Other clubs' transfers

[Groundhog63]

3 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

They apparently do have loads to spend.

Need to buy a brighter light bulb, methinks

[tarie4]

2 hours ago, Izakaya said:

What is it with Arsenal and being terrified of strikers? 

 

The old 'Arsenal try to walk it in' meme has been around since the 90s. 

Arsenal splashed out sixty-odd million and a crazy two hundred grand a week for Havertz to play striker, right? They also got Jesus the summer before for forty-odd million.

 

That's over a hundred million on strikers in two summers! So it's bogus to say they haven't bought a striker. They did, but whether they're any good is besides the point. The money was spent.

Highly doubt they have room in that position for an elite signing their fans are clamouring for unless they offload one of Jesus or Kai.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

They buy strikers who aren’t really strikers.  

[La Parka]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

They buy strikers who aren’t really strikers.  

Think arteta loves the false 9 shit.  Honestly think it doesn't work as well as an out and out striker. Pep agreed and brought in Haaland. 

[Conjo]

Neither Arsenal and Man City play a way where they need out and out strikers though. Haaland scores goals, but can't help but feel despite the goals his net contribution to the team is negative with his average 3.5 touches of the ball every game.

[El Prontonise]

34 minutes ago, Conjo said:

Neither Arsenal and Man City play a way where they need out and out strikers though. Haaland scores goals, but can't help but feel despite the goals his net contribution to the team is negative with his average 3.5 touches of the ball every game.

 

City were a better side without him imo.

[gbandit]

3 hours ago, El Prontonise said:

 

City were a better side without him imo.

Completely agree