The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Arsenal Thread XXII

Scroll to see replies

The reality is Cesc is one of the best play-makers in premier league history and not taking him and allowing him to go to Chelsea is a bad idea. Anyone who understands football can see that. He's 27 years old and he's got years ahead of him and undoubtedly will win many more trophies with Chelsea. He already done damage on us this season when he played that beautiful ball to Diego Costa to finish us off 2-0. Who ever Chelsea would have got would not have been as good as Cesc and I never said we would have won the league but I actually said we would have been in the race and definitely would have had a much better chance not only this season but also in the future.
I do think we should have brought Cesc in. The budget we had (with our current financial situation) means it's more than feasible that we could afford both Cesc and Alexis. Was it a mistake to let Cesc go to Chelsea? Yes. Would he have won us the title though? No.
Original post by leinad2012
Sigh, another statement by Difeo with no justification. Signing Fabregas would have meant we wouldn't have signed Sanchez, but yeah, we didn't need his 14 league goals and 8 league assists...


Nice statement with no justification there

I've literally justified all my statements lol
Original post by somegirlcalledea
But its unlikely he would have had as positive an impact for us. So therefore (and I remember seeing this debate when we didn't sign him) would it really have been worth us signing him just so chelsea didn't? Is it worth signing another midfielder and spending our financial resources on a player we didn't need, when we could have used our resources a different way?

Imo it wasn't necessary for us to have signed him and our problems at the start of the season would not have been solved by signing him. Unfortunately we've ended up worse off...

(not denying he's a good player though)

Posted from TSR Mobile


Why wouldn't he? Okay he wouldn't have Costa but he would bring more out of Welbeck and would have been welcomed back to a club he knows well rather than settling into a new one.
Original post by difeo
Nice statement with no justification there

I've literally justified all my statements lol


Well where else would we have got the £30mil from? It's a logical inference.

So your justification that if Arsenal signed Fabregas they'd have won the league is?
Original post by leinad2012
Well where else would we have got the £30mil from? It's a logical inference.

So your justification that if Arsenal signed Fabregas they'd have won the league is?


Your massive cash reserves? Zurich can tell you all about them

I've already explained my view over the last page or so
Original post by difeo
Nice statement with no justification there

Not that I agree with all your posts in here but that ^ is a leinad hallmark
Original post by difeo
Why wouldn't he? Okay he wouldn't have Costa but he would bring more out of Welbeck and would have been welcomed back to a club he knows well rather than settling into a new one.


Because our current team have shared responsibility and create chances together whereas (at least at the start) chelsea were more reliant on him and his impact would not have been as great. And as mentioned our problem isn't creating chances, its scoring them, I'm not convinced fabregas would have a significant impact on welbeck's performance either.

As someone said above had we signed him it was unlikely we would have signed sanchez- the main reason for this is they both require large transfer fees and then large wages, its not like we are well known for splashing our cash.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by leinad2012
Well where else would we have got the £30mil from? It's a logical inference.

So your justification that if Arsenal signed Fabregas they'd have won the league is?



We had around £150m saved at that point. We also recouped a fee of £12m for Vela, added to that £15m for Vermaelen and another £4m for both Djourou and Miquel.

Added up that's around £31m making the reserve £181m

Our 5 summer signings had only cost us around £77m (Sanchez 30, Debuchy 12, Welbeck 16, Chambers 16 and Ospina 3). That's a net spend of around £46m and the reports all year were that Wenger was allocated a budget of around £100m


We could have affordered to pay twice of what Fabregas was worth. The decision wasn't based on finances but more Wengers plan. We should have brought Cesc back.
If we are going to play the 'what if' game, then how about this: what if we signed Fabregas, and he had nowhere near as good an impact in the first few months? (Costa was putting them away at an incredible rate for the first 7/8 games). What if Fabregas got injured for 3-6 months? It's all well and good saying we would have won the league with Fabregas, but it's just one of a multitude of equally plausible claims.
Original post by somegirlcalledea
Because our current team have shared responsibility and create chances together whereas (at least at the start) chelsea were more reliant on him and his impact would not have been as great. And as mentioned our problem isn't creating chances, its scoring them, I'm not convinced fabregas would have a significant impact on welbeck's performance either.

As someone said above had we signed him it was unlikely we would have signed sanchez- the main reason for this is they both require large transfer fees and then large wages, its not like we are well known for splashing our cash.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Yeah but I can't see how Fabregas replacing Arteta, Wilshere or Ramsey wouldn't have made you significantly better at creating.

Maybe so but reluctance to spend money you have is a Wenger failing, and given this discussion is based on a Wenger failing it's not really a reason. Maybe you wouldn't have signed Sanchez, but you certainly could have.
Original post by Arkasia
If we are going to play the 'what if' game, then how about this: what if we signed Fabregas, and he had nowhere near as good an impact in the first few months? (Costa was putting them away at an incredible rate for the first 7/8 games). What if Fabregas got injured for 3-6 months? It's all well and good saying we would have won the league with Fabregas, but it's just one of a multitude of equally plausible claims.


A player getting a long term injury is not equally as plausible as him not getting a long term injury
difeo
A player getting a long term injury is not equally as plausible as him not getting a long term injury


When it's Fabregas playing for Arsenal (in fact, any player playing for Arsenal), then yes, it is.
Original post by AR_95
We had around £150m saved at that point. We also recouped a fee of £12m for Vela, added to that £15m for Vermaelen and another £4m for both Djourou and Miquel.

Added up that's around £31m making the reserve £181m

Our 5 summer signings had only cost us around £77m (Sanchez 30, Debuchy 12, Welbeck 16, Chambers 16 and Ospina 3). That's a net spend of around £46m and the reports all year were that Wenger was allocated a budget of around £100m


We could have affordered to pay twice of what Fabregas was worth. The decision wasn't based on finances but more Wengers plan. We should have brought Cesc back.


I really do wish people would stop quoting the £150mil, you don't spend all your money in one year, that's idiocy. And even if we wanted to, surely a CDM, GK, CB, RW and ST would be higher up the pecking order than a CM no matter how good they are
Original post by leinad2012
I really do wish people would stop quoting the £150mil, you don't spend all your money in one year, that's idiocy. And even if we wanted to, surely a CDM, GK, CB, RW and ST would be higher up the pecking order than a CM no matter how good they are



But I didn't say we spend the £150m. I said it would have been feasible to sign both Cesc/Alexis and still have plenty of money left over for other positions.

Just want to remind you that Ospina's only 26. He still has lots of scope to improve.
Absolute rubbish that we couldn't afford Cesc. Wenger simply didn't want to rock the boat with so many quality midfielders. Fair play to him it must have not been an easy decision to make, it is hard to justify spending £30M on cesc when we had Ozil, Ramsey, Ox and a fit Wilshere at the time.

I said at the time we should have signed him. The likes of Rosicky, Arteta, Santi, Flamini, Diaby will have either left Arsenal or have retired in the next 2/3 years but looking back over the season he isn't really want we needed he would have been useful when Ramsey, Jack and Arteta were all out injured but I'd rather £30M be spend on some proper CDM. If a player like Coq can do the job effectively we shouldn't even be spending that much
Original post by AR_95
But I didn't say we spend the £150m. I said it would have been feasible to sign both Cesc/Alexis and still have plenty of money left over for other positions.

Just want to remind you that Ospina's only 26. He still has lots of scope to improve.



If you include Fabregas that's half our reserves gone, one more transfer window like that and we've used all our funds. Also, Ospina might not be complete ****, but you can't deny our GK situation is worse than our CM situation
Reply 7497
Avatar for SA-1
SA-1
16
Original post by sevchenko
Absolute rubbish that we couldn't afford Cesc. Wenger simply didn't want to rock the boat with so many quality midfielders. Fair play to him it must have not been an easy decision to make, it is hard to justify spending £30M on cesc when we had Ozil, Ramsey, Ox and a fit Wilshere at the time.

I said at the time we should have signed him. The likes of Rosicky, Arteta, Santi, Flamini, Diaby will have either left Arsenal or have retired in the next 2/3 years but looking back over the season he isn't really want we needed he would have been useful when Ramsey, Jack and Arteta were all out injured but I'd rather £30M be spend on some proper CDM. If a player like Coq can do the job effectively we shouldn't even be spending that much


Not sure what to make of Coq. He's been brilliant consistently for us since he's come back, but I don't know if he can maintain this or get better to an extent. The instinct now is to continue using him ahead of Flam and Arteta but I wouldn't want to go in to next season and then in like November be thinking that we really badly needed a CDM. Could still sign another, considering Arteta and Flamini are ageing. Coq is essentially the replacement for Flamini, I would really really like us to go in for Schniederlin. He has the potential of doing so well at the emirates.
An article that supports my view regarding Cesc Fabregas

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/had-arsenal-signed-cesc-fabregas-they-would-be-above-chelsea-in-the-premier-league-table-fact-10182793.html
Original post by SA-1
Not sure what to make of Coq. He's been brilliant consistently for us since he's come back, but I don't know if he can maintain this or get better to an extent. The instinct now is to continue using him ahead of Flam and Arteta but I wouldn't want to go in to next season and then in like November be thinking that we really badly needed a CDM. Could still sign another, considering Arteta and Flamini are ageing. Coq is essentially the replacement for Flamini, I would really really like us to go in for Schniederlin. He has the potential of doing so well at the emirates.


I share the same feelings about Coq but I think the simplicity of his role will make it easier to maintain a consistent level of performance. Arteta and Flamini shouldn't start any games as long as Coq is fit tbh, they're back up players now.

I'm a big fan of Schneiderlin. The difficulty in bringing him to Arsenal is that he prefers to play as a CM B2B. He enjoys attacking and covering ground in the middle of the pitch very similar to Rasmey. Schneiderlin has the discipline and ability to play as a DM but his attacking talents and energy is wasted if he's limited to a DM role that requires discipline in order to concentrate on the defence and not go forward.

With Coq playing as DM Schneiderlin can move up and play that B2B role he prefers but let's not forget that Ramsey, Wilshere and in the future possibly OX all want to play in that position. Schneiderlin CM versatility in that sense could be very useful. We can only accommodate one B2B CM in the 4-2-3-1 we're playing atm Santi is playing there currently which I dislike, he goes missing in matches far too often and lacks the physicality to defend or impose himself in key areas. He relies too much on his technique to justify a starting place as CM imo. It seems like he's only in the lineup to maintain possession really.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you