When he was on loan with us, he ended up going back to Arsenal early as he wanted more game time, the problem was we were no where near as effective as a unit when he played in place of Bamford, because he just didn't fit the system where the man upfront has to run the channels, press the back line for 90 mins and hold the ball up, he's a poacher and a luxury IMO. I remember some fans just couldn't understand this when it was explained to them.

Our win ratio with Bamford as the lone striker is far greater than without, most teams only play with a loan striker now, so I don't really know where that would leave him in terms of top teams really fitting him in.

comment by Wetherby White (U6810)
posted 20 seconds ago
When he was on loan with us, he ended up going back to Arsenal early as he wanted more game time, the problem was we were no where near as effective as a unit when he played in place of Bamford, because he just didn't fit the system where the man upfront has to run the channels, press the back line for 90 mins and hold the ball up, he's a poacher and a luxury IMO. I remember some fans just couldn't understand this when it was explained to them.

Our win ratio with Bamford as the lone striker is far greater than without, most teams only play with a loan striker now, so I don't really know where that would leave him in terms of top teams really fitting him in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He wouldn't fit in, I terms of being in a top team.
He is nowhere near good enough to be a 'luxury' player in our team. He's way too lazy for an arteta system

Thought he looked OK vs Spurs, one of a few who looked to do something but ultimately was still kept very quiet.

That's fine, he's still young but 100k a week Insane!

Bit like your Arteta contract, your owners seem to blow their load a bit early

I don't think even Diaz is on that much.

He's like Ian Wright, only not as good. As such he won't suit the way most teams play these days.

I read somewhere that Lacazette was on about £180k a week, and Pepe about £140k

These put 100k for Nketiah into perspective but Arsenal wages are just bonkers

We would have been a bit smarter if we had sold him and put the money towards a quality striker,he will only ever be a squad player at Arsenal.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
I read somewhere that Lacazette was on about £180k a week, and Pepe about £140k

These put 100k for Nketiah into perspective but Arsenal wages are just bonkers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's insane.

From what I can gather Nketiah rejected a number of previous offers, and the £100k salary was AFC's final offer. Whether it represents good business remains to be seen.

However it's worth noting he kept Laca out of the starting XI for the run in, and the fact he's (assuming contract is signed) assured AFC will be able to command a transfer fee for him should things not work out.

For me, he's purely a tap in merchant and being a poacher will only carry you so far.

comment by Shaun M - Everywhere you go, always take Raphi... (U9955)
posted 2 minutes ago
For me, he's purely a tap in merchant and being a poacher will only carry you so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trebles and multiple titles in the case of Andrew Cole.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Shaun M - Everywhere you go, always take Raphi... (U9955)
posted 2 minutes ago
For me, he's purely a tap in merchant and being a poacher will only carry you so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trebles and multiple titles in the case of Andrew Cole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


How a forward puts the ball into the net is largely redundant, as long as they can do so on a regular basis. Look at Lineker.

comment by Shaun M - Everywhere you go, always take Raphinha with you! (U9955)
posted 8 minutes ago
For me, he's purely a tap in merchant and being a poacher will only carry you so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruud Van N springs to mind too

I'm surprised at how well he's done but that only demonstrates my low expectations. It doesn't change the fact that he isn't good enough.

We did well to almost get CL football with him as our main or 2nd choice forward but it's not something I'd expect us to repeat without signing a better striker.

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Shaun M - Everywhere you go, always take Raphi... (U9955)
posted 2 minutes ago
For me, he's purely a tap in merchant and being a poacher will only carry you so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trebles and multiple titles in the case of Andrew Cole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


How a forward puts the ball into the net is largely redundant, as long as they can do so on a regular basis. Look at Lineker.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely, not a bad thing, but in modern day football, teams will want a bit more and a bit of everything in some cases.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Shaun M - Everywhere you go, always take Raphi... (U9955)
posted 2 minutes ago
For me, he's purely a tap in merchant and being a poacher will only carry you so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trebles and multiple titles in the case of Andrew Cole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Game has changed, 442 isn't a common tactic anymore when Cole was a player.

Eddie demonstrated quite a bit more in these final games than just being a tap in merchant. His link is play is pretty basic but he showed some nice vision at times. I don't mind resigning him on the basis that it means we can focus on getting one centre forward and then possibly another wide player. I've heard 90 or 100k which is way too much though. It should be closer to something like 65-70.

He's not lazy either, he just doesn't run around pressing like a headless chicken and wasting his energy. He is very good at coasting round the pitch and picking the right moments to press on a defender or goal keeper and the fact he can turn that into goals is a very good attribute.

Personally I'd prefer to have bought two strikers superior to Nketiah but if signing him on allows us to focus on getting a decent centre forward who can join knowing Nketiah is already here rather than signing and then wondering who the other striker might be and whether they'd be number 1 then it could allow us to get a deal done quickly.

great article. eddie is trash

Eddie has improved his all round game, his link play, dribbling and pressing have all improved under arteta. If we had introduced him for laca earlier, I reckon we make top 4.

100k pw is fooking mental though

Is it £90k a week with no signing on bonus? Which is reasonable.

We turned down £15-£20m from West Ham/Crystal Palace to keep him and give him £90k a week. He was on pay as you go now he's on a contract

These put 100k for Nketiah into perspective but Arsenal wages are just bonkers
-------------
Previously yes Arsenal wages were absolutely shocking but no literally 80% of the big earners are gone. With Laca 180k per week and potentially Pepe going as well the highest would be Partey.

compared to 350k Ozil was getting and Auba at 250k we are in a very good place.

Eddie wages is upto 100k so im assuming its loaded with goal bonuses so if he put the ball in the back of the net he's worth the 100k.

comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 7 hours, 19 minutes ago
Is it £90k a week with no signing on bonus? Which is reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes its 80-90k but obviously the media with the 100k per week figure gets more clicks and anger with the fans. (I would have said 60-80k would have been right but he has us with our pants down)

comment by BO$$™ (U6401)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 7 hours, 19 minutes ago
Is it £90k a week with no signing on bonus? Which is reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes its 80-90k but obviously the media with the 100k per week figure gets more clicks and anger with the fans. (I would have said 60-80k would have been right but he has us with our pants down)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether its 80k or 100k that is a hell of a lot for some kid who had an ok spell at the end of the season but prior to that has been pretty rubbish. Not even a full international.

If you compare to someone like Origi, he's on something like 60K and that's more the mark for thios level and age of player.

£80k to £100k is pretty desperate and is probably more than any one at Spurs bar LLoris, Kane, Son, Højbjerg.

*it's ffs, both of you