robin van persie (continued)

[angleseyblue]

fee had to be low to accomodate him becoming spurs highest paid player apparently, city must just have wanted him off the books.

 

[Walkbustaxi]

Re: Do we need RVP?

NO

 

[Chevelle]

Re: Do we need RVP?

No we don't, please please please NO arsenal players, pleeeeeaaaaaase

Considering how awesome clichy was last season, I would have to disagree.

 

[ABU inc GDR]

Re: Do we need RVP?

The players we have up front wont win us the CL.

RVP is an exceptional striker, my only concern would be how they play Aguero with another striker but I feel RVP has more chance than most as his movement is exceptional. Aguero and Ballo and Aguero and Dzeko never worked for us, they're all fighting for the same space and it never worked. You'd see it work with RVP as he's positionally aware.

When Ageuro and Tevez play together either one doesn't mind dropping deeper into different space for the other as they're friends, this partnership works.

 

[Dax777]

Re: Do we need RVP?

Lets be frank for a second here. Van Persie is every bit as good as any of our strokers. And last season, he was better than all of them. Blue blinders off. He is a stud and an immense talent. But all that said, we do not need him. We have 3 extremely talented strikers in Kun, Mario and Carlito. Dzeko has not seemed like a great fit, and might be forced out, but even then bringing in RVP would be pointless. He will make us slightly better, and has the potential to going back to being injured often. Not to mention causing a raucos in the front line.

So personally, I don't want him, and if he decides he is leaving Arsenal, I'd rather he went abroad. I don't want anyone else getting him either. PSG or Juventuss will do nicely.

 

[pudge]

Re: Do we need RVP?

Lets be frank for a second here. Van Persie is every bit as good as any of our strokers. And last season, he was better than all of them. Blue blinders off. He is a stud and an immense talent. But all that said, we do not need him. We have 3 extremely talented strikers in Kun, Mario and Carlito. Dzeko has not seemed like a great fit, and might be forced out, but even then bringing in RVP would be pointless. He will make us slightly better, and has the potential to going back to being injured often. Not to mention causing a raucos in the front line.

So personally, I don't want him, and if he decides he is leaving Arsenal, I'd rather he went abroad. I don't want anyone else getting him either. PSG or Juventuss will do nicely.

Gay

Also, 'Carlito'? Christ on a bike..

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Re: Do we need RVP?

The players we have up front wont win us the CL.

RVP is an exceptional striker, my only concern would be how they play Aguero with another striker but I feel RVP has more chance than most as his movement is exceptional. Aguero and Ballo and Aguero and Dzeko never worked for us, they're all fighting for the same space and it never worked. You'd see it work with RVP as he's positionally aware.

When Ageuro and Tevez play together either one doesn't mind dropping deeper into different space for the other as they're friends, this partnership works.

do you know how many we scored last season

 

[Darkhorse]

The only thing fans have to ask themselves re Van Persie is this..

Will City be better with him ??

I completely understand your point of view and I agree that we would be better with Van Persie. However, I think this logic might be perhaps a little short-sighted. The question should be, how high on our priorities should be getting a new striker be?

Personally, I would put signing a deep lying playmaker, central defender and an attacking midfielder/winger ahead of getting a striker.

So if we only have the funds to buy 2 or 3 quality additions as the Chairman has seemed to indicate, would you want to sign Van Persie?

You might argue that signing Van Persie is not mutually exclusive with reinforcing the areas we need to. If that's the case, then fine we're all happy. Yet, considering the large wages that he will be on there is a good chance that by signing him we will not be able to sign someone for a position that many posters believe needs strengthening more.

He will be awesome and has already done some great work with that statement to lower his fee and help push the deal through to us.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'm scratching my head at the number of people that don't want RVP. I find it bizarre.

Twilight Zone bizarre.

I don't think anyone is arguing that he wouldn't improve city. I think you guys might be slightly misunderstanding the concerns people are voicing. Or perhaps not. Perhaps answering the above questions might reveal whether we are all the same on the same wavelength after all.

I would be all for signing Van Persie, if we had unlimited funds, but with FFP this isn't the case. We will still have a lot of spending power next year, but it will be diminished.

Van Persie is clearly a good player. He is arguably better than all of our current strikers, perhaps substantially so. Although there is an argument that in years to come Balotelli or Aguero could far outshine him. Lets just assume that he would improve our squad and put that aside for the moment. The question remains with so many areas supposedly needing strengthening is Van Persie worth it?

Do you remember us struggling while Yaya and Kolo were away at the AFN? The same problem will present itself this year. If one of our CD's goes down, who are we going to have to call on? Would you rather have signed VP than cover or an improvement at CD? Do we need someone who can improve upon the great job Barry has done so far, take some of the load of Yaya and hopefully carry on whilst he is away AFN? Do we need someone to share the load with Silva who was looking incredibly jaded 3/4s of the way through the season? Especially considering that Mancini seems inclined to play both Silva and Nasri so there will likely be a need for an adequate backup for either cover or rotation.

The argument against Van Persie does no question his unique ability or the likely fact that he will improve our team. It is simply a question of opportunity cost. IMO there are other areas of the squad that need addressing before getting a new striker. If we one of our strikers is determined to leave then Van Persie would be an obvious replacement.

The other argument is regarding value for money. If we do sign him my approval or disapproval - I know Mancini doesn't care - will depend on the amount we pay for him. If it is decided that we still need a striker, I would hope we don't pay a huge some for him. Given his age and injury record some of the figures that are being quoted make other players - like Falco - an increasingly attractive prospective. The signs are quite good that we won't pay a huge amount. Obviously his age, his recent statement and the limited time remaining on his contract are factors in our favour. However, I am not sure I see the point of paying 25 million for a striker that at best will only be useful to us for 3/4 years (A debatable point that I am not concerned with) when the rest of our strikers are relatively young. Also, if we are going to have less funds in the future I don't want to have to replace Van Persie in the 3 years time. Yet I do think there is a good chance that we could get him for a bargain transfer price, which would make it a worthwhile venture.

 

[Burnage Burnsy]

Looks like we are favourites at 11/10 to sign him with the scum and Juventus at 2/1 behind us at the moment.

I would rather we keep our current forwards unless van Persie comes cheap (which he won't)

We have now drifted to evens from 1/3 two days ago.

Rags now 2/1 second favourites??

 

[Stretfordian_Blue]

Looks like we are favourites at 11/10 to sign him with the scum and Juventus at 2/1 behind us at the moment.

I would rather we keep our current forwards unless van Persie comes cheap (which he won't)

We have now drifted to evens from 1/3 two days ago.

Rags now 2/1 second favourites??

Apparently sighted at rags carrington ground, that's the reason for the cut.