Of course I understand why clubs won't want to spend big and that's totally fine
High horses? This is precisely the arrogance I am talking about. The selling club can ask for what they like without being insulted. The buying club can walk away. No issues but stating a club is on a high horse for wanting a fee that's acceptable to them is peak arrogance. I have no interest in selling my house, if someone wanted it i'd ask for £20k above "market value", does that mean I am on a "high horse" or I am simply not interested in selling
You keep going on about Solanke? If you think 2 players scoring the same amount of goals makes them equal then clearly football isn't for you. As for Bournemouth they can ask for what they like, that's their prerogative and he's obviously a valuable player to them.
Chelsea can demand what they like for Jackson. Again at no stage have I stated X number of goals = Y Value, that's just you going off on a tangent and thinking goals as a comparison is how you judge players
Your main striker has scored 4 league goals this season, I'm fairly certain Isak can elevate you beyond that. Anyhow, as I said he's not for a sale and hopefully Arsenal have the same thought process as you when it comes to Isak
Arrogance? No arrogance at all. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. I said if Newcastle or Brighton want to demand high fees fair enough, I also said that I don't I don't expect players to give players cheaply either. But you conviently choose to ignore that point.
Currently in PL most teams seem to think 1 good season for a player means a 100M price tag because Chelsea and United distorted the market signing donkeys like Antony and mudryk. At Same time because clubs are going to have to reign in spending
, naturally transfer fees will come down.
Jesus has 4 goals this season, the guys a B-tec lacazette and Nketiah is trash as well. So upgrading on trash isn't exactly hard. Chris woods from forrest would be an upgrade on Jesus, doesn't mean Arsenal should go sign him.
This silly logic where people think of he's better then runnarson, he's better holding, he's better than lakonga, he's better than Jesus.. upgrading on trash.
Arsenal should be looking to compete on all 4 fronts and winning trophies and looking to win in Europe. To do that consistently you need an elite striker.
Isak right now is nowhere near elite.
22 games and 27 games in 2 seasons in PL is poor from a fitness point of view. Arsenal ain't looking to splash 100M on a striker to play around 20 PL games a season as some sort of rotation option. This is a signing which will be the main striker in PL and CL and will make the difference in both.
Then you take about hindsight, why would Arsenal regret not signing isak before. Arsenal were linked to him when in a top 4 race, they were clearing wage bill etc.. and they should have take a 70M risk on a player that scored 6 goals in a season? At a time where club weren't spending loads on transfers.
Last season Arsenal were in a title race, isak was struggling to play more than 22 PL games. So again. Where in hindsight have Arsenal made a mistake?
Isak, Toney and Watkins are all better than the Jesus and Nketiah. But none of those strikers justify a 100M price tag.
100M should be getting you a elite difference maker in current market. Not a work in progress.
Brighton wanted 100m for ferguson based on 6 goals in 19 games last season. 100M for a player who hadn't even played more than half a season.
Arsenal ain't man city where they have the luxury of risking 100M on a player and it not working out. The whole reason Arsenal have holes in squad is because of the hit and miss transfer over last few seasons.
100M on strikers that can't even play 30 PL games In a season is ridiculous