Qwiss you must be thinking of somebody else, because I haven’t flip-flopped on anything this summer. I’ve said all along that if we want to seriously challenge for the title, we need more creativity and cutting edge (ideally down the left) and we still haven’t addressed that. That’s been my biggest frustration, and I’ve been saying it all summer. So I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think you know either.
Burnwinter
Count of Monte Cristo mode? You’ve got quite the high opinion of yourself if you think a simple follow-up on a forum is some grand vendetta.
Anyway, for someone claiming you “only do confident bullshit,” you’re still being non-committal, just with extra paragraphs. I get that we might still sign Eze, and if we do, fine - but my question was about the other scenario: if we don’t. In that case, would you agree that choosing Madueke over Eze was a poor use of resources? Because your reply here is long but still dodges a straight yes-or-no.
Age
23 vs 27 - yes, I can Google DOBs too. Nothing insightful here. You still don’t address whether Eze’s current level might outweigh Madueke’s “potential ceiling” for a team that wants to win now.
Physicality
“Elite pace and strength” vs “doesn’t have it”, so? Eze’s value isn’t in his speed, it’s in what he actually does on the ball (a skillset we lack).
Backup for Saka
Cool, Madueke might play RW (very little evidence of that after Saka played 90 in a pre-season friendly - Arteta ain't resting his golden boy). My guess is that Madueke is our marquee LW signing and he isn't going to be good enough to move the needle for us to go from 2nd to 1st.
Ceiling
“There’s a decent chance he hasn’t reached it” - textbook hedge. You could say it about any U25. It’s a safe, vague way of sounding optimistic without actually committing to anything.
Fee, Wages, Resale
Pure filler: lower fee, lower wages, higher resale potential. All fine, but you could apply this logic to almost any younger/older player comparison (Eketike/Sesko vs Gyokores for example). It’s accounting language, not football reasoning.
“It’s a good thing we signed Madueke”
You keep making the case for Madueke in isolation rather than answering whether Eze instead of him would have been the better use of resources - which is the whole premise of my question.
The rest of the window
“We’re in the market for a winger,” “we need to sell players,” “Trossard might go” - none of this is breaking news. Let' see if we actually sign anyone for LW - I am not convinced we will.
Trust the process
“Time is on our side,” “we’re doing business in the right order” - PR fluff, completely generic, doesn’t answer the actual point.
You’ve written a lot to avoid a simple yes/no. If we don’t sign Eze/other left sided attacker, was going for Madueke a poor use of resources? I haven't seen an answer to this, just generic observations, hypothetical upside talk, and financial bullet points - which is exactly the kind of non-committal bullshit I was expecting. So good job.
