January Transfer Window 2012/2013 Season Rumours/Signings

Walcott is poo, why is he so overrated? Must admit, I am curious to see if he would fair better as a striker than as a winger, as he can't pass or cross very well.:o
 
Last edited:
Newbie007 said:
What a crock of ****

So Walcot will stay at arsenal if he gets 90k a week, but we will offer him 10k more just for ***** and giggles if he doesnt get his offer from arsenal and leaves?? Just offer him the 90k! (wouldn't want him anyway). I thought he wanted to be guarenteed a central striking role in addition to more cash?

Hasn't Llorente signed a new deal this week?
Click to expand...

Last i read on Llorente was thta he said he will leave as he wants a new challange, If he lets contract run down Bilbao get nothing anyway so benefits them to sell in Jan and get something at least
 
Rumours Fulham are talking to Lyon about a possible loan move for Gourcuff. He must be fairly out of form if he's available, but would definitely take another attacking mid, we've only got one (Ruiz) and moving Berbatov back like we have been for a few games limits us up top!
 
Its amazing how Bilbao have fell apart, last season they were fantastic. Got to the Europa League final and Copa Del Rey final beating good teams along the way.

They were playing some fantastic football with Muniain, Llorente and Martinez. Martinez leaves, Muniain gets injured and Llorente is kicked out of the team and now they are just above relegation!

Not being able to sign players that aren't Basque kills them because with the money from Martinez and the cup runs last season they could have added quite a few players of real quality but instead they are left to just use players from the youth team and they basically own the best Basque players so there is no one else to buy.
 
Sounds like Wenger is getting fustrated with Walcott and his refusal to sign a new contract from what SSN are reporting. Also reporting that he will be allowed to talk to other clubs next month.

So looks like Walcott could well be on his way out of Arsenal.
 
Such is the form of our wide players atm I'd actually have Walcott at United, I certainly rate him higher than I do Ashley Young although that aint saying much. What was RVP's body language like when he played with him? Did he seem to get as frustrated with him as the Arsenal supporters do? :p
 
The highly reliable source of a front row steward told me he was definitely leaving but I'm not sure it will be in January. I think Wenger may want to hang on to him as cover for Chamakh and Gervinho who will be at the ACoN, unless a £7m+ offer comes in.
 
Biz.Kid09 said:
Its amazing how Bilbao have fell apart, last season they were fantastic. Got to the Europa League final and Copa Del Rey final beating good teams along the way.

They were playing some fantastic football with Muniain, Llorente and Martinez. Martinez leaves, Muniain gets injured and Llorente is kicked out of the team and now they are just above relegation!

Not being able to sign players that aren't Basque kills them because with the money from Martinez and the cup runs last season they could have added quite a few players of real quality but instead they are left to just use players from the youth team and they basically own the best Basque players so there is no one else to buy.
Click to expand...

Paretly. To explain why Bilbao have fallen apart is pretty easier, they're really, really tired.

Like you said, they don't sign players that aren't Basque so they're limited anyway, they have a limited squad and basically Bielsa wants robots that can play be at 100% all the time (fm reference ahoy!) he mentioned about robots recently, so that's why I mentioned it ;)

They're still a good side, but they're being ran in to the ground due to playing so much football and little rotation.
 
drunkenmaster said:
As for Chamakh being cheap, he wasn't, being a gamble, he wasn't. He was a free transfer which means he ended up on circa 80k a week wages, rather than costing 8-10mil a year earlier and getting a 40k a week wage. The difference being, on 40k a week, we could have sold him a year later, at 80k a week we couldn't sell him because no one else will offer anything close to 80k a week. Had we spent 10mil on him, we could have sold him on for 5-10mil a year later, instead we will spend 80k a week over 4 seasons, exactly what we would have spent at 8mil + 40k a week over 4 years... except he's not been involved.

Free transfers are more often a bad idea than a good idea, Joe Cole anyone 100k a week and has done absolutely nothing for Liverpool, how cheap is that 5mil a year for 4 years, and no one will match his wages so he won't leave?
Click to expand...

Have to say from that post i have learnt a good point and now understand why Joe Cole wouldnt return to france, 100k would make him probably no1 earning player in ligue un
 
carlazai said:
Have to say from that post i have learnt a good point and now understand why Joe Cole wouldnt return to france, 100k would make him probably no1 earning player in ligue un
Click to expand...

He's happy to play AND get paid, but Liverpool made up the difference, when it came to someone paying for all his wages, even on a free transfer, they weren't interested at matching his current wage, and he wasn't interested in getting a smaller wage when he can get paid more to effective do nothing at all.

AS for Chamakh, what makes the 50-65k a week figures believable when one paper will print both, and everything in between?

Ultimately wages are, difficult to pin down, some clubs have gone with a normal wage and a ridiculous signing on fee to the tune of the difference between a normal and stupid wage. IE you could sign a 4 year contract and instead of 80k a week, you get 60k a week and an effect 20k a week signing on bonus of 4million MORE than you'd normally get(depending on the deal/value/team that could really be anything).

Could he be on 60k a week, and have gotten 4mil extra upfront, could he be on 80k a week but papers are pulling a number out of their arses like 90% of the news they make up?

Ultimately, its irrelevant, why? Because the point is he's on a vastly higher wage than he otherwise would be, like almost all free transfer deals these days. Chelsea were only offering Cole something like 60k, because he's injured a lot and you know, ****, so he waited, signed for free and Liverpool said instead of a 10mil signing fee, we'll give you 8mil extra in wages over your contract.

If you were going to offer him 25k as stardard, and upped that to 65k because he's a free transfer, or he's a £40k a week player, and you upped that to £80k a week because of the free transfer, you're still paying the same extra because he's a free transfer.

Now you might ask, if its a "upfront" deal with 60k a week and he got paid 4mil upfront, then why won't he leave for another club if he's already had the extra, why? because if he leaves now, he won't be a free transfer, he can still wait it out and still get a repeat increased wage deal for being a free transfer. Ultimately when you get a player on a free transfer, they'll cost you as much anyway, they'll have no motivation to play for a higher wage contract in the future, because they are already on it, AND crucially you've taught them that hanging on and getting another free transfer is the best option for them.

Why should Wenger have known better, because he's seen it before, Campbell, reportedly on 100k a week(when we wouldn't pay Henry that, and recently weren't even paying RVP that 6 years after he left. How did that turn out, ok, he was great for us, no issue there. But did he want to sign a "normal" contract extension which meant dropping from 100k a week to a more in line with the clubs best players.. probably 60-80k a week.... hell no. He created a fuss, fooled Wenger, let him walk out, for him to promptly sign a huge contract well above what Pompie could afford and what he was worth, because he was a free transfer.

They almost never work out, you almost always have problems when it comes to new contracts, you almost always lose out.

But this wasn't for one of the best rated CB's in the country, it was for a guy who is worse than a player you have... a player you already won't play because you don't like that type of player.

For the record there was lots of talk of him turning down what amounted to a £18million contract with West ham, which suggests arounda 80k a week wage, maybe a touch more or 80k + 2mil signing bonus. Likewise I can't find a source that says 50 or 65k a week, I can find the Daily mail claiming those figures, with no mention of where they got those figures.

I guess 80k a week as well, largely to make the point, and because the actual number is fairly irrelevant, but because knowing what some of the Arsenal squad are on, and what kind of wage we'd be giving other newly signed players, and what other players on a free transfer get vs their value a year or two before if we had signed them..... you make an educated guess. Arsenal offered 7mil, it was refused, its likely a player turns down offers because the club are willing to pay that kind of figure, and they can negotiate that same kind of figure as extra wages. Considering 7mil would usally have clauses in it, performance or sell on, 7mil upfront is usually worth more than that, hence you could both guess he would be worth around 40k a week, and based on what Arsenal and other teams were willing to pay him, around 8mil was what he was deemed worth to get to the club, add together and you have 80k a week.
 
Last edited:
I don't even see what the Arsenal supporters problem is with Walcott, considering he's one of the more productive players. It's like he was the prodigy of Henry, so because he's not as good as he was, he's a total failure. Where as he is still a very good player.
 
I always thought Chamakh is on £80k/week as well.

As for the problem some fans have with Walcott it is not so much because he's not as good as Henry, more that some believe he's not as good as Ljungberg, Pires, Wiltord, Reyes, Hleb, Arshavin, Oxlade-Chamberlain etc. Until last season he suffered from a major lack of composure and would put in a lot of tame shots and bad crosses. There have been some games where he has been very effective; the problem is consistency.

Then you have the wage thing, he's on £60k/week, offered £75k/week, wants £100k/week. Walcott is not, and already at the age of 24 before the end of the season never has the potential to become, a player truly worth over £5m/year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom