Man Utd agree 24m deal for RVP

I heard 24m anyhow. Also 195k a week for 3 years with a Utd option for a 4th.

Can't help but feel this is somewhat of a 'we need a statement name' signing. While hes better than Welbeck and Hernandez the money could've been spent on areas where a big upgrade is needed.

I agree that it's a statement signing, it's not needed and £195k a week is obscene for a player who could very well relapse into the injury prone player we saw for 7 years before that one excellent year.

You could have signed two full backs for that money.

Its a massive risk for a 29 year old player with 11 months to run on his deal, with an injury history.

They don't need help up front. They need help at centre back (injuries happening to Vidic/Rio quite often) midfield and full backs. Not necessary but might paper over some cracks.

Arsenal fans are bricking it ahead of his medical

Will be interesting to see if Arsenal spend more money this window, or if (as I expect) they've already spent the Van Persie money.

Piers Morgan ‏@piersmorgan
No pressure @Persie_Official - but if you leave #Arsenal then I'm going to throw myself off Santa Monica pier in lead weights.

Theres the positives for Arsenal fans (and humanity)

IF his injuries are behind him then it could be a crackin signing...that bit of magic Man U seem to be lacking.

Will be good for the likes of Welbeck & Cleverley etc aswell.

GSC wrote:Piers Morgan ‏@piersmorgan
No pressure @Persie_Official - but if you leave #Arsenal then I'm going to throw myself off Santa Monica pier in lead weights.

Theres the positives for Arsenal fans (and humanity)

Im happy to sacrifice Robin if this actually happens

Waste of money from united, he'll be injured most of the season and be a huge flop IMO. He was incredible last season but before that he isn't all that.

Hernandez to hand in a transfer request

If I was Hernandez, I'd be fuming. Not allowed to be a part of the Mexican Olympic squad which went onto to win a gold medal, so that he can be fit for the new season. Yet he's been pushed into fourth place in terms of strikers.

Piers Morgan is one of the most annoying people in the world yet is hilarious to follow on twitter, could be a great signing for United. Could Rooney and RVP be the new Cole and Yorke?

Big loss for Arsenal. The pressure will now be heaped on Podolski to hit the ground running and get a 20+ goal season. Arsenal will struggle to make the top 4 with their best striker gone. And it's not as if United desperately needed a striker, they've already got Rooney, Welbeck, Hernandez and Berbatov. The money could have been better used to strengthen the midfield but I guess time will tell whether this was a good move by United or not.

I've said on the transfers and man utd threads that while Van Persie will be a brilliant addition to any squad he is very much a luxury and not a necessity.

As a United fan I share Crimey's opinion on Hernandez and I really hope this doesn't have a knock on effect on his future at the club. He seems professional enough to pick up the role that Solskjaer used to play of a supersub but he's better, and deserves more than that

Also this deal going through doesn't make sense in regards to Kagawa coming in. Kagawa's best position is playing behind a lone striker (granted he can play winger), you'd think that Rooney and RVP will be a starting pair up top so that only leaves Kagawa on the wing and we already have a number of options there

Could this be the trigger for Walcott to not sign a new contract either and be snapped up this summer, January or even leave for free next year? I know a lot of people don't rate Walcott, but to lose him like that would be a fairly big blow.

On the other hand, Van Persie leaving could lead to Walcott being used as a central forward leading him to fulfil his potential and sign a new long-term contract.

Walcott is underrated and I feel unfairly takes a lot of criticism

It is understood Van Persie was encouraged by the arrivals of Germany forward Lukas Podolski, France striker Olivier Giroud and Spain midfielder Cazorla - to the point where he was open to the idea of staying with or without a new contract.

But Wenger pulled him aside shortly before Sunday's friendly victory over Cologne, told him he would be sold if a deal could
be reached and informed the Dutchman he was no longer part of his plans.

Source: bbc


This better be one hell of a plan Arsene

Why do I get the feeling there's another twist still to come?

City could easily place a bid for him tomorrow and scupper any deal to us

I am quite gutted as an Arsenal fan, as we seemed to be going 3 steps forward with our signings giving us unhearalded attacking options for almost any eventuality but have now gone 4 steps back (though 4 steps back with £24m I suppose). We now need another striker with the window rapidly closing.

As you say a luxury player for united, but even with his injuries he still had a ratio of 2 goals every 3 games for Arsenal (roughly) and created chances. Though I don't see him and Rooney playing well together, as Rooney drops deep and doesn't give the midfield a target to pass to, and RVP likes to drop deep or go wide to draw defenders.

I find myself hoping RVP gets injured for the whole season (which is harsh)

BREAKING NEWS: Robin Van Persie has failed his medical at Manchester United, due to a severely damaged back from carrying the entire Arsenal squad last season.

Suprised Manchester United have paid such a huge fee for a 29 year old with an injury record but it tells us something much bigger. It says that SAF is thinking about retiring possibly within two years maybe three and he knows that he has to react now and gamble. SAF wants to win as much as possible in the next two years and he's decided that United need quality to produce now rather than in four or five years time with the signings of smalling, jones, powell etc. Changing your transfer policy of buying youth and going for experienced older players is a sign SAF is pressured by City and Mancini and he wants to take them on toe to toe before eventually retiring on top. He has success with a previously injured dutch striker in Van Nistelrooy which probably was a decisive factor and led SAF to gambling on Robin rather than gambling on another unknown brazilian talent named Lucas Moura. Rooney & RVP is a scary thought

Man U fans always say they make superstars rather than buying them.

Podolski is just as good a replacement for the money hungry limper anyway.

Which Manchester club invested in youth and which one gave a mercenary massive wages

Go and get back under your bridge, Josiah!

It says that SAF is thinking about retiring possibly within two years maybe three and he knows that he has to react now and gamble.

VP is not really a gamble.. a gamble would be going for Lucas Moura, who would give them a different dimension, instead of relying on wingers. Carrick /Anderson won't be good enough against other good midfields.

GSC wrote:Which Manchester club invested in youth and which one gave a mercenary massive wages

Man City fans didn't delude themselves that they have developed youngsters..

Should be funny seeing Rooney and RVP arguing who is the main striker..

GSC wrote:Which Manchester club invested in youth and which one gave a mercenary massive wages

What you mean like Rooney (highest transfer fee for a British teenager £220,000 a week, beating Rios transfer), Berbatov, Anderton, Carrick (£20m wasn't it?), Valencia (£16m)

and let go Pogia, Heinze & Pique because they couldn't get gametime.

While Man U do have a good amount of players who've come through their youth system - the claim that they don't pay obscene wages, or make transfer record buying signings is a fallacy

No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Too true

Heinze wasn't youth team.

Utd are definitely historic big spends (though never playboy funded) and pay high wages to attract/retain top players, but also have the best record in the EPL for bringing through youth. Though it's on the wane.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Heinze wasn't youth team.

Utd are definitely historic big spends (though never playboy funded) and pay high wages to attract/retain top players, but also have the best record in the EPL for bringing through youth. Though it's on the wane.

Better than Arsenal?

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Heinze wasn't youth team.

Utd are definitely historic big spends (though never playboy funded) and pay high wages to attract/retain top players, but also have the best record in the EPL for bringing through youth. Though it's on the wane.

Better than Arsenal?

Is that an honest question or are you joking?

The only team that could challenge Utd's record is arguably West Ham - 2 Ferdinands, Carrick, Cole, Lampard, Terry, Defore, Glen Johnson, off the top of my head.

Utd are definitely historic big spends (though never playboy funded) and pay high wages to attract/retain top players

Let's pretend Malcolm Glazer don't exist shall we..

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Utd are definitely historic big spends (though never playboy funded) and pay high wages to attract/retain top players

Let's pretend Malcolm Glazer don't exist shall we..

Thank-god nobody gives any credit to your opinions or intelligence Jossy.......

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

You compare a team who have regularly broken British and World transfer records (from Roy Keane and Bryan Robson back in then day) and has a number of players costing upwards of £20m in their team (some bought when £20m was the transfer record) to a side whose transfer record was £13m for Wiltord until this season and who built a double winning side (1998) with no player costing more than £10m, with a host of unhearald and unheard of youngsters including Viera, Cole, Anelka & Overmars as the big signing for £5m at 24 years old.

They have also (in case you didn't know) brought through a raft of youngsters through the years, relying on these instead of breaking their modest tranfer record, these include Fabergas, Flamini, Cole, RVP, Szczenzy, Toure, Viera, Clichy, Sagna, Anelka, Lauren & Reyes.

But true I suppose they do spend huge amounts of money on Wilcott, Chamberlain and Henry because they don't really give youth a chance...

You also haven't compared Man Us budget when the Prem started to the rest of the teams therein and how many transfer records they've broken when you talk about 'driving up the price of players'...

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

You compare a team who have regularly broken British and World transfer records (from Roy Keane and Bryan Robson back in then day) and has a number of players costing upwards of £20m in their team (some bought when £20m was the transfer record) to a side whose transfer record was £13m for Wiltord until this season and who built a double winning side (1998) with no player costing more than £10m, with a host of unhearald and unheard of youngsters including Viera, Cole, Anelka & Overmars as the big signing for £5m at 24 years old.

They have also (in case you didn't know) brought through a raft of youngsters through the years, relying on these instead of breaking their modest tranfer record, these include Fabergas, Flamini, Cole, RVP, Szczenzy, Toure, Viera, Clichy, Sagna, Anelka, Lauren & Reyes.

But true I suppose they do spend huge amounts of money on Wilcott, Chamberlain and Henry because they don't really give youth a chance...

You also haven't compared Man Us budget when the Prem started to the rest of the teams therein and how many transfer records they've broken when you talk about 'driving up the price of players'...

They be brainwashed. Fans like TopHat tend to be a bit religious.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

You compare a team who have regularly broken British and World transfer records (from Roy Keane and Bryan Robson back in then day) and has a number of players costing upwards of £20m in their team (some bought when £20m was the transfer record) to a side whose transfer record was £13m for Wiltord until this season and who built a double winning side (1998) with no player costing more than £10m, with a host of unhearald and unheard of youngsters including Viera, Cole, Anelka & Overmars as the big signing for £5m at 24 years old.

They have also (in case you didn't know) brought through a raft of youngsters through the years, relying on these instead of breaking their modest tranfer record, these include Fabergas, Flamini, Cole, RVP, Szczenzy, Toure, Viera, Clichy, Sagna, Anelka, Lauren & Reyes.

But true I suppose they do spend huge amounts of money on Wilcott, Chamberlain and Henry because they don't really give youth a chance...

You also haven't compared Man Us budget when the Prem started to the rest of the teams therein and how many transfer records they've broken when you talk about 'driving up the price of players'...

None of those players came through the Arsenal youth system. And you're still missing the point. If you can't see the difference between United (I've never denied they're big spenders) and Chelski/Citeh then theres no point discussing football.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

You compare a team who have regularly broken British and World transfer records (from Roy Keane and Bryan Robson back in then day) and has a number of players costing upwards of £20m in their team (some bought when £20m was the transfer record) to a side whose transfer record was £13m for Wiltord until this season and who built a double winning side (1998) with no player costing more than £10m, with a host of unhearald and unheard of youngsters including Viera, Cole, Anelka & Overmars as the big signing for £5m at 24 years old.

They have also (in case you didn't know) brought through a raft of youngsters through the years, relying on these instead of breaking their modest tranfer record, these include Fabergas, Flamini, Cole, RVP, Szczenzy, Toure, Viera, Clichy, Sagna, Anelka, Lauren & Reyes.

But true I suppose they do spend huge amounts of money on Wilcott, Chamberlain and Henry because they don't really give youth a chance...

You also haven't compared Man Us budget when the Prem started to the rest of the teams therein and how many transfer records they've broken when you talk about 'driving up the price of players'...

They be brainwashed. Fans like TopHat tend to be a bit religious.

At least I am a fan, not some silly little twerp that prowls the football boards wumming his way around.

Of course you're a real fan. Thats why you live nowhere near Stretford..

I think it is a good deal for Arsenal getting £24M for a 29 year old.

Just a case of let's see what Wenger does with the money.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Of course you're a real fan. Thats why you live nowhere near Stretford..

And you're a real fan of........oh no, wait, you've never declared a club despite spamming these boards with your nonesense for months and months on end. You're pathetic, I pity you.

Van Persie is a cursed player despite his good goals tally, if I remember, Kevin Phillips also hit over 30 goals for a season or two, did not make him a world class player.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think it is a good deal for Arsenal getting £24M for a 29 year old.

Just a case of let's see what Wenger does with the money.

He'll spend half of it on nearly free Africans, a bit on a random European and the rest will replenish the coffers. Dealing players is the only way Arsenal can make money these days as prize money has been thin on the ground for much of a decade....

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Van Persie is a cursed player despite his good goals tally, if I remember, Kevin Phillips also hit over 30 goals for a season or two, did not make him a world class player.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

TopHat24/7 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think it is a good deal for Arsenal getting £24M for a 29 year old.

Just a case of let's see what Wenger does with the money.

He'll spend half of it on nearly free Africans, a bit on a random European and the rest will replenish the coffers. Dealing players is the only way Arsenal can make money these days as prize money has been thin on the ground for much of a decade....

When all is lost, talk about the trophies won recently.. nice ploy of the glory hunters.

two_tone wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Van Persie is a cursed player despite his good goals tally, if I remember, Kevin Phillips also hit over 30 goals for a season or two, did not make him a world class player.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Nibble nibble little fishy..

Think I have worked out TopHat who the little twerp supports. Hates United and Liverpool and has a resentment for all the teams that spend money plus he mentioned something about Liverpool the other day. Reckon he is an Evertonian, no wonder he's misreable trawling the boards slating other teams all day...