Arsenal FC a very promising story

[Karabiner]

I hear so many frustrated gooners due to Wengers lack of top class signings, but then when an outsider, such as myself, questions it I hear "which striker would you have signed as an improvement?". Let's be honest, money talks. There are plenty of improvements on giroud & Welbeck up top that, if wenger has just waved a fistful of cash at, could have been bought and significantly improved his team. He needs the balls to make a "holy shit that's big money" signing as is becoming/ has become the norm in this league.

For me the one that took the piss is offering £40,000,001 for saurez when he had a release clause set at £40m. Even if Liverpool weren't willing to sell to a rival, give them a number that's at least going to make them sit up and have a think, slap a £60-70m offer on the table and offer stupid money for a player who can single handedly win you a game if needed.

If a player has a release clause where he must be sold for £40M why would anyone offer more?

Surely you'd have to be daft to do that otherwise what is the point of a release clause?

[Karabiner]

Whoever suggested Jose coming to Arsenal is surely having a laugh.

I'll tell you what if Jose gets the Arsenal job I'll start supporting the spuds.

[rinswun]

Higuain was the chance to sign a world class forward. Was all over the press that he wanted to go to Arsenal and play in the Prem. Was already established playing for Real, ends up at Napoli tearing up Serie A.

[baldock92]

I hear so many frustrated gooners due to Wengers lack of top class signings, but then when an outsider, such as myself, questions it I hear "which striker would you have signed as an improvement?". Let's be honest, money talks. There are plenty of improvements on giroud & Welbeck up top that, if wenger has just waved a fistful of cash at, could have been bought and significantly improved his team. He needs the balls to make a "holy shit that's big money" signing as is becoming/ has become the norm in this league.

For me the one that took the piss is offering £40,000,001 for saurez when he had a release clause set at £40m. Even if Liverpool weren't willing to sell to a rival, give them a number that's at least going to make them sit up and have a think, slap a £60-70m offer on the table and offer stupid money for a player who can single handedly win you a game if needed.

If a player has a release clause where he must be sold for £40M why would anyone offer more?

Surely you'd have to be daft to do that otherwise what is the point of a release clause?

So that they have an improved chance of competing for his signature before/ when another party becomes interested. Perhaps I'm wrong but if Arsenal would have started with a serious £70m bid, which is still very good value, compared to a quid above the release clause the odds of something being agreed would have significantly improved.

[muckthenuts]

The guy is just stubborn.

Needed a top class keeper for years. failed to get one until this year.

Numerous problems at centre half. Failed to sign anyone. When he does he's signed poorly. Gabriel looks utter shit.

Midfield- failed to sign an anchor man for year. Pre Coquelin they've had no one. Wiltshire too injury prone.

Forwards- failed to sign a word class forward.

This isn't isolated to this year and it's no coincidence Arsenal wobble at the same time very year. No bottle, no resilience and most importantly an unwillingness to adapt to the modern game.

He hasn't achieved anything for years. Over rated as a manager and saying he can choose to go when he wants is overstating his legacy

Every year Arsenal get linked with a whole host of players for these positions. Rarely do we turn around and bemoan not getting them.

I agree with Karabiner, realistically who was there to buy? No names can be named without the obvious benefit of hindsight. It isn't as simple as slapping £70m on the table and going yep we'll have X player of yours. A perfectly content club needs a big enough offer to sell, then a happy player needs to be persuaded to leave a more successful team and join us, wages need to be matched/improved which may distort the current structure at the club...in short you can't just have who you want.

United, Liverpool and Spurs have spent unreal amounts of money on players lately. The first 2 can't even make top 4 and Spurs have had to wait for this freak season to get there. Buying doesn't necessarily equal success at all, and overall this isn't why we're struggling at the moment.

[Graham C]

£1 more was taking the piss, they knew Liverpool wanted a lot more so what was the point?  

[baldock92]

I can't seem to edit my post so apologies for the second one:

Suarez is just one example though. And I know on the face of it you'd think regardless of whether it's £40m & £1 or £100m Liverpool have to agree to the sale as its broken the required amount in the release clause, there has to be some influence from the club on the player you'd think.

[Karabiner]

£1 more was taking the piss, they knew Liverpool wanted a lot more so what was the point?  

I don't agree with you Graham although the story was certainly spun that way in the press.

There was a £40M release clause so Arsene bid £40M and was told that didn't trigger the clause so he increased it to an amount that he thought would trigger it, ie <£40M.

There's either a release clause or there isn't.

[Longines]

Presumably if Arsene was told it still hadn't triggered the release clause he would have gone back with a bid of £40,000,002? Or asked Liverpool to list him on ebay?

Seemed to me to be a very naive approach to high stakes business negotiations.

[DungBeetle]

£1 more was taking the piss, they knew Liverpool wanted a lot more so what was the point?  

I don't agree with you Graham although the story was certainly spun that way in the press.

There was a £40M release clause so Arsene bid £40M and was told that didn't trigger the clause so he increased it to an amount that he thought would trigger it, ie <£40M.

There's either a release clause or there isn't.

Indeed.  If release clause is £40 million, and Arsenal bid £70 million and Barca bid £40 million, Suarez gets to speak to both Arsenal and Barca.  There is no point bidding over release clause.

[PokerBroker]

From partner in Sheridans Daniel Geeley:

What happened with Luis Suarez?

During the summer transfer window, the PFA reported that the contractual provision in Suarez’s contract with Liverpool was a ‘good faith’ release clause rather than an automatic release clause. The two are quite different. With an automatic release clause, player ‘y’ must be allowed to speak to purchasing club ‘x’ if the minimum release amount is offered. A ‘good faith’ clause means the parties are required to negotiate in good faith once a bid has been made. Importantly, a good faith clause does not automatically trigger the selling club to accept the offer.

The PFA were reported to have been arbitrating between the player and the club, and explaining to the player the likelihood of the clause standing up to a robust legal examination. As such, it was considered by the PFA that the clause was not an automatic release clause.

[TheDazzler]

From partner in Sheridans Daniel Geeley:

What happened with Luis Suarez?

During the summer transfer window, the PFA reported that the contractual provision in Suarez’s contract with Liverpool was a ‘good faith’ release clause rather than an automatic release clause. The two are quite different. With an automatic release clause, player ‘y’ must be allowed to speak to purchasing club ‘x’ if the minimum release amount is offered. A ‘good faith’ clause means the parties are required to negotiate in good faith once a bid has been made. Importantly, a good faith clause does not automatically trigger the selling club to accept the offer.

The PFA were reported to have been arbitrating between the player and the club, and explaining to the player the likelihood of the clause standing up to a robust legal examination. As such, it was considered by the PFA that the clause was not an automatic release clause.

This just isn't true. Liverpool has since admitted it isn't.

Liverpool had a release clause of £40m for Suarez. Arsenal activated it and Pool refused to sell. Liverpool didn't honour his contract. Yes, Arsenal could have come back with £50m/£60m/£70m but why should they? He had a release clause.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
Furthermore, Suarez in 2013 wasn't the Suarez we all see now. Arsenal made their bid in 2013, the season BEFORE Suarez's amazing season when Pool nearly won the league. We all knew he was very good but we didn't know he was THAT good! He had scored 51 in 96 games for Pool at this point. Good but not at the levels he later hit.
Also when they made their bid, he was still to miss the first 6 games of a 10 match ban due to biting Ivanovic at the end of the previous season. This was his 2nd career biting offence and combined with the Evra incident (8 match ban) marked him out as a risky purchase.
We know now that he would have been an amazing signing but it was far from obvious at the time.

Regarding the pursuit of Higuain, they were pursuing both he and Suarez at the same time.
Arsenal had a deal and personal terms agreed in principle with Real Madrid for Higuaín but Real then upped their asking price (Real being unscrupulous in transfer dealing wouldn't be a first). Napoli came in and nicked him whilst Arsenal were still engaged in the Suarez discussions.

Regarding getting a 'decent CB', where and who exactly? Man City have spent over £30m each on both Otamendi + Mangala and both look far from top class. Stones wasn't for sale for £50m.
You can't just say, "Wenger just won't spend the cash." The top players just aren't for sale.

[baldock92]

From partner in Sheridans Daniel Geeley:

What happened with Luis Suarez?

During the summer transfer window, the PFA reported that the contractual provision in Suarez’s contract with Liverpool was a ‘good faith’ release clause rather than an automatic release clause. The two are quite different. With an automatic release clause, player ‘y’ must be allowed to speak to purchasing club ‘x’ if the minimum release amount is offered. A ‘good faith’ clause means the parties are required to negotiate in good faith once a bid has been made. Importantly, a good faith clause does not automatically trigger the selling club to accept the offer.

The PFA were reported to have been arbitrating between the player and the club, and explaining to the player the likelihood of the clause standing up to a robust legal examination. As such, it was considered by the PFA that the clause was not an automatic release clause.

This just isn't true. Liverpool has since admitted it isn't.

Liverpool had a release clause of £40m for Suarez. Arsenal activated it and Pool refused to sell. Liverpool didn't honour his contract. Yes, Arsenal could have come back with £50m/£60m/£70m but why should they? He had a release clause.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
Furthermore, Suarez in 2013 wasn't the Suarez we all see now. Arsenal made their bid in 2013, the season BEFORE Suarez's amazing season when Pool nearly won the league. We all knew he was very good but we didn't know he was THAT good! He had scored 51 in 96 games for Pool at this point. Good but not at the levels he later hit.
Also when they made their bid, he was still to miss the first 6 games of a 10 match ban due to biting Ivanovic at the end of the previous season. This was his 2nd career biting offence and combined with the Evra incident (8 match ban) marked him out as a risky purchase.
We know now that he would have been an amazing signing but it was far from obvious at the time.

Regarding the pursuit of Higuain, they were pursuing both he and Suarez at the same time.
Arsenal had a deal and personal terms agreed in principle with Real Madrid for Higuaín but Real then upped their asking price (Real being unscrupulous in transfer dealing wouldn't be a first). Napoli came in and nicked him whilst Arsenal were still engaged in the Suarez discussions.

Regarding getting a 'decent CB', where and who exactly? Man City have spent over £30m each on both Otamendi + Mangala and both look far from top class. Stones wasn't for sale for £50m.
You can't just say, "Wenger just won't spend the cash." The top players just aren't for sale.

56 in 91 is still an exceptional goal scoring record in a struggling Liverpool team a few years back, combine that with the better service that could have been provided and it would have been a gamble worth taking. I know it looks like an easy thing to say in retrospect, but there were a lot of people saying it at the time aswell. Anyway there's no point going over it in too much detail now.

With regards to a CB surely a gamble needs to be taken here? Someone previously mentioned Ashley williams- it would be a very big step up for the lad but is it the suggestion that ridiculous really? There are players out there that haven't been established as big team players yet, they need that chance surely? Can't be worse than Per...

Also Stones being described as world class is pure lol.

Edit: misread about John stones and world class, my bad. Fwiw he looks overrated as shit.

[DungBeetle]

From partner in Sheridans Daniel Geeley:

What happened with Luis Suarez?

During the summer transfer window, the PFA reported that the contractual provision in Suarez’s contract with Liverpool was a ‘good faith’ release clause rather than an automatic release clause. The two are quite different. With an automatic release clause, player ‘y’ must be allowed to speak to purchasing club ‘x’ if the minimum release amount is offered. A ‘good faith’ clause means the parties are required to negotiate in good faith once a bid has been made. Importantly, a good faith clause does not automatically trigger the selling club to accept the offer.

The PFA were reported to have been arbitrating between the player and the club, and explaining to the player the likelihood of the clause standing up to a robust legal examination. As such, it was considered by the PFA that the clause was not an automatic release clause.

This just isn't true. Liverpool has since admitted it isn't.

Liverpool had a release clause of £40m for Suarez. Arsenal activated it and Pool refused to sell. Liverpool didn't honour his contract. Yes, Arsenal could have come back with £50m/£60m/£70m but why should they? He had a release clause.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
Furthermore, Suarez in 2013 wasn't the Suarez we all see now. Arsenal made their bid in 2013, the season BEFORE Suarez's amazing season when Pool nearly won the league. We all knew he was very good but we didn't know he was THAT good! He had scored 51 in 96 games for Pool at this point. Good but not at the levels he later hit.
Also when they made their bid, he was still to miss the first 6 games of a 10 match ban due to biting Ivanovic at the end of the previous season. This was his 2nd career biting offence and combined with the Evra incident (8 match ban) marked him out as a risky purchase.
We know now that he would have been an amazing signing but it was far from obvious at the time.

Regarding the pursuit of Higuain, they were pursuing both he and Suarez at the same time.
Arsenal had a deal and personal terms agreed in principle with Real Madrid for Higuaín but Real then upped their asking price (Real being unscrupulous in transfer dealing wouldn't be a first). Napoli came in and nicked him whilst Arsenal were still engaged in the Suarez discussions.

Regarding getting a 'decent CB', where and who exactly? Man City have spent over £30m each on both Otamendi + Mangala and both look far from top class. Stones wasn't for sale for £50m.
You can't just say, "Wenger just won't spend the cash." The top players just aren't for sale.

This simply cannot be the case (unless Suarez wasn't interested in Arsenal).  If Liverpool are offered the release clause they must let Suarez speak to Arsenal or it is breach of contract and Suarez is a free agent.  PokerBroker's explanation is far more viable.

[DungBeetle]

Unless John Henry decided to set a precedent which can be challenged in court at a player's whim of course.  If Suarez didn't challenge it then it's the same as him rejecting Arsenal.