Arsenal Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2011/2012

amiable

Frisbee wrote: »

There's not a hope we will get Hazard. Chelsea, Utd and City can all blow us out of the water in terms of wages and a chance to win trophies. If we ever wanted Hazard it needed to be 2 years ago.

That's not like you to be so negative. The fact that Arsenal are in for Hazard says a lot.
It does seem like they are willing to spend money this summer and if they don't get Hazard they will spend elsewhere IMO

Frisbee

greendom wrote: »

I get your negativity and even if the rumour is true, the chance of getting him would be slim. Still, if it is true it does show a real desire to spend big this Summer. That's me with my optimistic head on.

amiable wrote: »

That's not like you to be so negative. The fact that Arsenal are in for Hazard says a lot.
It does seem like they are willing to spend money this summer and if they don't get Hazard they will spend elsewhere IMO

If we are in for him (which I doubt) it's because we know we won't get him. It means the fans get excited about the possibility of a superstar signing, but the club are safe in the knowledge they'll never win a bidding war and so have to spend a big lump sum.

If it comes down to us, United, Chelsea and City all in for the same player we are definitely the least attractive option. We will pay half of what the others will in wages and have the least chance of winning something.

Hazard is beyond our reach. However while the other three are scrapping over him there are other players we should be moving for quickly before two of the above lose out on Hazard and turn their attention elsewhere.

amiable

Frisbee wrote: »

If we are in for him (which I doubt) it's because we know we won't get him. It means the fans get excited about the possibility of a superstar signing, but the club are safe in the knowledge they'll never win a bidding war and so have to spend a big lump sum.

If it comes down to us, United, Chelsea and City all in for the same player we are definitely the least attractive option. We will pay half of what the others will in wages and have the least chance of winning something.

Hazard is beyond our reach. However while the other three are scrapping over him there are other players we should be moving for quickly before two of the above lose out on Hazard and turn their attention elsewhere.

Hazard has said all along that he would like to sign for a team that play good football and a team where he would start straight away without sitting out lots of time on the bench. That's a plus for Arsenal IMO.
Wenger is bound to be an attraction for Hazard too as he's French speaking and is so well regarded in France. I'm presuming he's not Flemish but I'd doubt that matters too much.
Don't dismiss the location of London and how close it is to Belgium and Lille with the Eurotunnel. It could be a factor in his decision.
The Times article also states that Man City won't pay him more than 110,000 per week. I'd say that Arsenal could match that.

I genuinely believe that Arsenal are in with a shout of getting him.

Frisbee

amiable wrote: »

Hazard has said all along that he would like to sign for a team that play good football and a team where he would start straight away without sitting out lots of time on the bench. That's a plus for Arsenal IMO.
Wenger is bound to be an attraction for Hazard too as he's French speaking and is so well regarded in France. I'm presuming he's not Flemish but I'd doubt that matters too much.
Don't dismiss the location of London and how close it is to Belgium and Lille with the Eurotunnel. It could be a factor in his decision.
The Times article also states that Man City won't pay him more than 110,000 per week. I'd say that Arsenal could match that.

I genuinely believe that Arsenal are in with a shout of getting him.

He'll cost 25M+, we definitely won't pay that.
Even if wages were only going to be 110k - we won't pay that much either. And City would pay him substantially more than 110k a week, he'd be looknig at closer to 170k+ a week at City I'd say considering what Nasri is on.
He'd be a definite starter for both United and Chelsea imo.
London does give us an added draw, but Chelsea have that on their side too.

I'd love to see us get Hazard, but he's beyond us now.

batistuta9

amiable wrote: »

I genuinely believe that Arsenal are in with a shout of getting him.

imaging all his pissing about was him waiting for arsenal to make a move :pac:

AnCapaillMor

amiable wrote: »

Hazard has said all along that he would like to sign for a team that play good football and a team where he would start straight away without sitting out lots of time on the bench. That's a plus for Arsenal IMO.
Wenger is bound to be an attraction for Hazard too as he's French speaking and is so well regarded in France. I'm presuming he's not Flemish but I'd doubt that matters too much.

In all fairness thats what everyone says. he's hardly going to come out and say i'm in it for the money. However i don't think we've no chance whatsoever.


You know what; the more i see the city\chelsea\psg circus keep going; the more and more i respect Cesc, he took a wage ctb to go to his club, he could've easilly doubled his wages going elsewhere. If Hazard is any way like Cesc, i think we have a chance.

amiable

Frisbee wrote: »

He'll cost 25M+, we definitely won't pay that.
Even if wages were only going to be 110k - we won't pay that much either. And City would pay him substantially more than 110k a week, he'd be looknig at closer to 170k+ a week at City I'd say considering what Nasri is on.
He'd be a definite starter for both United and Chelsea imo.
London does give us an added draw, but Chelsea have that on their side too.

I'd love to see us get Hazard, but he's beyond us now.

The fee reported by the Times is 32 million and they say Arsenal have reached an agreement already to pay that giving them permission to speak to Hazard.
It's well reported that Hazard won't be on anything near 170 k per week even if Nasri is on something similar. He'll be on that as he joined after playing EPL for 3 years was it?
Of course Chelsea are in London too but they don't play the football he has mentioned and he'd be sometimes fighting for a place with Mata.

I can understand that you don't want to get your hopes up but it would seem Arsenal are genuine about trying to get him.
I do think they will splash the cash for the right player.
He's possibly seen that some of the cheap purchases haven't worked like Gervinho and Park so feels it's time to push on?

amiable

If Arsenal don't get Hazard they will probably go for Belhanda and he is excellent too IMO

AnCapaillMor

Seriouly though how are we are to compete against this.

As for hazard and the cash, i reckon the fee is there, supposedly we genuinely did bid 30M+ for gotze and its still there. Its not down to bid cash, the bid being accepted did f*** all for us with Phil Jones last season. It's all down to hazard and if does pick us(however unlikely) over the $$$ and utd, he'll be a legend.

Frisbee

amiable wrote: »

He's possibly seen that some of the cheap purchases haven't worked like Gervinho and Park so feels it's time to push on?

I'll believe it when I see it.

amiable

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

Seriouly though how are we are to compete against this.

As for hazard and the cash, i reckon the fee is there, supposedly we genuinely did bid 30M+ for gotze and its still there. Its not down to bid cash, the bid being accepted did f*** all for us with Phil Jones last season. It's all down to hazard and if does pick us(however unlikely) over the $$$ and utd, he'll be a legend.

The thing is Arsenal seem capable of matching the wages being offered by City.

batistuta9

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

In all fairness thats what everyone says. he's hardly going to come out and say i'm in it for the money. However i don't think we've no chance whatsoever.


You know what; the more i see the city\chelsea\psg circus keep going; the more and more i respect Cesc, he took a wage ctb to go to his club, he could've easilly doubled his wages going elsewhere. If Hazard is any way like Cesc, i think we have a chance.

fabregas refused to play pre-season last year, doing what he could to make the move happen don't forget that.

and look where he was going, club he supported growing up - local team, played for years with them, best side in the world he was never going to go anywhere else.

very very few players get the same kind of circumstances fabregas had, a no brainer really.

maximoose

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00zwm5qJvYw

If RVP goes, why not stick woj up front :pac:

AnCapaillMor

amiable wrote: »

The thing is Arsenal seem capable of matching the wages being offered by City.

The problem is if they do match citys wages, you'll have every other player in the club looking for extra money, don't forget walcotts contract is up soon too. I imagine it would also drive up RVP's demands. I still reckon if it comes down to wages, city\united\chelsea will blow us out of the water.

TomKat

I used to be always be United in football manager/champ manager in the early noughties. Sign their players to max possible contracts and signing on fees then release them the next day. Buy Galway United players for 30 odd million too. worst thing is even at -198m in debt they always found the cash to turn it around. FM can read into the future I reckon....

premierstone

How would you guys feel about Arsenal putting in a bid of Robben, he is getting a very hard time off Bayern fans and has been advised by a few to leave, has EPL experience and can play on either flank, I think it would be a great move, thoughts???

Snakeblood

premierstone wrote: »

How would you guys feel about Arsenal putting in a bid of Robben, he is getting a very hard time off Bayern fans and has been advised by a few to leave, has EPL experience and can play on either flank, I think it would be a great move, thoughts???

Yes, definitely, but doesn't he get injured a lot?

premierstone

Snakeblood wrote: »

Yes, definitely, but doesn't he get injured a lot?

Lot of niggly stuff alright but he has averaged over 30 appearances a season over an 11 year period, thats pretty good for a player of he's ilk.

Max Power1

Snakeblood wrote: »

Yes, definitely, but doesn't he get injured a lot?

He'll fit right in so!

_Bella_

I'd definitely put in a bid for him, but his wages might be too high for us?

gosplan

Stop believing it people!!!!!!!


STOP!!!

From this thread 1 year back ...

Arsene Wenger is weighing up the most astonishing transfer swoop of the *summer - for Joey Barton. The Arsenal manager has finally accepted the need to inject some bite and experience into his team of perennial underachievers. Full story: Sunday People

The word is that we're seriously trying to get both samba and cahill,

Supposedly we made a move for Raphael Varane last night

It's between Arsenal and Villa for Craig Gordon.

Palermo president Maurizio Zamparini claims Arsenal have beaten him to the signature of Ricardo Alvarez.

It's all made up, all of it.

Like seriously, the Hazard thing from the Times. So the Lille sporting director 'alluded to' a fourth team being interested and the times 'has learnt' that it's Arsenal. No quotes, no facts, nothing but a bunch of hopefull Arsenal fans clicking the Times link and upping traffic to their site. So wow, all four English champions league clubs have now been linked with Hazard despite having nothing to go on.

Stop falling for it, really, it saddens me that people would bother wasting time on it.

meriwether

gosplan wrote: »

Stop believing it people!!!!!!!


STOP!!!

From this thread 1 year back ...












It's all made up, all of it.

Its better than reality.

premierstone

gosplan wrote: »

Stop believing it people!!!!!!!


STOP!!!

From this thread 1 year back ...












It's all made up, all of it.

Like seriously, the Hazard thing from the Times. So the Lille sporting director 'alluded to' a fourth team being interested and the times 'has learnt' that it's Arsenal. No quotes, no facts, nothing but a bunch of hopefull Arsenal fans clicking the Times link and upping traffic to their site. So wow, all four English champions league clubs have now been linked with Hazard despite having nothing to go on.

Stop falling for it, really, it saddens me that people would bother wasting time on it.

Artetta was a better signing than any of them mentioned, so by your logic we are going to make signings just they are going to be waaaay better than M'Villa or Hazard :eek: Jaysus now you have me excited

AnCapaillMor

amiable wrote: »

The thing is Arsenal seem capable of matching the wages being offered by City.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-accounts-profit-debt


Maybe we can, the debts gone down a good bit we were a good 300M+ only a few years ago. I know i'm always going about it, but look at cities wage bill vs income.

wandatowell

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-accounts-profit-debt


Maybe we can, the debts gone down a good bit we were a good 300M+ only a few years ago. I know i'm always going about it, but look at cities wage bill vs income.

Nothing is going to change even when we pay off the debt IMO

We will continue to remain the model self-sustaining football club with no trophies to show for it

cson

Gervinho wasn't cheap the bollocks!

£13m odd for that ****e every week!

jester77

AnCapaillMor wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-accounts-profit-debt


Maybe we can, the debts gone down a good bit we were a good 300M+ only a few years ago. I know i'm always going about it, but look at cities wage bill vs income.

How come we are paying such a high interest:debt compared to other clubs? Ours seems way above what other clubs with higher debts are paying, we seem useless at getting decent financial deals. Don't we also have a relatively small jersey sponsorship compared to other teams?

jester77

jester77 wrote: »

How come we are paying such a high interest:debt compared to other clubs? Ours seems way above what other clubs with higher debts are paying, we seem useless at getting decent financial deals. Don't we also have a relatively small jersey sponsorship compared to other teams?

Think about where it come from. Other clubs have owners loaning them money at low or zero interest rates. The money put in still shows up as debt until written off. Also "interest" is a broad enough term. Suppose bonds all mature at the same time, the repayment of them would be called interest even if it had been planned for. Also, look at United and the money being leeched from the club by the owners at a higher rate than ours.

The jersey sponsorship has come up a lot, along with the stadium naming rights we sold them for a front-loaded deal to get the stadium done and dusted but with a long-ish contract. I think I heard something during the season about trying to get out of it in the next year or 2 but I won't claim to be too knowledgeable about it.

Reekwind

jester77 wrote: »

Don't we also have a relatively small jersey sponsorship compared to other teams?

And stadium naming rights. The club needed the cash up front to pay for the stadium. Hence the relatively poor return over the years

As always, the Swiss Ramble should be your first stop for 'business of football' related queries. Here's his last Arsenal analysis

Lahinchians

Heres an interesting thing i came across:

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mli45fdhk/no-7-arsenal/#gallerycontent

Arsenal are the 7th most valuable sports team in the world according to forbes. The only other football teams more valuable are united and real. I'd imagine our debt is around 150-200 million*. With our turnover almost twice our wage bill leads me to wonder how we haven't paid that debt off sooner, and started to put the money back into the team in more constructive ways.

that came as a supprise to me anyway.

*I could be a million miles off there

gnfnrhead

I think it is more pay x amount each month for y amount of time, instead of pay it whenever you can.

Lahinchians

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I think it is more pay x amount each month for y amount of time, instead of pay it whenever you can.

surely there shouldbe some option to pay it off early including some interest

meriwether

wandatowell wrote: »

Nothing is going to change even when we pay off the debt IMO

We will continue to remain the model self-sustaining football club with no trophies to show for it

The real beneficiaries of the Wenger years will be the appointment post Wenger.

gnfnrhead

Lahinchians wrote: »

surely there shouldbe some option to pay it off early including some interest

It might not be worth the money to do so. The amount they would have to pay to finish it early could be more than it costs to continue as is. We all know the board don't like spending money so they will likely go for the cheaper option even if it takes longer.

JPA

Lahinchians wrote: »

surely there shouldbe some option to pay it off early including some interest

Like a mortgage, paying off lump sums outside the agreed payments comes at an extra cost. Arsenal or people in general can discuss restructuring their payments instead but paying off lump sums is not very cost effective.

tayto lover

cson wrote: »

Gervinho wasn't cheap the bollocks!

£13m odd for that ****e every week!

I have a wee feeling that he's going to come good. He just needs to score a few and he will take off I feel.

HazDanz

tayto lover wrote: »

I have a wee feeling that he's going to come good. He just needs to score a few and he will take off I feel.

He is suffering at the moment from a Wenger Disease known as "Handbrakeitus". I think he'll come good too, wouldn't mind him bulking up a little as well to help keep the ball when a bullying defender tries to impose himself.

ImpossibleDuck

meriwether wrote: »

The real beneficiaries of the Wenger years will be the appointment post Wenger.

This reminds me of a Greek proverb:

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

I believe Wenger will be happy with his successors reaping the benefits as long as AFC prospers.

premierstone wrote: »

How would you guys feel about Arsenal putting in a bid of Robben, he is getting a very hard time off Bayern fans and has been advised by a few to leave, has EPL experience and can play on either flank, I think it would be a great move, thoughts???

Didn't he just sign a contract literally three weeks ago?

greendom

he has been a disappointment this season, but I think he can turn it around too.
Could really do without another ACN though.

batistuta9

this should put an end to the rumours of hazzard joining anyway Hazard-reveals-final-three. It's city, united & chelsea if you don't want to look

nice thought while it lasted

ImpossibleDuck

The team photographer shares one of his favourite photos of the season on the website:

keano_afc

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

The team photographer shares one of his favourite photos of the season on the website:

Love how his shadow looks like a giraffe.

Underground

I may get slated for saying this but here it is: Gervinho has an unfairly bad reputation amongst you lot.

There I said it.

yomtea98

He deserves it

the untitled user

Lahinchians wrote: »

Heres an interesting thing i came across:

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mli45fdhk/no-7-arsenal/#gallerycontent

Arsenal are the 7th most valuable sports team in the world according to forbes. The only other football teams more valuable are united and real. I'd imagine our debt is around 150-200 million*. With our turnover almost twice our wage bill leads me to wonder how we haven't paid that debt off sooner, and started to put the money back into the team in more constructive ways.

that came as a supprise to me anyway.

*I could be a million miles off there

Arsenal have no short term debt. What's owed is about £200m to pay off the long term bonds issued to pay the stadium... but it works out at a fixed cost at £15m-20m a season (til 2020 I think) which is very manageable given the overall turnover of the club.

Arsenal could actually probably take on more debt easily enough if they wanted to fund a big signing or two this summer. There's a cash balance of around £100m so the net debt isn't really that large.

The constraint is commercial revenues. They are fairly fixed because of the long term contracts signed to fund the emirates so they've really lagged behind inflation. This restricts the potential growth for turnover and makes it difficult to increase the wage budget as a result.

Lahinchians

i dont have a head for maths or economics but if our intake is over twice our wages surely there should be some room for improvement, no?

another 60k freed up with almunias departure, we could tie down a promising 13 year old to a 20 year contract with that haha

wandatowell

meriwether wrote: »

The real beneficiaries of the Wenger years will be the appointment post Wenger.

In theory yes but in actuality I doubt it very much.

We will NEVER be competing with the larger teams for the best players as the board wont sanction the funds/wages.

Also the next manager will be in the Wenger mold so nothing is gonna change for a long long time.


May as well sit back and enjoy the very bumpy ride

amiable

amiable wrote: »

Eden Hazard anyone?

Tomorrow's Times says Arsenal have agreed a fee with Lille for Eden Hazard.

Enjoy

Agreeing a fee with Lille and agreeing personal terms with Hazard are different processes altogether although chances of the latter happending depends on the former happening to begin with.

We had agreed a fee with both Blackburn for Phil Jones and Fulham for Chris Smalling for example but United offered better terms whereas United had agreed a fee with Cardiff for Ramsey in that case we offered better terms/playing time

amiable

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreeing a fee with Lille and agreeing personal terms with Hazard are different processes altogether although chances of the latter happending depends on the former happening to begin with.

We had agreed a fee with both Blackburn for Phil Jones and Fulham for Chris Smalling for example but United offered better terms whereas United had agreed a fee with Cardiff for Ramsey in that case we offered better terms/playing time

Point out in that post where i said arsenal had agreed terms with Hazard.

batistuta9

batistuta9 wrote: »

this should put an end to the rumours of hazzard joining anyway Hazard-reveals-final-three. It's city, united & chelsea if you don't want to look

nice thought while it lasted

Hazard sounds like a bit of an arrogant boyo anyhow. Ok he is very talented but we are getting rid of Bendy Boots so a lad like him might disrupt the whole dynamic with an over inflated ego.