Alexis Sanchez

[Newman Noggs]

I've tried not to, but I find myself largely agreeing with Marvin. And, come to that, Awayday too.

If we sign him, well and good. Only a fool would argue that the club doesn't know best. My, personal, preference though, if it isn't sorted soon, would be for him to stay at Arsenal and for us to move on.

 

[Marvin]

From January though he could be effectively another teams player. Would you want a player in your team for 5 months who's hearts not at the club? Surely you tie him down now or sell.

Read that article in the Independent I quoted. They can't give Sanchez the terms he wants unless they sell a player (Ozil or Giroud?).

I think Awayday has a point. Wenger will be very tempted to keep him. His legacy at Arsenal depends on them getting their top 4 place back. But Sanchez is also in a similar position. What a magnificent footballer he has been, but what does he want for his last years? He can either stay at Arsenal and give it 12 more months and then walk, or he could put a transfer request in and go to City.

City can't do anything, but watch and wait and see if Sanchez is prepared to push it so this transfer story has probably gone as far as it is going to unless Sanchez lights the match.

 

[bluemonkey71]

I'm not so sure that journalist from the Independent has it right even though he does mention at the bottom.


"If it does increase beyond that limit, the money can only come from external sources such as player sales, ticketing or commercial money, rather than Premier League central funds."


They can just sign a new comerical deal to offset it from my understanding.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Talksh*t conducting a grand smear campaign now .
I've lost count of the number of times they've used the word "greedy"

 

[MarsLlama]

The sudden vilification suggests to me that Arsenal have given a brief of some sort that Sanchez will be leaving now Lacazette has signed.

 

[JCB001]

This ^

 

[ADegenerate]

Love it. I really do.

 

[StretfordBlueReece]

I dont think Sanchez is worth being our highest paid player after he hits 30. Its not in our interests to put him on a mega long term contract, if he spends one of them playing for us at 130k a week its a great result.

I agree sanchez has got 2 years left playing at the highest level don't know what all the fuss is about.

 

[Jazzman]

I agree sanchez has got 2 years left playing at the highest level don't know what all the fuss is about.

In 2 years he is 30. That's still younger than David Silva is today and only a few months older than Messi is today. I honestly think the age argument is a little bit bullshit.

 

[Rammyblues]

He will be on 500k per week at city, well that is what the press will say. (If he signs obviously)

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Two nights ago most of the noise was all about Sanchez deciding he would stay, last night it was Cross saying he's demanding £400k a week. Basically, what i'm saying is it's all just noise so far until we find out definitively whats happening. It will be the supporters of both clubs that need to endure the rollercoaster.

I couldn't call which way it's gonna go, but I think Arsenal's loss if he leaves will be far more palpable than City's if he opts to stay. I'd love to have a player of his quality in our ranks, but I won't cry about it if he stays at the Emirates. Hopefully City would then go and have a crack at Dembele instead. Cross is like Lord Haw Haw in terms of churning out Arsenal leaked propaganda, cos there ain't no way Sanchez would command that sort of wage at City. We've driven our wage bill down over the last 3 to 4 years and I think we're now only the 4th highest payers in the Prem, with Sergio the touted top earner on about £250k a week.

 

[Marvin]

I agree sanchez has got 2 years left playing at the highest level don't know what all the fuss is about.

Perhaps because he's the no.1 footballer in the Premier league. Issue for City is we probably have the No.4,5 and 6 in our forward line and are not short of forwards and as you say his lifetime is limited.

Guardola is a manager though who has to win something next season. He wants here and now. So do we. But there's always alternatives.

 

[StretfordBlueReece]

In 2 years he is 30. That's still younger than David Silva is today and only a few months older than Messi is today. I honestly think the age argument is a little bit bullshit.

For me there's a difference in class between silva and Sanchez imo.. I'd go for the magician all day every day! Also silva is the best ever player to have put on a blue shirt that's why he is still here. Signing a 28 year old for 50 million with 1 year left on his contract is a gamble no matter who it is. If he was couple years younger then I'd be all for it. Just not worth it imo!

 

[Jazzman]

Perhaps because he's the no.1 footballer in the Premier league. Issue for City is we probably have the No.4,5 and 6 in our forward line and are not short of forwards and as you say his lifetime is limited.

Guardola is a manager though who has to win something next season. He wants here and now. So do we. But there's always alternatives.

Sanchez is a utility player who can play more or less all positions in our attack. I think this aspect is highly valued by Pep.

 

[AwayDay]

Hed still be a good player at 30, no doubt. But would a 30 year old Sanchez get into this city team, Im not sure. If he was 30 now I doubt youd be going for him.

 

[Jazzman]

For me there's a difference in class between silva and Sanchez imo.. I'd go for the magician all day every day! Also silva is the best ever player to have put on a blue shirt that's why he is still here. Signing a 28 year old for 50 million with 1 year left on his contract is a gamble no matter who it is. If he was couple years younger then I'd be all for it. Just not worth it imo!

It's a valid argument mate. 50 million is steep for any player with 1 year left on his contract that's for sure. If you then combine that with the belief that he will only be able to play well for 2 years it becomes a difficult proposition.

 

[Rammyblues]

It's a valid argument mate. 50 million is steep for any player with 1 year left on his contract that's for sure. If you then combine that with the belief that he will only be able to play well for 2 years it becomes a difficult proposition.

From a financial sense we should not be interested but for me we sign him and the four fullbacks we win the prem and will have a great stab at CL.

 

[Marvin]

Hed still be a good player at 30, no doubt. But would a 30 year old Sanchez get into this city team, Im not sure. If he was 30 now I doubt youd be going for him.

I agree with you. It's marginal which i suppose for a City fan is a good place to be. As a City fan I look at my team and wonder why we are not looking at other areas, but for all I know we probably are.

Have you seen the news about Lukaku? I can see a formal bid for Giroud heading your way.

Would you take £20m for Giroud? That would be a real headache for Wenger. If Sanchez goes as well then that would wreck your season before it began, but if Sanchez stays, how much football is Giroud going to get.

 

[Marvin]

Sanchez is a utility player who can play more or less all positions in our attack. I think this aspect is highly valued by Pep.

Good point.

 

[Jazzman]

From a financial sense we should not be interested but for me we sign him and the four fullbacks we win the prem and will have a great stab at CL.

He is in my humble opinion one of the 5 best players in the world at present.
I think he replaces Navas and Nolito in our squad as he is able to cover both positions, so it goes some way justifying the high costs.
But you are right, he will be a very expensive player.