Ozil contract talks: Page 32 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Ozil contract talks

Anzac

speedy wrote:
Everyone "taps up" its standard, otherwise you've have to agree a fee for the player before you ask if he's interested in a move. You could spend half a window negotiating a fee.

No you don't - you only need to establish that the club is prepared to sell & then you ask permission to talk to the player.
AW looks to agree terms with the player and leave the transfer fee to the last act, as he wants to be sure the player will put pen to paper.

Sometimes AW will 'enquire' and there may be a ball park figure established between the 2 clubs before you talk to the player - this is what happened when we tried to sign Higuaín & then RM upped the price once Cavani was sold and Napoli had money burning a hole in their pocket.

It's also another reason why AW says he will never look to sign a player unless their club says they are willing to listen, unless there is a release clause in play = it's why he walked away without making an offer for Martial. When he was asked after he was sold to ManU AW said he had enquired and been told the player was not for sale.

Anzac

http://www.espnfc.com/blog/transfer-talk/79/post/3095566/arsenal-ready-to-snub-chelsea-wind-down-alexis-sanchez-contract

Jed

A summer where Sanchez leaves for Chelsea and Wenger staying on for another 2 years.

Those two events would confirm that this club is finished. In Chelsea and Tottenham's shadows for the next decade potentially.

Bring Back Kerrea Gilbert

Burn the whole club down if this shit happens! If he refuses to renew with us, and then leaves on a free to Chelsea, fine, because that would be out of our hands. But to LET this happen now?

Anzac

Didn't we hear the same sort of BS prior to RVP being sold to ManU?

BWoolley

Most likely outcome I think.

speedy

Anzac wrote:
speedy wrote:
Everyone "taps up" its standard, otherwise you've have to agree a fee for the player before you ask if he's interested in a move. You could spend half a window negotiating a fee.

No you don't - you only need to establish that the club is prepared to sell & then you ask permission to talk to the player.
AW looks to agree terms with the player and leave the transfer fee to the last act, as he wants to be sure the player will put pen to paper.

Sometimes AW will 'enquire' and there may be a ball park figure established between the 2 clubs before you talk to the player - this is what happened when we tried to sign Higuaín & then RM upped the price once Cavani was sold and Napoli had money burning a hole in their pocket.

It's also another reason why AW says he will never look to sign a player unless their club says they are willing to listen, unless there is a release clause in play = it's why he walked away without making an offer for Martial. When he was asked after he was sold to ManU AW said he had enquired and been told the player was not for sale.

Think about it a club is not going to give you permission to unsettle a player unless your very close on price and only trashing out the small details.

Clubs ring agents and the call lasts about 2 minutes and they say would player be interested playing in italy. . for inter . . . 60k ish. And the agent will say yes or he has offers in england for 100k so he's not prepared to go below that. After that the club will talk with the other club.

The other thing which isn't really mentioned is during negotiations the club often withdraw permission for the player to chat to the club as a tactic. So even after permission is granted it can just be taken back. Obviously they still chat they just can't sign anything like a pre contract then.

Clrnc

Qwiss! wrote:
If he goes to Chelsea and Wenger signs there's a good chance Kroenke, Chips and the rest of the boys will be beheaded by the fan base.

Should have happened when they let RVP go to United and then Wenger came out at the end of the season to say he knew United will win the league when they signed RVP.

Qwiss

Anzac wrote:
this is what happened when we tried to sign Higuaín & then RM upped the price once Cavani was sold and Napoli had money burning a hole in their pocket.

I hate reading this pathetic excuse for why we didn't get Higuain. We made and offer and then Real got a better offer but we are supposed to act like Real screwed us over? Napoli correctly realised he was worth more than we offered, they got 3 great seasons out of him and then sold him for a €50m profit. Wenger fucked up and undervalued a top class forward, its his modus operandi for the last 12 years.

goon

I always thought it was down to us making Suarez our first choice. Higuain was done and dusted long before that saga ended. That being said, you feel like a more competent team could have kept him hanging on.

Qwiss

Yeah it was because we went after Suarez once Napoli joined the race for Higuain. That whole saga typifies the ridiculous way we do business IMO. Higuain was there ready to sign for us but we pulled out to chase a player we thought we could get through a clause that we couldn't trigger whether it was there or not. We offered a weird bid with the extra £1 and then we didn't follow up despite signals from Liverpool that they'd sell for another £10m or so (a Torres like fee I believe they said).

Claudius

50 Cent has a song called Window Shopper, about cats who like to go look at expensive stuff they can't afford. Should've just stuck Wenger in the video. I doubt the mega agents even return our calls.

BWoolley

I doubt we even make those calls. Perfect Nash equillibrium.

Burnwinter

Although it would hurt like hell, if Sanchez is desperate to leave then get rid of him—even to Chelsea.

The most outrageous outgoing deals don't matter, all that matters is a relentlessly positive response from the club. Sanchez leaves? Then sign two bigger players than him.

That's where we fucked up on the RVP scenario and in many other situations, not in letting him leave.

It would be a mistake to tie Sanchez down to his contract. Let him go, get in a new manager, Sanchez's absence takes the pressure off the new guy a bit.

Anzac

The original financial structure for the stadium loans was that 30% of club revenues would be put aside each year to cover the loan payments, and that any revenue from player sales was meant to be re-invested into the football team. Instead we used the revenues to pay for infrastructure rather than players.

AW likes to encourage the myth about a need to sustain the club via player transactions, when we have reports of DD telling the scouting operation that we could sign a 20m player every season after the move as a result of the increased match day gate.
Further to this any club that can post pre-tax operational profits each year is not that broke, let alone that our Cash Reserves have grown to the biggest in the game, and we pay our manager amongst the highest salary in the game despite not winning a major title for more than a decade. The club cries poor but the reality is that things were not as they have been made to seem.

Daz

Burnwinter wrote:
Although it would hurt like hell, if Sanchez is desperate to leave then get rid of him—even to Chelsea.

The most outrageous outgoing deals don't matter, all that matters is a relentlessly positive response from the club. Sanchez leaves? Then sign two bigger players than him.

That's where we fucked up on the RVP scenario and in many other situations, not in letting him leave.

It would be a mistake to tie Sanchez down to his contract. Let him go, get in a new manager, Sanchez's absence takes the pressure off the new guy a bit.

Yeah but problem being if Wenger stays then we lose Sanchez and don't replace him with a player (let alone 2) of equal ability.

Claudius

This club is mismanaged, plain and simple. Anybody who runs a business knows a few things
1) you cannot produce future results without investing in assets (or players)
2) in any organisation, you need to secure a solid top team and a solid set of people who are expected to deliver the product. for both, it's less about the numbers, and more about the absolute quality of a small group of people

When you look at what we have done on player trading and building out the sporting structure, we have failed abysmally. Chelsea understand this, that's why they are top without an incredibly impressive team - they just have enough of the very best guys on the team in Costa, Hazard, Kante, Fabregas, Courtois, etc; and likewise in management with the Contes, Alessio, and Emenalo

Anzac

Claudius wrote:
This club is mismanaged, plain and simple. Anybody who runs a business knows a few things
1) you cannot produce future results without investing in assets (or players)
2) in any organisation, you need to secure a solid top team and a solid set of people who are expected to deliver the product. for both, it's less about the numbers, and more about the absolute quality of a small group of people

When you look at what we have done on player trading and building out the sporting structure, we have failed abysmally. Chelsea understand this, that's why they are top without an incredibly impressive team - they just have enough of the very best guys on the team in Costa, Hazard, Kante, Fabregas, Courtois, etc; and likewise in management with the Contes, Alessio, and Emenalo

You just need to look at the squads from the likes of ManU & CFC re their longevity and impact .
Allegri is the first manager at CFC to not have the Mourinho era core of JT, Drogba, Cech & Lampard.
AW himself used the same core from his 2nd Double, through The Invincibles and onto the CL Final.
Once you have that core then it's much easier to add 1 player into the mix each season without disruption.

I know I keep saying it but it's this internal development model ideology that's killed us since 2008-09.

goon

The core is a bit of a myth. In theory our core of Cech, Koscielny, Ozil and Sanchez is as good as anyone in this league. Barcelona's so called core is made up of it's front 3, everyone else, including the likes of Biscuits are replaceable. The key is getting the best out of your best players and we haven't been doing that for a long time.

The youth/development policy isn't an issue either, certainly not for a long time. The issues that arsie from that policy apply to seasoned pro's that Wenger buys and that's that when they don't look good enough he doesn't discard them quickly enough, if at all.

speedy

Anzac wrote:
The original financial structure for the stadium loans was that 30% of club revenues would be put aside each year to cover the loan payments, and that any revenue from player sales was meant to be re-invested into the football team. Instead we used the revenues to pay for infrastructure rather than players.

AW likes to encourage the myth about a need to sustain the club via player transactions, when we have reports of DD telling the scouting operation that we could sign a 20m player every season after the move as a result of the increased match day gate.
Further to this any club that can post pre-tax operational profits each year is not that broke, let alone that our Cash Reserves have grown to the biggest in the game, and we pay our manager amongst the highest salary in the game despite not winning a major title for more than a decade. The club cries poor but the reality is that things were not as they have been made to seem.

2 things hit us hard the property crash when we were selling of the apartments and investers buying city and chelsea.
It's like in france Lyon were the biggest but once monaco and psg had the mega money they just shoot above them. I don't think we can hold Wenger responsible for these factors.

Clubs started to hit the wall we saw porthmouth, rangers, valencia, malaga all start to crash and Wenger thought maybe save a bit and see if we can pick up some gret deals like cazorla. BT went int competition with sky and the tv money exploded so that plan didn't work. We can say Wenger got it wrong on that one. Excatly when those money issues stoped is opten to debabte but none us are certain.

We dont have those money issues now, but we dont have ManU money, City money or Chelsea money, self suffiency isn't a model it's our only option.
DD did say we would have 20M but that was before the property crash knocked the stuffing out of our plans. Reports later say We agreed a 7m deal for Di Maria but we couldnt get the funds together and the deal fell through. I think we HAD very real money issues.

Intrestingly Clicky had this to say today suggesting the structure is the problem. (wengers tatics are chunk of the problem no doubt but like pep the better the players the better the system works). It was the "hierarchy/structure" that should have gotten sanchez and Ozil to sign last season. Higgy deal done, suarez deal done ect. Sanchez- higgy-suarez with ozil in behind would shash this league to bits even with wenger tatics.

Clichy said of Wenger: “I’m not going to get into any detail but I do believe he is the right man. He has been the right man for so many years and I am listening to what people are saying. If the club is spending more money and they have the players they need, then perhaps Wenger is the perfect man. If you take him off and you bring someone else with the same structure, would he be better? Would he do better? I’m not sure.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/03/arsenal-supporters-should-be-careful-what-they-wish-for-gael-clichy-arsene-wenger

« Previous Page Next Page »