£25million for Joe Willock is a good deal for Arsenal

3 Replies

Some Arsenal fans are never happy.

They wants us to “sell dead wood” and cash begin raising more funds from academy products that are not at the required level.

And then they moan £25million is underselling a player not required and moan about selling an academy product that is not at the required level.

£25million for Joe Willock is a good deal for Arsenal.

Willock has had his chance

Joe Willock has played 78 games for Arsenal since making his debut in September 2017.

He has shown glimpses of being a decent player, but has not shown enough, on a consistent basis, that he will ever be  top player.

Compare Willock to 2 academy products who have cracked it – Bukayo Saka and Emile Smith Rowe.

Both Saka and Smith Rowe are younger than Willock and have performed to a higher level.

Last season whilst Willock was struggling for game time, Smith Rowe came in and took his chance with both hands.

Smith Rowe moved ahead of Willock in the pecking order which was the main reason he was loaned out and ultimately sold.

Willock turns 22-years-old soon. So lets stop the talk about how much potential he has.

Arsenal need better than Willock (and Smith Rowe)

If we want to progress as a team, we need better players than what we have.

That is why we are targeting someone like James Maddison.

Maddison is levels ahead of Smith Rowe, who is levels above Willock.

When you are targeting someone to come in at the top end of the squad, someone at the bottom end will end up making way.

If we are looking at Willock as a 10, buying Maddison drops him down to 3rd choice. £25million for a 3rd choice player is a good deal.

Position

“But he can play deeper than 10” is an argument I have seen some people use.

For Newcastle, his fantastic performances came playing in behind a striker. For Arsenal, when he has played deeper, his passing has been exposed.

Willock could become a good box to box midfielder. He certainly has the energy to get around the field. But his passing is his poorest aspect of his game.

You can not play central midfield if you can not pass.

Willock’s strength is finding space in the box and scoring goals.

We have already established that he already has Smith Rowe and potentially Maddison (or another 10) ahead of him as an attacking midfielder. He also has numbers ahead of him deeper.

Split our 4 central midfielders up into 2 groups – the ones that sit and the ones that press.

In the press group it is Thomas Partey and Albert Sambi Lokonga. Granit Xhaka and Mohamed Elneny are the sitters.

Partey is clearly ahead of Willock and Lokonga has shown enough in pre-season for me to say he is also the better player. So Willock would be “3rd choice” for that position.

As a sitting midfield; Willock has never played this position.

Yes, you could argue that “Willock is a better footballer than Elneny” but this is irrelevant as Elneny is a better sitting midfielder than Willock.

So at best, Willock would be 3rd choice at 10, 3rd choice at “8”. You could argue that he would be good to keep him around covering both positions. But I would rather have the £25million

£25million is too low. It should have been £40million

I do wonder sometimes if people understand how the transfer market works.

A player is only “worth” how much a team (or teams) offer for him.

If Willock at £25million was too low, where were all the clubs competing for his signature?

Literally no other club than Newcastle was in for him.

Had Everton, Leicester City or West Ham wanted him, it could have created a bidding war which would have pushed his price up.

But there was no bidding war. No multiple clubs after him. It was just Newcastle.

So this left Arsenal to negotiate a price that suited Arsenal, whilst Newcastle were negotiating a price that suited them. I the end £25million wad considered a fair price.

Had Arsenal demanded £40million, the deal would have collapsed. Newcastle would not have paid that.

Likewise, if Newcastle refused to pay any more than £15million, Arsenal would have walked away from the deal.

With no other suitors, Arsenal had a choice:

Take the £25million or pull the plug on the deal like they did with Xhaka to Roma.

What would happen if we kept him?

So lets say we pulled the plug on the deal. What would have happened?

We would have had a player who was 3rd choice and hardly playing – he started just 2 Premier League games for Arsenal when he was higher up the pecking order.

His contract expires in 2023; so if we kept him we would have had kept him it would be a new 5 year contract.

In 2 years time when he has had a couple more loan deals and barely played a game, the same people moaning that £25million is too low would be moaning that we were stupid turning down the offer and giving him a new contract..

Where were the other clubs

When selling a player, I always think about where he ends up.

There is a reason why Willock has ended up at Newcastle and was not being targeted by Leicester City, West Ham, Everton, Leeds or Aston Villa.

He is mid-lower table level; not Arsenal level.

And the future?

Well with £25million in our pocket and a squad place freed up Arsenal can get back to recruiting.

Lets lay out a mythical situation.

Leicester City want £60million for Maddison.

Arsenal have just raised £25million selling Willock.

In negotiations, we offer Ainsley Maitland-Niles as part of the deal – Maitland Niles nearly joined Leicester in January for £20million.

If both clubs honour that valuation, than it is realistic Arsenal could agree a deal with Leicester that is £40million + Maitland Niles.

£25milion of that £40million is covered by the sale of Willock.

So we would see a net swing of £15million expenditure to bring in James Maddison with two academy products who were surplus to requirement also making way.

Summary

In summary, Arsenal have got £25million for a 22-year-old midfielder who was not good enough for us. With just one club in the running for him we have maximised the transfer fee.

If we can now do similar with other academy products (Eddie Nketiah, Reiss Nelson), then the rebuild can continue.

I would suggest there are some fans who will moan about everything that the club do.

They have moaned we are selling Willock. They would moan had we kept him and offered him a new deal. They think it is cool to be an “anti-fan”.

Keenos

William Saliba picked Marseille and still has “many aspects to fix” of his game before he is ready for Arsenal

3 Replies

A lot has been said over the last 24 months about what is happening with William Saliba at Arsenal. So far once it is actually interesting to hear from the young Frenchman himself.

“I’m the one who chose to go to Marseille, they [Arsenal] preferred that I go to England, but I knew that coming here was the right choice, so I really pushed for this.”

This is actually quite disappointing and in its isolation would perhaps lead you to be quite critical of Saliba.

Arsenal wanted Saliba to play Premier League football. The thinking would be that 38 games in England’s top flight would show to everyone what standard he is.

Instead Saliba chose to return to France for a 3rd loan spell. It would be easy to label him a “coward” and deciding “the easy life in France” rather than playing at a higher level in Premier League.

“I spoke with the coach [Jorge Sampaoli] and Pablo [Longoria, OM president], and I was quickly convinced.”

I guess the question comes down to “what club did Arsenal want Saliba to join”.

Early reports were that Arsenal were lining him up for a move to Newcastle.

That would have seen Saliba playing under Steve Bruce. Not exactly an inspiring coach to work under.

Meanwhile Jorge Sampaoli is the man who took Chile to Copa America glory back in 2015 and had a spell managing Argentina.

Given the choice between playing under Sampaoli or Bruce, there is only really one logical answer. Sampaoli.

“I’m young, I’m 20 and I haven’t proven anything yet. I still have many aspects to fix and areas in which I can progress.”

This final quote is what has made me warm further towards Saliba.

He recognises that he is not ready yet. That he has yet to prove anything. That he is still young and has plenty to improve on.

Mikel Arteta has been heavily criticised for not giving Saliba a chance, but in the Frenchman’s own word he is not ready yet.

It is easy to forget that Saliba is just 20.

This is 3 years into a 5 year deal with Arsenal.

If Arsenal have an option to extend a year, it would make a lot of sense for him to play the season in France under Sampaoli, and then get his English loan deal. At that point he might be looking at a better club than Newcastle. Better coach than Bruce.

At which point he returns to Arsenal. Just 22. 2 years left on his deal and ready to fit for first team football.

Taking in isolation with just the first quote, Saliba will be criticised. But with the full picture in his own words it is hard not to agree with his viewpoint.

Keenos

Grealish transfer good for English football and could reignite market

4 Replies

This transfer window has been slow. It has stagnated in the last couple of weeks.

Money at most clubs is tight with the majority needing to sell to buy.

The issue is everyone is pretty much in that same position. And with Europe being broke clubs are limited on where they can sell to.

It was always going to take one big transfer to hopefully reignite the window.

Grealish to Manchester City for £100million gives Aston Villa a huge lump of cash in their pocked that they now need to spend.

They have already spent some of it on Danny Ings for a reported £30million from Southampton.

So as the money now filters down, Southampton now have the Ings transfer money that they can spend. And whoever they spend that money on will in turn have more money to spend.

The hope is Southampton might look towards Arsenal to replace Ings, with a £20million deal for Eddie Nketiah a realistic possibility.

Arsenal, having been the 2nd biggest spenders so far behind Manchester United (unless the Grealish deal has gone through at the time of writing) and now need to sell to further invest.

One huge target is James Maddison.

If Arsenal could secure the sale of Nketiah to Southampton, and with a deal for Joe Willock to Newcastle for £25million reportedly close; Arsenal would have a huge chunk of the Maddison fee paid for.

Leicester City are asking for £70million, but a deal closer to £50million including either Ainsley Maitland-Niles or Reiss Nelson could be agreed upon.

Selling Maddison would then revitilise Leicester City – giving them the funds to make further transfers. And it continues…

So whilst Grealish to Manchester City might be seen by some as “an oil club killing football”, the funds coming from it could revitalise the transfer market.

On a side note, I always find it uncomfortable when Manchester City (or Chelsea) are criticised for signing other clubs players and labelled as ruining the game.

Has anyone criticised Aston Villa for poaching Emi Buendia from Norwich City or Ings from Southampton?

There is a transfer food chain. City will sign players from clubs below them. Those clubs will sign players from below them. And so on.

The Grealish deal is good for English football as it will get the money flowing.

Keenos