Gabriel Jesus’ Arsenal departure will “only occur if 4 criteria is met”

Leave a reply

In recent days, Gabriel Jesus has been linked with a move to the Saudi Pro League.

Now aged 27, Jesus was left out of Brazil’s 2025 Copa America squad and became a bit part player towards the end of last season for Arsenal.

Having joined the club from Manchester City as he sought out first team football, Arsenal may well be looking to change Jesus’s role in the squad with a new top striker incoming and the form of Kai Havertz in the middle.

Being relegated to a squad player and failing to make that Brazil squad may lead Jesus to make the decision that his top level career in Europe is over. His choices would either to accept becoming a Sylvain Wiltord type player at Arsenal, move for first team football at a lower level within Europe, or take the huge money on offer in Saudi Arabia.

Like the Chinese Super League before them, the Saudi Pro League targets players from South America and Africa who are playing in Europe. These guys have already made big upheavals in their lives to move continent, so will be more open to moving continent again.

Unlike European born players like Jordan Henderson, they are more likely to be able to quickly acclimatise to the new culture having already done it previously.

Gabriel Jesus’ departure will only occur if 4 criteria is met:

Arsenal to sign a new striker

At the back end of last season, Kai Havertz was in sparkling form playing down the middle. This saw Gabriel Jesus relegated to 2nd choice striker.

With Eddie Nketiah showing he is not top level, and almost certain to depart over the next 5 weeks, that leaves us with just the two strikers – Havertz and Jesus.

We need two top strikers to enable us to rest and rotate, and make in game changes. Jesus will only be allowed to leave if a new striker comes in.

Arsenal to sign a new winger

Even if a new striker comes in, Jesus still has a big role to play at the club.

In his new role, Jesus will still be 3rd choice striker. That becomes 2nd choice if Havertz returns to his deeper role. He is also cover and competition on the wing.

Jesus has spent much of his career both for Brazil and Manchester City on the left and right wings. Were he to no longer be playing week in, week out upfront, he would then come into Mikel Arteta’s thinking on both flanks.

On the left wing, it would not be too hard to make a case that Jesus would be a better option than Gabriel Martinelli and Leandro Trossard. And if Martinelli holds onto his starting spot, Jesus would be his natural cover and competition.

Over on the right, we have long been looking for cover for Bukayo Saka. Jesus, Martinelli and Trossard would provide this cover.

A new striker would mean that we then have a choice between 4 wingers for two positions. A nice place to be!

Were Jesus to depart, we would be back to 3 for 2 and would have to go into the market for a new winger.

Huge fee

As it stands, Jesus covers two positions at Arsenal.

He is 2nd choice striker, and also in the equation to start on the wing. It will take two signings to replace him. And both of those signings would need to be an upgrade on Jesus.

We have been heavily linked with Viktor Gyokeres and Nico Williams. Both would be an improvement on Jesus and would probably cost us £100-120m.

Whilst we would not expect to cover the full fee of two new incoming players, we would be looking to offset the huge potential outgoings.

From a PSR and accounting point of view, we still have £27m of Jesus’s £45m transfer fee to account for. Any profit in the 2024/25 accounts is any figure about the £27m (as the entirety of any un-amortised fee is must be accounted for in the same period a player leaves).

A fee of £55m has been quoted for Jesus. This will be a £28m profit in the 2024/25 accounts. Were Gyokeres and Williams to come in for a combined £120m, they would cost £24m for 2024/25.

I would expect as a minimum, any profit for Jesus would have to cover the 1st year amortisation costs of his replacements. So we are looking at north of £50m.

Pay his wages

Gabriel Jesus is reportedly on an eye-watering £265k a week. Whilst some might now question this decision, it was a decision that helped us return to the Champions League and become title challengers.

To compete with Manchester City, we need to compete for the best players, and that includes paying the best wages. Manchester City players, on average, are paid £146k a week. Our average is £119k a week. Jesus earns less than the likes of Jack Grealish, and not much more than Phil Foden.

Any club that signs Jesus would have to be able to offer at least pay parity – a player will never leave a club for a pay cut.

Arsenal do not want to get into a situation where we are paying supplementing the wages of players no longer at the club. We would be better of keeping Jesus rather than paying him £100k a week to play for someone else.

Luckily money is not an issue for Saudi clubs, and Jesus would probably expect to double his money if he moves.

What his wages do however is rule him out of any move to another European side. Very few will be able to offer him first team football and the money he is on.

Do I think Jesus will leave? My belief is we are not actively selling hi, but like with many of our squad players we will let him leave if a superior replacement is recruited, and the finances across both his outgoing and however comes in works in our favour.

Keep an eye on both Jesus and Thomas Partey as the summer goes on….

Keenos

Martinelli sparkles as Arsenal win

2 Replies

Our pre-season continued in the early hours of this morning with a very slow paced friendly against Manchester United.

On a heavy pitch with both sides fielding a 50/50 team of youth and experience, Man U took the lead on 10 minutes after Rasmus Hojlund outmuscled 17-year-old Ayden Heaven before sticking it between the legs of Karl Hein.

We applied the pressure in a game that became very stop start with plenty of late challenges. The lethargy of some of the challenges showed some players were not yet up to speed.

25 minutes in, Gabriel Jesus equalised following a good move that led to a cross from the left from Leandro Trossard. The goal reminded me of FIFA 15.

The late challenges from Man U continued as we headed into half time with the game at a stalemate.

The second half continued in the same vein as the first half – plenty of late challenges and Arsenal looking most likely to score. Leandro Trossard forced Andre Onana into a smart save.

On 60-minutes we made a whole host of substitutes as Arteta continued to ensure everyone was getting plenty of game time. The balance of the team stayed the same as experience was replaced by experience, youth with youth.

A brilliant piece of individual play from Gabriel Martinelli saw a cross taken off Kai Havertz head by Cristian Ericksen. It was great to see the German and Brazilian showing no hangover from representing their countries in an elongated season.

Martinelli then continued his sparkling cameo with a wonderful solo goal on the 80th minute, and the game finished 2-1 to The Arsenal.

Last season the Martinelli did not look as sharp and dangerous as previous seasons. He was often isolated and starved of the ball, and struggled to find the space he loves to operate in.

Whilst I won’t be getting too excited as it was only pre-season, his performance indicates he might be getting back to his best.

And playing Man U is a higher quality of opposition than Cambridge, Hearts, QPR and Vissel Kobe. Not sure why that lot up the road are hyping up a 16-year-old, acting like these were proper senior games against senior opponents. Mikey Moore might be talented but it is just pre-season friendlies.

Overall a good run out for The Arsenal in the friendly. We look like we have maintained the momentum from last season. Up next Liverpool.

Keenos

Why are Arsenal doing so many outgoing loan deals?

2 Replies

Many years ago, Arsene Wenger shared a view that loan deals will dominate the transfer market in the future.

His thinking was based on transfer fees spiraling, and the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” growing even bigger. That clubs lower down the league, or in lesser leagues, would be unable to pay what the “bigger” selling club would want for their discared talent to make the deal worthwhile.

One of the driving factors of this opening was also the way clubs use amortisation in their accounts. It would not be worthwhile a club selling a player for less than their book value, and therefore having to show a loss in their accounts for selling a player.

Sides would actually be better off keeping a player for the duration of their contract and releasing them on a free (and therefore showing no accounting loss). Then during the duration of their contract, clubs will look to loan players out, offsetting 100% of the players salary as well as the amortisation cost for the year in a loan fee.

It is more affordable for a lesser team to pay a £5 or £6m loan fee, and cover the wages, than have to spend £30m on a player.

One step beyond this is the “loan with option / obligation to buy” which we are increasingly seeing.

Tottenham have used this in recent years when they looked to sign Dejan Kulusevski, Cristian Romero and Pedro Porro.

The bought them in on loan deals (one of which was a 2-year loan deal) with an option or obligation to buy once the loan period was over.

The loan with an obligation or option to buy is common practice in Italy, so it was no surprised that Spurs’ then Director of Football Fabio Paratici was utilising the tactic.

In the Profit and Sustainability Rules era, loans with obligations to buy allows clubs to recruit a player without a transfer fee hitting this years accounts. In turn, that gives them a year to sort out their finances, ensure their books are balanced ahead of the transfer and ensure they do not break the rules.

It also has the added benefit of allowing clubs to buy more players than they otherwise could afford.

If you can recruit player A on a loan with the obligation / option to buy, you can then pay a transfer fee on Play B, who you otherwise might not have been able to afford.

This tactic does have a downside as it means you need (if obligation) to spend the money the next season on a player you had this season. That in turn means yo have less money to spend next summer. You are basically buying two players this summer, instead of one this summer and one next.

Arsenal are operating in the opposite direction to Spurs.

Instead of kicking debt down the road by loaning in players that you need to pay for in the future, we are loaning out players with an obligation / option to buy. But what are the benefits of this to us?

Maximize the transfer fee

As it stands, we have no PSR concerns. Nor do we have to sell players to raise funds to make purchases. That puts us in a strong position when trying to maximise our transfer fees.

With many of those being loaned out having 2-3 years left on the contract, we are in no rush to sell this year. That means we can to loan with obligation to buy deals that are attractive for lower clubs, with us receiving the full fee we demand next summer.

Our flexibility ensures that we get the fee we want, without needed to drop our asking fee purely because the buying / loaning club can not afford them this summer

Were we not to work with clubs on loan with obligation to buy deals, they might either go elsewhere for the signings, or offer us less for the player to join permanently this summer.

I would rather £20m next summer for Reiss Nelson, then agree £15m this.

Maximize the transfer fee II

Many of those being loaned out have struggled for game time at Arsenal. A loan with an option to buy allows them to prove themselves and their value.

If the player performs well, the loaning club is likely to proceed with their option to buy. And that option is likely ore than what would be on the table this summer as a permenant transfer.

And if the player does not perform? Chances are we will still get whatever the fee was that we were being offered this summer.

Options to buy ensure we get the fee we want, based on what we think of the player if they were playing regularly.

Profit in future might be needed

PSR compliance is important when it comes to thinking about selling players.

Whilst we know this summer we are not at risk of breaching the rules, we do not know what position we will be in next.

By pushing the incoming transfer fee down the road, it ensures that any fee that comes in will be into the 2025/26 PSR accounts. This could offset, for example, a revenue drop due to lack of Champions League football.

On the face of it, doing loan deals might indicate to some that Edu is unable to sell players. And I do get that view.

But once you dig deeper, you realise the benefits for Arsenal in pushing incoming transfers down the road.

That income might be needed for a rainy day, and in allowing teams to loan the player first, we ensure we are maximizing the transfer fee in the future and maybe even increasing what would have been offered as a permanent transfer this summer.

These sort of loan deals are the norm in Italy. With PSR in its current state, expect more to happen in England!

Keenos