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.

[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.

Who we get, which we'll know at the end of the window, is the only important thing really - I agree with you there.

[DiamondGooner]

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.

Exactly.

"Who cares about Buendia? who cares about being knocked out of the Europa Semi final? who cares about not having European football next season? who cares about finishing 8th?"

This is all we're hearing, sounds like excuses for complete and utter failure time after time.

This is why we're in a state, our standards have sunk below zero because some fans are deluded, an excuse for everything.

But hey at least he cares about whether we finish above Spurs though still ......... oops, that's what happens when you let excuses and failure become a habit.

[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.

Who we get, which we'll know at the end of the window, is the only important thing really - I agree with you there.

Yep. Edu has to show up in this window. Also, the Kroenke's have to show they're willing to spend money and not holding us back. If Edu can't get the deals over the line, he may have to go.

[Power n Glory]

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.

Exactly.

"Who cares about Buendia? who cares about being knocked out of the Europa Semi final? who cares about not having European football next season? who cares about finishing 8th?"

This is all we're hearing, sounds like excuses for complete and utter failure time after time.

This is why we're in a state, our standards have sunk below zero because some fans are deluded, an excuse for everything.

But hey at least he cares about whether we finish above Spurs though still ......... oops, that's what happens when you let excuses and failure become a habit.

Yes, it does seem like a defence mechanism and not facing up to reality. We're falling behind and need to see some major improvements.

[yadunoe]

If we don't get auaor then we can't complain because auaor is better

[jayramfootball]

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.

Exactly.

"Who cares about Buendia? who cares about being knocked out of the Europa Semi final? who cares about not having European football next season? who cares about finishing 8th?"

This is all we're hearing, sounds like excuses for complete and utter failure time after time.

This is why we're in a state, our standards have sunk below zero because some fans are deluded, an excuse for everything.

But hey at least he cares about whether we finish above Spurs though still ......... oops, that's what happens when you let excuses and failure become a habit.

Haven't heard anyone saying they don't care that we finished 8th.
As for Europa, yeah, don't care about that tournament, but I do want us to win every game (even friendlies).

Players wise? Let's see who we get before panicking and being down in the dumps about the saga of the transfer window.

We won't get back to the level the club needs to be at until we start competing in the PL and getting top 4 and then going on to challenge for the title. THEN the CL is a realistic proposition. Our focus should be firmly on the PL right now and probably for the next 2 seasons.

[DiamondGooner]

If we don't get auaor then we can complain because auaor is better

Better get your speech prepared.

We won't get either.

[yadunoe]

If we don't get auaor then we can complain because auaor is better

Better get your speech prepared.

We won't get either.

I think we will get Berge or bissouma auaor or odegaard and someone new for rb maybe Aarons and a older veteran lb mayb a cf if we sell auba or laca

[Santi]

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.

[EliteKiller]

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.

If Villa didn't beat us to his signing - how come he's signing for Villa?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!