Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eyes Without A Face's avatar

Selling Martinelli without a replacement was wrong. Financially it was ok at best. Getting rid of such a solid player, excellent guy, and Proper Gunner and leaving the team short is just wrong. We paid big money for aging players because money isn't the only thing. Then we weakened the squad and got rid of a warrior and a guy who truly loved arsenal... and also outperformed two wingers who we kept, because... I guess money is everything.

Bose Ikard's avatar

“Arsenal I think rightly balked at the price for the next best alternatives of Morgan Rogers and Bradley Barcola.” Really really love your work, but I’m very surprised you’ve held the line with this view. What’s your current estimate of how much better our PL/UCL champion odds are if we have Rogers or Barcola? 5%? That seems fair… maybe even low. We won the PL (barely) and lost the UCL (barely) last year, albeit with Nelli+Trossard, and healthy Saliba and Timber (mostly) and without Kai/Ode (mostly). Should we “overpay” by £30M for that extra 5%? I think the NPV of that is strongly positive. The market is the market, and given the team’s trophy window, it’s naive or stubborn but definitely self-defeating for Berta to insist the market valuations — validated by many, many sales — is somehow “wrong” and he’s somehow right. He’s only “right” if he can actually consummate a deal in his range, otherwise he’s just deluded.

7 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?