William Saliba

So does that mean he can play for us this season then?

No.

So when Arteta said he could play in the final, he meant “sure he can play… if he jumps off a 50 storey building and lands on a bicycle with no seat.”

“What? We gave him the choice, he turned it down”

3 Likes

It’s probably as simple as Arteta answering a question that a reporter asked him. Mikel probably doesn’t know the ins and outs and fine print of every single player under contract.

1 Like

I think Arteta was being genuine. But it’s not his decision to make really.

2 Likes

Ok people. I know. I was obviously joking.

I read the translated statement about “unacceptable sporting and financial conditions”

I think I’ll go back to bed

You’ve had a long night entertaining Luke. I think that’s a good idea. :grin:

1 Like

It sounds like St Etienne could of waivered that 2.5m if they wanted him to play. Sad

1 Like

So the club have issued a statement which basically states that:

  • The club wanted William Saliba to follow an approved pathway to fitness following some injury problems. ASSE refused to do this.
  • Arsenal wanted the club to waive the financial penalty that they’d incur for Saliba playing, ASSE refused to do this.

So to get this straight:

  • ASSE wanted to keep the player to play in a cup final after his loan had expired, and in doing this did not want to allow the player to follow a fitness plan put together by his parent club nor were they prepared to waive the fee that Arsenal would incur.

In other words, they wanted absolutely everything done on their terms and wouldn’t accept anything else.

So basically - fuck them.

25 Likes

I get why they would want the money, but the refusal to go through with the fitness pathway is just strange.

2 Likes

In this case, Saliba should be more pissed at St Etienne, than us.

2 Likes

Silly farmers

1 Like

I get why they’d want the money, but it would be ludicrous for them to expect us to do them a favour by allowing him to play and also US paying THEM millions for the privilege of letting him potentially get injured.

Seems the ball is in their court here, if they want us to let him play (everything seems to suggest that they aren’t entitled to select him for this match unless we acquiesce) in this final then they can waive the fee an extra start apparently entitles them to. If they don’t wanna forgo that money, then he doesn’t play and they still don’t get the money. Seems like they aren’t getting that money either way haha, so they might as well waive the fee and still have him play.

4 Likes

Sounds like the French to me!

But yeah what a silly turn of events from ASSE, they sound like a bunch of cunts.

They ain’t getting the money and now they aren’t getting Saliba for the final.

Congrats Etienne, you played yourself.

image

4 Likes

They’ve really fucked themselves in the asse here

10 Likes

Why did we have to pay them for extending the loan? I don’t understand that part.

1 Like

I think there was a clause that said if he played more than X number of games, we’d have to pay €2.5m and the cup final is X+1.

I guess clauses like that are put in to entice the loan club to use the player and let him get minutes, Experience and development that they otherwise might not be encouraged to give him as he’s not their player at the end of the day.

5 Likes

I think the number was 17 and they have played 41 games. So as @SRCJJ says fuck them basically. (Yes I know he had injuries but that is also not our problem. Yet.)

1 Like

Surely if we were to agree that he played in this cup final after the expiry of the original loan deal then it’s a “new” contract so to speak and the terms of the original deal have passed/expired?

Mods, thread name needed.

Not out on loan anymore :joy:

1 Like