I think him giving 100% is guaranteed, hes not a Costa type, he cares about his legacy. If he had a different attitude im sure we would have sold him.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Alexis Sanchez
- Thread starter Decepticon
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I think him giving 100% is guaranteed, hes not a Costa type, he cares about his legacy. If he had a different attitude im sure we would have sold him.
Jazzman
Well-Known Member
Isn't Lacazette already a Sanchez replacement, more or less?
Danamy
Well-Known Member
You've been brainwashed like the rest of them, you're standing still which has cost you over the years, it's that bad even Tottenham have overtaken you?Because letting him go now is writing off the season.
Sell and invest, why not get £60m for Sanchez rather than lose him for nothing next season and go balls deep for Mbappe or Benzema?
Jack Hackett
Well-Known Member
"We'd find it impossible to replace him on the cheap" is what you mean.
Even if we were happy to go to £100m+, which I'd doubt, who exactly could we buy at his level? It's not just price, but availability of an equal replacement and if we got stuck in an auction for such a player with another club, our lack of CL is a negative for us.
You've been brainwashed like the rest of them, you're standing still which has cost you over the years, it's that bad even Tottenham have overtaken you?
Sell and invest, why not get £60m for Sanchez rather than lose him for nothing next season and go balls deep for Mbappe or Benzema?
We were the best team in the country, then we started selling and investing. You end up standing still, Spurs havent won a thing for over a decade.
He'd be a miserable addition to our squad. We've got an out and out striker, we need someone who can play both strike and wing like Jesus. Hence Sanchez or Mbappe.
It wasn't my most thought through comment tbh. On reflection he could be an alternative but wouldn't fit the guardiola mould (fast midgets) and could be really disruptive.
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 19,257
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Even if we were happy to go to £100m+, which I'd doubt, who exactly could we buy at his level? It's not just price, but availability of an equal replacement and if we got stuck in an auction for such a player with another club, our lack of CL is a negative for us.
Sounds like you accept that you are truly fucked .
AgueroSilva
Active Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 36
@AwayDay the money clearly isn't there to spend 200m+. If it was it'd be spent, your club clearly keep those cash reserves there for a rainy day because the owner doesn't put anything into it. Which is fair enough but there should still be around 100m of income that can be used on transfer fee's and then on top of that outgoings which should get you 50m+ from the deadwood alone.
Isn't Lacazette already a Sanchez replacement, more or less?
Im hoping that together, they're going to light it up this season, im very excited about this partnership actually.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,600
Why not indeed.Why not keep him and spend 200m, why is it only Arsenal that have to act financially prudently, when everyone else throw money around like theres no tomorrow.
Am I really on a man city forum, getting told that 50m is more important than success on the field??
That's the point. You won't. Instead you, in effect, loan Sanchez for £50m plus wages for one season and then will shop in the bargain basement again next year.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Even if we were happy to go to £100m+, which I'd doubt, who exactly could we buy at his level? It's not just price, but availability of an equal replacement and if we got stuck in an auction for such a player with another club, our lack of CL is a negative for us.
Given the French connection, Mbappe is the obvious choice. The CL thing you can sell as being a blip. He could be your Henri for the next 10 years and even at £200m that fee would make sense. £150m net (after the sale of Sanchez), over 5 years is £30m/year, i.e. less than Sanchez is going to cost you. And his wages wouldn't need to be £300k/week either.
* Let alone the prestige and marketing opportunities of signing such a prestigious player.
pml79
Well-Known Member
If you keep sanchez and you go into this season do you feel right now going onto all compition prem,Europa,f.a cup , league cup going up against Chelsea, city,Liverpool,spurs,United and poss Everton do you have enough to finish top 4 . Remember that Europa is a killer Thursday Sunday it's affected every team from the premier league who's been involvedWhy not keep him and spend 200m, why is it only Arsenal that have to act financially prudently, when everyone else throw money around like theres no tomorrow.
Am I really on a man city forum, getting told that 50m is more important than success on the field??
Jack Hackett
Well-Known Member
The thing is Sanchez is guaranteed to get in to the Chile side so knows that his performances will not affect his position in the Chile side. There is no guarantees that if Arsenal dont sell him and he feels pissed off there is no guarantee that he will give everything of himself and indeed he could become a huge distraction and issue for team harmony. Indeed if he knows that he is coming to City for instance why would help Arsenal to get top 4 if it meant that City might miss out
Sanchez is professional and he always insists on playing. On balance, I can't see him do anything but to continue to do his best. If he does throw a sulk and fails to perform, he won't start matches which he would hate and a poor season for him and a year older might well turn off potential suitors like City come next year. I'd never heard of Mbappe, Lamar etc last summer. Next summer Sanchez will be competing with the next new crop of players.
AgueroSilva
Active Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 36
I think awayday's point is Arsenal could go out and get Lemar right now, the deal probably will get done and they want him along with Alexis etc. So then to sell Alexis for 50m would be pretty pointless as you aren't improving with his sale.
Jack Hackett
Well-Known Member
That remains to be seen, but I suspect not. I hope I'm wrong.Isn't Lacazette already a Sanchez replacement, more or less?
@AwayDay the money clearly isn't there to spend 200m+. If it was it'd be spent, your club clearly keep those cash reserves there for a rainy day because the owner doesn't put anything into it. Which is fair enough but there should still be around 100m of income that can be used on transfer fee's and then on top of that outgoings which should get you 50m+ from the deadwood alone.
Our owner just rejected a 1.5bn bid for the club, there is a lot of money at the club, and even more waiting to come in, rainy days at Arsenal is no longer an issue. We are one of the richest clubs in the world.
Anyway, Im not sure why everyone is so worried about our finances, its a boring subject, been hearing it since 2004, Id like to get on with the football.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Our owner just rejected a 1.5bn bid for the club, there is a lot of money at the club, and even more waiting to come in, rainy days at Arsenal is no longer an issue. We are one of the richest clubs in the world.
Anyway, Im not sure why everyone is so worried about our finances, its a boring subject, been hearing it since 2004, Id like to get on with the football.
You most certainly are one of the richest clubs in the world. You just don't behave like it.
Why not indeed.
That's the point. You won't. Instead you, in effect, loan Sanchez for £50m plus wages for one season and then will shop in the bargain basement again next year.
I dont disagree with that. The only bit of ambition weve shown in about 6 years is loaning sanchez for 50m for a season. We need to do more of that.
Jack Hackett
Well-Known Member
Given the French connection, Mbappe is the obvious choice. The CL thing you can sell as being a blip. He could be your Henri for the next 10 years and even at £200m that fee would make sense. £150m net (after the sale of Sanchez), over 5 years is £30m/year, i.e. less than Sanchez is going to cost you. And his wages wouldn't need to be £300k/week either.
* Let alone the prestige and marketing opportunities of signing such a prestigious player.
Mbappe would be an obvious choice but I can't see us competing for him with Real Madrid or even Barcelona who now have £200m to burn. I would agree with you if I thought we could be seen as a credible buyer, but I can't see it.
You most certainly are one of the richest clubs in the world. You just don't behave like it.
Absolutely, selling Sanchez now would add to that behaviour.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.