William Saliba: Page 4 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

William Saliba

Qwiss

goon wrote:
The worry for Willock is that I think he's incredibly similar to Ramsey stylistically, meaning his best position is probably in centre mid as part of a midfield 3.

I really hope we move to a midfield like that whenever football comes back. Playing with a number 10 just to keep Ozil happy doesn't make much sense, especially not with the level Ozil is currently at.

Tam

I'm hopeful that Arteta will be able to mould Willock into what we need. I think he has the ingredients, just needs the trust and right direction of a good coach. Who better than to learn the position from than Arteta. If Willock doesn't make it under him, then he's either not had the right mentality or it was never meant to be.

flobaba

Or Arteta is a poor coach.

Just throwing it out there as a possibility too.

Clrnc

flobaba wrote:
Or Arteta is a poor coach.

Just throwing it out there as a possibility too.

It's literally impossible to be honest. One of the best CMs we ever had already said this about him.

Asterix

😆

Mirth

Came across this while listening to the Football Ramble: https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2020/arsenal-st-etienne-could-be-poised-for-a-legal-battle-over-a-e2-5m-bonus-in-the-william-saliba-deal/

Apparently if Saliba plays in the Coupe de France final we owe St Etienne another 2.5m.

banduan

Just be classy enough and pay it.

flobaba

No way! Someone break his ankle before the final or deal’s off.

Qwiss

Why would we agree to that clause. "Ok we will buy Saliba and loan him back to you for a year" "Ok but if your player does well for us on loan and gets us to a final you owe us an extra £2.5 million, makes no sense.

QuincyAbeyie

Because Arsenal wanted him to play as much as possible.

goon

It’s not if he gets to a final, it’s if he starts 17 games and he’s currently on 16.

Also the article says that technically if he plays in the cup final we don’t have to pay because it will fall after the 30th June.

I don’t get it though, surely he’ll be with us by Aug (when the game is potentially going to be scheduled) so there’s no chance of him playing in it anyway.

Gazza M

Time for Willy to prove his loyalty and fake a pulled hammy

Mirth

Or just fake a cough

QuincyAbeyie

goon wrote:
It’s not if he gets to a final, it’s if he starts 17 games and he’s currently on 16.

Also the article says that technically if he plays in the cup final we don’t have to pay because it will fall after the 30th June.

I don’t get it though, surely he’ll be with us by Aug (when the game is potentially going to be scheduled) so there’s no chance of him playing in it anyway.

I guess it depends on how the contract is worded. It apparently doesn't say 17 games, but "a third of all possible matches" or something like that. So Arsenal will argue that's 17, while they'll argue, understandably, that he's played far more than a third of the possible matches.

jones

Dumb clause anyway. He's not on loan to them because we wanted it but because they insisted on him staying for another year, why would we pay extra for ceding to their demand

Qwiss

Mirth wrote:
Or just fake a cough

😆

Claudius

jones wrote:
Dumb clause anyway. He's not on loan to them because we wanted it but because they insisted on him staying for another year, why would we pay extra for ceding to their demand

unfortunately, we stuck that in there to protect our interests. and it could come back to bite us
but fuck France. how money hungry are these bitches? they canceled the league season to protect next year's Ligue 1 Uber Eats money but kept this year's French Cup so they could also have that money? when your only energy is money your decisions are inconsistent

goon

jones wrote:
Dumb clause anyway. He's not on loan to them because we wanted it but because they insisted on him staying for another year, why would we pay extra for ceding to their demand

Clubs pay loan fees and wages in the millions because they think a player will help and still end up not playing them, often for stupid reasons. It’s insurance against stupidity, and managers/clubs are stupid enough to play a player they don’t want to play in order to recoup money they paid for a player they don’t want to play.

Mirth

Yeah, it wouldn't be a big deal in a normal season. Just bad luck now

Klaus

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Because Arsenal wanted him to play as much as possible.

I thought that was the reason too at first, but why would they have set the requirement so low then? Why not 30 games?

It seems to me that this is just St Etienne trying to squeeze some more water out of a stone through extra clauses that we ended up agreeing to because we were desperate to get the transfer done.

« Previous Page Next Page »