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.
“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.
At this stage, I don't think that having either Rogers or Barcola would have moved the odds all that much. maybe more like 2-3%. Arsenal are co-favorites with Barca and PSG at about 15%.
If Arsenal had signed one of them maybe they are a touch higher but with so much still up to chance on draws after the League phase it probably is pretty small.
I probably would have had Barcola at the 106m that Liverpool ended at before bonuses at top of where I would have liked to be. Rogers at 117 is probably 30-40% over where I would have been comfortable going (probably more 80-85m). He's probably a more natural fit for Chelsea playing in the dual 10 position with Palmer than he would playing off the left at Arsenal.
Was Martinelli for Tzolis nothing more than a cost cutting exercise? They are statistically like for like for like in so many ways that it's hard not to be cynical about this transaction. You can look at the situation many ways, but ultimately we have a similar, 6 month younger, un-EPL-tested, un world cup tested,
un-any type of top league tested similar player on half (reportedly) the money.
Or, you can compare him to Trossard. Again, statistically similar. More similar in playing style. 6 years younger at 2/3 the salary.
All in all, at the level Arsenal have reached, we should be buying players to start because they are markedly better than than the current starter. It doesn't seem that way.
Is this a timidity to spend? Or, are the people making decisions poor at their job?
Could you do one of those cool multi-color graphs for the 3 players? Rember, The Challenger Pro League goals should be accorded 2/3 of a goal (according to ESM, presenters of the European Golden Boot).
Good Luck to Martinelli and Jesus, they were great gunners.
Meanwhile, City, who took us to the absolute wire last year, have dramatically reloaded and now look to be the team to beat, if Maresco turns out to be any good. Their starting 11 is scary.
They were always going to be strong. I think that the level of change will still make it tough for them to fully gel and it might mean that they have a bit more growing pains, especially as they got a lot younger.
Ik extremely worried about our ability to score given it's a near certainly that injuries will strike. My heart won't take another season of constant nail biters
Pretty balanced. I’m higher on Guimaraes than you, given the inflated market. Maybe if we had a couple younger players (Pedro last season is a huge regret) we could eat one more at that stage of the age curve.
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.
“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.
At this stage, I don't think that having either Rogers or Barcola would have moved the odds all that much. maybe more like 2-3%. Arsenal are co-favorites with Barca and PSG at about 15%.
If Arsenal had signed one of them maybe they are a touch higher but with so much still up to chance on draws after the League phase it probably is pretty small.
I probably would have had Barcola at the 106m that Liverpool ended at before bonuses at top of where I would have liked to be. Rogers at 117 is probably 30-40% over where I would have been comfortable going (probably more 80-85m). He's probably a more natural fit for Chelsea playing in the dual 10 position with Palmer than he would playing off the left at Arsenal.
Was Martinelli for Tzolis nothing more than a cost cutting exercise? They are statistically like for like for like in so many ways that it's hard not to be cynical about this transaction. You can look at the situation many ways, but ultimately we have a similar, 6 month younger, un-EPL-tested, un world cup tested,
un-any type of top league tested similar player on half (reportedly) the money.
Or, you can compare him to Trossard. Again, statistically similar. More similar in playing style. 6 years younger at 2/3 the salary.
All in all, at the level Arsenal have reached, we should be buying players to start because they are markedly better than than the current starter. It doesn't seem that way.
Is this a timidity to spend? Or, are the people making decisions poor at their job?
Could you do one of those cool multi-color graphs for the 3 players? Rember, The Challenger Pro League goals should be accorded 2/3 of a goal (according to ESM, presenters of the European Golden Boot).
Good Luck to Martinelli and Jesus, they were great gunners.
Meanwhile, City, who took us to the absolute wire last year, have dramatically reloaded and now look to be the team to beat, if Maresco turns out to be any good. Their starting 11 is scary.
They were always going to be strong. I think that the level of change will still make it tough for them to fully gel and it might mean that they have a bit more growing pains, especially as they got a lot younger.
Ik extremely worried about our ability to score given it's a near certainly that injuries will strike. My heart won't take another season of constant nail biters
Pretty balanced. I’m higher on Guimaraes than you, given the inflated market. Maybe if we had a couple younger players (Pedro last season is a huge regret) we could eat one more at that stage of the age curve.