Good piece... But I'm curious - was Xhaka an "objectively good sale"? Yes, they got for a 31 year old and didn't extend him through his age 35 season, which is Objectively Good. But the hole in his position (L8), skillset (progressive passing), and usage (interactions LHS, underlap w/ Nelli) were probably the biggest holes in Arsenal's team last year.
I think a move like that makes sense as Arsenal is moving towards title challenges, but the margins are so tight when you're there that it's a pretty questionable move without adequate replacement for position, skillset and usage.
As a sale in and of itself, absolutely. With add-ons it was something like a top-five sale of a CM over 30 (Leverkusen winning the league and making the CL were rumored to be addons). If Arsenal did fumble the replacement that’s a separate transaction in the evaluation.
I like the goal post shift. All I have heard is a complaint about us selling for less than equivalent players form other clubs have garnered. Not Chelsea profits, although if you look at accounting rules most of those are still profitable. Would Chelsea sell an early 20's player coming off a successful loan in the premier league for a loan and option for 10 million? No, they sell academy players with less than a dozen professional appearances for that.
They actually have/do occasionally sell players for less than that price. I'd recommend looking up Billy Gilmour, Ethan Ampadu, Callum Hudson-Odoi for starters. As I say in the piece they have their good sales and they have their sales that age poorly, like everyone.
Excellent, really good data and points you have brought out. Thank you.
Great read as always
Good piece... But I'm curious - was Xhaka an "objectively good sale"? Yes, they got for a 31 year old and didn't extend him through his age 35 season, which is Objectively Good. But the hole in his position (L8), skillset (progressive passing), and usage (interactions LHS, underlap w/ Nelli) were probably the biggest holes in Arsenal's team last year.
I think a move like that makes sense as Arsenal is moving towards title challenges, but the margins are so tight when you're there that it's a pretty questionable move without adequate replacement for position, skillset and usage.
As a sale in and of itself, absolutely. With add-ons it was something like a top-five sale of a CM over 30 (Leverkusen winning the league and making the CL were rumored to be addons). If Arsenal did fumble the replacement that’s a separate transaction in the evaluation.
I like the goal post shift. All I have heard is a complaint about us selling for less than equivalent players form other clubs have garnered. Not Chelsea profits, although if you look at accounting rules most of those are still profitable. Would Chelsea sell an early 20's player coming off a successful loan in the premier league for a loan and option for 10 million? No, they sell academy players with less than a dozen professional appearances for that.
They actually have/do occasionally sell players for less than that price. I'd recommend looking up Billy Gilmour, Ethan Ampadu, Callum Hudson-Odoi for starters. As I say in the piece they have their good sales and they have their sales that age poorly, like everyone.