TambourineMan You’ve got quite the high opinion of yourself if you think a simple follow-up on a forum is some grand vendetta.
Look, man ... the Dumas reference was drawing attention to the mismatch between your vengeful comments ("resident negotiation experts", "noncommittal bullshit" etc) and their trivial context. No need to mug me off explaining my own point to me.
TambourineMan 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.
There hasn't been such a choice to make. That's something you've made up. You don't get "straight yes-or-no" answers to questions you can't ground better than that.
But sure, for the sake of it, let's take your perspective.
What would "choosing Eze" have meant by now? Skipping our chance with Madueke during the CWC in order to trigger Eze's release clause now after the Charity Shield, probably signing Eze on £150–200k per week.
So we'd have Martinelli, Eze and Trossard stacked on the left and no Saka backup.
We'd have benched Martinelli even though he's in decent form and Gyökeres arriving probably improves his odds, we'd have no Saka deputy more grown than Nwaneri and Dowman, and there would be a little more downward pressure on Trossard's value.
Seems to me if this is how it had gone you'd just be questioning the issues on the right instead.
Now for the real "straight yes-or-no" answers ...
No, Madueke and Eze wasn't and isn't an either-or. No, our future transfers are not restricted by contrived and masturbatory dilemmas between signings that aren't equivalent. Yes, Madueke looks like excellent value. No, there's no evidence Arsenal is incompetent.