Injuries Thread :ilt:

[Niall_Quinn]

Arteta has earned himself the reputation for someone who a) overplays certain players and b) someone who in interviews has in the past at least been dismissive of medical expertise, when Rice came off with injury in his first NLD…Arteta pretty much stated he needed to toughen up.

We know there are instances of players playing through pain. Saka, White and Jesus have all claimed as much.

Is Arteta completely to blame and no other factor comes into it? No. But I think he takes the lions share of responsibility.

Problem is he never will.

He needs to go

The manager needs to be left to manage his squad as he sees fit (or unfit in our case), in conjunction with the medical staff of course. If he's ignoring that staff or making tangible mistakes with how he utilises and rotates his squad then that's a legitimate issue. But do we have any evidence of that, apart form one comment regarding Rice?

In terms of the squad size and the transfer policy, Arteta can't possibly carry the lion's share of blame for that, unless the stories about him wanting Watkins are false. If he's identified the need for a striker, undoubtedly based on squad shortages, and asked the club to buy that striker - it then falls on the club to get that done. They haven't done it, they are almost entirely to blame.

Wasn't a luxury purchase, it was a necessary purchase.

[HCZ_Reborn]

The manager needs to be left to manage his squad as he sees fit (or unfit in our case), in conjunction with the medical staff of course. If he's ignoring that staff or making tangible mistakes with how he utilises and rotates his squad then that's a legitimate issue. But do we have any evidence of that, apart form one comment regarding Rice?

In terms of the squad size and the transfer policy, Arteta can't possibly carry the lion's share of blame for that, unless the stories about him wanting Watkins are false. If he's identified the need for a striker, undoubtedly based on squad shortages, and asked the club to buy that striker - it then falls on the club to get that done. They haven't done it, they are almost entirely to blame.

Wasn't a luxury purchase, it was a necessary purchase.

Watkins was offered to Arsenal, Villa wanted to sell us Watkins because they didn’t want to have to sell Duran

I haven’t seen anything where Arteta has stated he explicitly wanted Watkins, what I’ve heard is that the club was divided on whether we should go for him or not. Arteta has previously put the emphasis on signing players for the future in discussions with KSE (that’s why we targeted the Norwegian boy)

[Niall_Quinn]

Watkins was offered to Arsenal, Villa wanted to sell us Watkins because they didn’t want to have to sell Duran

I haven’t seen anything where Arteta has stated he explicitly wanted Watkins, what I’ve heard is that the club was divided on whether we should go for him or not. Arteta has previously put the emphasis on signing players for the future in discussions with KSE (that’s why we targeted the Norwegian boy)

The club wouldn't have entertained the move if Arteta didn't want him. Arteta must have wanted him or else the bid wouldn't have been made. Unless Josh and the gang are now picking the team?

[HCZ_Reborn]

The club wouldn't have entertained the move if Arteta didn't want him. Arteta must have wanted him or else the bid wouldn't have been made. Unless Josh and the gang are now picking the team?

We didn’t make a move, we responded to them. They offered us Watkins for 60 million, we made a counter offer of 45 million. This suggests to me that the desire to bring Watkins in was lukewarm at best. Given the vast amounts that have been spent under Arteta, are we really to believe that KSE would have stiffed him over 15 million….if Arteta really wanted this player.

[Niall_Quinn]

We didn’t make a move, we responded to them. They offered us Watkins for 60 million, we made a counter offer of 45 million. This suggests to me that the desire to bring Watkins is was lukewarm at best. Given the vast amounts that have been spent under Arteta, are we really to believe that KSE would have stiffed him over 15 million….if Arteta really wanted this player.

What are you basing this on? I'm going on the reports made by people actually connected with football, the ones most people give at least some credence to. Doesn't mean they are right but there's zero evidence Villa offered the player for 60 mill and the board went back with a 45 mill bid minus input from Arteta. According to the reports the bid was made 9 (IIRC) days after Villa suggested the player was available. And during that time Arteta made a firm request to the club, which the club then hummed and hawed about because they didn't like the player's age or his potential sell-on fee. But eventually they agreed and THEN the bid was made. Some say £32 mill in staged payments, others say £40 mill and others still say £45 mill. The £60mill "offer", which I don't think anyone has confirmed is real, so if it did happen at all, came after Villa had agreed to sell their other striker to the arabs.

Yes, I do believe KSE (most likely on the advice of their squad of bean counters at the club) were responsible for the underbid because only they could have ultimately approved it. That would be the same £15 mill drop in the Gyokeres buyout clause in the summer. Or the same £15 mill that could have been spent, with change, getting a couple of loan deals done as cover.

And it might represent the £15mill the bag men thought would be lost of the sell-on fee, but that's speculation.

HAS to be KSE, they own the club, they control the funds. They may have delegated people to do their shitty deeds but they are ultimately responsible.

[HCZ_Reborn]

This is what Ornstein reported, Villa offered Watkins to us for 60 million, we only offered 45 million

Ultimately the club concerns itself far more with wages than transfer fees (which are usually done via amortisation) when it comes to running costs. Now if you want to blame KSE that might be worth looking at in terms of the decision to sell the quartet of Smith-Rowe and Nketiah, as well as sending Vieira and Nelson on loan.

[Letters]

This is what Ornstein reported, Villa offered Watkins to us for 60 million, we only offered 45 million

And you're blaming Arteta for that?
He expressed some frustration about out transfer dealings in January, or lack thereof.
I know he seems to be the Homer Simpson to your Frank Grimes, but not everything is his fault.

[HCZ_Reborn]

And you're blaming Arteta for that?
He expressed some frustration about out transfer dealings in January, or lack thereof.
I know he seems to be the Homer Simpson to your Frank Grimes, but not everything is his fault.

I didn’t want us to sign Watkins either. The point I’m making is that if Arteta wanted him that much, we’d have paid the difference.

I hold Arteta responsible for the soft tissue injuries to the players we do have. The transfer debacle…is a collective endeavour

[Niall_Quinn]

This is what Ornstein reported, Villa offered Watkins to us for 60 million, we only offered 45 million

Ultimately the club concerns itself far more with wages than transfer fees (which are usually done via amortisation) when it comes to running costs. Now if you want to blame KSE that might be worth looking at in terms of the decision to sell the quartet of Smith-Rowe and Nketiah, as well as sending Vieira and Nelson on loan.

Why not just look at it another way? We got 30 mill for Eddie but wouldn't pay 60 mill for Watkins.

Don't know how much we got for ESR, but we could sure do with him here right now. Add his money on top. Yes, I know we can't just assume money coming in is available to spend. But this is like a leak in the roof, you have to fix the damn thing. You don't want to spend that rainy day fund, but now you have to unless you want the roof to fall in.

Not sure why you are so keen to defend these bastards who don't give a shit about the club beyond how it serves their personal ambitions.

[Niall_Quinn]

I didn’t want us to sign Watkins either. The point I’m making is that if Arteta wanted him that much, we’d have paid the difference.

I hold Arteta responsible for the soft tissue injuries to the players we do have. The transfer debacle…is a collective endeavour

This is as thin as it gets. Arteta's job is to tell the board what he needs. Their job is to get it, if possible. Villa nudged us and said, want Ollie for 60 mill?

Well - did we or didn't we? Who's best to know? The manager, and he said we wanted the player. That's his bit done.

The board? Hmmm, sell-on fees, age, don't like his hairstyle. 40 mill, 45 mill. Plus a quid. 9 days later, when it was already a dead deal due to Villa agreeing other business.

The board has to ensure things are handled properly, for sure. They can't fulfil every manager's wildest dreams. But the roof is held up by the last straw. If it hadn't been, if we didn't have the injury crisis, then sure, maybe we don't need a punt on a 29 year old we won't get much money for in 2-3 years. But as a solid oak beam to replace the final straw, what's there to even consider? It's NECESSARY, not optional.

As we all knew in advance and as we have (in record time) just witnessed. Down comes the roof. Who knew that could happen?

Or who CARED if that happened? Not the board.