Ricky1985 wrote:
jones wrote:
He'd cost not even half of what Buendia cost at 20m. There are better players to get but I reckon he'd be better business than Maddison at 70m or Buendia for that matter.
This is where I have a problem with caring about the money spent over the quality of player. No one here or anywhere except a handful of Arsenal employees knows how much money the club has to spend, so at this point why care whether we spend £20m or £70m, if one player is three levels above the other? I want the better player!
Who knows if we'd even be able to find a top player in another position to spend the money we were presumably saving our money for?
We don't need to know the exact amount we have available but we can be pretty sure about it being a finite number. Plus at some point and the rate we're going we will come close to violating FFP or FA ratios and thresholds
We used to be the best in England at getting bang for buck, for clubs like us without a sugar daddy (even though it sure as shit doesn't feel that way these days) it'll always have to be something to consider. I don't mind spending big if it means getting someone like Haaland or Mbappe. I didn't mind spending big on Pepe because he looked like one of the best wingers in Europe and didn't mind buying Partey for 50m for obvious reasons. I do mind spending 50m on White because we have more pressing needs and I do mind spending 70m on Maddison with his injury record. 20m is an error you can rectify easily, just double that becomes a serious issue as evident in the Xhaka mess as I'm sure we'd have let him go to Roma if he had cost just 20m.
