Lets not get carried away if they really wanted Benayoun they wouldnt be offloading him. i havent seen Cashley or any of the other big name players loaned out this summer to cut the wage billkiwomya wrote:Bloody hell. So if a player leaves Chelsea, United then automatically it must be because they aren't very good?Babatunde wrote:Yep. So I guess Chelski just decided to release a quality player, for no fee, to Arsenal because they are benevolent like that hmmm?kiwomya wrote:Liverpol maybe, where he played well enough to get picked up by Chelsea.Babatunde wrote:What you mean top clubs like Racing Santander and Chelsea reserves?djhdjh wrote:Having a player like Benayoun on the bench ready to come into the team is not a bad thing. I don't understand people judging him simply because Chelsea let him go rather than forming their own opinion. He's a good player who's been around top clubs for a few years and always links play and makes chances.
I wouldn't hold it against a player just because they played for a lesser team many years ago. You could go on all day about most players.
Ashley Young, Watford? No thanks.
Phil Jones, Blackblurn? Keep him.
I suppose yuo were one of the comedians who lauded the signing of Silvestre as 'a good bit of business'.
It doesn't take the brian of Britain to figure out that: if Chelsea are willig to just lend Arsenal a player, he cannot actually be very good! But yeah sure, carry on.
A loan deal gets the player off the wage bill. Money.
Are You happy with Transfer Dealings?
-
flash gunner
- Posts: 29243
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:55 am
- Location: Armchairsville. FACT.
That's true. It certainly doesn't mean he's not any good though.flash gunner wrote:Lets not get carried away if they really wanted Benayoun they wouldnt be offloading him. i havent seen Cashley or any of the other big name players loaned out this summer to cut the wage billkiwomya wrote:Bloody hell. So if a player leaves Chelsea, United then automatically it must be because they aren't very good?Babatunde wrote:Yep. So I guess Chelski just decided to release a quality player, for no fee, to Arsenal because they are benevolent like that hmmm?kiwomya wrote:Liverpol maybe, where he played well enough to get picked up by Chelsea.Babatunde wrote: What you mean top clubs like Racing Santander and Chelsea reserves?
I wouldn't hold it against a player just because they played for a lesser team many years ago. You could go on all day about most players.
Ashley Young, Watford? No thanks.
Phil Jones, Blackblurn? Keep him.
I suppose yuo were one of the comedians who lauded the signing of Silvestre as 'a good bit of business'.
It doesn't take the brian of Britain to figure out that: if Chelsea are willig to just lend Arsenal a player, he cannot actually be very good! But yeah sure, carry on.
A loan deal gets the player off the wage bill. Money.
Oh thanks for that Economics 101 lesson. So do tell I pray, why did Chelsea not release Malouda on loan then? Considering AW was more interested in him? Hmmm? I suppose a club with Chelsea's resources are really under the cosh to reduce their wage bill too eh! Cos Benayoun must be on massive wages! The answer is obvious but your head is too far in the sands of delusion to see it. So I ain't gonna carry on arguing with you as to whether Benayoun is quality or not.kiwomya wrote:Bloody hell. So if a player leaves Chelsea, United then automatically it must be because they aren't very good?Babatunde wrote:Yep. So I guess Chelski just decided to release a quality player, for no fee, to Arsenal because they are benevolent like that hmmm?kiwomya wrote:Liverpol maybe, where he played well enough to get picked up by Chelsea.Babatunde wrote:What you mean top clubs like Racing Santander and Chelsea reserves?djhdjh wrote:Having a player like Benayoun on the bench ready to come into the team is not a bad thing. I don't understand people judging him simply because Chelsea let him go rather than forming their own opinion. He's a good player who's been around top clubs for a few years and always links play and makes chances.
I wouldn't hold it against a player just because they played for a lesser team many years ago. You could go on all day about most players.
Ashley Young, Watford? No thanks.
Phil Jones, Blackblurn? Keep him.
I suppose yuo were one of the comedians who lauded the signing of Silvestre as 'a good bit of business'.
It doesn't take the brian of Britain to figure out that: if Chelsea are willig to just lend Arsenal a player, he cannot actually be very good! But yeah sure, carry on.
A loan deal gets the player off the wage bill. Money.
I'll simply refer you to the fact that the only other clubs to make enquiries for this super super class squad player were Spuds, Stoke and errr...QPR.
Nuff said.
Why the fuck are you bringing race into a purely football discussion? Is it because you are too unintelligent to actually use facts for a rebuttal
. I was pointing out that all you base your criticism of Ox on is because he's what? Like Theo Walcott? How else do you come up with such a ridiculous and bullshit statement to criticise him.I suppose you watch a lot of League 1 football as well as your extensive knowledge of french football. Are you also constantly angry? Chill out.
-
I Hate Hleb
- Posts: 18632
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 3:36 pm
- Location: London
-
Its Up 4 Grabs Now
- Posts: 4701
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:08 pm
-
Deise Gooner
- Posts: 1749
- Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:19 pm
- Location: Waterford, Ireland...@GunnerRyan
Overall im not too happy as we saw the speed in which transfers were sewn up over the past few days and i cant help but think to myself why the deals couldnt have been concluded much quicker. The Cesc and Nasri deals were drawn ou far too long and not to mention the bendtner loan deal 
Im excited about seeing Arteta in our team and Mertasacker is a signing we need but some of the others are typical Arsenal signings and im still baffled by Benayoun. The fact that Chelsea are willling to send him on loan to their title rivals says it all really.
We still didnt get an experienced keeper to back-up and mentor Sczc and for my money we could have done with another CB purely because our current first choice cant stay fit. Arteta will be the bit of creativity we need in midfield but he cant be a long term solution we have to find a replacement for Csc in the long run.
Im excited about seeing Arteta in our team and Mertasacker is a signing we need but some of the others are typical Arsenal signings and im still baffled by Benayoun. The fact that Chelsea are willling to send him on loan to their title rivals says it all really. We still didnt get an experienced keeper to back-up and mentor Sczc and for my money we could have done with another CB purely because our current first choice cant stay fit. Arteta will be the bit of creativity we need in midfield but he cant be a long term solution we have to find a replacement for Csc in the long run.
Cheers mate.Babatunde wrote:Oh thanks for that Economics 101 lesson. So do tell I pray, why did Chelsea not release Malouda on loan then? Considering AW was more interested in him? Hmmm? I suppose a club with Chelsea's resources are really under the cosh to reduce their wage bill too eh! Cos Benayoun must be on massive wages! The answer is obvious but your head is too far in the sands of delusion to see it. So I ain't gonna carry on arguing with you as to whether Benayoun is quality or not.kiwomya wrote:Bloody hell. So if a player leaves Chelsea, United then automatically it must be because they aren't very good?Babatunde wrote:Yep. So I guess Chelski just decided to release a quality player, for no fee, to Arsenal because they are benevolent like that hmmm?kiwomya wrote:Liverpol maybe, where he played well enough to get picked up by Chelsea.Babatunde wrote: What you mean top clubs like Racing Santander and Chelsea reserves?
I wouldn't hold it against a player just because they played for a lesser team many years ago. You could go on all day about most players.
Ashley Young, Watford? No thanks.
Phil Jones, Blackblurn? Keep him.
I suppose yuo were one of the comedians who lauded the signing of Silvestre as 'a good bit of business'.
It doesn't take the brian of Britain to figure out that: if Chelsea are willig to just lend Arsenal a player, he cannot actually be very good! But yeah sure, carry on.
A loan deal gets the player off the wage bill. Money.
I'll simply refer you to the fact that the only other clubs to make enquiries for this super super class squad player were Spuds, Stoke and errr...QPR.
Nuff said.
Wenger fucked up by letting the Cesc and lesbian sagas dictate our summer and not planning ahead by signing a replacement before selling. It was obvious to everyone but him that those two were dying to leave the club. By the time they left it was too late to sign proper quality as the season was about to start and clubs wouldn't want to sell their good players. We should've signed Marek Hamsik from Napoli, he's immense and would have been the perfect replacment for Le Mercenair.
Last edited by 1989 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'd love to have someone in football explain the need or postive reason for things being done late. Can't see that it's as black and white as it looks.Deise Gooner wrote:Overall im not too happy as we saw the speed in which transfers were sewn up over the past few days and i cant help but think to myself why the deals couldnt have been concluded much quicker. The Cesc and Nasri deals were drawn ou far too long and not to mention the bendtner loan deal
We still didnt get an experienced keeper to back-up and mentor Sczc and for my money we could have done with another CB purely because our current first choice cant stay fit. Arteta will be the bit of creativity we need in midfield but he cant be a long term solution we have to find a replacement for Csc in the long run.
We clearly were not the only ones. I know QPR had a late injection of money but Spurs offloaded about 5 players in the space of a few hours.
Just don't ask Alex Ferguson though (greatest manager in English football history), his story might be a bit different (he got all his players in early)kiwomya wrote:I'd love to have someone in football explain the need or postive reason for things being done late. Can't see that it's as black and white as it looks.Deise Gooner wrote:Overall im not too happy as we saw the speed in which transfers were sewn up over the past few days and i cant help but think to myself why the deals couldnt have been concluded much quicker. The Cesc and Nasri deals were drawn ou far too long and not to mention the bendtner loan deal
We still didnt get an experienced keeper to back-up and mentor Sczc and for my money we could have done with another CB purely because our current first choice cant stay fit. Arteta will be the bit of creativity we need in midfield but he cant be a long term solution we have to find a replacement for Csc in the long run.
We clearly were not the only ones. I know QPR had a late injection of money but Spurs offloaded about 5 players in the space of a few hours.
I think this is a good write up as you say. I'm quite happy with the signings he's made but it does feel hurried and maybe not what he wanted.............Cahill and M'Vila.
Is definately an improvement on what we had (although we still have Almunia and Schillaci) and may now give the younger players a chance to learn properly.
Top 4 is def a possibility and maybe a domestic cup but we're not going to challenge Utd, City and Chelsea.
Thing is this is Wengers last chance saloon. If these signings don't pay off then i can't see how he can stay.
