Remove this Banner Ad

Transfer discussion thread

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
While hilarious, it's not actually true. However Notts Forest are still below their signings, but it's hard to score more than 50 goals in the PL.

Not technically…. :p

 
Also sounds like Arsenal were lowballing Mudryk for wages - only offering 60k or something like that.
The wages is the key thing, if it was just the fee Mudryk could have held firm.

I don't think Arsenal were lowballing, Chelsea apparently paying £200k p/w that's fairly insane but also it just leads to either wage inflation or discontent for the rest of the squad if Arsenal matched.

Chelsea's business model isn't sustainable and Arsenal shouldn't try to compete. Just move on.
 
The wages is the key thing, if it was just the fee Mudryk could have held firm.

I don't think Arsenal were lowballing, Chelsea apparently paying £200k p/w that's fairly insane but also it just leads to either wage inflation or discontent for the rest of the squad if Arsenal matched.

Chelsea's business model isn't sustainable and Arsenal shouldn't try to compete. Just move on.

I heard it was closer to 120k from Arsenal but even then, a 7 year commitment is also hard to turn down.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I'm happy that Arsenal didn't pay the extortionate fee for Mudryk. From the vision I've seen of him playing, he seems to lack that little bit of pace overall and, over the first few meters which made me wonder what all the fuss is about. He really isn't a central forward, nor a winger nor really a "number 10" so what are you getting for 90 million quid?

It says quite a bit about Mudryk, the social media mega star, that he'd join an injury prone mid table side with 7 first choice players who are aged 38, 33, 33, 31, 31, 31, 30 (when they are fit enough to play that is) and not the dynamic top-of-table side. It has nothing to do with football but all to do with money and he and Chelsea seem to be a great fit.

I don't know how dinkum Arsenal were after the asking price went to 50 mil because Arsenal don't pay that kind of doe on speculation, that is, for a player that's all hype for the moment. I'm sure that the gossip columnist masquerading as a journalist, Fabrizio Romano, is quite upset but then again, I can't recall anything that self serving prick has got right when it comes to Arsenal.
 
The wages is the key thing, if it was just the fee Mudryk could have held firm.

I don't think Arsenal were lowballing, Chelsea apparently paying £200k p/w that's fairly insane but also it just leads to either wage inflation or discontent for the rest of the squad if Arsenal matched.

Chelsea's business model isn't sustainable and Arsenal shouldn't try to compete. Just move on.

If they're offering 95m fee but 65k wages that's low balling. He can't be worth one but not the other.
 
While hilarious, it's not actually true. However Notts Forest are still below their signings, but it's hard to score more than 50 goals in the PL.

Who the **** are Notts Forest?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I know he used to play for Arsenal, but I wonder if Spurs would be in for Emi Martinez in the summer.
Identical goalies both prone to flapping around, just doesn't make as many mistakes
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Boehly has been in the US too long. Not as bad as the Ilya Kovalchuk 17 year contract though.

It's more an FFP thing I would say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom