Deadline Day, Or As It’s Better Known At Arsenal: Friday


Transfer Deadline Day at Arsenal

The transfer window has slammed shut. Although that might not be the correct way to describe it because “slamming” implies a loud and dramatic action. For Arsenals fans, the transfer window ended not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Rather than droning on about the entire summer and wondering aloud about the season ahead and the future of the club, I’d rather just provide a reflection on what I consider the few big issues left unresolved as we enter September.

It seems to me that when Arsenal have a plan for the transfer window, we tend to execute rather effectively. We were tipped off pretty early in the summer that Robin Van Persie would not be staying at the club. And we appeared prepared for that inevitability. We grabbed Podolski at the outset of the summer to show our intent, and added Giroud shortly after to soften the blow of losing our captain and primary goal-scorer. Regardless of whether you think we should have kept van Persie, and regardless of whether you think he was properly replaced, and regardless of whether you think he should’ve been sold elsewhere, we should be able to agree that Arsenal seemed to have a plan for dealing with his departure. They knew their targets, they got them early, and they sold van Persie. Case closed.

Similarly, it seems clear that Arsene had a plan for the playmaker role vacated by Cesc the summer before. We lacked dynamism in midfield last season. Wenger wanted to address that this summer and he did it in style. Santi Cazorla was the signing of the summer in my opinion and proves, yet again, that when Arsene and Arsenal have a clear plan, they are capable of executing it with aplomb.

That’s the good news from this summer. The bad news is that Arsenal don’t seem to know how to react when things don’t go the way they expect. We saw last summer just how panicked and disorganized the club can be when players make unexpected decisions. Our trolley dash during the last deadline day worked out in the long-run, arguably rescuing a top four place. But the start to last season was a direct result of the summer’s hilariously discouragingly bungled business.

This summer we saw evidence of the same problems. Wenger knew RVP was off and he had a plan. He knew he needed to replace Cesc after a season without a midfield maestro and he did it brilliantly. But when Alex Song suddenly made his role at Arsenal untenable, familiar refrains from last summer could be heard once again.

Song started 64 Premier League games the last two seasons. Say what you like about him, he was one of the first names on the team sheet. As such, you cannot afford to lose him without a proper replacement. Wenger seemed to acknowledge as much when he said, “We are looking to bring one more midfielder in of course, and maybe one defender as well because we still feel we are short in some positions.”

I realize that Arsene can never be taken at his word when discussing transfer plans, but I think this was a genuine statement by the manager. Use of the words “of course” suggests it was obvious to Arsene that you must buy a midfielder when you sell a midfielder who started almost every game the previous season and for whom you have no natural replacement in the squad.

Say what you like about Diaby, Jack, Coquelin and Frimpong, but expecting any of them to fill the void left by Song is a bit of a leap of faith. Three of the four have serious injury concerns and the fourth (Coquelin) also has suffered terrible injuries during his young career. Moreover, none of them has extensive first team experience. Jack is the most talented player at the club, but it could still be quite some time before we see him firing on all cylinders again. Song, for all his failings, has extensive experience, a decent fitness record, and did happen to provide the most assists in the team last season.

But the more remarkable thing about Song’s departure and the fact that he wasn’t replaced is that Alex Song, just 24 years of age, still had 3 years left on his deal with Arsenal. He didn’t have to be sold. Training ground tantrums and dodgy agents aside, Alex Song was a regular starter for Arsenal, healthy, at a good age, was on a very reasonable wage, and had 3 years left on his deal.

You cannot sell such a player unless you have a clear plan for replacing him. Links to a loan move for Michael Essien on deadline day suggest that we had no such plan. Perhaps the plan was to bring in Sahin on loan from Real Madrid, but our decision not to match Liverpool’s offer (rightly or wrongly), eliminated that option.

Had Arsenal bought a player like M’Villa or Capoue, you could argue that Song was sold for a healthy profit because he was a problem character and we had a clear plan for replacing him. But that’s not the case. We bought no one. We sold our most dependable midfielder over the past two seasons, for a healthy profit, and did not replace him with anyone except existing players who are untested or beset by injuries or both. And we did that despite the manager saying that we would “of course add one more midfielder.” It seems to me that selling Alex Song was not part of this summer’s plan and that is borne out by the club’s failure to replace him.

That brings me to the other hugely unexpected development of the summer: Theo Walcott’s contract situation. The transfer window is now closed and Theo Walcott is 10 months away from leaving Arsenal for nothing. Bought at a young age for a healthy fee, Walcott was earmarked for stardom at Arsenal. We put time and energy and resources into developing him and put up with quite a few injury riddled seasons and frustrating performances along the way.

But lately there have been glimpses of the player he can become. Last season he played big in big games and he was second on the team in goals and assists. So when we lost van Persie this summer and subsequently lost Song, it became increasingly important that we re-sign Theo Walcott. For a club to succeed it needs some degree of continuity and losing Theo would’ve been one-too-many key departures in one summer, especially after suffering a few the summer before.

As important as it was to sign Theo, there was also the realization that if he didn’t sign, he might need to be sold. Unlike Alex Song, there are players in the squad who can do many of the things Theo already does, and some would argue that the other options are even more appealing. Regardless of your opinion on the latter point, it would be unthinkable to allow Theo to leave the club for free next summer. An English international with huge marketability, in his early 20s, and who Lionel Messi once described as a “one of the most dangerous players in the world,” would surely command a sizable fee that could be effectively re-invested in the squad. If Theo wouldn’t re-sign, he would have to be sold.

Except Theo wasn’t sold. And he didn’t re-sign. Once again the club seemed to panic in the face of an unexpected and challenging decision and allowed the window to close without resolving Theo’s contract situation conclusively. Again, this was at odds with Arsene’s statement that Theo’s situation would be sorted out “one way or the other” before the window closed. Just a few days later, the lack of resolution had Arsene declaring Theo’s love for the club and his disregard for money. I’d guess that even the manager himself doesn’t believe that line of reasoning.

We’ve seen what players value time and again. Regardless of who they supported as a child, or how much Mr. Wenger did for their career, or how patient the club was with their development, we’ve seen player after player choose money over loyalty. And now Theo Walcott is in a position to make a huge financial gain next summer at the expense of our great club. He can leave on a lucrative Bosman and leave Arsenal holding nothing but the bill for his time on the treatment table and the balls that had to be purchased when his wayward training-ground crosses left London Colney.

Now the real fun begins. Because Theo will likely spend the rest of this season playing out the last year of his deal. Every press conference will feature questions about his contract status and whether he’s leaving in the summer. Every time he pulls out of a 50/50 challenge there’ll be questions about his motivation. Every time he’s on the bench there’ll be stories that he’s become a problem in the dressing room. And even though it might all be rubbish, it will still be a very unwanted distraction.

Furthermore, considering the board’s clear intention to make a profit off transfers every summer, losing Theo for free next summer just means that we’ll be roughly 20 million Pounds worse off in next summer’s market. Something to consider when you ask whether it was worth keeping him this season regardless of his contract status.

It’s a lousy situation and one that I don’t think the club was prepared for. I’m guessing that Arsenal genuinely believed Theo would re-sign before the window shut. Perhaps they also expected to have plenty of offers for the winger in case the contract talks broke down. But neither seemed to happen and there was no contingency. Ultimately, letting Theo start the season unsigned just gives him all the power and seems to further prove that the club does not fare well when faced with an unexpected circumstance.

In final adjudication I think you’d have to say that Arsenal get a passing grade for this transfer window, but just barely. Maybe.

The club once again made a profit on transfers and we now have a clear indication that profiting from transfers is an annual requirement. So we have to accept that even though none of us will like it. Arsene signed three very good players, one of whom was the buy of the summer. We do have some players returning from longterm injuries and that will bolster the squad. We also managed to move out some of the so-called “deadwood,” even if most of the moves were merely loans.

But we also lost two of our biggest contributors from one season ago. Again. We sold our captain and talisman to one of our most hated rivals and have already had to suffer through seeing him score a goal of top quality while we have failed to tally in two matches. And we allowed a valuable asset to start the season in the final year of his contract. All of which is enough to make you sick to your stomach.

Wenger is a genius. He’s a master of making the most out of limited resources. But some of the “resources” he’s working with are “limited” because of his decisions. Last season we were cut adrift from the title contenders and were relatively fortunate to finish in the Champions League places. We were out of the Champions League after the first knockout round. And we were eliminated from the FA Cup by an unimpressive Sunderland.

This season we all hope to improve on those results. So the important question is whether the squad is stronger. But not just stronger. Significantly stronger. Because last season’s team was significantly short of winning anything and will need more than marginal improvement if we expect to lift a trophy or two or three. Is a team that lost van Persie and Song, Signed Podolski, Giroud and Cazorla, and saw Jack Wilshere and Abou Diaby return from season-long injuries stronger? I actually believe that it is. Is it “significantly stronger?” That’s where I’m not so sure.

As always, we’ll keep hope alive. I believe this can be a special year, but I also believe that it would’ve been much easier for it to be a special year had Arsenal coped with this summer’s business a bit better.

Now that the window is closed, we can hopefully stop talking about who isn’t at the club and get behind the players wearing the Arsenal shirt this season. That starts on Sunday at Anfield.

Come on You Gunners!

About Yankee Gunner

Loyal Arsenal Supporter, Obscure Television Personality
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Deadline Day, Or As It’s Better Known At Arsenal: Friday

  1. benjamin dockter says:

    Very well written. I agree with pretty much everything you said, but one thing keeps nagging at me in the back of my mind. 2 years ago, we were in the same midfield situation. We had Cesc, Song and Denilson and EVERYONE was crying out for another star midfielder. Jack had just come back from his loan at Bolton, but no one believed he was ready yet. We ended up not signing anyone and Jack became arguably our player of the season. I’m not saying Wenger didn’t make a mistake by not signing anyone this summer, but I’m really hoping that the reason he didn’t is that he sees that same potential in one of our younger players again this year.

  2. ab9 says:

    Living in hope…like all the other smaller clubs.

  3. Santori says:

    Cannot agree with you more and your voice is one of levity in the somewhat hysterical/reactionary world we live in today.

    With regards transfers :

    1) Fully agree with you on Song and that we are IMO setting a dangerous (additional) precedent in not standing more firm with someone with 3 years left on contract. Absolutely agree that it may also (or has) translated the wrong way into the dressing room (Sagna, whom I agree is just speaking home truths).

    I agree we are light in the deeper end of midfield which is likely the reason why we were in the hunt for Sahin (on loan) and Cabaye late on.

    I also agree that Jack on return will be massive for us LANS and that he will likely takeup as alternate to Diaby (or vice versa)

    It therefore begs the question why we let Song go so cheaply when we know he is a familiar player for the back 4 in an important node in midfield (where attack translates to defense or vice versa). Considering what was mooted in the trades with regards his salary ‘expectations’ (55K- 80K), and that wewould have had to sustain a large chunk of Sahin’s wages (reputedly 100K-120K), this makes the move quite perplexing.

    But when you add the fact that Jack is more likely IMO effective playing pushed forward in the Santi role, I fear we have biased Wilshere towards a deeper role (if Diaby) gets a knock) which is a risk we are now taking on the Frenchman’s undoubted talent but durability issues.

    2) In concert, there has been much confusion with regard how we have dealt with Walcott and again, to me what we’ve done is most mystifying.

    Unlike Song IMO, Walcott is more expendable (and I say this with utmost respect for his talent)
    To me we should have put the gun to his (agent’s) head and had pen on paper on first day of season. if not, we should have moved him when the likes of Rodwell, Sinclair, Adam Johnson, Victor Moses were on market.

    Again, if we were content to sell on Song, I wouold have thought that the very least we could have done was to have secured (through our recent goodwill) the loan or permanent transfer of one Ibrahim Affelay who was discontent at the Catalan club 9relaise Barca DNA was found mostly on the bench) and who could make our right that much more nuanced/stronger not to mention should er some bruden off of Santi (since the Dutchman can also play across midfield and in the playmaker position)

    What I think I do get out of this two above issues is the fact that whilst it is a given that we will be uncompetitive against the likes of the uber rich clubs (the chasm in wages offered is simply too great), we arenot meeting expectations of the players which seem considerably lower and more realistic.

    Assuming (mother of all fuck ups of course) that Walcott was expecting 100K per week which was widely reported, this does not represent a massive jump in wage and is prob close to commensurate with the sort of productivity he has displayed this last season.

    Now I’m not suggesting keeping Walcott, we have better options in market in this position than Song’s, but if we put ourselevs int he player’s cleats for the moment, we will come to realise that Walcott’s biggest asset is his pace.

    Put into context that we are asking him to commit for another 4 seasons (till he is 27/28) when his pace will begin to dry up, you begin to wonder if it is that unreasonable to expect him to play for us considerably below the sort of wages he may expect at some other venues for the next half decade until such time whereby his value will detiorarate rapidly.

    It seems simply unrealistic on our part.

    Whilst we expect some loyalty from players to club, they don’t do themselevs any favours if they are not realistic about their career choices.

    Commit now to 3-4 years and Walcott will possibly forgo the sort of money which say RVP believes he should have been renumerated with all these years (had he been fit)

    Lest we forget, everyone’s favorite player these days Santi rejected us for Malaga but a season ago which iMO goes much to illustrating where the true concerns lie with our current transfer policy.

    Now I am not pretending to know the intricacies in the Song deal (I’m sure there must be more to it than mere dissatisfection with pay) but considering the rise he was expecting was a trifle (I say this in context with pcurrent player wages) 25K per week (still negotiable), we seem to me to have been a little too dogmatic in our approach wher we may have been able to have exercised a little more realpolitik for the overall benefit of the current team.

    Maybe a more nuance approach may have worked better. Whilst we do not want to be held hostage to player’s antics, I hardly see caving in on Song’s demands and giving him his wish (a move to Barca’s bench) to be a healthy decision either.

    Rather, we could have used performance bonses better and rewarded the better performing players last season that we wanted to keep. It would have been a proactive way to make up on some of Song’s wage expectations whislt keeping th current integrity of the contract in hand.

    It would have at very least given us cover, bought time for the likes of Coquelin (or someone-else) to develop and encouraged other players to be more competitive for like reward.

    Then tell Song we will visit the contract next summer and if we are satisfied that he has been replaced, move him on if need be then or even in January if the puzzle begins to fall into place.

    To me, we are in danger of being too rigid with our interpretation of our principles.

    Clearly some subtlety needs to be used and to the ultimate benefit of our short term (season’s) goals in mind.

    Now with regard the lack of replacement coming in for Song, here’s where I think the differance between us looking just ahead of our noses, and Wenger’s longer term strategic approach reaps its differance.

    Likely, I feel, the issue on Song’s replacement was dependant on opportunity cost-

    …Thereby if we load just anyone of decent quality to cover now and fully aware that our midfield is quite full (not to mention the difficulties in letting go of under performing players in the current cash starved market), we will create a situation whereby we may not be able to load on with a better quality player if that player becomes available shortly down the line (bear in mind January is but less than 4 months away)

    Quiet obviously, Wenger must be of the opinion that (Song aside), the candidates for the position in MVila, Capoue, Cabaye do not represent any greater a potential than a Coquelin who is already well settled into our system and played a fair number of crucial games for us last season.

    Sahin would have been a different matter as it would have beena loan with an option to buy.

    So I think it fair that we will go into the next 4 months with Arteta backed up by Coquelin, Diaby by Jack (and in some sense Santi by Jack…when Jack returns) until which time we can review the performances and what may come in from market in Jan.

    Coquelin for the most part does carry a risk where if we had Song available for 4 months to a year, this would have been mitigated but the player looks every bit as tenacious as an MVila, tehcnical as Diaby and has ability to distribute over the top from deep like Song. He is a massive potential and it is a ballsy decision on Arsene’s part (pushed somewhat by circumstances in the market) to afford him the opportunity to step up.

    The other position I would have liked to see reinforcement (and again I agree with you 100%) is with our striker.

    I can see the logic (as mentioned on the arse2mouse podcast) with regard Giroud’s physical presence particularly with teams sitting deep adoptinga physical approach agaisnt us, but I do think we improve our odds with a third option up top given the line up is entirely new (minus the ineffectual Chamakh). more importantly, I do think we could benefit froma bit of pace up front particularly if employed in the final 30 mins of a match when legs begin to grwo weary or if play opens up.

    The problem I think Wenger faced in the summer window is that again it’s a question of opportunity costs. Bear in mind we still carry uncertainty in our wage structure as we still technicallu, have 3 unwanted strikers on our books (Bendtner, Park on loan…let’s hope they put in decent performances for their sakes and ours) and Chamakh.

    So I don’t think he was keen on loading another player on without at least moving oe of these forwards on to free up the wage structure (let’s not forget Arsharvin is also still as we speak on the books)

    I also feel that because we brought in two new strikers close to entering their peak age, Wenger was likely looking for a younger player (Hence the link to MBaye) to develop (like he did RVP0 for the future.

    Now if you put the quest for speed(and technicality) to match Giroud’s physicality , Poldy’s directness, along with the age requirement, there aren’t many out in the market who would fit the quality bill.

    I can think of Leandro Damiao and Jovetic, both 22/23, both overpriced (although not as much as you may think) and both likely holding out for bigger moves (that to our advantage has not materialised)

    There is also a wild card option of loading on the injury prone Pato (still only 22) who has frustrated Milan with his availability (We should at least be familiar with this sort of rehabilitation). He is qualtiy but of course carries massive risk. Still with Bendtner on loan (as with the Affelay situation) we should have sufficient goodwill to sway the player our way for a more reasonable sum than can be imagined (affording the Italians a chance to rebuild their frontline in return). Considering we won’t need to use him except sparringly to close matches, it may represent a calculated risk on an incredibly talented (but injury wrecked) YOUNG player.

    That aside, I think again the thinking on this end is rather than load on the wrong player now and have yet another unwanted player that will be difficult to get rid of, we should hold till January and see who else comes on line or if prices for some of the possible targets soften up.

    All things considering, I feel it isn’t our buying policy that is at issue here. We have bought well again at low prices for good quality and for the most parts, made disicipline/sensible decisions. Rather, where we need to ask ourselevs some serious questions is in regard to our ability to retain players (I believe Sagna, and ultimately RVP’s questions hold some validity). Are we being a bit too pedantic with our principles and are we not seeing the wide picture in regard to the reality on the gorund with regards the wage differential and player’s actual expectations?

    That’s something I feel we should be looking seriously into at the moment as it has (if not already) started in poor precedent IMO.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s