Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman?

As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
North-Bank-1987
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: Blk 6 row3 - @Arsenaljav

Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman?

Post by North-Bank-1987 »

From an economic perspective, would it not have made sense to keep him until his contract ran out?

I think so, the fact that we are half way through the season and (let alone a title challenge) 4th is by no means safe, so broadcasting money is at risk of being reduced, We're in the last 16 of the cl. What did chelsea get in prize money for winning it? in excess of £45m?

Economics aside, If the board turned around and said, "your not going anywhere", surely that would of eased tensions with us, the fanbase. Tensions which are now a risk of spiralling out of control. It's all hindsight but you never know we might have got silverware this year, enough to change his mind and take a pay-cut? We will never know.

Should they not have just taken the kick in the bollocks and said fcuk it your staying?

mcdowell42
Posts: 18463
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:19 pm
Location: ireland

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by mcdowell42 »

Funniest thing ive read on this forum in a long time,our board letting rvp go on a free,and Northbank i mean no offence,but seriously :lol:

User avatar
DB10_TH14
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by DB10_TH14 »

North-Bank-1987 wrote:From an economic perspective, would it not have made sense to keep him until his contract ran out?

I think so, the fact that we are half way through the season and (let alone a title challenge) 4th is by no means safe, so broadcasting money is at risk of being reduced, We're in the last 16 of the cl. What did chelsea get in prize money for winning it? in excess of £45m?

Economics aside, If the board turned around and said, "your not going anywhere", surely that would of eased tensions with us, the fanbase. Tensions which are now a risk of spiralling out of control. It's all hindsight but you never know we might have got silverware this year, enough to change his mind and take a pay-cut? We will never know.

Should they not have just taken the kick in the bollocks and said fcuk it your staying?
they should of kept him obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing but after the window is was glaringly obvious where we was going to struggle, with van persie being here you would have thought things would be a whole lot better now but then again would we have giroud here if they where keeping van persie?!?! their would have been the whole sideshow once we got to january etc etc, though if theo doesnt sign and his contract is run down then i think its ludicrous why you they wouldnt have kept van persie. at the end of the day their was no way the board was saying no to £24m with someone in the last 12 months of his contract

User avatar
kite
Posts: 699
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: Munich/Amsterdam

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by kite »

They will regret it if Arsenal fails to get into the Champions League but as we all know it's just a bit too early to say if that will happen :wink:

North-Bank-1987
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: Blk 6 row3 - @Arsenaljav

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by North-Bank-1987 »

mcdowell42 wrote:Funniest thing ive read on this forum in a long time,our board letting rvp go on a free,and Northbank i mean no offence,but seriously :lol:
:lol: Am I going crazy?

I really think they could have taken the gamble, In all honesty I don't know the exact difference in prize/tv money for being in the top 4, and finishing 5th, 6th, 7th (heres the closest thing I could find, looks abit suspect though) http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... 12-150501/

We would be performing better than we are now for certain, so would have taken some of this pressure off. It also would have let off a statement that we are not a selling club, something that we all need to hear!

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2412
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by GranadaJoe »

I said before he went that it would be better to keep him than let him go to another PL club. I'd have preferred 25mil from Juve but to let him go to Manure was a double disaster for us and a massive kick in the nuts to fans and players.

User avatar
donaldo
Posts: 8175
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:33 pm
Location: The gates of hell waiting for Wenger

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by donaldo »

One day the penny will drop we are not a football club anymore.

mcdowell42
Posts: 18463
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:19 pm
Location: ireland

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by mcdowell42 »

donaldo wrote:One day the penny will drop we are not a football club anymore.

With our money grabbing board the penny wouldnt even hit the floor b4 it was in the bank

North-Bank-1987
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: Blk 6 row3 - @Arsenaljav

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by North-Bank-1987 »

DB10_TH14 wrote:
North-Bank-1987 wrote:From an economic perspective, would it not have made sense to keep him until his contract ran out?

I think so, the fact that we are half way through the season and (let alone a title challenge) 4th is by no means safe, so broadcasting money is at risk of being reduced, We're in the last 16 of the cl. What did chelsea get in prize money for winning it? in excess of £45m?

Economics aside, If the board turned around and said, "your not going anywhere", surely that would of eased tensions with us, the fanbase. Tensions which are now a risk of spiralling out of control. It's all hindsight but you never know we might have got silverware this year, enough to change his mind and take a pay-cut? We will never know.

Should they not have just taken the kick in the bollocks and said fcuk it your staying?
they should of kept him obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing but after the window is was glaringly obvious where we was going to struggle, with van persie being here you would have thought things would be a whole lot better now but then again would we have giroud here if they where keeping van persie?!?! their would have been the whole sideshow once we got to january etc etc, though if theo doesnt sign and his contract is run down then i think its ludicrous why you they wouldnt have kept van persie. at the end of the day their was no way the board was saying no to £24m with someone in the last 12 months of his contract
Struggling to understand what your saying here mate, but why do you think its ludacrous If Walnuts 6 months is run down and we were to of kept judas?.... It's the same thing. :? :? :?

User avatar
QuartzGooner
Posts: 14474
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
Location: London

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by QuartzGooner »

No.
I do not think the board regret getting £22-24M for Van Persie with a year left on his contract.

I think they should have paid him what he was worth and kept him.

Yes.
I think the board will have seriously messed up if Walcott goes on a free, he should either have been sold for good money 18 months before his deal was up, or been compelled to sign a new deal.
The club should never have been in this situation again after Flamini left for free.

I think the board should pay Theo what he is worth and keep him.

User avatar
DB10_TH14
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by DB10_TH14 »

North-Bank-1987 wrote:
DB10_TH14 wrote:
North-Bank-1987 wrote:From an economic perspective, would it not have made sense to keep him until his contract ran out?

I think so, the fact that we are half way through the season and (let alone a title challenge) 4th is by no means safe, so broadcasting money is at risk of being reduced, We're in the last 16 of the cl. What did chelsea get in prize money for winning it? in excess of £45m?

Economics aside, If the board turned around and said, "your not going anywhere", surely that would of eased tensions with us, the fanbase. Tensions which are now a risk of spiralling out of control. It's all hindsight but you never know we might have got silverware this year, enough to change his mind and take a pay-cut? We will never know.

Should they not have just taken the kick in the bollocks and said fcuk it your staying?
they should of kept him obviously hindsight is a wonderful thing but after the window is was glaringly obvious where we was going to struggle, with van persie being here you would have thought things would be a whole lot better now but then again would we have giroud here if they where keeping van persie?!?! their would have been the whole sideshow once we got to january etc etc, though if theo doesnt sign and his contract is run down then i think its ludicrous why you they wouldnt have kept van persie. at the end of the day their was no way the board was saying no to £24m with someone in the last 12 months of his contract
Struggling to understand what your saying here mate, but why do you think its ludacrous If Walnuts 6 months is run down and we were to of kept judas?.... It's the same thing. :? :? :?
reading over it i aint making much sense :oops: :oops: it would have been a disaster allowing 2 players running down their contract but with hindsight if walcott gets sold in january then i would have much preferred us to sell walcott in the summer and take our chances with van persie. the more i think about it the more it makes little sense to me. obviously they thought theo signing was probably a done deal but boy arsenal and contracts are just fucked up

North-Bank-1987
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: Blk 6 row3 - @Arsenaljav

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by North-Bank-1987 »

[quote="DB10_TH14reading over it i aint making much sense :oops: :oops: it would have been a disaster allowing 2 players running down their contract but with hindsight if walcott gets sold in january then i would have much preferred us to sell walcott in the summer and take our chances with van persie. the more i think about it the more it makes little sense to me. obviously they thought theo signing was probably a done deal but boy arsenal and contracts are just fucked up[/quote]

My thoughts exactly, think they had binkers on worrying about cashing in on that dutch one, and thought "we'll be alright with wally, he'll sign."

The fact is if the 5th highest paid football manager in the world spent our wage budget properly we would not continually do this to ourselves. :banghead:

User avatar
DB10_TH14
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by DB10_TH14 »

North-Bank-1987 wrote:[quote="DB10_TH14reading over it i aint making much sense :oops: :oops: it would have been a disaster allowing 2 players running down their contract but with hindsight if walcott gets sold in january then i would have much preferred us to sell walcott in the summer and take our chances with van persie. the more i think about it the more it makes little sense to me. obviously they thought theo signing was probably a done deal but boy arsenal and contracts are just fucked up
My thoughts exactly, think they had binkers on worrying about cashing in on that dutch one, and thought "we'll be alright with wally, he'll sign."

The fact is if the 5th highest paid football manager in the world spent our wage budget properly we would not continually do this to ourselves. :banghead:[/quote]

not only spending the budget but the logistics on how we do business no longer makes sense they'll give rosicky 2 years on par with diaby as the biggest sicknote at the club yet only want to give sagna 1 year :banghead: :banghead: it baffles the mind completely. the board and the manager have lost their fuckin marbles. not only do we lose our best players we fail to properly replace them :cussing: :cussing:

supergeorgegraham
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by supergeorgegraham »

North-Bank-1987 wrote:From an economic perspective, would it not have made sense to keep him until his contract ran out?

I think so, the fact that we are half way through the season and (let alone a title challenge) 4th is by no means safe, so broadcasting money is at risk of being reduced, We're in the last 16 of the cl. What did chelsea get in prize money for winning it? in excess of £45m?

Economics aside, If the board turned around and said, "your not going anywhere", surely that would of eased tensions with us, the fanbase. Tensions which are now a risk of spiralling out of control. It's all hindsight but you never know we might have got silverware this year, enough to change his mind and take a pay-cut? We will never know.

Should they not have just taken the kick in the bollocks and said fcuk it your staying?

You are talking about the board who have no idea how to run the club anyhow.

Its Up 4 Grabs Now
Posts: 4701
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:08 pm

Re: Are the board regreting not letting judas go on a bosman

Post by Its Up 4 Grabs Now »

DB10_TH14 wrote:reading over it i aint making much sense :oops: :oops: it would have been a disaster allowing 2 players running down their contract but with hindsight if walcott gets sold in january then i would have much preferred us to sell walcott in the summer and take our chances with van persie. the more i think about it the more it makes little sense to me. obviously they thought theo signing was probably a done deal but boy arsenal and contracts are just fucked up
Makes sense to me, in theory at least. We could have feasibly got £15m or so for Walcott in the summer imo, possibly even more. As ridiculous as that may sound at first, when you take into account the standard English premium plus Walcott's profile (deserved or otherwise) it's not that fanciful, especially with City reportedly interested before they signed Sinclair to sit on Adam Johnson's wet spot on the bench. So the club was prepared to risk having to write off around £15m by keeping Theo into his final year, but not the £22m guaranteed we got for Van Cumbucket.

"Only" £7m or so difference between doing it the other way round (keeping Van Urinalmint and flogging Walcott) whereas the difference between the two in quality and footballing value is much greater. United have probably recouped a huge amount of what they paid for Van Jamrag already in terms of extra shirt sales out east, exploiting his image rights etc. Or even just in terms of their "Brand Equity" as Gazidis would no doubt put it.

As you say, the club probably thought there was much more chance of Walcott signing a new deal than Van Escariot but probably more important (to them) is the fact Walcott would/will retain a long-term resale value if he stays whereas Van Helmet wouldn't.

But of course, he was only sold for footballing reasons. :barscarf:

Post Reply