NOt when they try to play him and see how utterly out of his depth he is going to be.
His value will be rock bottom
** January Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
- Status
NOt when they try to play him and see how utterly out of his depth he is going to be.
His value will be rock bottom
I very much doubt that.
Besides, playing for England he's looked good. Looking rubbish at Bolton can't be too hard nowadays.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
ANything is going to be better than lolz as a cb
Some worrying reports linking us with a "£24m move for Bent". Fortunately they've only been reported in the People and Mail so far.
Although I'm not convinced a Bent type striker is the answer to our goalscoring problems, I wouldn't be against us having Bent in our squad. I wouldn't want us paying anything like £24m though, £12-14m might be acceptable..
Although I'm not convinced a Bent type striker is the answer to our goalscoring problems, I wouldn't be against us having Bent in our squad. I wouldn't want us paying anything like £24m though, £12-14m might be acceptable..
40 mil it is then.
Doubt Villa would sell at a loss unless he's a disruptive influence, he has still scored every other game he's played for them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,050
- Location
- Manchester
Please let Liverpool buy Bent
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
Our ratio of spending £18mil+ on a player for the last few transfer windows has been crap and thats being kind. Suarez has been the only one you can say ' yea that guy is worth £20mil +'. Keane, aquaman, carrol, henderson, downing have either been flops or getting there.
Nickg mode off
Nickg mode off
I mentioned the other day that Villa reportedly only paid £18m up front with the rest being in add-ons. If we assume most if not all these add-ons haven't been triggered, a £14m bid would only see them losing £4m.
There are reports claiming that Villa need the money and Mcleish & Bent have fallen out, and even some suggestion that Mcleish doesn't think Bent fits into his system. Who knows?
We need another striker though and at a reasonable price, he wouldn't be a bad addition to the squad.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Knowing Mcleish he just wants a big battering ram upfront, not an actual footballer, so wouldn't be surprised if Bent doesn't fit into his system, he probably wants someone like Heskey but who dives less, isn't as old and can at least pass 3 or 4 times a game to his own team mates. Then again commentators have suggested that Mcleish has said he's considered playing Heskey as a centreback to help prolong his career..... why, why would anyone ever want to do either of those things 
As for Arsenal, I love Henry, I have no problem with him coming back, but its another short term pointless fix. I said, what, almost two years ago Chamakh would be a short term fix, he'll play when RVP is injured and the rest of the time he will be benched, won't be rotated effectively, won't have form due to Wenger's crap rotation policy and will simply suck a huge wage out of the club every week thanks to his free transfer.......... it couldn't be more obvious.
RVP does not need to play every game, and we've been winning less games the more we play RVP upfront on his own, RVP's scoring record is great, the teams winning record has gone backwards since Chamakh was dropped. Chamakh awful, now yes, there are hundreds of players that look rubbish with no form and world class with games under their belt.
Up to January Chamakh both out scored and out assisted RVP and Arsenal were winning game when playing both of them, after Xmas Chamakh was dropped, RVP started scoring, and Arsenal got less points per game. Chamakh was surprisingly good in the first half of the season and judging him on 10 minutes here and there, or one start every 2 months since he has been dropped is stupidly unfair.
Problem is Wenger has done this to all our "second" strikers for the past 5 years, which is why I knew it would happen to Chamakh as well.
Arshavin was a great player, he still is, another player who isn't getting consistent games and his form went out the window, but was brilliant before being arbitrarily dropped for much worse players. However when we bought Arshavin we were scoring at the same pace as Utd and Chelsea, and we were conceding something like 150% more goals per game than either of those...... so we spent 15mil on a winger, when we had wingers who Wenger simply wouldn't play.
Wenger keeps buying the wrong players, for the wrong position, at the wrong time.
We need fullbacks because Gibbs, Santos and probably Jenks aren't good enough when fit, Gibbs is either the most, or second most injury prone player we've had, and he's not brilliant when fit.
We desperately need fullbacks, and wingers, Gervinho and Walcott are utter gash, instead we're getting a striker on loan, and probably no one else.
As for Arsenal, I love Henry, I have no problem with him coming back, but its another short term pointless fix. I said, what, almost two years ago Chamakh would be a short term fix, he'll play when RVP is injured and the rest of the time he will be benched, won't be rotated effectively, won't have form due to Wenger's crap rotation policy and will simply suck a huge wage out of the club every week thanks to his free transfer.......... it couldn't be more obvious.
RVP does not need to play every game, and we've been winning less games the more we play RVP upfront on his own, RVP's scoring record is great, the teams winning record has gone backwards since Chamakh was dropped. Chamakh awful, now yes, there are hundreds of players that look rubbish with no form and world class with games under their belt.
Up to January Chamakh both out scored and out assisted RVP and Arsenal were winning game when playing both of them, after Xmas Chamakh was dropped, RVP started scoring, and Arsenal got less points per game. Chamakh was surprisingly good in the first half of the season and judging him on 10 minutes here and there, or one start every 2 months since he has been dropped is stupidly unfair.
Problem is Wenger has done this to all our "second" strikers for the past 5 years, which is why I knew it would happen to Chamakh as well.
Arshavin was a great player, he still is, another player who isn't getting consistent games and his form went out the window, but was brilliant before being arbitrarily dropped for much worse players. However when we bought Arshavin we were scoring at the same pace as Utd and Chelsea, and we were conceding something like 150% more goals per game than either of those...... so we spent 15mil on a winger, when we had wingers who Wenger simply wouldn't play.
Wenger keeps buying the wrong players, for the wrong position, at the wrong time.
We need fullbacks because Gibbs, Santos and probably Jenks aren't good enough when fit, Gibbs is either the most, or second most injury prone player we've had, and he's not brilliant when fit.
We desperately need fullbacks, and wingers, Gervinho and Walcott are utter gash, instead we're getting a striker on loan, and probably no one else.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 12,538
- Location
- London
I'm still a little bit undecided on Henry coming back.
Feels a little bit like a backwards move, when ideally, Wenger should be looking at bringing in a long term, younger attacking player, like Podolski.
There's obviously gonna be a buzz about his return, and hopefully he'll give the club a lift and chip in with a goal or two but I have this horrible feeling he'll pick up an injury because of over trying. He doesn't have the legs for the Premiership anymore. He does still have his brain, and no doubt he can still finish, so maybe he'll do a bit of a Henrik Larrson at utd a few seasons back. Guess we'll just have to wait and see
To quote RVP
I think he'll be okay. He obviously won't be beating people for pace, but as long as our link-up play is good I don't doubt he'll get himself into good positions and nab a few goals.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
of course you've never judged a player when they're out of form have you
Like who? I think you'll find if I've ever called a player crap when they are out of form and not playing, I've also called them crap when they are "in form" as well.
For instance, I called Malouda crap for the first 2-3 years he was abysmal, and I called him crap when he got 13 goals in a season, when 9 were in 5-0/ 7-1 type games where his goals made no difference and the team simply ripped the other apart, and he's still crap now.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The problem being, lets say for instance he becomes our best player, and we win 7-8 games on the bounce with him, he scores 20 goals and is epic. The team gets used to playing with him, the team starts relying on him and playing through him....... then his loan finishes...... then Arsenal are used to playing with a guy who isn't there, whoever wasn't starting when Henry was here, is now more out of form than they are now(Arshavin or Gervinho as I'm going to guess he'll play left wing mostly) so then we have to play with a player who is playing worse than they are today.
Its short term thinking, its daft, and it won't help. He's certainly not backup for Chamakh while he's at ACON, as Chamakh hasn't been played properly since last Jan.
Gervinho ISN'T good enough, Arshavin is clearly not in favour with the manager, and the player has gotten pee'd off and obviously doesn't give much of a crap and wants out, I can't blame him.
So buy a short term solution that really can only backfire on us, maybe worse the better he actually is, and buy an actual left winger, for the long term, who will improve the team full stop. Hell, if Henry is good enough I'd have no problem buying him, though I think the bulls would want a too serious a fee for a too old a player for it to be a good option.
Chamakh was a short term solution that hasn't worked out, I would say Squillaci, Arshavin and several others are all the same, a short term patch, with short term thinking that really doesn't address fixing the real problems with the team. How many times can we ignore the positions we really need players in, and bring in someone expensive on a big wage somewhere that isn't needed right now.
Our panic buying of players in the summer was bad enough. Henry is NOT going to fix or improve Arsenal long term, so what the hell is the point?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,050
- Location
- Manchester
At the end of the day I think Arsenal will have more points at the end of the season than they would have without Henry. Even 1 point could mean the difference between 4th & 6th, so for Arsenal it is a good signing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,119
- Location
- Shepley
DM's argument is ridiculous because it amounts to saying doing nothing is better than something.
tbh I cant see Henry offering much. He wont start games ahead of RVP and I doubt he'll start too many games with RVP either. I can see why Wenger's made the move with his two backup strikers going to the ACN and should the worst happen to RVP then he'll need someone but even if that happens is Henry really the answer at this stage of his career?
Not saying it's a bad move per say as it's a no lose situation but I cant see him making much of an impact. 3 or 4 goals at the most is what I'm predicting
Not saying it's a bad move per say as it's a no lose situation but I cant see him making much of an impact. 3 or 4 goals at the most is what I'm predicting
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
DM's argument is ridiculous because it amounts to saying doing nothing is better than something.
That is exactly and entirely NOT what I'm saying but well done.
What is happening is we're doing something for the sake of doing something, rather than doing THE RIGHT THING.
Buying someone you don't need, that isn't where your problems lie directly, isn't going to have a big effect.
We bought Chamakh, we didn't get better upfront, we bought Gervinho, we haven't improved on the wings, we bought Arshavin, same thing. We bought Arshavin when our defence was desperately in need of help, 15mil spent on defenders would have bought FAR more points than 15mil on an attack that was matching the two best attacks in the league.
Spending money on Henry, is just money we can't spend on a fullback, or something we need.
When we throw away money on things we don't need, Wenger then tends to panic and buy the wrong players for the places we do need.
IE, would we have bought someone significantly better than Squillaci had we not spunked 15mil on Arshavin? Would we have gotten someone far better than Santos or Mertesacker, if we didn't spend 12mil on Gervinho for no apparent reason.
Why buy someone for 2 months, when we can buy someone for 4 years, it really isn't going to be hard to find a winger better than Walcott or Gervinho....... etc, etc.
Some Arsenal fans and pundits are randomly comparing the team now to the team after 5 games this season, and saying we've improved, why? Compare the team now to last years team and its much worse, compare it to the team 4 years ago and its pretty much cack for a top 4 team. We keep going backwards because we keep buying the wrong people.
For the love of god, we loaned in Benny already, who plays on the wing, on probably pretty high wages........ and instead of playing him we're going to loan another player on high wages for a couple months? So why did we get Benny, it seemed a ridiculous decision at the time, it still seems like one.
Why not give Ox games, Park, Benny.
- Status