Sicario2 - Tier 1 So essentially Odegaard is irreplaceable?

Not that's not what I'm saying.

Sicario2 - Tier 1 Getting someone better at half way house is better than doing nothing

However I am saying getting a half way house player to fit the same system will make no difference. You're implying that if Odegaard gets injured, Nwaneri gets his minutes when in fact it'll be one of the more experienced players (Nwaneri gets on the bench) but we'll tweak our midfield system to play differently. A good mitigation strategy isn't doing Plan A but worse.

        Mirth what does that mean specifically though? I don't want to field a midfield where three players out of Merino, Partey, Rice and Jorginho are starting. Regardless of whether you change up how you play, someone would have to play instead of Ødegaard.

            I'd wager that nwaeri, havertz, merino, saka and trossard would be the emergency fill-ins for odegaard.

            QuincyAbeyie Havertz and Trossard are options too. And I don't mean Havertz in the role he's taken previously in midfield for us but as a more offensive role. This could be a viable option because while Havertz is not as good as Odegaard on the ball, his pressing is elite and he could be as effective off the ball - in that sense we get to a halfway house compromise position. You've got to make it work - City played Alvarez at number 10 for some games when KBD was out and he wouldn't have been the like for like replacement but they tweaked how they played and it worked.

            For what it's worth, the real cast iron insurance policy to cover Odegaard or Saka getting injured is to have another elite player for our front three (most likely left wing) so that it takes the pressure off the replacements.

                Mirth I guess something like that will be the solution - so let's just hope Ødegaard doesn't get injured.

                City had the PL player of the season filling in for KDB most of the time, so I'd say our situation isn't quite similar.

                    QuincyAbeyie City had the PL player of the season filling in for KDB most of the time, so I'd say our situation isn't quite similar.

                    No, Foden was the one who stepped up in KBD's absence (which is what we'd need Saka or Jesus or whoever to do) but Alvarez was the man for man replacement.

                        Mirth 13 goals scored as a 10, 5 as RW. Doesn't really change that their situation for dealing with KDB's absence is different from ours in Ødegaard's. Moving Havertz would mean moving our starting striker - Alvarez isn't theirs so they wouldn't have to move him around. So I guess the similarities would be between Trossard and Alvarez, which to me just tells me how much easier it would be for City than us.

                            QuincyAbeyie yep, City have a deeper squad and can pretty much cover any injury crisis so KDB's example is illustrative of the strategy that another top manager uses when one of his key players gets injured rather than the specifics of tactics. We are not as well equipped as City to deal with a loss of key personnel.

                            The original claim was that the way to address Odegaard's injury would be to have an Odegaard-lite on the bench and play more or less the same way and hope that works. That's not how top club's approach that challenge, you need to redesign your system to rebalance away from your weakness and towards your strengths.

                              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.

                                                    Burnwinter Marseilles were nowhere near our valuation. The issue again comes back to the wage we gave him after Obasi ran down his and Balogun’s contracts to grab us by the balls. When other clubs come for Wfdie, they have a spend envelope, say £50m over 5 years. His wage takes up £25m of that amount. Versus if you want Solanke, his wage takes up £13m, leaving you up to £37m for transfer. This is the issue.

                                                    Which is why I’m glad we fully dumped guys like Patino. They aren’t going to make it here. Let’s not put them on wages that become hard to shift later. Ideally, we would’ve had Nketiah and Nelson on longer contracts and shifted them easily by now.

                                                        Claudius Marseilles were nowhere near our valuation. The issue again comes back to the wage we gave him after Obasi ran down his and Balogun’s contracts to grab us by the balls.

                                                        Marseille were reported as having bid with a €25m package, there was some ambiguity there but again, there was no doubt as to whether Nketiah could've been moved for a substantial fee.

                                                        Edu also organised the last contract Nketiah signed, the fact that involved negotiation with the player's agent is entirely standard. "Oh no there was an agent—and besides, he'd run down his contract!" These are exactly the situations Edu's role revolves around.

                                                        If we have priced Eddie out from a transfer from one of the reduced list of clubs able to tolerate his wages at this point, then falsely pencil him in as a rotation option—a role in which he was already mostly unused and useless last season—then surely it must be considered a failure for Edu.

                                                        To put it another way, if you insist it is not a failure, what would be a failure? Is anything a failure? Your arguments about this consistently propose there is no such thing as failure on the sales front, which I find untenable.

                                                          Like I said, the big mistake we made was extending him at a high wage. I think I’ve been clear there.
                                                          But life isn’t black and white. We did that because we wanted to retain him and we’re also dealing with a lot of churn at the time. During 2022-24 we were the club dealing with the most change. Every player you lose requires the manager and DoF to go sign another equivalent player, for a fee.
                                                          So while I’m critical, I’m not going to sit here and act like Edu is incompetent. Because that’s clearly not the case.

                                                            Romani had the same line "not expected to stay" yeah, that seems to be coming from the club. I think we got a little agitated on this one

                                                            Claudius So while I’m critical, I’m not going to sit here and act like Edu is incompetent.

                                                            You're interpolating. I have said "this would be a failure (or fuckup, or whatever) on Edu's part in this case". It would be.

                                                            It would be a sales failure if we weren't to close on Nketiah's exit. He won't (or at best shouldn't) be playing for us. It strongly appears there have been ways to close a deal however conceptually unsatisfying. One can predict conditions for Nketiah moving on wouldn't be better in the future after another 4–11 months on the bench.

                                                            For obvious reasons, the norms of football transfers such as aggressive agent work, a player's agreement on personal terms being vital to any deal getting done, and the need to balance multiple ambiguous situations can't be treated as mitigating factors. Those factors are the bread and butter of the job.

                                                            If Nketiah doesn't move on, let's just call a spade a spade. No one's flatly suggesting Edu is incompetent, but he can be good at some aspects of his job and challenged when it comes to others. I don't expect miracles from him.

                                                              Surely this is an economic matter, i.e., we get a lower fee from Nottingham Forest, who can then afford to pay him higher or pay him a sign-on bonus to capitalize the difference in earnings. The fact that this hasn't happened with sophisticated negotiators on both sides indicates to me that Nketiah doesn't want to go there for whatever reason (maybe he doesn't like that part of England and wants to be in London - hence, Crystal Palace) etc. Purely down to him.

                                                                Bernard Woolley yup! If you listen to industry people, you realise that players hold a lot of sway in these deals. This isn’t just clubs trading commodities

                                                                    Bernard Woolley Purely down to him.

                                                                    One can't say this is "purely" down to the player when the player's agreement to any given contract is absolutely vital.

                                                                    If this situation's purely down to Eddie because he had the legal right to refuse to sign with Forest, then every contract Edu has ever overseen was equally purely down to the player. It's Edu's job to see the landscape of these deals. That includes understanding any involved player's intentions and desires.

                                                                    Any one of these contracts involves bringing at least four parties together (Arsenal, the player, the destination club and the player's agent). No one's saying it's easy, but it is what it is.

                                                                    We may rail against squad players for wasting away on high wages, but Edu's employed by Arsenal to be across all these factors at both ends of an Arsenal footballing employee's useful tenure as an Arsenal footballer.

                                                                    If Eddie doesn't get moved on because we ruled out the only destinations he was willing to accept that would also pay his wages and pay us a fee, that would be a failure.

                                                                    Coffee's for closers.

                                                                        Burnwinter I completely agree. It's Edu's job to ensure that we get the best possible deal that is actually actionable in light of all circumstances. All I meant was that this is not just because of Nketiah's wages being too high since that is an easily solvable problem through a combination of lower fee for the club with a sign-on bonus for the player. This is some other intangible in the mix.

                                                                            Bernard Woolley Fair play, I think I pulled you into the point I've been trying to make to Claude. Any case, I really want to see us get a fee for Nketiah this summer—it'll be a blow if we don't.