Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Doubtful becuase I wouldn't say any of that. Chamakh has never been poor for us, we signed him, he was a very solid player, got goals and assists right up till Wenger showed him the "this is the seat on the bench for players I've decided I don't like any more, by coincidence, RVP is fit again". Can anyone name players who play 15 mins every 3 months who look good? I can't, since he was benched I'm not sure he's started 2 games back to back, even with others injured, I'd be surprised if he has two sub appearances back to back. You don't blame the player for being given 5 mins of competitive football every 3 months then being thrown in due to injury in a start in an important game and looking crap, you blame the manager.
The reading game, he looked awful, for 45 mins(though so did the whole team) for the next 75 mins he looked like one of our better players. Laughably when we signed him 3 years ago, we had more quality in the team, especially offensively, 3 years later, even without playing, he's improve in terms of relative to the squad, because the squad is worse. His interplay, passing, winning of the ball, running at goal was all actually very impressive after that first 45 mins. Either way, a not very fit Henry who at no stage in his last loan spell ran around for more than 10 mins before just standing around doing nothing, is not better than CHamakh... Gervinho, probably.
As for signing some nigerian youngster... that also isn't Wenger, Wenger 8 years ago finding some 17 year old kid ready for the first team no one in England had heard of, sure, now? Do people really not realise how many older players we've bought in the past 5 years? Who was the last truly brilliant youth talent we bought, AOC? Who still looks like a more active, and as yet flukey/productive than Walcott. We overpaid for Walcott, and AOC, EVERYONE in England knew about them, neither were cheap, and neither have proven good(potential for AOC< but how many games can you say, he looks a little bit of luck from making his runs produce something, before you're almost 2 years later, and he's still not scoring, assisting or even creating good chances).
Gervinho, Santos, Giroud, Podolski, Squillaci, Kos, Vermaelen, Arteta, Arshavin, Mertesacker, Santi, Chamakh.
We have for some time now been buying 5-15mil players, who are older, established and well known.
EDIT:- also worth noting that CHamakh has had some "foreign team looking to offer him an escape route" every transfer window for 2 + years already, I think we've had offers, and he's had offers, we've turned some down, and I think he has as well. Ultimately we gave him "free transfer wages". IE pay 10mil for a player and give them 40k a week, get a free transfer and give player 80k a week due to his bargaining position... .thats 2mil higher wages per year for 4 or 5 years, 8-10mil more than you'd otherwise pay them in wages, and the same overall cost. Difference is a 40k a week player who isn't getting played will get offers from other clubs matching his wage..... at 80k a week, no one is willing to match his wage, so he stays on the bench and gets paid twice as much as he can get anywhere else. End of his contract he can still go and sign for someone for 40k a week but is millions better off than leaving early.
Very little reason to think this offer is more serious or more likely to tempt him away than past offers.
Last edited:
