Arsenal bid for Vardy

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Almost as bad as Chelsea signing Torres.....

Torres was one of the best players in the world before he joined Chelsea.

 

Arsenal need a goal scorer and Vardy has proven he can score in the Premiership, with an unfashionable team at that. The interesting thing will be whether the way Arsenal play suits him and I am with Rousseau, I'm not convinced it does.

 

20 million for a 20+ Premiership goalscorer is peanuts in the Premiership these days. Whether we like it or not it is irrelevant. At 29 he still has 4 or 5 good years in him.

He's proven he can do it for one season. I would be rather stunned if he gets similar goal returns for the next 4 to 5 years.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[craig 5,199]

Torres was one of the best players in the world before he joined Chelsea.

 

Which proves my point. You cant judge a player's worth based on how he fared with his previous team - yet you wish to base the likelihood of Vardy's future success on the basis of having one good season for Leicester - his success last season proves he CAN perform in the Premier League and score goals. It doesn't necessarily mean he can do it for Arsenal - but Chelsea also, in part, signed Torres because of the form he had for Liverpool.... and what happened to him at Chelsea ? He was a complete and utter bust. Vardy might be the same - we will find out if he signs for Arsenal. But it is hardly a "bizarre" signing given he was the league's top scorer last season

 

 

He's proven he can do it for one season. I would be rather stunned if he gets similar goal returns for the next 4 to 5 years.

 

So would I. But it still doesn't make it a bizarre signing. Every signing is a risk - but the top scorer of the league in an unfashionable team seems like a fairly low risk signing. In a world of 50 million pound signings, spending 20 million on the league's top scorer seems fairly decent business at a small price.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Which proves my point. You cant judge a player's worth based on how he fared with his previous team - yet you wish to base the likelihood of Vardy's future success on the basis of having one good season for Leicester - his success last season proves he CAN perform in the Premier League and score goals. It doesn't necessarily mean he can do it for Arsenal - but Chelsea also, in part, signed Torres because of the form he had for Liverpool.... and what happened to him at Chelsea ? He was a complete and utter bust. Vardy might be the same - we will find out if he signs for Arsenal. But it is hardly a "bizarre" signing given he was the league's top scorer last season

I don't really understand your point here. Chelsea signed Torres because as I said, he was one of the best players in the world. Any signing can go wrong, but given he had recently been declared the third best player in the world, his signing seemed a very good one. Obviously in football there's no guarantees. Vardy on the other hand has only done it at a high level for one season, despite being almost 30. That's not enough to know if it's going to be repeated or not - he might just be a one season wonder. I think if he were in his early 20's this might make more sense: Arsene generally signings players he can develop who have resale value. I also think it's a very bizarre signing because he's not an Arsenal type of player at all, plus I don't know how he's going to fit into their system. Arsenal very rarely spend this sort of money and until this summer the only players to have commanded fees in excess of £18m were La Liga stars Ozil and Sanchez. Looking at their history, they've only actually spent over £15m on six occasions, two of which are this summer.So again, this seems a bizarre signing for them to make.

 

So would I. But it still doesn't make it a bizarre signing. Every signing is a risk - but the top scorer of the league in an unfashionable team seems like a fairly low risk signing. In a world of 50 million pound signings, spending 20 million on the league's top scorer seems fairly decent business at a small price.

Just to put things into consideration, Atletico Madrid signed a younger Mario Mandzukic for considerably less money when he'd just won the Champions League with Bayern. Just because English and Premiership players in general have grossly inflated transfer fees that many clubs are willing to pay, it doesn't mean Arsenal have to do likewise, and usually they don't.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Rickie Lambert also once got a big move after a couple of good seasons. Remember him?

[craig 5,199]

I don't really understand your point here. Chelsea signed Torres because as I said, he was one of the best players in the world. Any signing can go wrong, but given he had recently been declared the third best player in the world, his signing seemed a very good one. Obviously in football there's no guarantees. Vardy on the other hand has only done it at a high level for one season, despite being almost 30. That's not enough to know if it's going to be repeated or not - he might just be a one season wonder. I think if he were in his early 20's this might make more sense: Arsene generally signings players he can develop who have resale value. I also think it's a very bizarre signing because he's not an Arsenal type of player at all, plus I don't know how he's going to fit into their system. Arsenal very rarely spend this sort of money and until this summer the only players to have commanded fees in excess of £18m were La Liga stars Ozil and Sanchez. Looking at their history, they've only actually spent over £15m on six occasions, two of which are this summer.So again, this seems a bizarre signing for them to make.

 

 

Just to put things into consideration, Atletico Madrid signed a younger Mario Mandzukic for considerably less money when he'd just won the Champions League with Bayern. Just because English and Premiership players in general have grossly inflated transfer fees that many clubs are willing to pay, it doesn't mean Arsenal have to do likewise, and usually they don't.

 

Chelsea also signed Torres because of the form he had with Liverpool. It wasn't just about being voted 3rd best in the world. But again the point remains. You cant say that Vardy would be a failure because he has only one season as top scorer in the EPL, the same as you cant say Torres will be a success because he has been successful with another EPL team and voted 3rd best in the world. You say that Vardy has only done it for one season (correct) and that's not enough to know if its going to be repeated (again, correct) - but even if you have success ala Torres you STILL haven't enough to know it will be a success.

 

It doesn't make it a bizarre signing though. You can say it as often as you like but it still doesn't make it true. Look at the facts. Arsenal need a goalscorer, Vardy has scored plenty of goals in England's top flight last season. He ticks that box. He is pacy, he is an England internationalist, he knows where the goal is. All positives. The only negatives that I can see is that he may not suit Arsenal's style (which we simply don't know until he has played for them - again.... I guarantee you that EVERYONE expected Torres to be successful at Chelsea, but failed - Vardy could be the polar opposite - we wont know until he plays for them) and his age. However, at 20 million quid it isn't that much in today's insane English climate for a player who can score goals. It is a very small risk for Arsenal to take. Even with no resale value it is still "only" 20 million quid. Yes Arsene signs players who he can develop and resell - but he also knows that if he truly wants to challenge for the Premiership he needs goals (he also could do with a proper commanding CB too) - and sometimes you need to vacate the "buy young and develop" mantra in order to realize what the fans want to see, which is trophies.

 

You do realize that the reason Arsenal hadn't spent over 20 million on players previously was because Wenger had a "business mentality" right ? He always maintained that it was his job to manage the squad but that he also understood that the Club had a mammoth debt for the building of Emirates. It is absolutely no coincidence that Arsenal have started spending much more on players since the debt for the Emirates was paid off. When you consider that it makes it less of a bizarre decision than you are making it out to be.

 

Your final paragraph is basically irrelevant. Mandzukic was one year younger when he signed for Atletico. And he only lasted a season.....Just because Arsenal don't have to pay inflated transfer fees or usually don't.... doesn't mean that they wont in the future. It is just as plausible that you are seeing a shift in Wenger's approach to signings in his twilight years and that he just wants to win the big one (shame he didn't do that in January when some signings could have made all the difference). FWIW I don't think Arsenal will challenge this upcoming season - at least not unless they get at least a goalscorer and a commanding CB in.

Edited June 9, 2016 by craig

[compo 7,217]

He's 29 get himself a four year contract and he is set for life

[JFK-1 1,693]

You jest, but how effective can he be against a team 'parking the bus'? His main strength is pace on the break: how often are we able to 'break' on a team?

 

Like O'Halloran?

[RANGERRAB 3,743]

Like O'Halloran?

 

Next season we wont be facing teams who 'park the bus' and O'Halloran's pace could be utilised hopefully

[JFK-1 1,693]

Next season we wont be facing teams who 'park the bus' and O'Halloran's pace could be utilised hopefully

 

I'm not so sure. Quote from the report on the St Johnstone match.

 

Whenever Rangers crossed the halfway line, St Johnstone's two banks of four closed up tight, so there was no space to pass through or over them.

 

From the Kilmarnock match which ended 0-0.

 

The Championship side twice hit thewoodwork as they dominated territorially for long periods but were unable to unlock a heavily-manned visiting defence and were forced to settle for a replay on Tuesday, February 16.

 

Only Dundee opened up and tried to play and I doubt the rest are going to play like that if it gets them what it got Dundee.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Chelsea also signed Torres because of the form he had with Liverpool. It wasn't just about being voted 3rd best in the world. But again the point remains. You cant say that Vardy would be a failure because he has only one season as top scorer in the EPL, the same as you cant say Torres will be a success because he has been successful with another EPL team and voted 3rd best in the world. You say that Vardy has only done it for one season (correct) and that's not enough to know if its going to be repeated (again, correct) - but even if you have success ala Torres you STILL haven't enough to know it will be a success.

 

It doesn't make it a bizarre signing though. You can say it as often as you like but it still doesn't make it true. Look at the facts. Arsenal need a goalscorer, Vardy has scored plenty of goals in England's top flight last season. He ticks that box. He is pacy, he is an England internationalist, he knows where the goal is. All positives. The only negatives that I can see is that he may not suit Arsenal's style (which we simply don't know until he has played for them - again.... I guarantee you that EVERYONE expected Torres to be successful at Chelsea, but failed - Vardy could be the polar opposite - we wont know until he plays for them) and his age. However, at 20 million quid it isn't that much in today's insane English climate for a player who can score goals. It is a very small risk for Arsenal to take. Even with no resale value it is still "only" 20 million quid. Yes Arsene signs players who he can develop and resell - but he also knows that if he truly wants to challenge for the Premiership he needs goals (he also could do with a proper commanding CB too) - and sometimes you need to vacate the "buy young and develop" mantra in order to realize what the fans want to see, which is trophies.

 

You do realize that the reason Arsenal hadn't spent over 20 million on players previously was because Wenger had a "business mentality" right ? He always maintained that it was his job to manage the squad but that he also understood that the Club had a mammoth debt for the building of Emirates. It is absolutely no coincidence that Arsenal have started spending much more on players since the debt for the Emirates was paid off. When you consider that it makes it less of a bizarre decision than you are making it out to be.

 

Your final paragraph is basically irrelevant. Mandzukic was one year younger when he signed for Atletico. And he only lasted a season.....Just because Arsenal don't have to pay inflated transfer fees or usually don't.... doesn't mean that they wont in the future. It is just as plausible that you are seeing a shift in Wenger's approach to signings in his twilight years and that he just wants to win the big one (shame he didn't do that in January when some signings could have made all the difference). FWIW I don't think Arsenal will challenge this upcoming season - at least not unless they get at least a goalscorer and a commanding CB in.

I don't really see the point in repeating what I already said once more but I will just leave this here:

 

http://www.espnfc.com/story/2895854/barcelona-man-city-target-nolito-can-leave-for-%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC18m-celta-vigo-president