Trying to have a decent discussion about Wenger with someone called Wengersbodyguard, good luck .
Also March
Your argument is about the team justification of keeping/getting rid. So why does your article say his contract extension is undeserved? Undeserved suggests that somehow Giroud hasn't earned the right to be offered an extension. Last time I checked, he's played quite well and worked quite hard for Arsenal FC. Ok so he hasn't scored 25-30 a season but how many strikers actually do in the EPL? Hardly any. Giroud's performances have hardly been 2 years of dire that don't warrant keeping him. He deserves to be offered another contract without doubt. You can debate whether we should have offered it yes, but saying he doesn't deserve it is a slap in the face to a man that's worked hard for us. And yet another example of how spoilt and ungrateful our fans are. Can't even acknowledge a players service to the club because he's not a superstar big signing.
Trying to have a decent discussion about Wenger with someone called Wengersbodyguard, good luck
We're discussing Giroud and Arteta actually or did you not read the article title
Yes and another pet hate moan of Wenger haters is lack of tactical options. Having 3 strikers at the club would give us the option of also playing systems that incorporate 2 upfront. Who says we have to play with one lone striker all the time
Wow to all of your comments. In my view Wenger intend to play with various options upfront. Unfortunately Giroud got injured. That is my view.
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
march, your assumption is wrong. Wenger never intented to buy another striker.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never suggested that. In fact I posted reasons for the opposite, I.e. why the purchase of another striker would be incompatible with us keeping Giroud.
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Trying to have a decent discussion about Wenger with someone called Wengersbodyguard, good luck
We're discussing Giroud and Arteta actually or did you not read the article title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That Godleebarnes isn't the sharpest tool in the box unfortunately
Would agree there GT. Sanchez being bought gives us the option of playing him or Theo centrally and still maintaining pace on the wings. I believe that AW's ultimate intention was/is to play Giroud and Walcott or sanchez alongside. Sort of 4-5-1 defending, switching at pace to a 4-4-2 diamond when attacking. With Walcott and Sanchez in the side, the pace is there to execute, as long as everyone knows thier role.
I'm not so sure that we wouldn't still have bought Welbeck though. I know AW said he wasn't going to but when he said that Utd were firmly stating they'd not sell to us anyway. He's always liked Welbeck so I think he'd have got him anyway regardless. Especially once Wenger got wind we were his preferred choice.
I never suggested that. In fact I posted reasons for the opposite, I.e. why the purchase of another striker would be incompatible with us keeping Giroud.
-------------------------
Problem with your argument though March is that if we can't afford a 50 mil striker without selling Giroud or Welbeck. Then in truth we can't actually afford a 50 mil striker. We already have a thread bare squad. If we'd have to trim it down more to accomodate a Suarez or Costa then we don't really have the money in the first place.
Basically, if you haven't got 100million to spend, you can't really AFFORD players that are 50 million. There's a whole team to run remember and unlike before, it's not really a team of overpaid kids. We've cut most of the dross. Nearly all our star players could get paid more elsewhere.
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 11 minutes ago
Would agree there GT. Sanchez being bought gives us the option of playing him or Theo centrally and still maintaining pace on the wings. I believe that AW's ultimate intention was/is to play Giroud and Walcott or sanchez alongside. Sort of 4-5-1 defending, switching at pace to a 4-4-2 diamond when attacking. With Walcott and Sanchez in the side, the pace is there to execute, as long as everyone knows thier role.
I'm not so sure that we wouldn't still have bought Welbeck though. I know AW said he wasn't going to but when he said that Utd were firmly stating they'd not sell to us anyway. He's always liked Welbeck so I think he'd have got him anyway regardless. Especially once Wenger got wind we were his preferred choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed mate. He wouldnt have signed Welbeck if OG didnt get injured. That is crystal clear for me.
Basically, if you haven't got 100million to spend, you can't really AFFORD players that are 50 million.
---------------------------
What?
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
--------------
Yes and another pet hate moan of Wenger haters is lack of tactical options. Having 3 strikers at the club would give us the option of also playing systems that incorporate 2 upfront. Who says we have to play with one lone striker all the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument about us possibly playing with 2 up front keeps popping up but I personally see little evidence for Wenger having such an intention. Wenger's own actions refute your claim. If there was any such intention, he has had ample opportunities to try this approach, but alas, he has hardly ever done so.
Podolski has played the majority of his career as a withdrawn striker. Theo claims he wants to play up front. Alexis played a lot in a 352 system while at Udinese. If Wenger wanted 2 strikers, he could easily have have played Giroud with Pod/Walcott/Alexis. he has the strikers to play 2 up front already, and does not even need another - and yet he still keeps playing 1 up front.
So I must wonder why you persist in repeating that mantra about 2 up front.
Not to mention that our central and wide midfield players are totally unsuitable for a system with a 4 man midfield.
Nearly all our star players could get paid more elsewhere.
--------------------------
Nope. As our ballooning wage bill shows.
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 16 minutes ago
I never suggested that. In fact I posted reasons for the opposite, I.e. why the purchase of another striker would be incompatible with us keeping Giroud.
-------------------------
Problem with your argument though March is that if we can't afford a 50 mil striker without selling Giroud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's what I've suggested from the beginning, sell Giroud and buy 'a Cavani'.
Basically, if you haven't got 100million to spend, you can't really AFFORD players that are 50 million.
---------------------------
What?
-----------------------------
He's arguing that we can't afford Giroud AND someone better than him. Apparently, we can't afford to have both. So my argument is that if we can't afford the luxury of Giroud and 50 mil man, then we don't GENUINELY have enough money to be buying 50mil man.
Think of it like sports cars. Having enough money to buy one and having enough money to own, keep and permenantly run one are two very different things. If you can TRULY afford a Ferrari then you're someone who can afford a BMW as well. Because you have enough money that buying your Ferrari still leaves you more than enough money to keep your Beamer.
Ergo, if we can't afford to buy 50 mil man and keep Giroud then we don't really have enough money for 50mil man in the first place. He'll be breaking the bank and that's not the object of the game. We haven't spent 10 years being money smart to start risking bankruptcy on one star player now.
Get what I mean?
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 42 seconds ago
Nearly all our star players could get paid more elsewhere.
--------------------------
Nope. As our ballooning wage bill shows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Pod on 100k, can't get rid because of that. Giroud on 80 now. Arteta on how much, 60? Who else is going to pay him that?
We have a lot of room to vacate as regards wage budget.
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 16 minutes ago
I never suggested that. In fact I posted reasons for the opposite, I.e. why the purchase of another striker would be incompatible with us keeping Giroud.
-------------------------
Problem with your argument though March is that if we can't afford a 50 mil striker without selling Giroud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's what I've suggested from the beginning, sell Giroud and buy 'a Cavani'.
If we'd HAVE to sell Giroud to be able to do it, then we cannot really AFFORD to buy Cavani. Yes we can physically raise the cash for the transaction but we don't really have it to spank on one player.
I said star players. Ramsey, Wilshere, Walcott, Kos. Ok so Jack's off form but all of them could get more money elsewhere. Theo could certainly have gotten more than 100k if he'd left us last time round.
I think everyone's forgetting that our direct competitors are all offering higher wages than us. Double in some cases. They've just pulled clever accounting stunts like loaning Lampard to make the official figures they publish, work for the FFP ruling.
Get what I mean?
----------------------
Not really because buying players these days also depends on many other factors than fee.
March is correct. FFP and squad limits mean that unbalanced squads are biggest issue in constructing trophy winning teams.
Simply put if Wenger now sees Welbeck, Walcott, Alexis and even Sanogo as keepers and starting higher than Giroud. I much rather pay £80k a week to a top center back.
Now if I want to buy a striker who is starting ahead of Welbeck, Alexis or Walcott, such as a Cavani why would I keep Giroud?
Stuffing the squad with players who add little because they will not see playing time and then tying up wages on those is seriously badly judged. Wenger has never been able to construct a squad without David Dein and this only proves it further.
Now obviously a new contract does not mean we can't sell the player and I will come on here to congratulate Wenger if he is able to get a commanding fee for him at the end of the season. £80k a week, below his £100k reported demands suggests that is possible. Though I think Wenger is awful at judging the market these days.
Arteta makes no sense whatsoever.
I think everyone's forgetting that our direct competitors are all offering higher wages than us. Double in some cases.
-------------------
Nope. Chelsea, who will finish higher than also pay less than us over all.
Shows that the squad is poorly constructed compared to our closest genuine competitor, geographically and literally.
Why are we paying £80k to Giroud when we could pay £40k a week extra to Walcott and Ramsey who could get more elsewhere?
Do you actually watch Cavani?
"Stuffing the squad with players who add little..."
Who do you mean with that?
Some really need to get real? Can we really pay the wages of the likes of Falcao, Cavani or on the other hand are these player available? This is not a FIFA game on your computer.
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 2 minutes ago
"Stuffing the squad with players who add little..."
Who do you mean with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See my post above for example.
Arteta on 60k not good enough to start but does.
Pod on 100k not worth it
Flamini on how much? 40?
Diaby 60k - when is he ever fit? I've no confidence in him returning to acceptable fitness levels.
Giroud 80k - need someone better
Something like that
Nope. Chelsea, who will finish higher than also pay less than us over all.
Shows that the squad is poorly constructed compared to our closest genuine competitor, geographically and literally.
Why are we paying £80k to Giroud when we could pay £40k a week extra to Walcott and Ramsey who could get more elsewhere?
---------------------
Because we need to have strikers as well. Who plays up front when you give Giroud's 80 to Theo and Aaron instead?
comment by march_2k (U10336)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 2 minutes ago
"Stuffing the squad with players who add little..."
Who do you mean with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See my post above for example.
Arteta on 60k not good enough to start but does.
Pod on 100k not worth it
Flamini on how much? 40?
Diaby 60k - when is he ever fit? I've no confidence in him returning to acceptable fitness levels.
Giroud 80k - need someone better
Something like that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Giroud is our top scorer though but respect that you cant stand him. Only an opinion.
Sign in if you want to comment
New contracts for Giroud and Arteta
Page 2 of 4
posted on 30/9/14
Trying to have a decent discussion about Wenger with someone called Wengersbodyguard, good luck .
posted on 30/9/14
Also March
Your argument is about the team justification of keeping/getting rid. So why does your article say his contract extension is undeserved? Undeserved suggests that somehow Giroud hasn't earned the right to be offered an extension. Last time I checked, he's played quite well and worked quite hard for Arsenal FC. Ok so he hasn't scored 25-30 a season but how many strikers actually do in the EPL? Hardly any. Giroud's performances have hardly been 2 years of dire that don't warrant keeping him. He deserves to be offered another contract without doubt. You can debate whether we should have offered it yes, but saying he doesn't deserve it is a slap in the face to a man that's worked hard for us. And yet another example of how spoilt and ungrateful our fans are. Can't even acknowledge a players service to the club because he's not a superstar big signing.
posted on 30/9/14
Trying to have a decent discussion about Wenger with someone called Wengersbodyguard, good luck
We're discussing Giroud and Arteta actually or did you not read the article title
posted on 30/9/14
Yes and another pet hate moan of Wenger haters is lack of tactical options. Having 3 strikers at the club would give us the option of also playing systems that incorporate 2 upfront. Who says we have to play with one lone striker all the time
Wow to all of your comments. In my view Wenger intend to play with various options upfront. Unfortunately Giroud got injured. That is my view.
posted on 30/9/14
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
march, your assumption is wrong. Wenger never intented to buy another striker.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never suggested that. In fact I posted reasons for the opposite, I.e. why the purchase of another striker would be incompatible with us keeping Giroud.
posted on 30/9/14
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Trying to have a decent discussion about Wenger with someone called Wengersbodyguard, good luck
We're discussing Giroud and Arteta actually or did you not read the article title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That Godleebarnes isn't the sharpest tool in the box unfortunately
posted on 30/9/14
Would agree there GT. Sanchez being bought gives us the option of playing him or Theo centrally and still maintaining pace on the wings. I believe that AW's ultimate intention was/is to play Giroud and Walcott or sanchez alongside. Sort of 4-5-1 defending, switching at pace to a 4-4-2 diamond when attacking. With Walcott and Sanchez in the side, the pace is there to execute, as long as everyone knows thier role.
I'm not so sure that we wouldn't still have bought Welbeck though. I know AW said he wasn't going to but when he said that Utd were firmly stating they'd not sell to us anyway. He's always liked Welbeck so I think he'd have got him anyway regardless. Especially once Wenger got wind we were his preferred choice.
posted on 30/9/14
I never suggested that. In fact I posted reasons for the opposite, I.e. why the purchase of another striker would be incompatible with us keeping Giroud.
-------------------------
Problem with your argument though March is that if we can't afford a 50 mil striker without selling Giroud or Welbeck. Then in truth we can't actually afford a 50 mil striker. We already have a thread bare squad. If we'd have to trim it down more to accomodate a Suarez or Costa then we don't really have the money in the first place.
Basically, if you haven't got 100million to spend, you can't really AFFORD players that are 50 million. There's a whole team to run remember and unlike before, it's not really a team of overpaid kids. We've cut most of the dross. Nearly all our star players could get paid more elsewhere.
posted on 30/9/14
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 11 minutes ago
Would agree there GT. Sanchez being bought gives us the option of playing him or Theo centrally and still maintaining pace on the wings. I believe that AW's ultimate intention was/is to play Giroud and Walcott or sanchez alongside. Sort of 4-5-1 defending, switching at pace to a 4-4-2 diamond when attacking. With Walcott and Sanchez in the side, the pace is there to execute, as long as everyone knows thier role.
I'm not so sure that we wouldn't still have bought Welbeck though. I know AW said he wasn't going to but when he said that Utd were firmly stating they'd not sell to us anyway. He's always liked Welbeck so I think he'd have got him anyway regardless. Especially once Wenger got wind we were his preferred choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed mate. He wouldnt have signed Welbeck if OG didnt get injured. That is crystal clear for me.
posted on 30/9/14
Basically, if you haven't got 100million to spend, you can't really AFFORD players that are 50 million.
---------------------------
What?
posted on 30/9/14
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
--------------
Yes and another pet hate moan of Wenger haters is lack of tactical options. Having 3 strikers at the club would give us the option of also playing systems that incorporate 2 upfront. Who says we have to play with one lone striker all the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument about us possibly playing with 2 up front keeps popping up but I personally see little evidence for Wenger having such an intention. Wenger's own actions refute your claim. If there was any such intention, he has had ample opportunities to try this approach, but alas, he has hardly ever done so.
Podolski has played the majority of his career as a withdrawn striker. Theo claims he wants to play up front. Alexis played a lot in a 352 system while at Udinese. If Wenger wanted 2 strikers, he could easily have have played Giroud with Pod/Walcott/Alexis. he has the strikers to play 2 up front already, and does not even need another - and yet he still keeps playing 1 up front.
So I must wonder why you persist in repeating that mantra about 2 up front.
Not to mention that our central and wide midfield players are totally unsuitable for a system with a 4 man midfield.
posted on 30/9/14
Nearly all our star players could get paid more elsewhere.
--------------------------
Nope. As our ballooning wage bill shows.
posted on 30/9/14
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 16 minutes ago
I never suggested that. In fact I posted reasons for the opposite, I.e. why the purchase of another striker would be incompatible with us keeping Giroud.
-------------------------
Problem with your argument though March is that if we can't afford a 50 mil striker without selling Giroud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's what I've suggested from the beginning, sell Giroud and buy 'a Cavani'.
posted on 30/9/14
Basically, if you haven't got 100million to spend, you can't really AFFORD players that are 50 million.
---------------------------
What?
-----------------------------
He's arguing that we can't afford Giroud AND someone better than him. Apparently, we can't afford to have both. So my argument is that if we can't afford the luxury of Giroud and 50 mil man, then we don't GENUINELY have enough money to be buying 50mil man.
Think of it like sports cars. Having enough money to buy one and having enough money to own, keep and permenantly run one are two very different things. If you can TRULY afford a Ferrari then you're someone who can afford a BMW as well. Because you have enough money that buying your Ferrari still leaves you more than enough money to keep your Beamer.
Ergo, if we can't afford to buy 50 mil man and keep Giroud then we don't really have enough money for 50mil man in the first place. He'll be breaking the bank and that's not the object of the game. We haven't spent 10 years being money smart to start risking bankruptcy on one star player now.
Get what I mean?
posted on 30/9/14
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 42 seconds ago
Nearly all our star players could get paid more elsewhere.
--------------------------
Nope. As our ballooning wage bill shows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Pod on 100k, can't get rid because of that. Giroud on 80 now. Arteta on how much, 60? Who else is going to pay him that?
We have a lot of room to vacate as regards wage budget.
posted on 30/9/14
comment by WengersBodyguard2 (U8276)
posted 16 minutes ago
I never suggested that. In fact I posted reasons for the opposite, I.e. why the purchase of another striker would be incompatible with us keeping Giroud.
-------------------------
Problem with your argument though March is that if we can't afford a 50 mil striker without selling Giroud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's what I've suggested from the beginning, sell Giroud and buy 'a Cavani'.
If we'd HAVE to sell Giroud to be able to do it, then we cannot really AFFORD to buy Cavani. Yes we can physically raise the cash for the transaction but we don't really have it to spank on one player.
posted on 30/9/14
I said star players. Ramsey, Wilshere, Walcott, Kos. Ok so Jack's off form but all of them could get more money elsewhere. Theo could certainly have gotten more than 100k if he'd left us last time round.
I think everyone's forgetting that our direct competitors are all offering higher wages than us. Double in some cases. They've just pulled clever accounting stunts like loaning Lampard to make the official figures they publish, work for the FFP ruling.
posted on 30/9/14
Get what I mean?
----------------------
Not really because buying players these days also depends on many other factors than fee.
March is correct. FFP and squad limits mean that unbalanced squads are biggest issue in constructing trophy winning teams.
Simply put if Wenger now sees Welbeck, Walcott, Alexis and even Sanogo as keepers and starting higher than Giroud. I much rather pay £80k a week to a top center back.
Now if I want to buy a striker who is starting ahead of Welbeck, Alexis or Walcott, such as a Cavani why would I keep Giroud?
Stuffing the squad with players who add little because they will not see playing time and then tying up wages on those is seriously badly judged. Wenger has never been able to construct a squad without David Dein and this only proves it further.
Now obviously a new contract does not mean we can't sell the player and I will come on here to congratulate Wenger if he is able to get a commanding fee for him at the end of the season. £80k a week, below his £100k reported demands suggests that is possible. Though I think Wenger is awful at judging the market these days.
Arteta makes no sense whatsoever.
posted on 30/9/14
I think everyone's forgetting that our direct competitors are all offering higher wages than us. Double in some cases.
-------------------
Nope. Chelsea, who will finish higher than also pay less than us over all.
Shows that the squad is poorly constructed compared to our closest genuine competitor, geographically and literally.
Why are we paying £80k to Giroud when we could pay £40k a week extra to Walcott and Ramsey who could get more elsewhere?
posted on 30/9/14
Do you actually watch Cavani?
posted on 30/9/14
"Stuffing the squad with players who add little..."
Who do you mean with that?
posted on 30/9/14
Some really need to get real? Can we really pay the wages of the likes of Falcao, Cavani or on the other hand are these player available? This is not a FIFA game on your computer.
posted on 30/9/14
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 2 minutes ago
"Stuffing the squad with players who add little..."
Who do you mean with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See my post above for example.
Arteta on 60k not good enough to start but does.
Pod on 100k not worth it
Flamini on how much? 40?
Diaby 60k - when is he ever fit? I've no confidence in him returning to acceptable fitness levels.
Giroud 80k - need someone better
Something like that
posted on 30/9/14
Nope. Chelsea, who will finish higher than also pay less than us over all.
Shows that the squad is poorly constructed compared to our closest genuine competitor, geographically and literally.
Why are we paying £80k to Giroud when we could pay £40k a week extra to Walcott and Ramsey who could get more elsewhere?
---------------------
Because we need to have strikers as well. Who plays up front when you give Giroud's 80 to Theo and Aaron instead?
posted on 30/9/14
comment by march_2k (U10336)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 2 minutes ago
"Stuffing the squad with players who add little..."
Who do you mean with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See my post above for example.
Arteta on 60k not good enough to start but does.
Pod on 100k not worth it
Flamini on how much? 40?
Diaby 60k - when is he ever fit? I've no confidence in him returning to acceptable fitness levels.
Giroud 80k - need someone better
Something like that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Giroud is our top scorer though but respect that you cant stand him. Only an opinion.
Page 2 of 4