Champions league 2020/21: Page 10 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

Champions league 2020/21

Claudius

I would take either Pulisic or Ziyech. Particularly the former. Let them have your friend Willian back. They’re not Saka potential class, but they’re both excellent already.

But as I said before, I don’t see them challenging for top 2. They are far behind those teams. On why they’re not getting scrutinized? They’re not going through a really bad spell, and Lampard is a protected species. I’m fine with that to be honest. These teams not getting their scrutiny does a massive disservice to them.

QuincyAbeyie

They need to prove that they deserve to be scrutinised like United have done for years now. Pulisic is still younger than Mane was when he signed for Liverpool, and I personally think he's great. Injuries might be a problem though. You don't typically get world class players for what you paid for Ziyech so as long as he's "very good" that's fine.

Sicario

Claudius wrote:
5 consecutive clean sheets for Chelsea. Ziyech has been a nmasterful signing. Werner is actually working out. They should make top 4. I think the rest of us are fighting for one spot. But I’m not too stressed.

We need some context around this stat. Who the hell have they played? Lol. Man Utd away you could argue the only 'tough' fixture.

They have another easy fixture this weekend but around Xmas they will play tough games.

Similar to Ole at Utd, as long as Lamps is at Chelsea, I am not too worried about them. I am more worried about Leicester and Spurs as Top 4 challengers to be honest.

Clrnc

Klaus wrote:
Aside from Havertz I don't see what's so great about Chelsea, and he's been struggling a bit so far. Only true world class potential they have though. They have some young players I like, such as Mount, but he's not being played to his strengths either at the moment. And they've chucked Rüdiger who was the only one who could defend for toffee. Lampard is making a mess out of that team. Who in their right mind sells a player like Lamptey?

I watched them recently because of my bets and Ziyech is excellent. I think we missed out big time on him, considering from the total fees he shouldn't be far off from what Willian costs us. Incredible we didn't go for him with all the come and get me plea.

goon

Willian is on 100,000 a week, which is what Ziyech is also on. So unless Willian got a £35m signing on fee, there's no way the total fees will be anything close.

Clrnc

Ziyech had a 25m euro release clause that year.

Willian have a large signing on fee + bonuses totalling 250k per week although you can also say with his performances these days he is never hitting those bonuses.

Klaus

He'll get that sign-on bonus though, and unlike Ziyech no one is ever going to offer a cent for him in the future. Willian is more like a really old car. Once he breaks down we'll have to pay someone to come and get him and crush him into a cube.

goon

I'm sorry but there's just no way Willian's signing on fee and bonuses amount to that much no matter what a click bait articles from the Mirror or Sun suggest.

Arsenal fans are so weird when it comes to things like this. Let's keep it simple, he signed on a free transfer on 100k a week for 3 years. If you want to argue there's better uses for those funds, just start there rather than combing through his expenses to account for every cab fair.

Claudius

These papers need a standardised reporting method. Very often they'll just report the potential maximum TCO versus just reporting the transfer/signing-on fee. So it's hard to compare apples to apples. The Willian numbers seemed exaggerated

goon

They do it on purpose Claudius, they know how easy the fanbase is to wind up. It's not in their interests to do what you suggest.

Klaus

goon wrote:
If you want to argue there's better uses for those funds, just start there rather than combing through his expenses to account for every cab fair.

No reason you can't do both to be fair. Bloke is an absolute shithouse player who wasn't good enough at his peak. The fact we're paying big money for him just adds a bit of insult to the injury.

Clrnc

goon wrote:
I'm sorry but there's just no way Willian's signing on fee and bonuses amount to that much no matter what a click bait articles from the Mirror or Sun suggest.

Arsenal fans are so weird when it comes to things like this. Let's keep it simple, he signed on a free transfer on 100k a week for 3 years. If you want to argue there's better uses for those funds, just start there rather than combing through his expenses to account for every cab fair.

Ok even if we keep it simple, say he has signed for us for 100k per week with zero bonuses, no agent fee and sign on fee. Ziyech would probably cost around the same or lesser if Chelsea sells him, unless he flops completely and his transfer values is half of what they signed him for etc.

In all honesty that 10-20m differences divided among the 5 year contract + the huge upside of performance makes it a no brainer when you are comparing actually

goon

Clrnc wrote:
goon wrote:
I'm sorry but there's just no way Willian's signing on fee and bonuses amount to that much no matter what a click bait articles from the Mirror or Sun suggest.

Arsenal fans are so weird when it comes to things like this. Let's keep it simple, he signed on a free transfer on 100k a week for 3 years. If you want to argue there's better uses for those funds, just start there rather than combing through his expenses to account for every cab fair.

Ok even if we keep it simple, say he has signed for us for 100k per week with zero bonuses, no agent fee and sign on fee. Ziyech would probably cost around the same or lesser if Chelsea sells him, unless he flops completely and his transfer values is half of what they signed him for etc.

In all honesty that 10-20m differences divided among the 5 year contract + the huge upside of performance makes it a no brainer when you are comparing actually

Using this logic we could've sign Aouar and it would have basically been a free transfer working under the assumption that we could sell him in 3 years. Of course in reality it would cost us 50m+, which is why we didn't do it.

Coombs

Ziyech is 27. I thought that was too old? I heard there was no ROI on a 27-year-old.

Claudius

Clrnc wrote:
goon wrote:
I'm sorry but there's just no way Willian's signing on fee and bonuses amount to that much no matter what a click bait articles from the Mirror or Sun suggest.

Arsenal fans are so weird when it comes to things like this. Let's keep it simple, he signed on a free transfer on 100k a week for 3 years. If you want to argue there's better uses for those funds, just start there rather than combing through his expenses to account for every cab fair.

Ok even if we keep it simple, say he has signed for us for 100k per week with zero bonuses, no agent fee and sign on fee. Ziyech would probably cost around the same or lesser if Chelsea sells him, unless he flops completely and his transfer values is half of what they signed him for etc.

In all honesty that 10-20m differences divided among the 5 year contract + the huge upside of performance makes it a no brainer when you are comparing actually

I think you're leaving out the cash concerns. If we need to pay out a significant portion of a transfer fee this year, that changes the equation significantly.

goon

Coombs wrote:
Ziyech is 27. I thought that was too old? I heard there was no ROI on a 27-year-old.

Didn't realise that. In 5 years he'll be signing a 3 year deal with us on a free.

Bosscielny

Klaus wrote:
goon wrote:
If you want to argue there's better uses for those funds, just start there rather than combing through his expenses to account for every cab fair.

No reason you can't do both to be fair. Bloke is an absolute shithouse player who wasn't good enough at his peak. The fact we're paying big money for him just adds a bit of insult to the injury.

Wasn’t good enough for what at his peak? Winning the premier league? Winning the europa league? Winning the fa cup? Because he did all of those with Chelsea while playing 30+ games a season.

He’s pretty average now, and it’s not looking like he’s going to end up being even a good signing, but you probably don’t have to resort to rewriting his past to make your point.

banduan

Bosscielny wrote:
Klaus wrote:
No reason you can't do both to be fair. Bloke is an absolute shithouse player who wasn't good enough at his peak. The fact we're paying big money for him just adds a bit of insult to the injury.

Wasn’t good enough for what at his peak? Winning the premier league? Winning the europa league? Winning the fa cup? Because he did all of those with Chelsea while playing 30+ games a season.

He’s pretty average now, and it’s not looking like he’s going to end up being even a good signing, but you probably don’t have to resort to rewriting his past to make your point.

agreed. I mean, I fucking hate the signing but calling him a shithouse player is a fancy bit of revisionism.

Clrnc

Giroud with a superb header to win it at the death for Chelsea.

Now Fernandes hit an absolute stunner.

Claudius

Trying to watch this competition. Chelsea and United are not very good teams. But it feels like we will never make it back here despite how average these teams are.

Despite being utterly useless for us, Giroud seems so useful for Chelsea. Definitely don't want him back though.

« Previous Page Next Page »