If you don’t sign a credible back up keeper your entire season rests on Raya never getting injured. Feels like a huge gamble to make when it only costs 15/20m to solve.
City would have lost the league last year if Ortega wasn’t a top class keeper in his own right.
Think the deal with Hein was that if he renewed he would be loaned out as he wanted game time.
I meant that £15m could could go towards the other reported player sales to bring in a forward.
15m is nothing. We’ve only spent 70m or so once Merino comes in, regardless of sales. The type of forward we need is going to be 50m + easily. I don’t really think this move affects anything else, the issue is availability of the requisite quality.
PSR/FFP suggests otherwise though. It’s no surprise that the rhetoric from TheAthletic etc suggests that we’re only signing additional folk if we’re able to get some sales first.
Don’t think we have any psr problem. Booking ESR’s sale this year almost accounts for a season of rice, raya and calafiori’s cost on our books. Add nketiah and/or ramsdale and we’re beyond covered.
That Swiss ramble nerd also calculated we should have 90m plus room to play with this year anyway even before that.
Think the club are just being sensible and trying not to get ripped off on fees, as PSR doesn’t really help you be sustainable, it’s just an accounting game.
Spending 170m on rice, calafiori and raya is not offset by the 34m sale of ESR when it comes to the owners pocket but it can be for the PL rules.
Does it? Based on what? Ornstein saying we want to sell before buying? I’m fairly sure that hasn’t been said due to FPP specifically but you are welcome to provide a source to confirm otherwise.
This article written today suggests the above, also links directly to Athletic but I can’t access it to get the full details.
“Arsenal’s need to sell before buying is driven by more than just financial prudence. The club is acutely aware of the need to comply with both Premier League and UEFA spending regulations. By carefully managing their finances, Arsenal aims to maintain long-term flexibility in the transfer market.”
I could be wrong, but personally I believe it’s down to FFP.
Surely a club of our stature and in the position we are atm is able to spend much much more than we did this summer.
we can easily spend more they are just being extra careful so they can easily stay in full compliance and also have more than enough money to make a mega transfer without having to worry.
I can appreciate being cautious but windows to win big trophies don’t stay open forever.
I agree, but assuming this is Man City’s last year at the top we’re still the best placed to take over and our current squad of 16-18 is all still here.
We haven’t lost a single first team player to another team yet under Arteta which is very impressive.
It doesn’t really though, does it? It is making a general point about a broader approach, not that we are literally hard up against the limit. It also provides literally zero evidence lol
Well you asked for a source, I gave you a source, which referenced an even more reliable source and it’s still a problem for you.
Good day lol
The last few minutes are very interesting, when he starts talking about us in relation to PSR.
People on here were losing their shit a few days ago when some journos said we simply arnt looking to lose the maximum amount of money as we possibly can.
It seems you didn’t read it in the context of the entire piece, did you? There’s a heavy focus on financial sustainability as opposed to specifically being hard up against the line in terms of PSR/FFP. Outside of saying it’s something we have to factor in, which is entirely logical because the rules exist, there’s no evidence provided to say it’s a fundamental issue right now.
You speak about “reliable sources” of which you haven’t actually provided any commentary from yet both Swiss Ramble and Stefan Borson have noted our capacity to spend from a PSR/FFP perspective isn’t a particularly pertinent issue.
So to go back to your original assertion, I don’t think “PSR/FFP says otherwise”, it appears to be more an issue of the reality of financial sustainability whereby 200m spending sprees are not likely to be a regular event as time passes.
And Liverpool are in a much better position than us in relation to PSR, and they haven’t bought anyone.
I think there’s definitely an issue of quality out there as well at the moment too. A lot of the elite teams are probably looking at the potential options and asking themselves whether it’s worth slapping down huge money for what might be a minimal gain for the team overall.
I guess we’ll agree to disagree.
I don’t frequent OA to have deep intellectual debate about the financial state of the club or reading into the meaning of every word from an article or spending hours looking for stats to prevent being jumped on.
I’m just here for simple commentary…whether I’m right or wrong it’s ok.
Outside of saying it’s something we have to factor in, which is entirely logical because the rules exist, there’s no evidence provided to say it’s a fundamental issue right now.
For me there’s not much difference between the two. If we’re not factoring it in, then we’re caught out by the rules.
I see it as, the club is factoring it in because if we don’t we’d be caught out by PSR/FFP - like any other club. That’s it. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
We’ve spent some ~£700m in a few short years and have sold how much in that time? Not much.
Liverpool aren’t signing anyone because everyone keeps rejecting them.