Ødegaard being out for us would be like both Rodri and De Bruyne being out would be for City. He's both our metronome and half our cutting edge at this moment.

Sicario2 - Tier 1 This loan is not to make him a better fit for the PL - feels like this is more to give him minutes so that someone (perhaps Porto themselves) will buy him next summer.

Don Pacifico Partey can't cover what Ode does though, can he?

TBH Partey would likely be better than Vieira if we were that stuck.

The reality is in the event of an Odegaard injury Havertz or Trossard were probably still going to be ahead of Vieira. And I'd rather see Nwaneri fill in if we've a crisis than Vieira too.

Turning into quite the protracted saga

Also so strange if accurate cover for a player you refused to ever pick what are we covering a place sitting on the bench.

    awooga83 imagine it's a reaction to Vieira going on loan given he was playing RW in pre-season.

    If we can’t get an attacker I’m resigned in keeping Eddie out of necessity

    goon probably wages. They say deal can’t be reached. Solanke’s wages are around £50k. Plus these are clubs that live with the threat of relegation. So he needs to be flexible if he goes there

    If we fail to offload Eddie now after he reached terms with Marseille then Edu has conclusively fucked it. Simply no good.

    And if we go into this season treating Eddie as a rotational forward option we've fucked it even more.

      Burnwinter
      Sorry. How has Edu fucked it. It sounds like the issue is with Nketiah. A similar thing happened a couple of years ago. He rejected another deal.

      Our young players want to stay here on big wages and sit on the bench. One thing to remember about football transfer organisations - the staff is 90% dedicated to incomings across all clubs. This includes scouting and deal making. Typically, players and agents play a much bigger role in selling themselves. It also aligns with clubs’ interest in protecting player values by not openly pimping their players. Nelson, Nketiah, etc., seem more interested in staying here on big money than facilitating outgoings.

      The big lesson here for us is we need to decide early if players will make it or not, and sell them before their max contract. Once they get a contract over £50,000/wk, they are hard to shift because the market is limited to 10 clubs. Ask United. Look at their squad clean up.

        Claudius Sorry. How has Edu fucked it. It sounds like the issue is with Nketiah. A similar thing happened a couple of years ago. He rejected another deal.

        There were reasonably reliable reports Eddie agreed terms with Marseille (he also flew there), but we refused their offers, which were also reported as over €20m.

        If Edu isn't able to find him another agreeable deal, it's decisively not Nketiah's fault if he remains an Arsenal player.

        It's not up to Eddie to take a deal that reduces his pay packet.

          Claudius Once they get a contract over £50,000/wk, they are hard to shift because the market is limited to 10 clubs.

          Nketiah agreed a deal with Marseille so this either doesn't apply to him, or a reduced fee offer from Marseille is precisely the hit we take from offering him a large contract.

          I've already made similar comments about the situations of Ramsdale and Nelson, and I can't see much that's inconsistent in my outlook here. If we can't sell, or refuse to sell players we also can't use or refuse to use, the buck stops with Edu.

          Edu in his role has to be the main decision-maker accountable for a rather short list of things: player recruitment, renewals, loans, sales, impairments and other contract exits. On the football side he shares accountability with Arteta, but on the financial side he is on the hook. If not then he's just Arteta's butler.

          I'm rarely down with blaming players for accepting wage offers or refusing to accept wage offers, as professionals they just follow their incentives.