Edu Gaspar

[GoonerJeeves]

How so? The fact he was so cheap meant that literally everyone could afford him, and everyone wanted him too. Pretty much a great (and extreme) example of the types of situations we might end up in. Even City fans were saying that was a signing that put them on the world map, their strategy up until then had been to avoid bidding wars and transfer sagas.

Nobody wants Edu to just overpay for targets, sometimes it's more nuanced than that, it's just as much about personal relationships and other intangibles as it is about how much money you're willing to part with.

Apparently a big part of Haaland choosing City was Pep promising to manage his fitness as he had been pretty injury prone up until then. Shaktar came out and said that a big part of Chelsea landing Mudryk was that they prioritised meeting face to face. Chelsea apparently told Mudryk that Martinelli would be harder to displace whereas at Chelsea the LW spot was ready for him. These are the kind of intangibles and little details I'm talking about.

Edu is going to have to master it this summer unless we can somehow find someone unknown that's good enough to improve a team currently playing the best football in Europe.

Ignoring the intangibles and focusing on common business sense:
Why didn't we wrap up Mudryk early in the window if personal terms had been agreed since like October? Why didn't we use our 'good relationship' with Brighton to understand that Caicedo truly wasn't for sale and they weren't just posturing? These are just some basic questions that I don't think I should be asking of my DoF.

My reference to it being disingenuous was it was all about the sporting side, not the financial side. Like you said, "everyone" could afford him. It then came down to the sporting side, and at that time we were not competitive sportingwise.

That being said, one should not discount the personal contract, which is way beyond any player in the Premier League probably.

 

[Trilly]

My reference to it being disingenuous was it was all about the sporting side, not the financial side. Like you said, "everyone" could afford him. It then came down to the sporting side, and at that time we were not competitive.

That being said, one should not discount the personal contract, which is way beyond any player in the Premier League probably.

I wasn't saying we should have signed Haaland, ofc not.

 

[Bagels]

All eyes immediately back on Edu

There are 3 immensely important contract renewals that need sorting and soon

For me, this is the bigger test.

Anyone can drop the bank to buy a player if the money is there and there’s a will to do so.

He’s done well to help build our current team and bring in the players he has. Can he now keep them here? If not, that’s going to be an insurmountable problem.

 

[El Duderino]

They are not slandering Arsenal. They are criticizing Edu for not paying over the top for players, because they think it's all his fault.

Without realizing that Arsenal has this history of bargaining and not paying huge fees often, which very likely comes from the board. And likely also because Arteta has looked how Pep handles transfers.

No we're not. We've literaly said we wouldn't have paid 80m for Caicedo (or would have minded if we did pay It) and we're not blaming Edu for anything.

How you're failing to get that is beyond me.

But you've made your mind about this already and there's simply no use trying to explain it to you like others have, you simply are unable or refuse to debate what is actually being said.

 

[drippin]

How so? The fact he was so cheap meant that literally everyone could afford him, and everyone wanted him too. Pretty much a great (and extreme) example of the types of situations we might end up in. Even City fans were saying that was a signing that put them on the world map, their strategy up until then had been to avoid bidding wars and transfer sagas.

Ignoring the intangibles and focusing on common business sense:
Why didn't we wrap up Mudryk early in the window if personal terms had been agreed since like October? Why didn't we use our 'good relationship' with Brighton to understand that Caicedo truly wasn't for sale and they weren't just posturing? These are just some basic questions that I don't think I should be asking of my DoF.

Oh my god, "literally everyone could afford him". You made me lol. Transfer costs are not only about transfer fee. But yeah, many would have wanted him still, naturally, and City paid up. Just like Arsenal paid up for White, because they rated him so highly, they thought he was worth paying up. And they were right, most of AM was wrong.

Because they didn't rate Mudryk as high as Shakhtar, had backup targets, and tried to get him cheaper because it looked like there is no competition and Mudryk wanted Arsenal. They would have paid it if they thought he is worth it. They could have even matched Chelsea's offer, Mudryk asked Arsenal if they will raise the bids before agreeing.

Caicedo they tried, because they thought Bloom is bluffing and trying to get a bigger offer. They had backup targets, so no harm done, they got Jorginho for cheap with a fair overpay from rivals.

Haaland to Manchester City: A 350 million euro signing

If we do the maths for Erling Haaland's imminent move to Manchester City, there is a 75 million euros fee with 10m euros in add-ons for Borussia Dortmund. Then, there's 40m euros a

www.marca.com

 

[Farzad Stoned]

My reference to it being disingenuous was it was all about the sporting side, not the financial side. Like you said, "everyone" could afford him. It then came down to the sporting side, and at that time we were not competitive sportingwise.

That being said, one should not discount the personal contract, which is way beyond any player in the Premier League probably.

Yes so it is a myth you need to spend a hundred million to get a top player. Haaland joined City for various reasons namely their success. Arsenal is a glamorous destination on the up with a lot of the same selling points. We can look for good players late in contracts who want a change. Great way not to pay 100 million for top talent.

 

[drippin]

No we're not. We've literaly said we wouldn't have paid 80m for Caicedo (or would have minded if we did pay It) and we're not blaming Edu for anything.

How you're failing to get that is beyond me.

But you've made your mind about this already and there's simply no use trying to explain it to you like others have, you simply are unable or refuse to debate what is actually being said.

It's going around in circles. You're fearful that Edu can't do big deals, when he has done big enough deals already which I have explained, but you don't accept them.

You can keep fearing until the summer for all I care, I have explained my points about it. And we can come back to this in the summer. You can mock me if I'm wrong, and I will mock you if I'm right.

 

[Trilly]

They are criticizing Edu for not paying over the top for players, because they think it's all his fault.

Do you still genuinely think this btw or has it been addressed in subsequent posts.

Also slandering? The absolute harshest thing said has been to sack him for someone with a proven track record. The average thing that's been said has been 'I'm worried he won't be able to take us to the next level'.

You're doing that exaggeration thing again.

 

[Trilly]

You can mock me if I'm wrong, and I will mock you if I'm right.

Or could be adults and not mock each other online when the sun is shining outside?

 

[drippin]

Do you still genuinely think this btw or has it been addressed in subsequent posts.

Also slandering? The absolute harshest thing said has been to sack him for someone with a proven track record. The average thing that's been said has been 'I'm worried he won't be able to take us to the next level'.

You're doing that exaggeration thing again.

I'm not going to go in circles again. The positions are clear.

I didn't say slandering, I said Edu is criticized if you can read. Which he is.

 

[Farzad Stoned]

Do you still genuinely think this btw or has it been addressed in subsequent posts.

Also slandering? The absolute harshest thing said has been to sack him for someone with a proven track record. The average thing that's been said has been 'I'm worried he won't be able to take us to the next level'.

You're doing that exaggeration thing again.

I directed the slandering comment at @db10_therza because it is exactly what he did. He called Arsenal CFC’s *****. Without looking at the disastrous nature of said deals and he is a finance guy. Just want to clarify this point as you seem to be referencing a comment i directed at one person

 

[drippin]

Or could be adults and not mock each other online when the sun is shining outside?

It's AM, this is no place for adults. It's a place for childish banter and occasional football talk.

 

[BigPoppaPump]

Or could be adults and not mock each other online when the sun is shining outside?

It wouldn’t be Arsenalmania if we went this route though.

 

[Rasmi]

Edu sucks

 

[TheGreatWright8]

All eyes immediately back on Edu

There are 3 immensely important contract renewals that need sorting and soon

Martineli already signed just Saliba & Saka

 

[db10_therza]

I directed the slandering comment at @db10_therza because it is exactly what he did. He called Arsenal CFC’s *****. Without looking at the disastrous nature of said deals and he is a finance guy. Just want to clarify this point as you seem to be referencing a comment i directed at one person

I’m starting to suspect you don’t understand what the word **** means…

In any case, for any avoidance of doubt,
I will try and clarify for the last fkn time I swear.

The **** comment was made largely in response to the Jorginho transfer. Chelsea have a colossal problem with regards to FFP. Every penny counts for them. Us taking a player off their hands for 12m and lowering their wage bill for 6 months by 120k or whatever makes a huge difference. I abhor the idea of doing Chelsea any favours. I would much rather that deal happened with any other club frankly, as the situation is very unique to Chelsea. Remember FFP is a binary thing. Pass or Fail. If it turns out that Chelsea sneaked through by 5 mil, then it is LITERALLY the Jorginho deal that got them through

Not sure why I bothered explaining it. You have a long and celebrated history of jumping to a conclusion without establishing facts and then sticking to it no matter what….

 

[db10_therza]

Wait why is **** censored but ***** isn’t? Coz two ***** are better than one?

 

[Trilly]

Oh my god, "literally everyone could afford him". You made me lol. Transfer costs are not only about transfer fee.

You do this a lot. Focus on a small inconsequential part of someone's post and argue against it. Serves no purpose. All the top clubs could afford him. There. Happy?

But yeah, many would have wanted him still, naturally, and City paid up. Just like Arsenal paid up for White, because they rated him so highly, they thought he was worth paying up. And they were right, most of AM was wrong.

As I've said in previous posts getting Haaland wasn't just about paying up. There are many clubs who could have matched Haaland's demands. Even we would have made room for him.

Because they didn't rate Mudryk as high as Shakhtar, had backup targets, and tried to get him cheaper because it looked like there is no competition and Mudryk wanted Arsenal. They would have paid it if they thought he is worth it.

This is what I mean about just being business savvy. I want my DoF to at least consider that there might be competition for this guy in January so let me get this wrapped up early. If we didn't think he was worth what they wanted then we should have walked away a lot earlier. Again, maybe if Edu had met them face to face he'd have walked away from that meeting understanding that they actually wanted 100M and weren't just bluffing.

Caicedo they tried, because they thought Bloom is bluffing and trying to get a bigger offer. They had backup targets, so no harm done, they got Jorginho for cheap with a fair overpay from rivals.

Again, why is my DoF unable to tell if an owner is bluffing or not? I'm glad you raised these points because these are just the personal interactions/intangibles I'm talking about. You say no harm done but that's just your opinion. We've definitely had some kind of impact on our relationship with Shaktar and Brighton due to these sagas. I think both clubs pretty much confirmed that.

 

[TH14shahriar]

Wait why is **** censored but ***** isn’t? Coz two ***** are better than one?

 

[drippin]

I’m starting to suspect you don’t understand what the word **** means…

In any case, for any avoidance of doubt,
I will try and clarify for the last fkn time I swear.

The **** comment was made largely in response to the Jorginho transfer. Chelsea have a colossal problem with regards to FFP. Every penny counts for them. Us taking a player off their hands for 12m and lowering their wage bill for 6 months by 120k or whatever makes a huge difference. I abhor the idea of doing Chelsea any favours. I would much rather that deal happened with any other club frankly, as the situation is very unique to Chelsea.

Not sure why I bothered explaining it. You have a long and celebrated history of jumping to a conclusion without establishing facts and then sticking to it no matter what….

Jorginho wasn't signing a new deal, so who knows if they had sold him to some other club in January? So they could have got money anyway. Besides I still doubt that ~15 million in total would make or break their business.

They would have just not bought attacker Fofana this window but the next or something. They would not leave getting Enzo to hang on 15 million pounds if Arsenal might buy Jorginho.