craig 5,199 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 4 hours ago, Gazza_8 said: 13 hours ago, craig said: Aye, Man U have already paraded Sanchez. Hugely underwhelmed. Hopefully Arsenal can get Augbameyang over the line and get Wenger to fuck. I would be very happy indeed if Arsenal get Aubameyang - Don't think I have ever seen him have a bad game. And at the proposed fee he would be a bargain. Arsenal need about 5 or 6 starters though - from the team that lost at Bournemouth last week you would only probably keep Wilshere in the team - none of the others would command a place at another top 6 team, aside from maybe Bellerin - and even he has gone backwards in the last year or two. They definitely need to can Wenger. His time has been and gone. Too stubborn and unwilling to change and it also seems he just cant get more out of the players he has at his disposal. If Arsenal want to be contenders to even make top 4 and the CL they will need to spend some serious, serious cash - and Wenger isn't that guy as he sees his role as balancing business and football, probably due to his economics background - but the reality is that a football manager should be asking for the best players available, regardless of cost - and leave it up to the financial custodians to determine if they can afford it or not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 10,026 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 31 minutes ago, craig said: I actually disagree. He was in the last 6 months of his contract and could quite easily have signed a pre-contract at City (or a host of other clubs) and left for free in the summer. Arsenal wouldn't be a CL team with OR without him in the team IMO - so nothing gained or lost there. Utd's position won't change either - they won't catch City and they are a CL team. End result was either lose him for free in the summer, keep him until the summer and know there is the distinct possibility he becomes a disruptive influence in the dressing room... OR..... sell him and get a player who cost Utd 27-30 million less than 2 years ago. Arsenal got the better end of the deal if you look at it financially - in terms of playing personnel it is obvious Utd got the better end of the deal - however, players in the last 6 months of their contract are worth nowhere near their REAL value. Arsenal got the better end of the deal financially. In terms of position, nothing changes. We can exclude that. Yes, get rid of a potential problem player now. You can say the same about Mkhi, although not to the same extent perhaps. In this regard, Arsenal are probably better off. Financially, Arsenal free up a lot of wages -- I suspect -- but they also get an inferior player. Each side is taking on the other's financial obligations, but Man Utd are getting a far better player. Utd are also getting a player worth over £63M (based on City's bid less than 6 months ago) for someone that is worth £31M (Transfermrkt), which you can take or leave because of the source, but I think it's fair valuation. (You can argue his REAL value is less because of the length of his contract, but Utd were willing to spend £25M, and City were willing to spend £20M right now. Not far off Mkhitaryan's highest value.) I can only conclude that Utd get the better deal financially -- the only down side is they're taking on more wages, but it's worth it because of the player. Man Utd got the better end of the deal... IMO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 10,026 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 51 minutes ago, craig said: I would be very happy indeed if Arsenal get Aubameyang - Don't think I have ever seen him have a bad game. And at the proposed fee he would be a bargain. Arsenal need about 5 or 6 starters though - from the team that lost at Bournemouth last week you would only probably keep Wilshere in the team - none of the others would command a place at another top 6 team, aside from maybe Bellerin - and even he has gone backwards in the last year or two. They definitely need to can Wenger. His time has been and gone. Too stubborn and unwilling to change and it also seems he just cant get more out of the players he has at his disposal. If Arsenal want to be contenders to even make top 4 and the CL they will need to spend some serious, serious cash - and Wenger isn't that guy as he sees his role as balancing business and football, probably due to his economics background - but the reality is that a football manager should be asking for the best players available, regardless of cost - and leave it up to the financial custodians to determine if they can afford it or not. Aubameyang is an exceptional player -- when he can be arsed playing; he didn't bother turning up for some of Dortmund's games! Not sure of the benefits of ridding themselves of a "problem player" in Sanchez to get this guy! Kidding... sort of! Exceptional player, and he'll score goals. What's the price being touted? £50-60M? That's not bad in this market for a good goalscorer. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,772 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 30 minutes ago, Rousseau said: In terms of position, nothing changes. We can exclude that. Yes, get rid of a potential problem player now. You can say the same about Mkhi, although not to the same extent perhaps. In this regard, Arsenal are probably better off. Financially, Arsenal free up a lot of wages -- I suspect -- but they also get an inferior player. Each side is taking on the other's financial obligations, but Man Utd are getting a far better player. Utd are also getting a player worth over £63M (based on City's bid less than 6 months ago) for someone that is worth £31M (Transfermrkt), which you can take or leave because of the source, but I think it's fair valuation. (You can argue his REAL value is less because of the length of his contract, but Utd were willing to spend £25M, and City were willing to spend £20M right now. Not far off Mkhitaryan's highest value.) I can only conclude that Utd get the better deal financially -- the only down side is they're taking on more wages, but it's worth it because of the player. Man Utd got the better end of the deal... IMO. I think that you are right.....and what's more (and for what it is worth), so does The Guardian's football staff, almost unanimously, with only one writer suggesting a victory for Arsenal, and that a kind of Pyrrhic triumph. The verdict: who has done better out of the Sánchez-Mkhitaryan deal? Manchester United and Arsenal have traded attacking players – our writers discuss who has come out on top from the swap Guardian writers Tue 23 Jan 2018 11.00 GMTLast modified on Tue 23 Jan 2018 11.01 GMT The swap deal which saw Alexis Sánchez join Manchester United and Henrikh Mkhitaryan move to Arsenal was finally confirmed on Mondayafter weeks of negotiations. The Chile forward has signed a four-and-a-half-year contract at Old Trafford worth an estimated £350,000 a week, while Mkhitaryan is now contracted to Arsenal until 2021 having left United only 18 months after joining from Borussia Dortmund for £27m. Both José Mourinho and Arsène Wenger appear happy with their new acquisitions but which manager has got the better end of the deal and will both players be successful at their new clubs? Our writers give their verdict on one of the most significant transfers in recent years. Dominic Fifield Is Alexis Sánchez a good signing for United? Absolutely, as long as his wage package does not generate discontent within the dressing room. A fully focused Sánchez is a world‑class talent, a player to reinvigorate United’s front-line. Is Henrikh Mkhitaryan a good signing for Arsenal? The Armenian may not be quite at Sánchez’s stellar level but he has a point to prove and would enjoy the prospect of playing alongside Mesut Özil (at least until the summer). At least he actually wants to be at the Emirates Stadium. Who has done the better out of the two clubs? Sánchez feels the more eye-catching signing given City had come close to paying £60m for him last summer. The bean counters at Arsenal must still be kicking themselves for opting not to push that deal through in August. Andy Hunter Is Sánchez a good signing for United? An excellent signing, provided the motivation for his contract stand-off at Arsenal was to chase the game’s biggest prizes rather than one last Premier League pay day. Sánchez’s arrival immediately raises the quality of United’s attack. Is Henrikh Mkhitaryan a good signing for Arsenal? The club have acquired a talented and experienced player to replace another who would have been out of contract in the summer. Whether another pleasing-on-the-eye creator is a priority for this team is debatable but Mkhitaryan should inject much-needed quality. Who has done the better out of the two clubs? United. Should Mkhitaryan rediscover his consistency and confidence he can grace the Premier League as many hoped he would. Of the two Sánchez looks better suited to the task of elevating his new club. Jamie Jackson Is Sánchez a good signing for Manchester United? Yes. The forward instantly elevates José Mourinho’s side. United lack a prolific scorer beyond Romelu Lukaku and 80 goals in 165 games shows the Chilean can be that man. Is Mkhitaryan a good signing for Arsenal? So far Mkhitaryan has failed to prove he can win matches in English football, having serially disappointed for United. The hope is the Armenian is not one more of the kind of uneven footballer in which Arsenal seem to specialise. Who has done the better out of the two clubs? Manchester United. Would Arsène Wenger have preferred to retain Sánchez? The response is firmly in the affirmative. The loss is compounded by the Chilean joining a domestic rival. Amy Lawrence Is Sánchez a good signing for United? Sánchez has to be a valuable addition for United. A player with an almost obsessive desire to chase and instinctively attack (even if that makes him reckless in possession sometimes). As long as he does not burn out he is a steal. Is Mkhitaryan a good signing for Arsenal? A classic Wengerian signing – not necessarily what they need, a tricksy ball player who at United could delight but also disappear. The critical element is whether he has come in to combine with, or potentially replace, Özil. Who has done the better out of the two clubs? United have recruited a ready made Premier League star. Arsenal have gained a talent with a question mark. If a fee had been included in addition to the swap Arsenal’s business might have looked better but bringing in some quality in exchange for a few more months of Sánchez is understandable. Barney Ronay Is Sánchez a good signing for United? Yes. He is a really good player. He still wants to win things. The price is fine. He has a certain kind of edge and arrogance – he still thinks he is as good as Messi and Ronaldo – that fits with the template. With a bit of luck Sánchez could be José’s mercenary, less interesting Cantona. Is Mkhitaryan a good signing for Arsenal? Yes. He actually wants to play for them. A (possible/unlikely) reunion with Pierre‑Emerick Aubameyang could be fruitful. And Arsenal need both speed and someone to make the passes when Özil does not. Who has done the better out of the two clubs? Fernando Felicevich and Mino Raiola. Failing that Arsenal, if only because the whole Sánchez saga has exposed Arsène Wenger’s increasing loss of control. Daniel Taylor Is Sánchez a good signing for United? Of course he is. United already have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to Manchester City but, if Sánchez had opted to join their neighbours, rather than choosing Old Trafford, it would have been difficult to see any way Mourinho could restore a bit more balance in England’s leading football city. Is Mkhitaryan a good signing for Arsenal? He is a wonderfully talented footballer and it easy to see why Wenger admires him. Equally, Mkhitaryan never fully showed the strength of personality to win over Mourinho and, on that front, it is a classic Arsenal signing – a stylish player who will bewitch the crowds but can drift to the edges when the heat of the battle is rising. Who has done the better out of the two clubs? United should probably have the better deal here because they desperately needed a bit more stardust in attack to stay with City in the next few seasons. Sánchez is superior to anyone United have in their forward positions, whereas Mkhitaryan is probably seen more by Arsenal as a replacement for Özil should the German, as expected, leave in the summer. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/23/manchester-united-arsenal-alexis-sanchez-henrikh-mkhitaryan-verdict 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 47 minutes ago, Rousseau said: In terms of position, nothing changes. We can exclude that. Yes, get rid of a potential problem player now. You can say the same about Mkhi, although not to the same extent perhaps. In this regard, Arsenal are probably better off. Financially, Arsenal free up a lot of wages -- I suspect -- but they also get an inferior player. Each side is taking on the other's financial obligations, but Man Utd are getting a far better player. Utd are also getting a player worth over £63M (based on City's bid less than 6 months ago) for someone that is worth £31M (Transfermrkt), which you can take or leave because of the source, but I think it's fair valuation. (You can argue his REAL value is less because of the length of his contract, but Utd were willing to spend £25M, and City were willing to spend £20M right now. Not far off Mkhitaryan's highest value.) I can only conclude that Utd get the better deal financially -- the only down side is they're taking on more wages, but it's worth it because of the player. Man Utd got the better end of the deal... IMO. But you are completely ignoring the fact that Sanchez could have signed a pre-contract and walked for nothing in 6 months time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 45 minutes ago, Rousseau said: Aubameyang is an exceptional player -- when he can be arsed playing; he didn't bother turning up for some of Dortmund's games! Not sure of the benefits of ridding themselves of a "problem player" in Sanchez to get this guy! Kidding... sort of! Exceptional player, and he'll score goals. What's the price being touted? £50-60M? That's not bad in this market for a good goalscorer. 60 million Euros I read, which is about 53 million pounds. I think Aubameyang is a fantastic player and in the current market I think 53 million is an excellent piece of business. Like every other transfer though, only time will tell. Again Re Sanchez, you are suggesting Arsenal "got rid" when the reality is he was walking regardless. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,772 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 We have to realise that Utd got Sanchez for six months for his wages, less the wages (£170K per wk, apparently) of a player who was unlikely to feature in the 1st XI very often, if at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 10,026 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, craig said: 60 million Euros I read, which is about 53 million pounds. I think Aubameyang is a fantastic player and in the current market I think 53 million is an excellent piece of business. Like every other transfer though, only time will tell. Again Re Sanchez, you are suggesting Arsenal "got rid" when the reality is he was walking regardless. 7 minutes ago, craig said: But you are completely ignoring the fact that Sanchez could have signed a pre-contract and walked for nothing in 6 months time. I understand, and in that regard Arsenal got a good deal. I still think Man Utd got the better deal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,589 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Imagine at the next television deal there are only two bidding BT and Sky and they get together and reduce their offer by twenty percent ,lot of clubs could be up the swanee 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo79 14,535 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 2 hours ago, compo said: Imagine at the next television deal there are only two bidding BT and Sky and they get together and reduce their offer by twenty percent ,lot of clubs could be up the swanee I'd like that. The EPL is a farce these days. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.