Celtic don't lose at home in Europe, so you absolutely have to do the job in London.Over two legs we'll be fine. We're a far superior team to them.
We're a far superior team to a lot of sides we've been beaten by over the last 5 years tbh. I suspect you are right, but this really is a potential banana skin for mine.Over two legs we'll be fine. We're a far superior team to them.
They lost last week in Europe, at home!Celtic don't lose at home in Europe, so you absolutely have to do the job in London.
So who would you rather have? Lyon, Stuttgart, Sporting Lisbon, Fiorentina, Atletico Madrid???Not entirely thrilled about this tbh, as it's the exact kind of match that Arsenal often lose, esspecially away from home. I can see them winning the home leg 1-0 or 2-1, and then being beaten 1-0 in the away leg. Bad draw for Arsenal tstl.
Yeah fair point.So who would you rather have? Lyon, Stuttgart, Sporting Lisbon, Fiorentina, Atletico Madrid???
The way it was structured this was always going to be a tough draw for you, I think you've got off pretty lightly, tbh.
In other news thank **** I'm going to Elland Road tomorrow, will totally avoid the cricket all day
True. It doesn't happen often though.They lost last week in Europe, at home!
And the first leg is at Parkhead, isn't it?
No idea google it.
Here to be proved wrong, but that's a really good draw for the Arse, possibly only one team that they'd prefer.
The hype will be tedium personified though, as all these Battle of Britain things are. Never really understood that name being given to these matches, I'm reasonably sure England and Scotland were on the same side in that skirmish
**** that, if you aren't good enough then you shouldn't be in the team, if you're too soft to accept that then you're in the wrong profession. You should never ever make a decision on the basis of it might upset certain people, that's how you end up in all sorts of trouble,Yeah but you've got to remember the impact they would have on the dressing room and how it would upset the lond term development of Song because he'd have yet another player (deservedly) ahead of him in the pecking order.
It was sarcastic. That's Wenger's philsophy though, every year is building for next year. Developing players for the future, he's quite regularly come out and said he doesn't want to spend money on big names if they're going to disrupt the dressing room and upset the players we already have. I'd back Wenger to the hills on most things but players like Song are never going to be world class, then there are others like Diaby who has more talent in his litttle toe than Song does in his whole body but he has no work rate to speak of.**** that, if you aren't good enough then you shouldn't be in the team, if you're too soft to accept that then you're in the wrong profession. You should never ever make a decision on the basis of it might upset certain people, that's how you end up in all sorts of trouble,
Why not replace players not good enough to start for Arsenal with players who are? We might actually win something.Yeah but you've got to remember the impact they would have on the dressing room and how it would upset the lond term development of Song because he'd have yet another player (deservedly) ahead of him in the pecking order.
Bobby was only £6.5m, which makes him even more spectacular value. Henry was about £11m though.Reyes - £11m - started well enough, tailed off massively but was hardly a total flop even when he did lose form.
Pires - £11m - an absolute steal of a buy for a player of his quality, my favourite player of all time, at his peak there was no player in the world better in his position, so glad to got to see him play just the once.
Henry - £8m - pointless to say anything here, record speaks for itself.
Nah, IIRC none of the clauses were evoked. Didn't play enough games, didn't score enough etc etc.Bobby was only £6.5m, which makes him even more spectacular value. Henry was about £11m though.
And I thought that was the initial fee for Reyes, eventually rising to a maximum of £17.5m? Didn't make it that high obviously but I think he ended up around £13-15m or so.
None of those were truly huge money signings although some were spectacular and the rest were at least useful. Considering how big and rich a club we are they are though it's crazy how low the tope end of our expenditure is.Am not holding out for any new signings of note tbh, reckon we might get one or two 22ish year old players from France/Africa but nobody who would be considered an established first teamer. I have all the time in the world for Wenger, and will support him and his decisions to the end, but there does come a point when this lack of Transfer activity becomes a bit frustrating. If you look at his record of big money signings it's not even like a lot of them have been complete turkeys either.
Nasri - £12m - has done a good job..
Arshavin - £15m - has had an outstanding start.
Eduardo - £7.5m - had a great season before his horrible injury.
Hleb - £11.5m - performed well and was a mainstay in the side.
Reyes - £11m - started well enough, tailed off massively but was hardly a total flop even when he did lose form.
Wiltord - £13m - underated player, people always bemoan how bad he was, but he scored a lot of goals, esspecially considering that a lot of the time he was playing on the right wing.
Pires - £11m - an absolute steal of a buy for a player of his quality, my favourite player of all time, at his peak there was no player in the world better in his position, so glad to got to see him play just the once.
Henry - £8m - pointless to say anything here, record speaks for itself.