Yeh, he's been slightly handicapped in the goalscoring stakes by playing as a CDM, wonder why that is? Idiot Journo.Arsenal are considering a £17m summer move for Paris St-Germain striker Marco Verratti, 21, despite the fact the Italian has not scored in 50 appearances since signing for the French club in 2012.
aguero93:20 said:Metro:
Yeh, he's been slightly handicapped in the goalscoring stakes by playing as a CDM, wonder why that is? Idiot Journo.Arsenal are considering a £17m summer move for Paris St-Germain striker Marco Verratti, 21, despite the fact the Italian has not scored in 50 appearances since signing for the French club in 2012.
and he's not a striker.Kippax Street 1880 said:aguero93:20 said:Metro:
Yeh, he's been slightly handicapped in the goalscoring stakes by playing as a CDM, wonder why that is? Idiot Journo.Arsenal are considering a £17m summer move for Paris St-Germain striker Marco Verratti, 21, despite the fact the Italian has not scored in 50 appearances since signing for the French club in 2012.
Verratti would be double that at least
more lazy than useless said:Perhaps the debate on Ozil has taken the discussion a bit sideways and the real point that was being made has been forgotten. Wenger bought him on the last day of the window, out of the blue. Maybe he thought 'this is too good an opportunity to miss', but why did he still have at least £40m to spend? If he had sorted out the forwards and defence adequately and still had the money then fine, but as he didn't, I don't think buying Ozil adds or subtracts from Wenger's actions being un-fathomable to everybody else.
As for Ozil on the pitch, the jury is still out for me, but if Wenger doesn't sort out the rest of the team for next season it will still have been pointless to buy him. Even more so if he helped make last seasons 4th place team finish 5th.
It would be interesting to know how much money the owners have taken out of the club while the club 'couldn't afford' transfer fees and wages.
Ivan Gazanidis didn't earn a dividend per share, but took £3,879,000 in directors payments in 2011/12 including bonuses, benefits and pension contributions, nearly 4 times as much as their next highest executive. a Rose by a different name....M18CTID said:more lazy than useless said:Perhaps the debate on Ozil has taken the discussion a bit sideways and the real point that was being made has been forgotten. Wenger bought him on the last day of the window, out of the blue. Maybe he thought 'this is too good an opportunity to miss', but why did he still have at least £40m to spend? If he had sorted out the forwards and defence adequately and still had the money then fine, but as he didn't, I don't think buying Ozil adds or subtracts from Wenger's actions being un-fathomable to everybody else.
As for Ozil on the pitch, the jury is still out for me, but if Wenger doesn't sort out the rest of the team for next season it will still have been pointless to buy him. Even more so if he helped make last seasons 4th place team finish 5th.
It would be interesting to know how much money the owners have taken out of the club while the club 'couldn't afford' transfer fees and wages.
Some Gooners on that Untold Arsenal blog were quick to tell me a couple of months ago that nobody on their board of directors takes money out of the club. Can anyone clarify?
sjk2008 said:Ozil has most certainly not had a great first season. He had a brilliant honeymoon period and was great to watch in the first 2 months, but he's tailed off big time, mainly due to being overplayed.
Please go and find them then. Your argument was that the stats meant Tevez and Drogba had done well, which they don't and nor did the fans of the club agree they had been great.City Raider said:]
lol i could find more articles saying the opposite but don't need to because my argument isn't really based on how good they were, they only need to be average to have had a better first season than ozil