• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

James Maddison

Monstar-Gunn4r

Established Member
To me Maddison falls into the Mount category. Decent player and I can see the logic in signing him but it just doesn't do anything for me.

I guess Maddison would be fairly cut price with Leicester going down. Maybe he's worth £35-40m, I don't know.

I'd like to think there were better options out there for us though.
This is it, if hes cheap hes worth it because he could be potentially very good but there is a risk factor with him as well. Personally I think hed be great here but there are some great other options, wonder can we lowball Leicester in to taking 20 million.
 

drippin

Obsessed with "Mature Trusted Members"

Country: Finland
wonder can we lowball Leicester in to taking 20 million.
That can only happen if Maddison only wants one club or has a relegation clause (which he might have).

But I doubt he has only one favourite club, and he will have buyers, so the price can go relatively high.
 

ArsenesCoatMaker

Established Member
This is it, if hes cheap hes worth it because he could be potentially very good but there is a risk factor with him as well. Personally I think hed be great here but there are some great other options, wonder can we lowball Leicester in to taking 20 million.

For a player with 20 goals/assists in 2023, no chance. 40m would be the low ball for a player of that level. Which is about what we paid for Vieira
 

drippin

Obsessed with "Mature Trusted Members"

Country: Finland
2468 minutes from this season isn't far off 2628 and it's better than any season of Özil's minutes bar 1. We aren't talking about Ramsey/Partey/Rosicky injury prone levels. We're talking better than Prime Özil on average.
Why does the bar have to be so low for minutes played? Like I have said, Maddison is very likely missing so many minutes because he is injury-prone.

I still haven't heard an explanation why he otherwise hasn't played more, being their best player?
 

drippin

Obsessed with "Mature Trusted Members"

Country: Finland
For a player with 20 goals/assists in 2023, no chance. 40m would be the low ball for a player of that level. Which is about what we paid for Vieira
I have my doubts that Maddison would cost 40 million as there is competition for him with a year left in contract. I assume it will still be close to Mount numbers, so 50-55 million pounds.

Vieira cost 34 million pounds, likely paid in many installments, and has like 46k pounds per week wages. Maddison will ask at least 3x more wages which would be like 24 million pounds in 5 years time. Just something to consider. I think Maddison might ask for even more from top clubs.

It would be quite big money for an injury-prone player, even with a year in contract.
 

ArsenesCoatMaker

Established Member
Why does the bar have to be so low for minutes played? Like I have said, Maddison is very likely missing so many minutes because he is injury-prone.

I still haven't heard an explanation why he otherwise hasn't played more, being their best player?

Because that's not a low bar, it's more minutes than any Man City midfielder bar Rodri, it's more minutes than Özil played for us in all but 1 season.

If you want all our players to play 4000 minutes a season, we'll have a squad full of injury prone players very quickly. It's not sustainable.
 

ArsenesCoatMaker

Established Member
I have my doubts that Maddison would cost 40 million as there is competition for him with a year left in contract. I assume it will still be close to Mount numbers, so 50-55 million pounds.

Vieira cost 34 million pounds, likely paid in many installments, and has like 46k pounds per week wages. Maddison will ask at least 3x more wages which would be like 24 million pounds in 5 years time. Just something to consider. I think Maddison might ask for even more from top clubs.

It would be quite big money for an injury-prone player, even with a year in contract.

I don't really care if Maddison costs 40m or 55m. 20 goals and assists is worth the money as it's valuable contribution. It's worth 150k a week. Where as Vieira on 34m and 50k a week looks like money down the toilet unless he seriously goes up levels. Plus in combination:

Vieira 34m
Lakonga 20m
=54m of wasted funds

Who knows Maddison might be like Trossard and score and assist even more in a team that creates more.
 

drippin

Obsessed with "Mature Trusted Members"

Country: Finland
Because that's not a low bar, it's more minutes than any Man City midfielder bar Rodri, it's more minutes than Özil played for us in all but 1 season.

If you want all our players to play 4000 minutes a season, we'll have a squad full of injury prone players very quickly. It's not sustainable.
I already said that Maddison is very likely not playing more because he is injury-prone.

How do you explain him not playing more otherwise in a Leicester team as their best player? No answer to this no matter how many times I ask. I assume it's because there no other logical explanation.

You can't compare to City who will rotate with top players. It's likely KDB would play more if he didn't have this much injuries. But Pep takes it safe because he is so important.

Özil was injured a lot too, especially towards the end.

For me playing less than 75% as a best player in EPL suggests an injury-prone player. The assumption for non-injury prone player in this way is 85% or more of minutes. Or something like that.

Rice has played like 90% or more. I think it was 92% on average. That's 20% more than Maddison.
 
Last edited:

Rasmi

Negative Nancy

Country: England
I already said that Maddison is very likely not playing more because he is injury-prone.

How do you explain him not playing more otherwise in a Leicester team as their best player? No answer to this no matter how many times I ask.

You can't compare to City who will rotate with top players.

Özil was injured a lot too, especially towards the end.
How is he injury prone when he has over 30 league games 5 seasons in row. Ok let’s keep freaking vieira and esr because we don’t need Maddison
 

drippin

Obsessed with "Mature Trusted Members"

Country: Finland
I don't really care if Maddison costs 40m or 55m. 20 goals and assists is worth the money as it's valuable contribution. It's worth 150k a week. Where as Vieira on 34m and 50k a week looks like money down the toilet unless he seriously goes up levels. Plus in combination:

Vieira 34m
Lakonga 20m
=54m of wasted funds

Who knows Maddison might be like Trossard and score and assist even more in a team that creates more.
Maddison was not available as Ødegaard backup last season. No funds for it and Leicester would not have sold without silly fee.

So it can't be compared in this way. I just put out some facts about the costs.

You suggested Vieira cost 6 million more than he did, and didn't take wages into account. Or paying in many installments, which is very likely in such a deal.
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted ⭐

Country: Scotland
much more flair than the plodder from West London
Yeah, and contrary to what someone said here previously he can play possession and counter football. Seems weird that someone actually said he plays counter whilst ignoring Brendan Rodgers Leicester were top 6 for possession :lol:
 

Rasmi

Negative Nancy

Country: England
Maddison was not available as Ødegaard backup last season. No funds for it and Leicester would not have sold without silly fee.

So it can't be compared in this way. I just put out some facts about the costs.

You suggested Vieira cost 6 million more than he did, and didn't take wages into account. Or paying in many installments, which is very likely in such a deal.
Since he contributes nothing it’s a terrible deal no matter how you twist it. Vieira adds nothing to the team except taking space
 

bingobob

A-M’s Resident Hunskelper
Trusted ⭐

Country: Scotland
Since he contributes nothing it’s a terrible deal no matter how you twist it. Vieira adds nothing to the team except taking space
Vieira is my goto of spending wisely over spending big. Akanji and Alvarez combined cost less than the Portuguese dwarf.
 

Rasmi

Negative Nancy

Country: England
Vieira is my goto of spending wisely over spending big. Akanji and Alvarez combined cost less than the Portuguese dwarf.
Yeah yet people tell you that you can’t get good players for 15-30 million bracket. Both us and United love to hide behind city having too much. But they just buy better and have a lot less flops. 250 million for sancho, Anthony and Maguire and they will swear they can’t compete because of money
 

ArsenesCoatMaker

Established Member
I already said that Maddison is very likely not playing more because he is injury-prone.

How do you explain him not playing more otherwise in a Leicester team as their best player? No answer to this no matter how many times I ask. I assume it's because there no other logical explanation.

You can't compare to City who will rotate with top players. It's likely KDB would play more if he didn't have this much injuries. But Pep takes it safe because he is so important.

Özil was injured a lot too, especially towards the end.

For me playing less than 75% as a best player in EPL suggests an injury-prone player. The assumption for non-injury prone player in this way is 85% or more of minutes. Or something like that.

Rice has played like 90% or more. I think it was 92% on average. That's 20% more than Maddison.

I think we disagree on what constitutes an injury prone player. I don't consider a player playing 70% of games as injury prone. Maddison played more minutes than all but 2 out of 6 of Özil's seasons for Arsenal. Out of those 6 seasons we were only complaining in the last 2 of them.

Rice and Xhaka are exceptions to the rule that play 90% of minutes plus. Who are the CAMs playing 90% of minutes season on season when they get fouled more often? Ødegaard this season but they'd be few and far between. They're exceptions to the rule. And Ødegaard and Saka aren't going to continue being able to play every game. It will catch up to them soon enough.
 

ArsenesCoatMaker

Established Member
Maddison was not available as Ødegaard backup last season. No funds for it and Leicester would not have sold without silly fee.

So it can't be compared in this way. I just put out some facts about the costs.

You suggested Vieira cost 6 million more than he did, and didn't take wages into account. Or paying in many installments, which is very likely in such a deal.

Maddison wasn't available but Paqueta was and West Ham fans consider him Rice's equal now that he's adapted. Vieira unless he improves was a massive waste of transfer funds
 

Arsenal Quotes

When we won the league at Tottenham, they came back 2-2 in the last-minute of the game, and they're celebrating - because they're happy to draw against us, obviously. And I remember saying to Mauricio Tarricco who injured himself celebrating in front of me: "Do you realise we only need a point to be Champions?" And he was utterly shocked. So I said "Yes. Now watch as we're going to celebrate on your pitch. Bye bye!"

Thierry Henry

2024 Summer Transfers Deadline

Daily Transfer Updates

Tuesday, July 16

Arsenal have rejected a £30m bid for Emile Smith Rowe from Fulham, who are now considering a second bid [Simon Jones - MailSport]

Marseille are keen to sign Eddie Nketiah as they look to replace the outgoing Pierre Emerick-Aubameyang [Simon Jones - MailSport]

Latest posts

Top Bottom