Wenger set to save SWP in a cut-price £5million deal
-
ARSENE WENGER is ready to rescue Shaun Wright-Phillips from his misery at Manchester City.
The tricky winger has failed to land a regular starting place under Roberto Mancini at Eastlands.
Now Mancini is ready to let him leave and Arsenal boss Wenger wants to snap him up in a cut-price £5million deal.
Wright-Phillips returned to City for his second spell with the club in an £8.5m deal from Chelsea in August 2008. He signed a four-year deal worth £60,000 a week but that was before the big money started being spent by new owner Sheikh Mansour.
Wright-Phillips has since been at odds with manager Mancini on the training ground and publicly complained about the club not offering him better terms on his contract.
He has started just seven games since Mancini took charge in December and has been substituted in six of those.
-
Arsenal do not need another winger! They need another striker and a keeper replacement!
-
for all you know AW might turn him into another Henry.. (but i have serious doubt in it either turning him or he is capable of), however a much higher possibility is to make him take a more attacking role, thus making Aresnal a probably a 433 team with the Dutch winger/striker taking the other side of the attacking winger role and either getting a targetman as main or sticking with who they currently had, would be pretty interesting if AW ops for it, its been a long while since i see a very attacking team around
-
£5 million is still quite ok for him... Just don't know what's his age only... Not too bad to have on your sub bench...
-
Originally posted by Saltiga:
for all you know AW might turn him into another Henry.. (but i have serious doubt in it either turning him or he is capable of), however a much higher possibility is to make him take a more attacking role, thus making Aresnal a probably a 433 team with the Dutch winger/striker taking the other side of the attacking winger role and either getting a targetman as main or sticking with who they currently had, would be pretty interesting if AW ops for it, its been a long while since i see a very attacking team around
And so was said about Theo Walcott. -
he's okay, 5m ok mah.
-
Originally posted by CKeer: And so was said about Theo Walcott.
but Theo doesnt have a stepfather called Ian Wright lor..hahahaha...
-
hmm he 28 yrs old right ??
5m ok lar -
Not playing SWP is a big mistake for Man City, he could had well balance up the game for Man city vs Spurs. If i am the lady boss of Man City or wife of the owner, i would had knock Mancini on the head.
-
This are 'good' buys that major clubs can afford to buy, even if they turn flop, it won't be much of a loss. Players like SWP, Rafael Van Der Vart, One of the Diarra(s) at Madrid are outcasts of mega money spenders, and I strongly believe that Liverpool should go for players as such.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Rafa wouldnt go for such good/decent players he is just waiting for that golden handshake and thats if those 2 owners is willing to, anyway, all of them cant care much for Liverpool with manager looking for the sack and those owners looking for someone to come in and give their investment (if any) a stupid raise.
oh, btw, i kinda remember that when i spoke about the craps these 2 and ManU's owners are bringing in with their investment a certain mod of this forum strongly disagreed and time passes looking at present, i think i'm right about them
-
go buy lennon than SWP lar. or buy back david bentley.
-
I think rednap still wants Bentley, but sad that Bentley can only play 2nd fiddle to lennon
-
Originally posted by Saltiga:
Rafa wouldnt go for such good/decent players he is just waiting for that golden handshake and thats if those 2 owners is willing to, anyway, all of them cant care much for Liverpool with manager looking for the sack and those owners looking for someone to come in and give their investment (if any) a stupid raise.
oh, btw, i kinda remember that when i spoke about the craps these 2 and ManU's owners are bringing in with their investment a certain mod of this forum strongly disagreed and time passes looking at present, i think i'm right about them
If you are referring to me? or maybe it's not me... Though I can't even remember... lol, oh what the hell... Are you serious comparing the 2 different groups of owners in the same breath? Cos apart from them being Americans, everything else is different.One group is looking to sell for a tidy profit while the other isn't... One has taken the club to their most successful period, while the other hasn't...
If you ask anyone which group you would rather have, I think the answer is very simple... No need to think very hard also...
On one side, you see disagreement, discontentment and interference almost every season even from father to son... (Hick and Hick Jr) On the other, no disagreement, no discontentment and most importantly, no interference as well. The result, 3 premier league titles in a row, 2 CL finals and one CL trophy... And even though they are all Americans. But they are totally different types of Americans... One is from a more conservative state of Texas while the other comes from a more liberal state of Florida...
Till today I am still glad the Glazers came to United... Had it not been for them, the Mourinho / Chelsea era would never have ended so prematurely...
Honestly, time have indeed pass and I believe you got it very wide of the mark...
-
he already has his hands full trying to develop walcott.. why get another almost identical player?
-
Because the name Wright is still a legend at Arsenal... The return of a Wright.
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
If you are referring to me? or maybe it's not me... Though I can't even remember... lol, oh what the hell... Are you serious comparing the 2 different groups of owners in the same breath? Cos apart from them being Americans, everything else is different.One group is looking to sell for a tidy profit while the other isn't... One has taken the club to their most successful period, while the other hasn't...
If you ask anyone which group you would rather have, I think the answer is very simple... No need to think very hard also...
On one side, you see disagreement, discontentment and interference almost every season even from father to son... (Hick and Hick Jr) On the other, no disagreement, no discontentment and most importantly, no interference as well. The result, 3 premier league titles in a row, 2 CL finals and one CL trophy... And even though they are all Americans. But they are totally different types of Americans... One is from a more conservative state of Texas while the other comes from a more liberal state of Florida...
Till today I am still glad the Glazers came to United... Had it not been for them, the Mourinho / Chelsea era would never have ended so prematurely...
Honestly, time have indeed pass and I believe you got it very wide of the mark...
you cute ya?? hahha, on one hand you claimed that you cant even remember but on the other you clearly remembered what you mentioned so long ago?? hahaha.. yes, i'm referring to you.
and whatever you might wanna says or think, the fact still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU cause like a true owner should, everthing is self generated by the club and i don't see how ManU would have been better/worst off with or without them, a fact proven by the recent gold green thingy, and look, buying a club and attending games and stuff doesn't means a thing, owners dont really play a big role in winning or losing a champion other than the high profile Chelsea, ManC and a couple more, where owner is like everything the club is, in and the club is there and off the club goes down, its a totally different thing if you're wise enough to see for yourself, nothing to do with Texas or whatever country or state and you're discrediting SAF, the backroom staff and its players if the recent winning is being credit to the owners
and maybe you would likes to explain why would this buying got anything to do with Chelsea and their manager'sd era? Glazers had a say in Chelsea board? and even if they do, of which everyone of us knows they don't, Roman and solely Roman will call the shot with regards to anything Chelsea.
and as for the no disagreement, discontentment and interference thingy, i'll reserved touching on that, certain ppl might want to have certain news broken in the media, simply for their motives, while others dont, so i wouldn't wanna get myself into whether or not there is any disagreement, discontentment and interference, media are well known to be the most powerful weapons for those who know how to play the game ball right.
my only interest in this is, self generate or the otherwise, and i'll likes to point out that both sets of owners are doing the same other that one fail misery while the other becos (and solely becos of) their investment being of a more self generated club their ass are hidden but just below the water, come the day SAF goes and we self see again for ourself if your beloved Glazers really and willing has got stuff to back ManU up and not throwing in the towel like the other sets of owners
-
Originally posted by Saltiga:
you cute ya?? hahha, on one hand you claimed that you cant even remember but on the other you clearly remembered what you mentioned so long ago?? hahaha.. yes, i'm referring to you.
and whatever you might wanna says or think, the fact still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU cause like a true owner should, everthing is self generated by the club and i don't see how ManU would have been better/worst off with or without them, a fact proven by the recent gold green thingy, and look, buying a club and attending games and stuff doesn't means a thing, owners dont really play a big role in winning or losing a champion other than the high profile Chelsea, ManC and a couple more, where owner is like everything the club is, in and the club is there and off the club goes down, its a totally different thing if you're wise enough to see for yourself, nothing to do with Texas or whatever country or state and you're discrediting SAF, the backroom staff and its players if the recent winning is being credit to the owners
and maybe you would likes to explain why would this buying got anything to do with Chelsea and their manager'sd era? Glazers had a say in Chelsea board? and even if they do, of which everyone of us knows they don't, Roman and solely Roman will call the shot with regards to anything Chelsea.
and as for the no disagreement, discontentment and interference thingy, i'll reserved touching on that, certain ppl might want to have certain news broken in the media, simply for their motives, while others dont, so i wouldn't wanna get myself into whether or not there is any disagreement, discontentment and interference, media are well known to be the most powerful weapons for those who know how to play the game ball right.
my only interest in this is, self generate or the otherwise, and i'll likes to point out that both sets of owners are doing the same other that one fail misery while the other becos (and solely becos of) their investment being of a more self generated club their ass are hidden but just below the water, come the day SAF goes and we self see again for ourself if your beloved Glazers really and willing has got stuff to back ManU up and not throwing in the towel like the other sets of owners
Yeah seriously I can't remember about our actual discussion but since you mentioned a mod from this forum and the point in case... Equaling the 2 at Pool with the Glazers as owners... It's amazing.
I seriously think you should first check up carefully on your facts whether the Glazer had actually not put a cent into the club before you go about making a statement like "the fact still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU". This is a very big remark to make without any prove to back your statement you know... Any how say just to win a point in a discussion?
You seem to have the notion The Glazers won't be liable for anything should the club financial fortunes changes or collapse do you? I don't think I need to go into more detail on this as I belief almost everyone should understand this simple scenario. Let me ask you this question, do you even realise the amount of liabilities they are carrying?
Again, you are dead wrong on this as well... Owners, along with the managers are like part of the team today. Only they have a different responsibility to that of the manager. Prior to the Glazers taking over at United, the club spent 2 to 3 yrs with the same management team without the title and was looking to be on a decline... It was no secret that many saw it as the beginning of the end of an era and many predicted a Chelsea domination for the next decade. Many even started to question whether Fergie should step down and make way for a new man. Cos under a PLC system, United were never able to spent $50m to some say $80m in a transfer window. But they did with the arrival of the Glazers... They brought in Owen Hargreaves, Nani, Anderson and Tevez all in the same season... Paid what many thought then was over priced for Michael Carrick the year before. All these might not have happened had they remain a PLC where they had to justify each player's price to their thousands of shareholders and the stock exchanged as well. And on top of all this, keep a discreet balance sheet in every financial year so that shareholders get a larger profit returns. We can see this happening at Arsenal right now. So you still belief owners don't play a part?
Joan Laporta became president of Barce, in Spain, becoming president is like being the owner and not a manager... He took a down and out Barce side back to the top during his presidency... In between there was 2 managers Frank Rijkaard and Josep Guardiola... So who should get the credit? Cos Rijkaard did a great job, but Guardiola did just as well if not better... So the President not important to you as well?
Is there really a need for an explanation? Just use your common sense. Reason being very simple... The Glazer may not have any say what goes on at Chelsea. But like you have said it yourself, Roman and solely Roman will call the shot with regards to anything at Chelsea, and not even their then CEO Kenyon or other directors.
Roman cannot tolerate failures therefore the rise of Man United again in 2006 saw the end of Mourinho, Grant and Scolari... It's that simple. Then CEO Kenyon was not in favour of the sacking but some of it was done without his knowledge when he was on the other side of the world when it was announced.
And on the no disagreement, no discontentment and no interference part, What is there to be reserved about? If it's there, it will happen no matter how well you try to keep it under the table... But if it's not, then there is nothing to come out of it... We all saw it at Chelsea with Mourinho, then there was Scholari too... But nothing with Ancelotti... And we have all seen it with Rafa as well not just this season, last season too... It happen at United as well prior to the Glazers taking over... The pair of JP McManus and John Magnier brought un-stability to the club for a period. So you seriously belief owner can't play a part?
Again you are terribly mistaken... I don't think I need to say this but I don't have any love or hate for the Glazers... and I won't miss them should they sell out to a better owners. But I can appreciate the timing of their era just like I once belief the club becoming a PLC in the early 90s was a great move cos it took them a club once behind to Liverpool in many departments like transfer of players, salaries of players, stadium standard, brand name/ club attractiveness to potential players... almost everything and change all that in their first 15 years. But time changes and a PLC might not be the best thing anymore to counter the new types of other football club owners...
On what has been said, it doesn't change for me one bit. In this period of time, The Glazers are the best owners United could have... We can argue they can get better ones but then again, they could have got worse ones as well... Like the 2 at Anfield...
So for you to equal them like they are alike, it's just plain ridiculous no matter how many years later we talk about it... Cos first 4 yrs alone, we can already see the huge difference in results and trophies between them. That alone is enough said for my case...
-
You sitting for University exams ar? So long sure win meh?
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
Yeah seriously I can't remember about our actual discussion but since you mentioned a mod from this forum and the point in case... Equaling the 2 at Pool with the Glazers as owners... It's amazing.
I seriously think you should first check up carefully on your facts whether the Glazer had actually not put a cent into the club before you go about making a statement like "the fact still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU". This is a very big remark to make without any prove to back your statement you know... Any how say just to win a point in a discussion?
You seem to have the notion The Glazers won't be liable for anything should the club financial fortunes changes or collapse do you? I don't think I need to go into more detail on this as I belief almost everyone should understand this simple scenario. Let me ask you this question, do you even realise the amount of liabilities they are carrying?
Again, you are dead wrong on this as well... Owners, along with the managers are like part of the team today. Only they have a different responsibility to that of the manager. Prior to the Glazers taking over at United, the club spent 2 to 3 yrs with the same management team without the title and was looking to be on a decline... It was no secret that many saw it as the beginning of the end of an era and many predicted a Chelsea domination for the next decade. Many even started to question whether Fergie should step down and make way for a new man. Cos under a PLC system, United were never able to spent $50m to some say $80m in a transfer window. But they did with the arrival of the Glazers... They brought in Owen Hargreaves, Nani, Anderson and Tevez all in the same season... Paid what many thought then was over priced for Michael Carrick the year before. All these might not have happened had they remain a PLC where they had to justify each player's price to their thousands of shareholders and the stock exchanged as well. And on top of all this, keep a discreet balance sheet in every financial year so that shareholders get a larger profit returns. We can see this happening at Arsenal right now. So you still belief owners don't play a part?
Joan Laporta became president of Barce, in Spain, becoming president is like being the owner and not a manager... He took a down and out Barce side back to the top during his presidency... In between there was 2 managers Frank Rijkaard and Josep Guardiola... So who should get the credit? Cos Rijkaard did a great job, but Guardiola did just as well if not better... So the President not important to you as well?
Is there really a need for an explanation? Just use your common sense. Reason being very simple... The Glazer may not have any say what goes on at Chelsea. But like you have said it yourself, Roman and solely Roman will call the shot with regards to anything at Chelsea, and not even their then CEO Kenyon or other directors.
Roman cannot tolerate failures therefore the rise of Man United again in 2006 saw the end of Mourinho, Grant and Scolari... It's that simple. Then CEO Kenyon was not in favour of the sacking but some of it was done without his knowledge when he was on the other side of the world when it was announced.
And on the no disagreement, no discontentment and no interference part, What is there to be reserved about? If it's there, it will happen no matter how well you try to keep it under the table... But if it's not, then there is nothing to come out of it... We all saw it at Chelsea with Mourinho, then there was Scholari too... But nothing with Ancelotti... And we have all seen it with Rafa as well not just this season, last season too... It happen at United as well prior to the Glazers taking over... The pair of JP McManus and John Magnier brought un-stability to the club for a period. So you seriously belief owner can't play a part?
Again you are terribly mistaken... I don't think I need to say this but I don't have any love or hate for the Glazers... and I won't miss them should they sell out to a better owners. But I can appreciate the timing of their era just like I once belief the club becoming a PLC in the early 90s was a great move cos it took them a club once behind to Liverpool in many departments like transfer of players, salaries of players, stadium standard, brand name/ club attractiveness to potential players... almost everything and change all that in their first 15 years. But time changes and a PLC might not be the best thing anymore to counter the new types of other football club owners...
On what has been said, it doesn't change for me one bit. In this period of time, The Glazers are the best owners United could have... We can argue they can get better ones but then again, they could have got worse ones as well... Like the 2 at Anfield...
So for you to equal them like they are alike, it's just plain ridiculous no matter how many years later we talk about it... Cos first 4 yrs alone, we can already see the huge difference in results and trophies between them. That alone is enough said for my case...
way too long for me to even bother reading, ok as usual you win with your never ending post, just like if you cant convince you confuse, hahahaha, anyway i stop after the 1st para, and you claim on it that they invested while asking to go find prove, well, maybe you can find some prove on this one for me, since you enjoy the wiki everytime you enter a discussion but just in case you either purposely act blur or really didnt see simply becos it would soften your case, i mentioned self generated maybe you want that in your future replies? just shorten them and i would gladly read them
-
you guys threw in big names of wingers like bently, lennon. but they dont need another winger.
that aside.. the topic is 5mil, if 5mil for swp i'd say why not. you would not be able to get bently or lennon for 5mil.. not that redknapp would allow..
-
if ever arsenal needed a winger, it will be a left winger not a right one.. but then again their left side was always filled with right footed players with the exception of reyes.. from overmars to pires to rosicky etc..
-
go buy Joaquin than SWP lar.
-
Originally posted by Saltiga:
way too long for me to even bother reading, ok as usual you win with your never ending post, just like if you cant convince you confuse, hahahaha, anyway i stop after the 1st para, and you claim on it that they invested while asking to go find prove, well, maybe you can find some prove on this one for me, since you enjoy the wiki everytime you enter a discussion but just in case you either purposely act blur or really didnt see simply becos it would soften your case, i mentioned self generated maybe you want that in your future replies? just shorten them and i would gladly read them
Confuse? They are all valid points I put to you which i kind of belief you got no answer for then trying to act blur now. Don't worry, I'll try to keep this as short as possible.To summarize it...
Do you still stand by your... "the fact still reminds that Glazers didn't invested a penny into ManU". Actually I think i should use remains but since I am quoting your statement...
Are the Glazers liable should the club financial fortunes changes or collapse?
You still belief owners don't play a part on the club's fortunes?
Did Barcelona's fortunes changed after Joan Laporta became president?
Was Mourinho, Grant and Scolari sack because they fail to win the title and team's poor performance?
Disagreement, Discontentment and Interference from the owners doesn't effect the team?
George Gillett and Tom Hicks are running Liverpool like the Glazers at United?
Anyway in case you are not clear still... I am just so surprise i have to provide you this... The Glazer bought the club for $780m to $800m pounds and to date, they are said to owe $700m but initially if was only $500+ million. So, do the maths my friend, even if it's the full $700m, where did the shortfall came from?
And btw, that point I made was on my second paragraph... So you sure you stop after the 1st? lol...
-
personally, i think ownership by a foreign legion of billionaires is bad for premiership.
it jack up the cost of staying in the premiership and eventually causes many clubs to go underwater.
look at liverpool, portsmouth, everton, man utd.
these clubs spent beyond their financial means to compete staying up in the premiership and get into the championleague. what happen to the club once they fail? they become insolvent and clubs get relegated. who is on the losing end? the fans. do the foreign legion of owners give a damn? i dont think so. at most they write off their iniital investment of hundreds of millions and go away. leaving the clubs in deep abyss of debts they probably would never be able to pay them off. these clubs are living on borrow time. if they ever appoint a wrong manager, buy few flops players as liverpool did, they are in deep deep shit!!