• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Riyad Mahrez

alekaras said:
At this point two years ago there was no evidence that Dier's role would be changed either. All I'm saying is that, based on the Dier example, don't pigeonhole players.
Click to expand...

Ok shall we also say that Kane might turn into a keeper (he played there before!)? Or CCV into a CF? How about Janssen filing in at RB? There's zero evidence that Poch might be thinking of changing GKN into either a wingback or a more central player
 
AdamB said:
Ok shall we also say that Kane might turn into a keeper (he played there before!)? Or CCV into a CF? How about Janssen filing in at RB? There's zero evidence that Poch might be thinking of changing GKN into either a wingback or a more central player
Click to expand...
Now you're trying to be a smart ass. There's a difference between converting a GK to a striker compared to converting a winger to a wing back.
 
braineclipse said:
Keep Sissoko and sign two more attacking midfielders? We won't even find a place for Sissoko on our bench.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. He could be dropped back to central midfield, no? And, even if he is dropped from the bench, that doesn't really concern me as much as outright dumping a player after his first season does.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Not necessarily. He could be dropped back to central midfield, no? And, even if he is dropped from the bench, that doesn't really concern me as much as outright dumping a player after his first season does.
Click to expand...

Sissoko isn't a CM - his basic balls skills (control, passing etc) are nowhere near good enough
 
DubaiSpur said:
Not necessarily. He could be dropped back to central midfield, no? And, even if he is dropped from the bench, that doesn't really concern me as much as outright dumping a player after his first season does.
Click to expand...
I really see no reason to think that he could be dropped to central midfield. Unless you're talking about being dropped from the team there as well. Would be behind Wanyama, Dier, Dembele and Winks at least. Possibly Onomah too.

We've given up on several players after a year. It seems like a better option than keeping them around without really knowing how to give them game time.
 
braineclipse said:
I really see no reason to think that he could be dropped to central midfield. Unless you're talking about being dropped from the team there as well. Would be behind Wanyama, Dier, Dembele and Winks at least. Possibly Onomah too.

We've given up on several players after a year. It seems like a better option than keeping them around without really knowing how to give them game time.
Click to expand...

Well, keeping a player around doesn't mean you have to give them game-time - I'm not suggesting that a new signing be *completely* shielded from any bad form over the first year, only that he gets another chance in his second year to make amends. Where his starting position is in that second year is of less concern, in that regard.

Mind, this is my personal view on how we should treat our signings - Poch may think differently, and there's no doubt that Sissoko's wages will probably weigh heavily on Levy's mind as well.
 
An interesting update on Mahrez - Di Marzio's reporting that he's agreed terms with Roma, and that he's apparently willing to accept the same base salary after tax that he has at Leicester (100k a week, more or less).

*However*, other sources earlier this summer reported that he wanted a move to London in particular, with other clubs being options only if this wasn't possible.

If both are true, I can't see why we aren't at least throwing an enquiry Leicester's way - they'd want more than they would from Roma in terms of a transfer fee, but we could possibly still get it down to 37.5 - 40m with a bit of haggling (considerably more than what Roma are apparently offering). We have the Walker money burning a hole in our pocket anyway, not like the outlay's unaffordable. And if Mahrez is willing to stick to the same wages he has at Leicester, he should fit into our wage structure at the upper end - I can't see why he wouldn't, given that we're roughly the same size and stature as Roma are and he apparently wants a move to London over other alternatives if possible.

He'd be a better option than Barkley.
 
DubaiSpur said:
An interesting update on Mahrez - Di Marzio's reporting that he's agreed terms with Roma, and that he's apparently willing to accept the same base salary after tax that he has at Leicester (100k a week, more or less).

*However*, other sources earlier this summer reported that he wanted a move to London in particular, with other clubs being options only if this wasn't possible.

If both are true, I can't see why we aren't at least throwing an enquiry Leicester's way - they'd want more than they would from Roma in terms of a transfer fee, but we could possibly still get it down to 37.5 - 40m with a bit of haggling (considerably more than what Roma are apparently offering). We have the Walker money burning a hole in our pocket anyway, not like the outlay's unaffordable. And if Mahrez is willing to stick to the same wages he has at Leicester, he should fit into our wage structure at the upper end - I can't see why he wouldn't, given that we're roughly the same size and stature as Roma are and he apparently wants a move to London over other alternatives if possible.

He'd be a better option than Barkley.
Click to expand...

No he wouldnt. We don't have cover for Eriksen. We do have pace and trickery already in NKD. We should give him a chance rather than spunk shed loads of money on a one season wonder who is prone to sulks.
 
DubaiSpur said:
An interesting update on Mahrez - Di Marzio's reporting that he's agreed terms with Roma, and that he's apparently willing to accept the same base salary after tax that he has at Leicester (100k a week, more or less).

*However*, other sources earlier this summer reported that he wanted a move to London in particular, with other clubs being options only if this wasn't possible.

If both are true, I can't see why we aren't at least throwing an enquiry Leicester's way - they'd want more than they would from Roma in terms of a transfer fee, but we could possibly still get it down to 37.5 - 40m with a bit of haggling (considerably more than what Roma are apparently offering). We have the Walker money burning a hole in our pocket anyway, not like the outlay's unaffordable. And if Mahrez is willing to stick to the same wages he has at Leicester, he should fit into our wage structure at the upper end - I can't see why he wouldn't, given that we're roughly the same size and stature as Roma are and he apparently wants a move to London over other alternatives if possible.

He'd be a better option than Barkley.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/888105940548898821

Most likely they quoted us an insane fee.
 
Pirate55 said:
No he wouldnt. We don't have cover for Eriksen. We do have pace and trickery already in NKD. We should give him a chance rather than spunk shed loads of money on a one season wonder who is prone to sulks.
Click to expand...

Lamela can do the Eriksen role. We need the pace and trickery option much more.
 
Jordinho said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/888105940548898821

Most likely they quoted us an insane fee.
Click to expand...

They've been publicly sticking to 50m, but apparently (again, all as per Di Marzio, so salt needed - but he's usually okay on Serie A stuff) they're okay with a lower fee from Roma, and I imagine that they'd be open to a lower fee from us as well. Not *as low* as they'd go for Roma, but still lower than 50m - which no one will likely pay.

Maybe it's a slow burner or something. The trouble with that is that Arsenal losing Sanchez will make it likely that he goes to the Emirates - so if anything, we might need to preempt that if we're serious about getting him.

Pirate55 said:
No he wouldnt. We don't have cover for Eriksen. We do have pace and trickery already in NKD. We should give him a chance rather than spunk shed loads of money on a one season wonder who is prone to sulks.
Click to expand...

Erm..Barkley's better than people make him out to be, but he's no Eriksen replacement. Not by a long shot. More like an attacking midfield Dembele, if anything.

Mahrez would actually be closer to the ideal than Barkley would, if that's what you're looking for - quick, creative, decent size and speed, outrageously skillful, and can drift across the midfield. And while his work-rate is never going to be Eriksen-level (there are almost no AMs who work as hard as Eriksen does, imo), he pulls his weight in defense - wouldn't have survived in a defensive team if that weren't the case.
 
DubaiSpur said:
They've been publicly sticking to 50m, but apparently (again, all as per Di Marzio, so salt needed - but he's usually okay on Serie A stuff) they're okay with a lower fee from Roma, and I imagine that they'd be open to a lower fee from us as well. Not *as low* as they'd go for Roma, but still lower than 50m - which no one will likely pay.

Maybe it's a slow burner or something. The trouble with that is that Arsenal losing Sanchez will make it likely that he goes to the Emirates - so if anything, we might need to preempt that if we're serious about getting him.

Erm..Barkley's better than people make him out to be, but he's no Eriksen replacement. Not by a long shot. More like an attacking midfield Dembele, if anything.

Mahrez would actually be closer to the ideal than Barkley would, if that's what you're looking for - quick, creative, decent size and speed, outrageously skillful, and can drift across the midfield. And while his work-rate is never going to be Eriksen-level (there are almost no AMs who work as hard as Eriksen does, imo), he pulls his weight in defense - wouldn't have survived in a defensive team if that weren't the case.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem with Arsenal spending loads on another overrated player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back