Emi Buendia

[Power n Glory]

Something is off when we make a bid for this player and it's turned down. If we weren't interested, I doubt we'd have made a move. Seems like a high priority target we missed out on.

Nobody said we weren't interested. As I said, if we were interested enough then he would be here and not Villa. He's been rumoured for a while, and most rumours come from some sort of truth, so they probably were looking at him as an option but if he was a key target and worth the price being paid then we would outbid Villa and he would come to us.

Anyone trying to suggest Villa have equal or more pull than us is just being a daft w***er. The only thing they could have is guaranteeing him more game time but why would we be so interested to spend 40m on a backup?

Semantics. You said we weren't 'seriously interested' whatever that means. I would hope the club wouldn't waste this sort of time or be prepared to waste money on a player they're not that hot on so early in the window.

It's not semantics, it's about whether you believe everything you read. Firstly I don't even know we actually made a bid, that could be BS in itself and therefore show that we weren't interested beyond a rumour. Secondly, even if they were interested, they had a limit of what they were willing to part with for a player of his quality from a championship team.

Neither of which mean that Villa have outdone us or have more pull than us, leading to us 'losing out to Villa' like people were crying about.

If we really wanted him and saw him as that important, he would easily come to us over them...it's really that simple.

It's semantics because you said we weren't 'seriously interested' but then said nobody said we weren't interested.

Again, if we're not serious about a player but will table a bid, you have to wonder why we're messing around with a player we're not that fussed about so early in the window.

I don't care for the whole Arsenal/Villa talk. We finished mid table with no European football. That's the reality and we're obviously not the draw we used to be. But my main focus is on Edu and whether he's able to help bring in the players we need to push us on. He's had a good amount of time to identify the players we need, we were linked with Buendia for ages but he's chosen another club. That saying something. It just looks similar to Dominik Szoboszlai and Aouar situations we couldn't get over the line last year. Even with the Partey deal we had to activate his transfer clause last day of the transfer window. Odegaard we had to bring in on loan. Make of that what you will.

Seriously interested and interested are not the same thing.
I find it feasible that clubs would signal intent as a deflection away from what the real plans are - to avoid competition...especially with clubs around whose sugar daddies can just use outside cash to hamstring their competition even they don't need a player, or drive the price up.

That said, I do not know what happened with Buendia. No one on this forum does - and I suspect very few Arsenal fans do.
It's all speculation based off reports that are often wrong. (nearly always wrong).
Right now, we certainly don't know that Buendia considered Villa a bigger 'draw' than us.

You guys can focus on the semantics and come up with possible reasons why we didn't get this player. It's not important.

I'm more concerned about Edu and our transfer strategy. I don't want a repeat of last season where we wasted the summer and left ourselves short going into the season.

But that's a different argument and one where we can agree.

The original comments were based on people claiming Villa somehow beat us to a signing which is complete BS. If you don't care for that then that's good, we can end the unnecessary discussion.

Why is it BS? We differ because I have no problem admitting Villa beat us to the signing. The concern about Edu and our transfer strategy is the 'how and why it happened' and that's more important to me. I'm not going to pretend we're still the most attractive club around or be that guy that gets knocked back after a date and all of sudden the girls ugly! No point in kidding ourselves.

So, what actually happened?
What did Arsenal offer Buendia and Norwich vs Villa's offering?
Did they discuss things like appearances?

I'd be surprised if you knew any of those details.
The point being is that Villa might just have wanted Buendia more than we did, rather than Buendia wanting Villa more than Arsenal.

That was, I believe, the nature of the original point made by Santi. Did we really really want the guy? Was he a top priority? Sounds like he wasn't to us.

I get the point he's making. You're just missing my point. If he wasn’t a top priority, why are we wasting time making a bid? The smokescreen tactic only works if we actually have our eyes on a better target. To me, it seems backwards spending a considerable sum on a player that isn't top priority. We usually get our top priority areas/players sorted first or close to the deadline if negotiations drag out or out of options.

Yeah, but how would you know that we don't have a higher priority that we're actively working on?
i would hope we are!

I don't know. But I ask how do either of you know this wasn't a top priority target for us?

[jayramfootball]

Something is off when we make a bid for this player and it's turned down. If we weren't interested, I doubt we'd have made a move. Seems like a high priority target we missed out on.

Nobody said we weren't interested. As I said, if we were interested enough then he would be here and not Villa. He's been rumoured for a while, and most rumours come from some sort of truth, so they probably were looking at him as an option but if he was a key target and worth the price being paid then we would outbid Villa and he would come to us.

Anyone trying to suggest Villa have equal or more pull than us is just being a daft w***er. The only thing they could have is guaranteeing him more game time but why would we be so interested to spend 40m on a backup?

Semantics. You said we weren't 'seriously interested' whatever that means. I would hope the club wouldn't waste this sort of time or be prepared to waste money on a player they're not that hot on so early in the window.

It's not semantics, it's about whether you believe everything you read. Firstly I don't even know we actually made a bid, that could be BS in itself and therefore show that we weren't interested beyond a rumour. Secondly, even if they were interested, they had a limit of what they were willing to part with for a player of his quality from a championship team.

Neither of which mean that Villa have outdone us or have more pull than us, leading to us 'losing out to Villa' like people were crying about.

If we really wanted him and saw him as that important, he would easily come to us over them...it's really that simple.

It's semantics because you said we weren't 'seriously interested' but then said nobody said we weren't interested.

Again, if we're not serious about a player but will table a bid, you have to wonder why we're messing around with a player we're not that fussed about so early in the window.

I don't care for the whole Arsenal/Villa talk. We finished mid table with no European football. That's the reality and we're obviously not the draw we used to be. But my main focus is on Edu and whether he's able to help bring in the players we need to push us on. He's had a good amount of time to identify the players we need, we were linked with Buendia for ages but he's chosen another club. That saying something. It just looks similar to Dominik Szoboszlai and Aouar situations we couldn't get over the line last year. Even with the Partey deal we had to activate his transfer clause last day of the transfer window. Odegaard we had to bring in on loan. Make of that what you will.

Seriously interested and interested are not the same thing.
I find it feasible that clubs would signal intent as a deflection away from what the real plans are - to avoid competition...especially with clubs around whose sugar daddies can just use outside cash to hamstring their competition even they don't need a player, or drive the price up.

That said, I do not know what happened with Buendia. No one on this forum does - and I suspect very few Arsenal fans do.
It's all speculation based off reports that are often wrong. (nearly always wrong).
Right now, we certainly don't know that Buendia considered Villa a bigger 'draw' than us.

You guys can focus on the semantics and come up with possible reasons why we didn't get this player. It's not important.

I'm more concerned about Edu and our transfer strategy. I don't want a repeat of last season where we wasted the summer and left ourselves short going into the season.

But that's a different argument and one where we can agree.

The original comments were based on people claiming Villa somehow beat us to a signing which is complete BS. If you don't care for that then that's good, we can end the unnecessary discussion.

Why is it BS? We differ because I have no problem admitting Villa beat us to the signing. The concern about Edu and our transfer strategy is the 'how and why it happened' and that's more important to me. I'm not going to pretend we're still the most attractive club around or be that guy that gets knocked back after a date and all of sudden the girls ugly! No point in kidding ourselves.

So, what actually happened?
What did Arsenal offer Buendia and Norwich vs Villa's offering?
Did they discuss things like appearances?

I'd be surprised if you knew any of those details.
The point being is that Villa might just have wanted Buendia more than we did, rather than Buendia wanting Villa more than Arsenal.

That was, I believe, the nature of the original point made by Santi. Did we really really want the guy? Was he a top priority? Sounds like he wasn't to us.

I get the point he's making. You're just missing my point. If he wasn’t a top priority, why are we wasting time making a bid? The smokescreen tactic only works if we actually have our eyes on a better target. To me, it seems backwards spending a considerable sum on a player that isn't top priority. We usually get our top priority areas/players sorted first or close to the deadline if negotiations drag out or out of options.

Yeah, but how would you know that we don't have a higher priority that we're actively working on?
i would hope we are!

I don't know. But I ask how do either of you know this wasn't a top priority target for us?

Nobody other than the club and the people in negotiations know.
That's why it's pointless at this stage suggesting that we lost out to Villa because of the respective merits of the clubs - which is accusation the original comment was responding to, I think. (not from you, from someone else)

[Salibatelli]

Something is off when we make a bid for this player and it's turned down. If we weren't interested, I doubt we'd have made a move. Seems like a high priority target we missed out on.

Nobody said we weren't interested. As I said, if we were interested enough then he would be here and not Villa. He's been rumoured for a while, and most rumours come from some sort of truth, so they probably were looking at him as an option but if he was a key target and worth the price being paid then we would outbid Villa and he would come to us.

Anyone trying to suggest Villa have equal or more pull than us is just being a daft w***er. The only thing they could have is guaranteeing him more game time but why would we be so interested to spend 40m on a backup?

Semantics. You said we weren't 'seriously interested' whatever that means. I would hope the club wouldn't waste this sort of time or be prepared to waste money on a player they're not that hot on so early in the window.

It's not semantics, it's about whether you believe everything you read. Firstly I don't even know we actually made a bid, that could be BS in itself and therefore show that we weren't interested beyond a rumour. Secondly, even if they were interested, they had a limit of what they were willing to part with for a player of his quality from a championship team.

Neither of which mean that Villa have outdone us or have more pull than us, leading to us 'losing out to Villa' like people were crying about.

If we really wanted him and saw him as that important, he would easily come to us over them...it's really that simple.

It's semantics because you said we weren't 'seriously interested' but then said nobody said we weren't interested.

Again, if we're not serious about a player but will table a bid, you have to wonder why we're messing around with a player we're not that fussed about so early in the window.

I don't care for the whole Arsenal/Villa talk. We finished mid table with no European football. That's the reality and we're obviously not the draw we used to be. But my main focus is on Edu and whether he's able to help bring in the players we need to push us on. He's had a good amount of time to identify the players we need, we were linked with Buendia for ages but he's chosen another club. That saying something. It just looks similar to Dominik Szoboszlai and Aouar situations we couldn't get over the line last year. Even with the Partey deal we had to activate his transfer clause last day of the transfer window. Odegaard we had to bring in on loan. Make of that what you will.

Seriously interested and interested are not the same thing.
I find it feasible that clubs would signal intent as a deflection away from what the real plans are - to avoid competition...especially with clubs around whose sugar daddies can just use outside cash to hamstring their competition even they don't need a player, or drive the price up.

That said, I do not know what happened with Buendia. No one on this forum does - and I suspect very few Arsenal fans do.
It's all speculation based off reports that are often wrong. (nearly always wrong).
Right now, we certainly don't know that Buendia considered Villa a bigger 'draw' than us.

You guys can focus on the semantics and come up with possible reasons why we didn't get this player. It's not important.

I'm more concerned about Edu and our transfer strategy. I don't want a repeat of last season where we wasted the summer and left ourselves short going into the season.

But that's a different argument and one where we can agree.

The original comments were based on people claiming Villa somehow beat us to a signing which is complete BS. If you don't care for that then that's good, we can end the unnecessary discussion.

Why is it BS? We differ because I have no problem admitting Villa beat us to the signing. The concern about Edu and our transfer strategy is the 'how and why it happened' and that's more important to me. I'm not going to pretend we're still the most attractive club around or be that guy that gets knocked back after a date and all of sudden the girls ugly! No point in kidding ourselves.

So, what actually happened?
What did Arsenal offer Buendia and Norwich vs Villa's offering?
Did they discuss things like appearances?

I'd be surprised if you knew any of those details.
The point being is that Villa might just have wanted Buendia more than we did, rather than Buendia wanting Villa more than Arsenal.

That was, I believe, the nature of the original point made by Santi. Did we really really want the guy? Was he a top priority? Sounds like he wasn't to us.

I get the point he's making. You're just missing my point. If he wasn’t a top priority, why are we wasting time making a bid? The smokescreen tactic only works if we actually have our eyes on a better target. To me, it seems backwards spending a considerable sum on a player that isn't top priority. We usually get our top priority areas/players sorted first or close to the deadline if negotiations drag out or out of options.

Yeah, but how would you know that we don't have a higher priority that we're actively working on?
i would hope we are!

I don't know. But I ask how do either of you know this wasn't a top priority target for us?

Nobody other than the club and the people in negotiations know.
That's why it's pointless at this stage suggesting that we lost out to Villa because of the respective merits of the clubs - which is accusation the original comment was responding to, I think. (not from you, from someone else)

If we were more attractive Buendia would have held out for us and turned down Villa, he didn’t so clearly he felt they were a good option.

This is what having someone like Arteta in charge does, players don’t want to play for him and don’t want to play for an 8th place club with no ambition either.

[Paddy]

Buendia on 75k a week at villa

So it def wasn't a financial decision cause we could have easily offered that and more

A player chose villa over the arsenal

Arsenal football club

[Power n Glory]

Something is off when we make a bid for this player and it's turned down. If we weren't interested, I doubt we'd have made a move. Seems like a high priority target we missed out on.

Nobody said we weren't interested. As I said, if we were interested enough then he would be here and not Villa. He's been rumoured for a while, and most rumours come from some sort of truth, so they probably were looking at him as an option but if he was a key target and worth the price being paid then we would outbid Villa and he would come to us.

Anyone trying to suggest Villa have equal or more pull than us is just being a daft w***er. The only thing they could have is guaranteeing him more game time but why would we be so interested to spend 40m on a backup?

Semantics. You said we weren't 'seriously interested' whatever that means. I would hope the club wouldn't waste this sort of time or be prepared to waste money on a player they're not that hot on so early in the window.

It's not semantics, it's about whether you believe everything you read. Firstly I don't even know we actually made a bid, that could be BS in itself and therefore show that we weren't interested beyond a rumour. Secondly, even if they were interested, they had a limit of what they were willing to part with for a player of his quality from a championship team.

Neither of which mean that Villa have outdone us or have more pull than us, leading to us 'losing out to Villa' like people were crying about.

If we really wanted him and saw him as that important, he would easily come to us over them...it's really that simple.

It's semantics because you said we weren't 'seriously interested' but then said nobody said we weren't interested.

Again, if we're not serious about a player but will table a bid, you have to wonder why we're messing around with a player we're not that fussed about so early in the window.

I don't care for the whole Arsenal/Villa talk. We finished mid table with no European football. That's the reality and we're obviously not the draw we used to be. But my main focus is on Edu and whether he's able to help bring in the players we need to push us on. He's had a good amount of time to identify the players we need, we were linked with Buendia for ages but he's chosen another club. That saying something. It just looks similar to Dominik Szoboszlai and Aouar situations we couldn't get over the line last year. Even with the Partey deal we had to activate his transfer clause last day of the transfer window. Odegaard we had to bring in on loan. Make of that what you will.

Seriously interested and interested are not the same thing.
I find it feasible that clubs would signal intent as a deflection away from what the real plans are - to avoid competition...especially with clubs around whose sugar daddies can just use outside cash to hamstring their competition even they don't need a player, or drive the price up.

That said, I do not know what happened with Buendia. No one on this forum does - and I suspect very few Arsenal fans do.
It's all speculation based off reports that are often wrong. (nearly always wrong).
Right now, we certainly don't know that Buendia considered Villa a bigger 'draw' than us.

You guys can focus on the semantics and come up with possible reasons why we didn't get this player. It's not important.

I'm more concerned about Edu and our transfer strategy. I don't want a repeat of last season where we wasted the summer and left ourselves short going into the season.

But that's a different argument and one where we can agree.

The original comments were based on people claiming Villa somehow beat us to a signing which is complete BS. If you don't care for that then that's good, we can end the unnecessary discussion.

Why is it BS? We differ because I have no problem admitting Villa beat us to the signing. The concern about Edu and our transfer strategy is the 'how and why it happened' and that's more important to me. I'm not going to pretend we're still the most attractive club around or be that guy that gets knocked back after a date and all of sudden the girls ugly! No point in kidding ourselves.

So, what actually happened?
What did Arsenal offer Buendia and Norwich vs Villa's offering?
Did they discuss things like appearances?

I'd be surprised if you knew any of those details.
The point being is that Villa might just have wanted Buendia more than we did, rather than Buendia wanting Villa more than Arsenal.

That was, I believe, the nature of the original point made by Santi. Did we really really want the guy? Was he a top priority? Sounds like he wasn't to us.

I get the point he's making. You're just missing my point. If he wasn’t a top priority, why are we wasting time making a bid? The smokescreen tactic only works if we actually have our eyes on a better target. To me, it seems backwards spending a considerable sum on a player that isn't top priority. We usually get our top priority areas/players sorted first or close to the deadline if negotiations drag out or out of options.

Yeah, but how would you know that we don't have a higher priority that we're actively working on?
i would hope we are!

I don't know. But I ask how do either of you know this wasn't a top priority target for us?

Nobody other than the club and the people in negotiations know.
That's why it's pointless at this stage suggesting that we lost out to Villa because of the respective merits of the clubs - which is accusation the original comment was responding to, I think. (not from you, from someone else)

It's a valid point nonetheless. We didn’t get him so there was something about us that didn't appeal and he found Villa more attractive. We can't specifically say what it was was but it had to be something more he valued that we saw in Villa. It is what it is.

[jayramfootball]

Something is off when we make a bid for this player and it's turned down. If we weren't interested, I doubt we'd have made a move. Seems like a high priority target we missed out on.

Nobody said we weren't interested. As I said, if we were interested enough then he would be here and not Villa. He's been rumoured for a while, and most rumours come from some sort of truth, so they probably were looking at him as an option but if he was a key target and worth the price being paid then we would outbid Villa and he would come to us.

Anyone trying to suggest Villa have equal or more pull than us is just being a daft w***er. The only thing they could have is guaranteeing him more game time but why would we be so interested to spend 40m on a backup?

Semantics. You said we weren't 'seriously interested' whatever that means. I would hope the club wouldn't waste this sort of time or be prepared to waste money on a player they're not that hot on so early in the window.

It's not semantics, it's about whether you believe everything you read. Firstly I don't even know we actually made a bid, that could be BS in itself and therefore show that we weren't interested beyond a rumour. Secondly, even if they were interested, they had a limit of what they were willing to part with for a player of his quality from a championship team.

Neither of which mean that Villa have outdone us or have more pull than us, leading to us 'losing out to Villa' like people were crying about.

If we really wanted him and saw him as that important, he would easily come to us over them...it's really that simple.

It's semantics because you said we weren't 'seriously interested' but then said nobody said we weren't interested.

Again, if we're not serious about a player but will table a bid, you have to wonder why we're messing around with a player we're not that fussed about so early in the window.

I don't care for the whole Arsenal/Villa talk. We finished mid table with no European football. That's the reality and we're obviously not the draw we used to be. But my main focus is on Edu and whether he's able to help bring in the players we need to push us on. He's had a good amount of time to identify the players we need, we were linked with Buendia for ages but he's chosen another club. That saying something. It just looks similar to Dominik Szoboszlai and Aouar situations we couldn't get over the line last year. Even with the Partey deal we had to activate his transfer clause last day of the transfer window. Odegaard we had to bring in on loan. Make of that what you will.

Seriously interested and interested are not the same thing.
I find it feasible that clubs would signal intent as a deflection away from what the real plans are - to avoid competition...especially with clubs around whose sugar daddies can just use outside cash to hamstring their competition even they don't need a player, or drive the price up.

That said, I do not know what happened with Buendia. No one on this forum does - and I suspect very few Arsenal fans do.
It's all speculation based off reports that are often wrong. (nearly always wrong).
Right now, we certainly don't know that Buendia considered Villa a bigger 'draw' than us.

You guys can focus on the semantics and come up with possible reasons why we didn't get this player. It's not important.

I'm more concerned about Edu and our transfer strategy. I don't want a repeat of last season where we wasted the summer and left ourselves short going into the season.

But that's a different argument and one where we can agree.

The original comments were based on people claiming Villa somehow beat us to a signing which is complete BS. If you don't care for that then that's good, we can end the unnecessary discussion.

Why is it BS? We differ because I have no problem admitting Villa beat us to the signing. The concern about Edu and our transfer strategy is the 'how and why it happened' and that's more important to me. I'm not going to pretend we're still the most attractive club around or be that guy that gets knocked back after a date and all of sudden the girls ugly! No point in kidding ourselves.

So, what actually happened?
What did Arsenal offer Buendia and Norwich vs Villa's offering?
Did they discuss things like appearances?

I'd be surprised if you knew any of those details.
The point being is that Villa might just have wanted Buendia more than we did, rather than Buendia wanting Villa more than Arsenal.

That was, I believe, the nature of the original point made by Santi. Did we really really want the guy? Was he a top priority? Sounds like he wasn't to us.

I get the point he's making. You're just missing my point. If he wasn’t a top priority, why are we wasting time making a bid? The smokescreen tactic only works if we actually have our eyes on a better target. To me, it seems backwards spending a considerable sum on a player that isn't top priority. We usually get our top priority areas/players sorted first or close to the deadline if negotiations drag out or out of options.

Yeah, but how would you know that we don't have a higher priority that we're actively working on?
i would hope we are!

I don't know. But I ask how do either of you know this wasn't a top priority target for us?

Nobody other than the club and the people in negotiations know.
That's why it's pointless at this stage suggesting that we lost out to Villa because of the respective merits of the clubs - which is accusation the original comment was responding to, I think. (not from you, from someone else)

It's a valid point nonetheless. We didn’t get him so there was something about us that didn't appeal and he found Villa more attractive. We can't specifically say what it was was but it had to be something more he valued that we saw in Villa. It is what it is.

Villa probably offered him more money and a chance of playing - that would be my guess.
i.e we didn't really want him as much as Villa did.

[Power n Glory]

Something is off when we make a bid for this player and it's turned down. If we weren't interested, I doubt we'd have made a move. Seems like a high priority target we missed out on.

Nobody said we weren't interested. As I said, if we were interested enough then he would be here and not Villa. He's been rumoured for a while, and most rumours come from some sort of truth, so they probably were looking at him as an option but if he was a key target and worth the price being paid then we would outbid Villa and he would come to us.

Anyone trying to suggest Villa have equal or more pull than us is just being a daft w***er. The only thing they could have is guaranteeing him more game time but why would we be so interested to spend 40m on a backup?

Semantics. You said we weren't 'seriously interested' whatever that means. I would hope the club wouldn't waste this sort of time or be prepared to waste money on a player they're not that hot on so early in the window.

It's not semantics, it's about whether you believe everything you read. Firstly I don't even know we actually made a bid, that could be BS in itself and therefore show that we weren't interested beyond a rumour. Secondly, even if they were interested, they had a limit of what they were willing to part with for a player of his quality from a championship team.

Neither of which mean that Villa have outdone us or have more pull than us, leading to us 'losing out to Villa' like people were crying about.

If we really wanted him and saw him as that important, he would easily come to us over them...it's really that simple.

It's semantics because you said we weren't 'seriously interested' but then said nobody said we weren't interested.

Again, if we're not serious about a player but will table a bid, you have to wonder why we're messing around with a player we're not that fussed about so early in the window.

I don't care for the whole Arsenal/Villa talk. We finished mid table with no European football. That's the reality and we're obviously not the draw we used to be. But my main focus is on Edu and whether he's able to help bring in the players we need to push us on. He's had a good amount of time to identify the players we need, we were linked with Buendia for ages but he's chosen another club. That saying something. It just looks similar to Dominik Szoboszlai and Aouar situations we couldn't get over the line last year. Even with the Partey deal we had to activate his transfer clause last day of the transfer window. Odegaard we had to bring in on loan. Make of that what you will.

Seriously interested and interested are not the same thing.
I find it feasible that clubs would signal intent as a deflection away from what the real plans are - to avoid competition...especially with clubs around whose sugar daddies can just use outside cash to hamstring their competition even they don't need a player, or drive the price up.

That said, I do not know what happened with Buendia. No one on this forum does - and I suspect very few Arsenal fans do.
It's all speculation based off reports that are often wrong. (nearly always wrong).
Right now, we certainly don't know that Buendia considered Villa a bigger 'draw' than us.

You guys can focus on the semantics and come up with possible reasons why we didn't get this player. It's not important.

I'm more concerned about Edu and our transfer strategy. I don't want a repeat of last season where we wasted the summer and left ourselves short going into the season.

But that's a different argument and one where we can agree.

The original comments were based on people claiming Villa somehow beat us to a signing which is complete BS. If you don't care for that then that's good, we can end the unnecessary discussion.

Why is it BS? We differ because I have no problem admitting Villa beat us to the signing. The concern about Edu and our transfer strategy is the 'how and why it happened' and that's more important to me. I'm not going to pretend we're still the most attractive club around or be that guy that gets knocked back after a date and all of sudden the girls ugly! No point in kidding ourselves.

So, what actually happened?
What did Arsenal offer Buendia and Norwich vs Villa's offering?
Did they discuss things like appearances?

I'd be surprised if you knew any of those details.
The point being is that Villa might just have wanted Buendia more than we did, rather than Buendia wanting Villa more than Arsenal.

That was, I believe, the nature of the original point made by Santi. Did we really really want the guy? Was he a top priority? Sounds like he wasn't to us.

I get the point he's making. You're just missing my point. If he wasn’t a top priority, why are we wasting time making a bid? The smokescreen tactic only works if we actually have our eyes on a better target. To me, it seems backwards spending a considerable sum on a player that isn't top priority. We usually get our top priority areas/players sorted first or close to the deadline if negotiations drag out or out of options.

Yeah, but how would you know that we don't have a higher priority that we're actively working on?
i would hope we are!

I don't know. But I ask how do either of you know this wasn't a top priority target for us?

Nobody other than the club and the people in negotiations know.
That's why it's pointless at this stage suggesting that we lost out to Villa because of the respective merits of the clubs - which is accusation the original comment was responding to, I think. (not from you, from someone else)

It's a valid point nonetheless. We didn’t get him so there was something about us that didn't appeal and he found Villa more attractive. We can't specifically say what it was was but it had to be something more he valued that we saw in Villa. It is what it is.

Villa probably offered him more money and a chance of playing - that would be my guess.
i.e we didn't really want him as much as Villa did.

Maybe. But what happened to it being pointless guessing?

[Zenith]

If Villa outbid us, which appears to be the case, Buendia did not have a choice to make; the choice was made for him.

[billie86]

If Villa outbid us, which appears to be the case, Buendia did not have a choice to make; the choice was made for him.

Exactly this, Norwich accepted the highest bid which was villa's, we have refused to match or better their bid according to reports so it's obvious we had chosen to end the pursuit. We could definitely afford 40 million and over 75k in wages if we desperately wanted him. The only thing villa can offer buendia that we can't is guaranteed game time.

[Salibatelli]

If Villa outbid us, which appears to be the case, Buendia did not have a choice to make; the choice was made for him.

Not true, a player can turn down a move if he wants to go to the other club, happens all the time, the player decides at the end of the day.

We offered the same but less money up front apparently.

[Power n Glory]

If Villa outbid us, which appears to be the case, Buendia did not have a choice to make; the choice was made for him.

Yes and no. It's a different set of questions to ask if they outbid us. But players have the power to dig their heels in and ask their agent to make a deal happen with the bigger club. He doesn't have to agree personal terms with Villa and if that happens, Villa don't have much of a choice either. It's a choice of selling to Arsenal, keep or try the smokescreen move to drive up the price.

Either way, I hope we know what we're doing. Still talk of us pursuing Odegaard which seems pointless because Real seem reluctant to sell and it would take a massive offer. There must be other options out there.

[jayramfootball]

Something is off when we make a bid for this player and it's turned down. If we weren't interested, I doubt we'd have made a move. Seems like a high priority target we missed out on.

Nobody said we weren't interested. As I said, if we were interested enough then he would be here and not Villa. He's been rumoured for a while, and most rumours come from some sort of truth, so they probably were looking at him as an option but if he was a key target and worth the price being paid then we would outbid Villa and he would come to us.

Anyone trying to suggest Villa have equal or more pull than us is just being a daft w***er. The only thing they could have is guaranteeing him more game time but why would we be so interested to spend 40m on a backup?

Semantics. You said we weren't 'seriously interested' whatever that means. I would hope the club wouldn't waste this sort of time or be prepared to waste money on a player they're not that hot on so early in the window.

It's not semantics, it's about whether you believe everything you read. Firstly I don't even know we actually made a bid, that could be BS in itself and therefore show that we weren't interested beyond a rumour. Secondly, even if they were interested, they had a limit of what they were willing to part with for a player of his quality from a championship team.

Neither of which mean that Villa have outdone us or have more pull than us, leading to us 'losing out to Villa' like people were crying about.

If we really wanted him and saw him as that important, he would easily come to us over them...it's really that simple.

It's semantics because you said we weren't 'seriously interested' but then said nobody said we weren't interested.

Again, if we're not serious about a player but will table a bid, you have to wonder why we're messing around with a player we're not that fussed about so early in the window.

I don't care for the whole Arsenal/Villa talk. We finished mid table with no European football. That's the reality and we're obviously not the draw we used to be. But my main focus is on Edu and whether he's able to help bring in the players we need to push us on. He's had a good amount of time to identify the players we need, we were linked with Buendia for ages but he's chosen another club. That saying something. It just looks similar to Dominik Szoboszlai and Aouar situations we couldn't get over the line last year. Even with the Partey deal we had to activate his transfer clause last day of the transfer window. Odegaard we had to bring in on loan. Make of that what you will.

Seriously interested and interested are not the same thing.
I find it feasible that clubs would signal intent as a deflection away from what the real plans are - to avoid competition...especially with clubs around whose sugar daddies can just use outside cash to hamstring their competition even they don't need a player, or drive the price up.

That said, I do not know what happened with Buendia. No one on this forum does - and I suspect very few Arsenal fans do.
It's all speculation based off reports that are often wrong. (nearly always wrong).
Right now, we certainly don't know that Buendia considered Villa a bigger 'draw' than us.

You guys can focus on the semantics and come up with possible reasons why we didn't get this player. It's not important.

I'm more concerned about Edu and our transfer strategy. I don't want a repeat of last season where we wasted the summer and left ourselves short going into the season.

But that's a different argument and one where we can agree.

The original comments were based on people claiming Villa somehow beat us to a signing which is complete BS. If you don't care for that then that's good, we can end the unnecessary discussion.

Why is it BS? We differ because I have no problem admitting Villa beat us to the signing. The concern about Edu and our transfer strategy is the 'how and why it happened' and that's more important to me. I'm not going to pretend we're still the most attractive club around or be that guy that gets knocked back after a date and all of sudden the girls ugly! No point in kidding ourselves.

So, what actually happened?
What did Arsenal offer Buendia and Norwich vs Villa's offering?
Did they discuss things like appearances?

I'd be surprised if you knew any of those details.
The point being is that Villa might just have wanted Buendia more than we did, rather than Buendia wanting Villa more than Arsenal.

That was, I believe, the nature of the original point made by Santi. Did we really really want the guy? Was he a top priority? Sounds like he wasn't to us.

I get the point he's making. You're just missing my point. If he wasn’t a top priority, why are we wasting time making a bid? The smokescreen tactic only works if we actually have our eyes on a better target. To me, it seems backwards spending a considerable sum on a player that isn't top priority. We usually get our top priority areas/players sorted first or close to the deadline if negotiations drag out or out of options.

Yeah, but how would you know that we don't have a higher priority that we're actively working on?
i would hope we are!

I don't know. But I ask how do either of you know this wasn't a top priority target for us?

Nobody other than the club and the people in negotiations know.
That's why it's pointless at this stage suggesting that we lost out to Villa because of the respective merits of the clubs - which is accusation the original comment was responding to, I think. (not from you, from someone else)

It's a valid point nonetheless. We didn’t get him so there was something about us that didn't appeal and he found Villa more attractive. We can't specifically say what it was was but it had to be something more he valued that we saw in Villa. It is what it is.

Villa probably offered him more money and a chance of playing - that would be my guess.
i.e we didn't really want him as much as Villa did.

Maybe. But what happened to it being pointless guessing?

It is pointless, about as pointless as suggesting that he preferred Villa because of some of the reasons stated (i.e. the manager, the club, Kroenke, 8th, and so forth).

[Power n Glory]

If Villa outbid us, which appears to be the case, Buendia did not have a choice to make; the choice was made for him.

Not true, a player can turn down a move if he wants to go to the other club, happens all the time, the player decides at the end of the day.

We offered the same but less money up front apparently.

Yes, on the same page. If we were to go back some years when we were decent, I can't see a player like Buendia opting for a club like Villa over us. But saying that, I really don't know where they were expecting Buendia to play. He's been playing as a RW for Norwich for the last few years. If we need a CM or AM, it's a move that doesn’t make much sense unless we believe he can play in those positions.

[Ach]

Cba with the long quoted posts

Main thing is we aren't getting him which is fine

[Paddy]

If Villa outbid us, which appears to be the case, Buendia did not have a choice to make; the choice was made for him.

Not true, a player can turn down a move if he wants to go to the other club, happens all the time, the player decides at the end of the day.

We offered the same but less money up front apparently.