Gary Cahill


#21

Quite surprised they’d entertain the notion of loaning their main rival for the top four anyone, I wouldn’t be happy if they had a defensive crisis and we did similar.

Though maybe loaning them Mustafi would secure us top four if roles were reversed :joy:


#22

Imagine the combined age if we played Lichtsteiner, Cahill and Koscielny in a back 3 :grimacing:


#23

Why imagine? It’s simple addition


#24

I’d take Cahill in a heartbeat, is solid, no nonsense, barely plated this season and has excellent fitness.

We can put him through the ringer for the rest of the season.

The state of our defence though…fucking hell.


#25

Lel


#26

If it keeps Mustafi away from the XI I’m all for this. Needs must


#27

doubt Chelsea would loan us a player considering we’re against them for 4th place, would take him for the rest of the season though if this is true


#28

Unless he has been instructed to act as a Trojan Horse and sabotage our premier league campaign :thinking:


#29

He’s been crap since they last won the title. I’d take him for numbers though

But yea why would Chelski help us?


#30

He’s a player they really don’t need on like £100k who will walk on a free in 5 months. I’d guess they’d be up for it if we gave them some money, but I’d assume it’d be more likely to be a signing on an 18 month deal to like West Ham than a 5 month loan followed by a 12 month deal.

He’s better than Xhaka at least so I wouldn’t mind if it happens, but he’s not going to help fix our shit defence.


#31

Exactly this. Which is why I’d only be for this if it’s a 6 month deal purely to temporarily give us numbers in an area we are so thin in.


#32

How reliable is newsmondo? Also Chelsea fans are laughing at the idea of Cahill playing a high line here.

Also I think if he comes a transfer is more likely than a loan.


#33

Every fucking defender will be exposed here lol. New defenders are not going to fix anything.

For all the crap Liverpool got for their defending they still only lost 5 and 6 games in the last two seasons. In those two seasons van Dijk has been only with them for five months. Makes you think.


#34

But they had 12 & 10 draws respectively as well


#35

That could might aswell be for offensive reasons than for defensive reasons.


#36

Just what we need, another CB in his mid thirties who will just come here for the money.
What’s the point?
If he’s not good enough for Chelsea, why would we want him.
All we do, as a club, is sell our best players to our rivals then buy the dross they don’t want.

How low have we sunk that anyone thinks this is a good idea.
We have gone down the route of buying old defenders and it clearly doesn’t work so why do we want any more.

Come to the Arsenal retirement home for elderly defenders.
You can earn a fortune and play alongside players that were around in the last century, and be part of the Arsenal revolution.

What a joke club we have become.


#37

To get him off their wage bill?


#38

Don’t think we have missed out lads


#39

One of the few times I’ve breathed a huge sigh of relief at reading that we’ve “missed out” on a transfer target.