Things are going well, squad harmony is good, it has been hard won, now stability is a good thing.

It's not so binary as you're suggesting.

jones wrote:

goon wrote:

To be clear nobody is talking about keeping him as a starter.

Maybe you aren't but Arteta very clearly won't keep him to warm the bench. If he's still at the club next summer he'll be a starter.

You can't be serious about your continuity trope either. We've just replaced about 80% of the squad we had when Arteta took over. We had no qualms making a complete and highly public mess of ditching our captain midseason but keeping Xhaka around would be good for stability you lot have the shortest memories ever.

Don't think I've come across anyone who's views/conclusions lack any nuance whatsoever

Why can he not be a bench/rotation player? 

You have a rapid clear-out/renewal of the squad to get to a point where you can have some stability. I'm guessing the plan isn't to be in a perpetual state of having clear-outs.

goon wrote:

jones wrote:

Maybe you aren't but Arteta very clearly won't keep him to warm the bench. If he's still at the club next summer he'll be a starter.

You can't be serious about your continuity trope either. We've just replaced about 80% of the squad we had when Arteta took over. We had no qualms making a complete and highly public mess of ditching our captain midseason but keeping Xhaka around would be good for stability you lot have the shortest memories ever.

Don't think I've come across anyone who's views/conclusions lack any nuance whatsoever

Why can he not be a bench/rotation player? 

You have a rapid clear-out/renewal of the squad to get to a point where you can have some stability. I'm guessing the plan isn't to be in a perpetual state of having clear-outs.

Because first and foremost does Xhaka strike you as the type to accept a squad role? He's Switzerland's captain, has been a starter all his career and is not exactly meek in character or stature. He's almost always fit, has a very demanding personality and is in his prime. Sure sounds like he'll ride the bench no biggie.

Then Arteta has always started him at every opportunity, even when he was shitting the bed, getting sent off in consecutive matches, came back from injury despite Lokonga not doing too bad etc Xhaka without fail at the first opportunity walked into the starting lineup. Now that the team and he personally are doing better you really see him getting replaced and accepting a squad role six months before a World Cup and complain about lack of nuance because people don't buy your imaginations.

He's clearly our weakest link in midfield and needs upgrading, and even if he accepted a squad role it would diminish Lokonga's chances of getting minutes. Any injury to our new CM or Partey and he's back in the starting lineup. How's any of this a good scenario?

Well we're basically playing a 3 in midfield now so there's plenty of space for game time. I've read that Lokonga has been pencilled in as the Partey alternative at the base as a 6. Xhaka has weirdly never played that central role under Arteta.

The buy in from Xhaka for a squad role is a good point, but I'd imagine he'd still get plenty of starts and sub appearances to be kept happy - especially in a CL team on an upward trajectory. Maybe it's not feasible, but personally I think Xhaka as a squad player is a good proposition, but don't really have the same hangups as others to at the prospect of him getting some game time.

Xhaka has played the second most minutes under Arteta since he took over, only behind Saka. Think it's fair to say Arteta rates him.

goon wrote:

To be clear nobody is talking about keeping him as a starter.

But with CL football back on the horizon we're going to need depth and having some continuity and stability is no bad thing. Any new signing might need time to adapt etc. If Roma or anyone else were to offer serious money this time then it would be the smart play to sell and reinvest, but for £10m they can do one.

For £10m I'd bite their arm off.

I'd take 8m to be honest. Most people here would have taken 10m last year and his value has depreciated since.

Clrnc wrote:

....and his value has depreciated since.

I'm not so sure it has. 

He's playing better, the fan drama has subsided, waning COVID impact on transfer market, and as a team (org) we're looking more assured. I would also imagine he's less interested in a move abroad.

Actually feel like we're in a position of strength now, where as last summer we weren't. 

Do you guys listen to what the manager says? Like, ever?

He’s already acknowledged the role he has Xhaka playing now doesn’t suit him. And you think 12 months from now he’s still going to be our undisputed starter there?

Tell me you boys don’t seriously think Arteta is going to build around Xhaka as our long term left sided 8.

If we’re going to get Guendouzi money for him then i don’t see why we’d just throw him away. It’d take much more than that to replace him. What would 10 mill get us in return? A third of Joe Willock?

Bosscielny wrote:

Do you guys listen to what the manager says? Like, ever?

He’s already acknowledged the role he has Xhaka playing now doesn’t suit him. And you think 12 months from now he’s still going to be our undisputed starter there?

Tell me you boys don’t seriously think Arteta is going to build around Xhaka as our long term left sided 8.

If we’re going to get Guendouzi money for him then i don’t see why we’d just throw him away. It’d take much more than that to replace him. What would 10 mill get us in return? A third of Joe Willock?

Depending on the role I'd back either Saka or ESR to be able to take on the position better than we see form Xhaka.
For mind ESR would see Odegaard as a roaming playmaker through the middle 3rd, whilst ESR took the more advanced role to get into the box.  
Saka would be better suited to a middle 3rd role where he could run at defenders & use his strength on the ball.  Both can play the linking roles on the flanks as well as across the pitch with Odegaard & both would add goals to the Midfield.

Bosscielny wrote:

Do you guys listen to what the manager says? Like, ever?

He’s already acknowledged the role he has Xhaka playing now doesn’t suit him. And you think 12 months from now he’s still going to be our undisputed starter there?

Tell me you boys don’t seriously think Arteta is going to build around Xhaka as our long term left sided 8.

If we’re going to get Guendouzi money for him then i don’t see why we’d just throw him away. It’d take much more than that to replace him. What would 10 mill get us in return? A third of Joe Willock?

Much as I dislike Xhaka, I don't mind him as much as some on here. That said, you'd do well to watch what Arteta does rather than what he says. He seems to always find a space for him to play and like I said previously, only Saka has played more minutes under Arteta since he joined. Also the fact that you say it'd take much more than 10m for him shows how highly he is rated.

Then again if it's only about the fee we would be getting, 10m is still more than we pulled in than every outgoing transfer we've had since Arteta came in aside from  Willock (25m) and Martinez (15-16m). That includes getting 0 for Auba, Chambers, Mkhi, Sokratis, Mustafi, Kolasinac, and 45m brought in during that whole time. All the while being told money isn't an issue and we need to get those players who are not good enough and/or are bad influences out of the club as a priority. 

If Arteta really did prioritise replacing him last summer, he wouldn't have refused 10-15m or whatever for Xhaka because, as we keep getting told, money wasn't an issue either when it comes to not getting enough from outgoing players or spending big on incoming players as we'd still be able to buy who we wanted with the argument given that we made bids for Locatelli and Vlahovic. Either way, I can't see Arteta thinking "yeah, I need to get rid of this guy and upgrade on him" but believing that Locatelli was the only person better and available last summer, otherwise he'd have done it by now.

Anyways, like I said, I don't mind him as much, but he is definitely not good enough past a sqaud filler role if we are to be serious in the future. This season we just have to make do, but we can't afford to not get a top midfielder in this summer.

don't get fooled by the current good stretch of performances. Xhaka's doing a job and he's doing it well enough but we defo should be upgrading and we know Edu has been looking for one.

We really should have pushed for Bruno , don't believe he chose Newcastle over us , we didn't follow up.

Big Willie wrote:

Bosscielny wrote:

Do you guys listen to what the manager says? Like, ever?

He’s already acknowledged the role he has Xhaka playing now doesn’t suit him. And you think 12 months from now he’s still going to be our undisputed starter there?

Tell me you boys don’t seriously think Arteta is going to build around Xhaka as our long term left sided 8.

If we’re going to get Guendouzi money for him then i don’t see why we’d just throw him away. It’d take much more than that to replace him. What would 10 mill get us in return? A third of Joe Willock?

Much as I dislike Xhaka, I don't mind him as much as some on here. That said, you'd do well to watch what Arteta does rather than what he says. He seems to always find a space for him to play and like I said previously, only Saka has played more minutes under Arteta since he joined. Also the fact that you say it'd take much more than 10m for him shows how highly he is rated.

Then again if it's only about the fee we would be getting, 10m is still more than we pulled in than every outgoing transfer we've had since Arteta came in aside from  Willock (25m) and Martinez (15-16m). That includes getting 0 for Auba, Chambers, Mkhi, Sokratis, Mustafi, Kolasinac, and 45m brought in during that whole time. All the while being told money isn't an issue and we need to get those players who are not good enough and/or are bad influences out of the club as a priority. 

If Arteta really did prioritise replacing him last summer, he wouldn't have refused 10-15m or whatever for Xhaka because, as we keep getting told, money wasn't an issue either when it comes to not getting enough from outgoing players or spending big on incoming players as we'd still be able to buy who we wanted with the argument given that we made bids for Locatelli and Vlahovic. Either way, I can't see Arteta thinking "yeah, I need to get rid of this guy and upgrade on him" but believing that Locatelli was the only person better and available last summer, otherwise he'd have done it by now.

Anyways, like I said, I don't mind him as much, but he is definitely not good enough past a sqaud filler role if we are to be serious in the future. This season we just have to make do, but we can't afford to not get a top midfielder in this summer.

Sorry, mate. Don’t agree with any of this.

Everything Arteta has said he would do with the team, he has done. There are interviews from when he was a player, talking about if he were a manager, that tell you exactly what he wants. They’re not hard to find. So thanks for the tip, but that’s probably why i saw things turning out the way they are, and you guys were crying about something new every week and frothing at the mouth over players he inherited or signed for fuck all to make ends meet.

How many players came to the prem this season for 10m that are outperforming Xhaka in his position. I don’t mind waiting for an answer on that one. It’s possible there are one or two, but i’ll let you or someone else name them for me. I bet it won’t be one of the flops that the club got shat on for not signing.

Complaining we didn’t get anything for Auba on 350k, Chambers with 6 months, Mustafi, Sokratis, Mkhi and Kolasinac? You can’t be serious. Give me a break lol. That’s why we ended up having these guys for longer than we should have. If you wanted serious money for those scrubs we’d still have them sitting on the bench.

Don’t even know what point you’re trying to make about the Locatelli stuff. We didn’t hold onto Xhaka because Locatelli was waiting for his club to bend over for Juve. We held onto Xhaka because we weren’t getting an offer worth accepting. It’s looking like the right decision too, isn’t it? Unless you pictured us sitting 4th half way through March. You’re way off base there i reckon.

jones wrote:

goon wrote:

Don't think I've come across anyone who's views/conclusions lack any nuance whatsoever

Why can he not be a bench/rotation player? 

You have a rapid clear-out/renewal of the squad to get to a point where you can have some stability. I'm guessing the plan isn't to be in a perpetual state of having clear-outs.

Because first and foremost does Xhaka strike you as the type to accept a squad role? He's Switzerland's captain, has been a starter all his career and is not exactly meek in character or stature. He's almost always fit, has a very demanding personality and is in his prime. Sure sounds like he'll ride the bench no biggie.

Yeah, champ. That’s exactly the point we’re making. All those reasons you’ve listed as to why he wouldn’t accept a bench role, are why we would hope he does. That’s exactly why we want him to stay.

What you’re going out of your way to ignore is that if he doesn’t want to hang around and have to compete for his spot, that we’re happy to sell him too.

"We're happy to sell him too" the post I replied to said if anyone offered 10m they can do one. Xhaka was still 28 last summer with his stock the highest it's been in ages due to his strong Euros and the highest offer we received was 12m. He's about to turn 30 next window with his stock much lower and a contract extension later, no one will offer more than 10m.

Bosscielny wrote:

Big Willie wrote:

Much as I dislike Xhaka, I don't mind him as much as some on here. That said, you'd do well to watch what Arteta does rather than what he says. He seems to always find a space for him to play and like I said previously, only Saka has played more minutes under Arteta since he joined. Also the fact that you say it'd take much more than 10m for him shows how highly he is rated.

Then again if it's only about the fee we would be getting, 10m is still more than we pulled in than every outgoing transfer we've had since Arteta came in aside from  Willock (25m) and Martinez (15-16m). That includes getting 0 for Auba, Chambers, Mkhi, Sokratis, Mustafi, Kolasinac, and 45m brought in during that whole time. All the while being told money isn't an issue and we need to get those players who are not good enough and/or are bad influences out of the club as a priority. 

If Arteta really did prioritise replacing him last summer, he wouldn't have refused 10-15m or whatever for Xhaka because, as we keep getting told, money wasn't an issue either when it comes to not getting enough from outgoing players or spending big on incoming players as we'd still be able to buy who we wanted with the argument given that we made bids for Locatelli and Vlahovic. Either way, I can't see Arteta thinking "yeah, I need to get rid of this guy and upgrade on him" but believing that Locatelli was the only person better and available last summer, otherwise he'd have done it by now.

Anyways, like I said, I don't mind him as much, but he is definitely not good enough past a sqaud filler role if we are to be serious in the future. This season we just have to make do, but we can't afford to not get a top midfielder in this summer.

Sorry, mate. Don’t agree with any of this.

Everything Arteta has said he would do with the team, he has done. There are interviews from when he was a player, talking about if he were a manager, that tell you exactly what he wants. They’re not hard to find. So thanks for the tip, but that’s probably why i saw things turning out the way they are, and you guys were crying about something new every week and frothing at the mouth over players he inherited or signed for fuck all to make ends meet.

How many players came to the prem this season for 10m that are outperforming Xhaka in his position. I don’t mind waiting for an answer on that one. It’s possible there are one or two, but i’ll let you or someone else name them for me. I bet it won’t be one of the flops that the club got shat on for not signing.

Complaining we didn’t get anything for Auba on 350k, Chambers with 6 months, Mustafi, Sokratis, Mkhi and Kolasinac? You can’t be serious. Give me a break lol. That’s why we ended up having these guys for longer than we should have. If you wanted serious money for those scrubs we’d still have them sitting on the bench.

Don’t even know what point you’re trying to make about the Locatelli stuff. We didn’t hold onto Xhaka because Locatelli was waiting for his club to bend over for Juve. We held onto Xhaka because we weren’t getting an offer worth accepting. It’s looking like the right decision too, isn’t it? Unless you pictured us sitting 4th half way through March. You’re way off base there i reckon.

Mate, you're running around looking for someone to argue with but yeah, go ahead disagree all you want.

At the end of the day you can say what you want but the facts are that Xhaka has played more minutes under Arteta than any other player since he's been here, despite his multiple red cards and missing like 2 months of this season with injury. But yeah, it was a big priority for Arteta to replace him wasn't it, I guess Arteta just failed there didn't he?

Complaining about not getting anything for players? Once again, you're arguing with yourself. I couldn't care less at this point. Once again, we have brought in 45m in player sales since Arteta came in, if a quarter of that for Xhaka was refused then money really isn't an issue for us. And yeah if we "wanted serious money for those scrubs we’d still have them sitting on the bench" but the same thing could be said about Xhaka by the way. Only difference is he's not stuck here sitting on the bench but a mainstay in the starting X1. Yeah, yeah, go and say he's the best option we have and all that, but that's only the case because we never upgraded on him.

Seeing as you like to make all these big generalisations lumping everyone in the same boat, wasn't it you lot who kept going on about how White's signing would have no effect on bringing in a midfielder? And then brough up Locatelli (if you didn't understand) as an example of players we could still have bought because White's transfer did not drain our funds? Why would I be bothered about naming 10m players performing better than Xhaka then? So no, I won't be naming any 10m players because we apparently still had enough funds to buy a replacement for Xhaka if we really wanted. Guess it wasn't as big as a priority for Arteta as you'd like to make out unless you believe we wouldn't be able to upgrade on Xhaka with what we were prepared to spend with that supposed Locatelli bid plus the extra 10m Roma were offering?

Look, either money isn't an issue for us, or it is. If it isn't then there would be no reason to keep Xhaka just because "we weren't getting an offer worth accepting", unless the manager rates him more than you believe he does. If it was as big a priority for Arteta then he'd have been shipped off and replaced long ago. Simple as that.

Seeing as you seem to be struggling to stick to the points and jumping all over the place trying to score points by arguing about things no one is even talking about, how about you answer these two simple questions. Does Xhaka play so much under Arteta because Arteta really rates Xhaka or because he's what's available? Were we unable to replace Xhaka last year because of a lack of funds or because there weren't any better players available?

You keep going on about 10m not being enough for Xhaka but everything circles back to Arteta really rating the guy. Either that or we blew our load last summer and didn't have any more money, contrary to what you'd been claiming.

If Xhaka was worth more clubs would offer more for him. He was clearly trying to get a move last summer and the Roma offer was the best we got.