Gladstones Bitch Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Villa still owe us money for Bent don't they? so if he is sold do they have to pay all of it back in one go from what ever they get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted December 29, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 29, 2011 Sky say Henry will agree a 2 month loan in the next 48 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Why did Wenger bring in Chamakh in the first place? He was never any good at Bordeaux and had been hawked to almost every club in Europe beforehand. Â That's just completely made up. They tried incredibly hard to keep him after him and Gourcuff won them the league. We tried to buy him but they refused because they wanted him for the Champions league, which he did very well in. Was hardly some obscure gamble of a signing. Outside of the absolute elite of players, that we just can't afford, he seemed about as safe a bet as you could imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted December 29, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 29, 2011 Yeah, Chamakh had some really good games for Bordeaux in the CL that last season. He was free and worth a punt. They'll make a decent profit on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted December 29, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 29, 2011 Why did Wenger bring in Chamakh in the first place? He was never any good at Bordeaux and had been hawked to almost every club in Europe beforehand. Â That's just completely made up. They tried incredibly hard to keep him after him and Gourcuff won them the league. We tried to buy him but they refused because they wanted him for the Champions league, which he did very well in. Was hardly some obscure gamble of a signing. Outside of the absolute elite of players, that we just can't afford, he seemed about as safe a bet as you could imagine. Â I didn't say he was an obscure gamble, though, did I? And I didn't say that Bordeaux didn't try to keep him either. The constant news stories in the months before he went to Arsenal were his agent saying he was in talks with Liverpool. Now Chelsea. Oh, hang on, United are interested. Actually, Juventus are having him now. Wait a minute, Milan are on the phone - both clubs! Â I saw him a whole bunch of times for Bordeaux and good in the air was about the only positive you could say of him. Stroppy, uninterested and patchy were mostly what I saw. He doesn't even seem to have the 'good in the air' thing going for him now. He's crap and if Arsenal did sign him with a view to selling him on for a profit, then financially things must be worse than I thought at Arsenal. I do that on CM 97/98, though, having said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Why did Wenger bring in Chamakh in the first place? He was never any good at Bordeaux and had been hawked to almost every club in Europe beforehand. Â That's just completely made up. They tried incredibly hard to keep him after him and Gourcuff won them the league. We tried to buy him but they refused because they wanted him for the Champions league, which he did very well in. Was hardly some obscure gamble of a signing. Outside of the absolute elite of players, that we just can't afford, he seemed about as safe a bet as you could imagine. Â I didn't say he was an obscure gamble, though, did I? And I didn't say that Bordeaux didn't try to keep him either. The constant news stories in the months before he went to Arsenal were his agent saying he was in talks with Liverpool. Now Chelsea. Oh, hang on, United are interested. Actually, Juventus are having him now. Wait a minute, Milan are on the phone - both clubs! Â Â He was on a free, of course lots of teams would be after him. No shame in being linked to any of those clubs is there? You said he was being 'hawked' which makes no sense as he was out of contract. You're chatting shit. Â He's a player with lots of qualities who Arsene thought he could mould into a top striker. He did exceptionally well to begin with. In the end it didn't work out and he probably doesn't have the mentality to be a top player. These things happen. Much better players have been signed for much more money and still failed. Without the benefit of hindsight it looked a perfectly good signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rohpete Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Various places reporting this   reports are suggesting that Steven Pienaar could make a return to former club Everton as Spurs look to tempt Jack Rodwell away from Goodison Park.  Pienaar has barely been with the North London side for eleven months but could already be heading for the White Hart Lane exit after failing to make an impact over the past year.  The South African penned a four-year contract last January in a deal that is believed to be worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted December 29, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 29, 2011 Why did Wenger bring in Chamakh in the first place? He was never any good at Bordeaux and had been hawked to almost every club in Europe beforehand. Â That's just completely made up. They tried incredibly hard to keep him after him and Gourcuff won them the league. We tried to buy him but they refused because they wanted him for the Champions league, which he did very well in. Was hardly some obscure gamble of a signing. Outside of the absolute elite of players, that we just can't afford, he seemed about as safe a bet as you could imagine. Â I didn't say he was an obscure gamble, though, did I? And I didn't say that Bordeaux didn't try to keep him either. The constant news stories in the months before he went to Arsenal were his agent saying he was in talks with Liverpool. Now Chelsea. Oh, hang on, United are interested. Actually, Juventus are having him now. Wait a minute, Milan are on the phone - both clubs! Â Â He was on a free, of course lots of teams would be after him. No shame in being linked to any of those clubs is there? You said he was being 'hawked' which makes no sense as he was out of contract. You're chatting shit. Â Fuck off. And read what I wrote. I didn't say there weren't other clubs interested in him because I'm sure there were - my point was that it seemed he had been hawked, and I will use that word again seeing as though it seems to irritate you so, around every other club in Europe before he ended up at Arsenal. And that he's crap. Â I said at the time on here that I could not see Chamakh being a great signing for Arsenal even on a free, and that has proved to be the case so far. Maybe he needs his snood back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Why did Wenger bring in Chamakh in the first place? He was never any good at Bordeaux and had been hawked to almost every club in Europe beforehand. Â That's just completely made up. They tried incredibly hard to keep him after him and Gourcuff won them the league. We tried to buy him but they refused because they wanted him for the Champions league, which he did very well in. Was hardly some obscure gamble of a signing. Outside of the absolute elite of players, that we just can't afford, he seemed about as safe a bet as you could imagine. Â I didn't say he was an obscure gamble, though, did I? And I didn't say that Bordeaux didn't try to keep him either. The constant news stories in the months before he went to Arsenal were his agent saying he was in talks with Liverpool. Now Chelsea. Oh, hang on, United are interested. Actually, Juventus are having him now. Wait a minute, Milan are on the phone - both clubs! Â Â He was on a free, of course lots of teams would be after him. No shame in being linked to any of those clubs is there? You said he was being 'hawked' which makes no sense as he was out of contract. You're chatting shit. Â Fuck off. And read what I wrote. I didn't say there weren't other clubs interested in him because I'm sure there were - my point was that it seemed he had been hawked, and I will use that word again seeing as though it seems to irritate you so, around every other club in Europe before he ended up at Arsenal. And that he's crap. Â I said at the time on here that I could not see Chamakh being a great signing for Arsenal even on a free, and that has proved to be the case so far. Maybe he needs his snood back. Â You said something stupid, now you're getting all defensive. Nice one mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted December 29, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 29, 2011 You said something stupid, now you're getting all defensive. Nice one mate. Â Ahh you've played The Discussion Stopper Card already. What a relief, you had me on the ropes there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I love Everton. I don't know how they do it but if I believed the hype, they should have supplied the backbone of every England team for the last 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kendal mint cake Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Gladstone is right on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spurs 4 life Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Various places reporting this  reports are suggesting that Steven Pienaar could make a return to former club Everton as Spurs look to tempt Jack Rodwell away from Goodison Park.  Pienaar has barely been with the North London side for eleven months but could already be heading for the White Hart Lane exit after failing to make an impact over the past year.  The South African penned a four-year contract last January in a deal that is believed to be worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted December 30, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted December 30, 2011 So, Henry is pretty much a done deal then. The press, and the anti-Wenger Arsenal fans are having a field day over this. Clearly overlooking the reasons behind the signing. Â He is purely short-term cover whilst two of our forwards are playing in the ACN. No, its not a long-term solution, but we know this. There is no way Wenger will sign another striker until he offloads another first, and nobody will buy Chamakh before he departs for ACN, well not for a decent amount anyway. When he says we have a packed squad, he's probably right. I think this is a good move. Â Some Arsenal fans aren't happy and would rather see us sign Podolski. Whilst I like him as a player, would he not be a bigger risk than Chamakh? Chamakh had helped Bordeaux win Ligue 1 and had shone in the Champions League, Podolski doesn't have great experience in UCL and his club career has hardly been glittering in recent years. Plus he will likely come with a club record pricetag, no way would we take such a risk on an inconsistent striker at a high fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twatters Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I'm happy with the Henry deal. Infact i'm probably alot more excited than i should be. Â He's obviously not as great as he was but I think he can fit in our team well. And i'm not sure what other options we have atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.