• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

paulw66   
10 hours ago, Michael Tucker said:

It's Wilshire - he was exactly the same on loan at Bournemouth. A waste of space.

To me, that would simply compound our original error of signing Barkley - another serial crock.

Yes, and still Arsenal wouldn't re-sign him! Surely we've got to be better than Wilshire?

Not strictly true. Played 27 times in the PL for Bournemouth. Played 20 PL games last year, despite not appearing until December, so played almost the entire 2nd half of the season. Compare to Barkley, that is chalk and cheese.

The last comment it just incorrect. They did want to re sign him and offered him a contract. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

 Compare to Barkley, that is chalk and cheese.

 

More like dumb and dumber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

The last comment it just incorrect. 

No, it isn't. But you're obviously  on a mission again, so I'll just move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
3 minutes ago, Michael Tucker said:

No, it isn't. But you're obviously  on a mission again, so I'll just move on.

It is. 

They offered him a contract. He turned it down on the basis of the promised playing time. 

On a mission? What? 

Edit, here you

"My intention throughout these discussions has always been to remain an Arsenal player. I have been on the books at Arsenal for 17 years and have always felt part of the fabric of the club. Such was my desire to stay that I had in fact recently agreed to sign a financially reduced contract in order to commit my future to the club.

"However, following my meeting with the new manager, I was made aware that although the reduced contract offer remained, it was made clear to me that my playing time would be significantly reduced should I decide to stay.

Edited by paulw66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
1 minute ago, Michael Tucker said:

Whatever you say.

Not what I say....... unless you don't believe Wilshire, but I can't prove he is or isn't lying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I don't necessarily believe Arsenal wanted Wilshere purely on Wilshere's say-so, and I guess you can deconstruct what 'wanted' even means if the contract offer comes with reduced playing time, but it's pretty odd to be so dismissive of paulw66 here when he's done what I've often seen requested here and provided quotes/links to back up what he says. 

Personally wouldn't take Wilshere because I just don't have faith he'd be available often enough to make it worthwhile. Think he remains a very decent player, and one that would still walk into Arsenal's team and our squad ... if only he could walk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
10 hours ago, jones said:

Mason Mount and RLC is better. Wilshere would be a waste of space.

Despite playing in different positions, who says signing Wilshire would be instead of either of those 2?

1 hour ago, The_Ghost said:

I would as well. Given the state of our midfield, Wilshere would be our CM3 by just joining, moving ahead of both Baka and Drinkwater. But I can certainly understand that people would prefer better options. But he'd be an improvement on what we currently have - no doubt.

Neither play in his natural position, nor are they anywhere close to have achieved what Wilshere has in the game. Time will tell, but I wouldn't say they are there yet.

 

Quite.

Wilshire is a better player than DD, RB and TB and we could sign him for nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
4 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

^ I don't necessarily believe Arsenal wanted Wilshere purely on Wilshere's say-so, and I guess you can deconstruct what 'wanted' even means if the contract offer comes with reduced playing time, but it's pretty odd to be so dismissive of paulw66 here when he's done what I've often seen requested here and provided quotes/links to back up what he says. 

Personally wouldn't take Wilshere because I just don't have faith he'd be available often enough to make it worthwhile. Think he remains a very decent player, and one that would still walk into Arsenal's team and our squad ... if only he could walk. 

When you remove nonsense and hyperbole, this is an argument I can completely understand.

He is clearly a good footballer, but I understand those who have reservations about his fitness.

I would take the gamble. Others wouldn't. That's life.

Edit - I didn't mean you were talking nonsense. Quite the opposite. I just re read that and it could be misconstrued. 

Edited by paulw66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paulw66 said:

When you remove nonsense and hyperbole, this is an argument I can completely understand.

He is clearly a good footballer, but I understand those who have reservations about his fitness.

I would take the gamble. Others wouldn't. That's life.

Edit - I didn't mean you were talking nonsense. Quite the opposite. I just re read that and it could be misconstrued. 

Well, whenever I hear the name Jack Wilshere the first phrase that comes to mind is "injury prone". We should focus our efforts elsewhere I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now