Should Arsenal look to cash in on £200m Saka?

4 Replies

After the defeat to Man City, a mate said to me “we need to spend £300m to compete regularly with them”.

He also added the caveat that we do not have that sort of money to spend.

We are not Newcastle or Manchester City. State funded clubs with limitless wealth (and the ability to hide additional payments in bank accounts no one will find).

We are also not going to do a Chelsea. Sacrifice the next 5-6 years transfer spending with a single huge window.

I guestimate that we will spend the usual £100-150m this summer, with the top end being dependent on who we sell.

That level of spending would finance a move for Declan Rice (£70-80m estimate), and a new right sided central defender – keep an eye on Josip Sutalo; has an £18m release clause and has similar attributes to Ben White.

An attacking option is then dependant one who we sell.

But what if I said we could have £300m+ to spend? “Great” I imagine your answer would be. But you might want to wait until you hear how we get the figure.

If Manchester City came in with a £200m offer for Bukayo Saka, would you take it?

Off the bat, I imagine it would be a “hard no”.

Saka is our best player. One of our own. And would improve our rivals for the league title. I get it.

But then I think of Liverpool. Selling Coutinho to Barcelona. And the funds from that transfer basically financed Mohamed Salah and Virgil an Dijk.

They sold their star player, but strengthened their team. The Champions League and Premier League then followed.

But I imagine at this point you are not sold. And your first thought it probably “it would cost us £200m to replace Saka”. And I agree.

Saka is amongst the best right wingers in the world. Up there with Mo Salah and Riyad Mahrez. And whilst those two are on the decline, he is only going to get better.

But (and I am sort of playing Football Manager here), I think that whilst selling him might weaken the right hand side, you could improve the team. And you do that through buying Victor Osimhen.

Osimhen is up there as one of the best strikers in Europe right now.

Osimhen, Erling Haaland and Kylian Mbappe are the 3 best in the world under 25. We can’t get Haaland or Mbappe. Osimhen would be a huge improvement on Gabriel Jesus.

21 league goals in 25 games this year for Napoli, Osimhen is about to become a regular 20+ league goals a season man. The sort of level you need down the middle to win us the league.

And then you replace Saka on the right with a man currently at Arsenal, Jesus.

Jesus has played a lot of his career out wide. Some would argue he is a more natural winger than striker. He himself has argued this in the past.

Saka has 13 goals and 11 assists in the league this season. Jesus has 9 goals and 5 assists. A combined 22 goals and 16 assists.

In his last 3 seasons for City, Jesus averaged 10 league goals. Mainly from outwide. Without any penalties. He also averaged 7 assists.

So there would be a few goals and few assists drop off from Saka to Jesus. But that is made up with Osimhen and his 20+ league goals a season.

You probably get Osimhen for £150m. A huge fee, but that is (at least) what Mbappe and Haaland would cost in a normal market.

You could then supplement Jesus on the right with a Xavi Simons or Ansu Fati.

Simons would provide cover for Jesus on the right hand of midfield, whilst also being an option more centrally if we want a player who will drive at players.

Fati is a fallen starlet who is still just 20. He would cover Jesus and also be a 3rd options (alongside Jesus and Osimhen) upfront.

Osimhen, Rice and Simons (plus a new right sides central defender). Would that be worthwhile sacrificing Saka for?

And we might even have enough money left to go for someone like Ollie Watkins to further improve our strength in depth.

Your answer is still probably no. And we could potentially do every deal mentioned here bar the Osimhen one without selling Saka.

Just some food for thought this Monday morning…

Keenos

Premier League hot-shot “dreams to play for Arsenal one day”

Leave a reply

“That is the dream, to play for Arsenal one day. It’s a long shot”.

That was Ollie Watkins, interviewed in a red carpet back in March 2020 whilst playing Championship football for Brentford.

If it is still a dream of his to pull on the red and white of The Arsenal, then the door is surely open to a move this summer.

But would the in-form Englishman want to go from starting week in, week out for Europe chasing Aston Villa to be second choice at his boyhood club?

Watkins was one of those players who I felt was out of reach for Arsenal in our search for quality cover for Gabriel Jesus.

He falls into the category of player that is too good to sit on someones bench, but probably not good enough to start for a top team.

With 12 goals since football returned aft the World Cup, no player has scored more in the Premier League (at the time of writing – before Manchester City play Leicester). His brace against Newcastle has taken him to 14 league goals for the season, and 39 in 103 Premier League games.

He certainly has the eye for goal, movement and work rate to interest Arsenal. But 3 years after that interview, would he see sitting on our bench as a step back? And would Edu and the team be willing to splash the cash and meet Villa’s valuation for a 2nd choice striker?

Aston Villa spent £33 million on him back in 2020. You would imagine they would be demanding double that for their top striker.

That might come down a bit with Watkins only have 2-years left on his contract. But you would be surprised if Villa would let him go for less than £50million. And that is a huge price-tag for a 2nd choice player.

Watkins form has taken him to the brink of the England squad. The discussion is him or Ivan Toney as Harry Kane’s back-up. His ambition to be part of the 2024 European Championships England squad would probably reduce if he sat on our bench for the year.

When you look across England, Manchester United are crying out for a new striker. The likes of Watkins and Toney will probably be on their target list behind Kane.

Likewise, if Kane leaves Tottenham for Manchester United, Toney and Watkins are the sort of names they would turn to. Chelsea are also crying out for a new striker, although they have Christopher Nkunku coming in.

Watkins and Toney potentially have a choice of going to Manchester United, Tottenham or Chelsea as first choice striker next summer. All 3 of those would pay the huge fee Brentford / Villa will command. That makes it hard for Arsenal to be an attractive proposition, only being able to offer the chance of being second choice.

Attracking someone to cover Jesus will not be an easy task.

This summer we will probably lose Folarin Balogun. The English youngster is one of the hottest young strikers in Europe right now.

Balgoun has the ambitions to play regular first team football, and is an outside bet for Southgate’s Euro 2024 squad. He is certainly up there in the conversation with Toney and Watkins.

As it stands, Balogun is not good enough to play ahead of Jesus, but also too good (and ambitious) to sit on the bench. Watkins, Toney, and others fall into the same category.

Watkins turns 28 towards the end of this year. Would he sacrifice his last chance to go to a international tournament with England, and play regular first team football for the next 3-4 years, to sit on our bench?

Toney and Watkins are inspirations to every footballer currently in those lower leagues. Both men have gone from League Two to Premier League.

The pair have worked hard to progress through the leagues, and that is a reason why I would be surprised if either of them would give up regular first team football to sit on a title challengers bench.

But then in Watkins case the pull of playing for your boyhood club, even if it is not regularly, might be huge.

This summer could be the last chance for Watkins to make the final step. To go from Conference South in 2014 for Weston-Super-Mare to Champions League would be a remarkable story. And a chance to play for Arsenal, in the Champions League, might not be there in 16 months.

Come August 2024, Watkins will be 4 months shy of his 29th Birthday. Arsenal, and other top clubs, will probably see him as being too old to invest in.

If Watkins were to push for Arsenal this summer, I think it is a deal that would get down. The ball is in his courts.

Keenos

It is a disgrace that Arsenal are not playing today

Leave a reply

Morning from sunny Norway!

Arsenal should have been playing Chelsea today in the evening kick off.

My plan was to arrive back in the UK at around 2pm, landing into Heathrow. Get straight on the Piccadilly Line to Holloway Road and be in The George by about 3:30pm. Pint in hand.

Leave my bag behind the bar, head to the game, then return to a few more beers after and pick up my bag. Instead, I am flying back and heading home.

The rumours that the game was being moved due to the Youth Cup Final never made sense.

As we revealed, the rules of the FA Youth Cup were that the game had to be scheduled BEFORE 29 April (today), and not on 29 April.

FA Youth Cup games are traditionally played mid-week, and as it transpired the game against West Ham was announced for Tuesday 25 April.

Preperation for the King’s Coronation also made little sense.

Moving a game closer to the Coronation of King Charles III surely disrupts the preperation more than having the game a week before. Likewise, if football was so disruptive then why are Crystal Palace hosting West Ham, Brentford hosting Nottingham Forset

In the lower leagues, Charlton are at home to Port Vale, Wimbledon against Tranmere, Leyton Orient host Stockport County and Barnet facing Dagenham and Redbridge.

Then tomorrow we have Fulham at home to Manchester City.

If the Arsenal game has been moved due to policing issues, then why are all of these games still going ahead?

You then have this rule that has appeared that London’s Metropolitan Police do not want “high risk” games to kick off in London after 4:45pm at weekends.

Earlier this season, around 600 Manchester United tickets were cancelled for their game against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.

This was on police advice, with the Met saying the 5:30 p.m. start time heightened the risk rating of the game:

“The agreement in place between the Met and London clubs is that fixtures assessed as high risk should start before 16:45 at weekends to help keep people safe.”

If this is true, why were Sky allowed to pick Arsenal v Chelsea for their 5:30pm TV game at the end of March? Why then did the same get moved to Tuesday, rather than moved back to 3pm – or even 4:45pm? Why was the game not moved to a lunchtime kick off? Or why was it not moved to tomorrow? why did the police change their mind after OK’ing the game? And why did this take them 12 days?

It just shows once again that no one really cares about fans that go to games. Despite all the hyperboil after the European Super League announcement.

The only reason the game was moved to Tuesday rather than back to 3pm was for Sky scheduling. So that they could still show the game. It shows that they value their scheduling over and above match going fans. Gary Neville has been silent on the matter.

If the 4:45pm “rule” is real, then TV companies should know about it. And Sky should not be allowed to host London home games at this time. If they do pick this time and the police demand it is moved, the game should go back to 3pm.

Nothing has changed since the European Super League. The TV companies have shown time and again that they do not care about match going fans. And all they cared about was that they could be on the outside looking in when it came to ESL broadcasting rights.

I am about to jump on the plane. See you tomorrow!

Keenos