFly

cson wrote: »

You run the risk of the club being used as a status symbol for him though a lá Abramovich. London based club, new stadium, rich history, (alleged!) pretty football, there's a lot to like.

Personally I'd abhor using the club as a Billionaires plaything but its hard not to be somewhat attracted to the fact we'd likely be able to keep players and spend a lot getting quality ones in.

While I do understand what your saying at this stage given the choice between Kroenke and Usmanov id choose Usmanov everyday of the week. I know a lot of it is pr but he at least says the right things seems to want to see Arsenal winning things again and no one can doubt his business acumen either, while Kroenke well he says and does nothing.

Frisbee

Even if we do sign someone we'll most likely haggle over ten pound and so not get them until January 31st at which stage the damage may already have been done and we'll rue not giving Arteta/Cazorla/Wilshere any sort of rest so far.

KaiserGunner

Yeah theres no doubt in my mind that if Usmanov was the majority shareholder that we would be splashing the cash, but do we really want to be a billionaires plaything or as cson says a status symbol for him?

TimeToShine

I don't know when we all started supporting a business rather than a football club. Every time the RVP issue is brought up you'll always get someone saying it was "good business" to sell a 29 year old injury prone player. Good business is none of our concern, we sold our top scorer, most experienced player and captain to our arch rivals, that in itself shows that we are no longer competing for the premier league and dare I say it aren't deserving of being a top 4 club.

Our only concerns as football fans should be seeing our team progress. Whether this is done internally or by bringing in outside talent is up to the manager, but constantly defending the wrong choices using a business point of view is extremely annoying. As said above we have a squad of about 15 (of which a good few are injury prone as it is) for the next 8 games in just under a month, and the fact that we aren't even being officially linked with anyone is shocking. I don't think it's AW's fault, there's definitely something going on behind the scenes but my point is it isn't for us to defend them.

We support a football club, our main priority should be to score goals, defend well, play decent football and win trophies, not to count pennies and audit accounts.

gnfnrhead

cson wrote: »

You run the risk of the club being used as a status symbol for him though a lá Abramovich. London based club, new stadium, rich history, (alleged!) pretty football, there's a lot to like.

Personally I'd abhor using the club as a Billionaires plaything but its hard not to be somewhat attracted to the fact we'd likely be able to keep players and spend a lot getting quality ones in.

He claims to be an Arsenal fan and has issued statements complaining about having to sell van Persie etc. So long as we were competitive, I think he'd be happy enough to leave the manager to do his thing while hopefully providing funds.

Wishful thinking for now anyway.

tayto lover

Why would Wenger say that he controls the budget at Arsenal if it's not true?

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1290112/arsene-wenger-reveals-the-extent-of-his-influence-at-arsenal?cc=5739

http://www.malaysiandigest.com/sports/216282-wenger-reveals-arsenals-socialist-pay-structure-i-decide-how-much-my-players-get-paid.html

emergingstar

Some rumours yaaaah

Supposedly we were offered mvila said no and have opened talks with Wigan over McCarthy

Prob not true but is something

Fuzzy_Dunlop

Whatever about being a billionaires plaything etc., Usmanov has had some strong allegations levelled at him with regard to criminal activity and very shady dealings. Not something I'd be keen on.