🇫🇷 Olivier Giroud

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

You can admire Wenger's transfers, he buys good players yes, but most of them are just about good, not world class. The only player in the Arsenal team that would get into our team is RVP. At the end of the day, money talks, and tbh, we're quite well run as a club, getting closer and closer to breaking even every season.

Also, it's not having a long term manager that will make the club be run more effectively. It helps yes, but majority of it is down to the board. Gourlay et al seem to be doing a decent job ATM, I'm personally eager to see the latest financial figures.

Giroud and Podolski are both decent players but tell me, would you really have that pair over Hazard and potentially Hulk? The difference in quality is there for everyone to see.

You're not listening to anything I'm saying. Of course, I'd rather have Hazard and Hulk over Podolski and Giroud. but it's about value. I'd rather have Torres than Chamakh, but Torres was 50M and Chamak was free. Hulk and Hazard would be about 70M and Podolski and Giroud would be about 23M.You can't just discard the transfer fee. And Chelsea are not being run well. We had the second highest debt in the Premier League last season. Chelsea's in the transfer market in the last 2 years has maybe been the worst any club has been in transfer history. We spent about 117M pounds on 5 players and only one is an elite player and seems like a definite starter for Chelsea for the next few years (Mata). For that kind of expenditure, Chelsea should have been able to buy 3 or 4 excellent players.

As for only RVP making our starting XI, that's just nonsense. Arsenal finished above us in the league and beat us head to head. They have a lot of talent. Song is a fantastic defensive midfielder and he is actually very creative as well. He would certainly start for us. So would Walcott (who gets a lot of stick from fans who don't see Arsenal play much. He might be the fastest player in the Premiership, and he creates a tremendous number of chances..8 goals and 11 assists in the Premier league last season.) A few other players would have a regular rotation spot and would challenge for playing time (Wilshire, Vermaelan, Oxlade-Chamberlain, and others). Even if we were infinitely better than Arsenal talent-wise, why would that be a source of pride? Our starting XI cost about 4 times more than theirs. It damn well should be better. I know I am in the minority among Chelsea fans, but I want to see reigning in of spending. What has happened in the last decade in football-led by Chelsea, Man City, and the Spanish clubs, has been an absolute disaster for football. It really does need to be addressed.

[The Skipper 20,609]

You're not listening to anything I'm saying. Of course, I'd rather have Hazard and Hulk over Podolski and Giroud. but it's about value. I'd rather have Torres than Chamakh, but Torres was 50M and Chamak was free. Hulk and Hazard would be about 70M and Podolski and Giroud would be about 23M.You can't just discard the transfer fee. And Chelsea are not being run well. We had the second highest debt in the Premier League last season. Chelsea's in the transfer market in the last 2 years has maybe been the worst any club has been in transfer history. We spent about 117M pounds on 5 players and only one is an elite player and seems like a definite starter for Chelsea for the next few years (Mata). For that kind of expenditure, Chelsea should have been able to buy 3 or 4 excellent players.

As for only RVP making our starting XI, that's just nonsense. Arsenal finished above us in the league and beat us head to head. They have a lot of talent. Song is a fantastic defensive midfielder and he is actually very creative as well. He would certainly start for us. So would Walcott (who gets a lot of stick from fans who don't see Arsenal play much. He might be the fastest player in the Premiership, and he creates a tremendous number of chances..8 goals and 11 assists in the Premier league last season.) A few other players would have a regular rotation spot and would challenge for playing time (Wilshire, Vermaelan, Oxlade-Chamberlain, and others). Even if we were infinitely better than Arsenal talent-wise, why would that be a source of pride? Our starting XI cost about 4 times more than theirs. It damn well should be better. I know I am in the minority among Chelsea fans, but I want to see reigning in of spending. What has happened in the last decade in football-led by Chelsea, Man City, and the Spanish clubs, has been an absolute disaster for football. It really does need to be addressed.

Without getting too financial on this thread I recommend anyone who has major doubts about our financial situation to read this (written by a United fan, so no bias):

http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/income-up-costs-down-chelsea-getting-in.html

You'll soon come to realise that the club are making steady improvements, and you'll see that we're quite comfortable financially.

In the last two years (without the Hazard and Marin signings) we've spent around a net of £140m on 13 players (estimate), but you take away the Torres transfer which is obviously an anomaly and we've spent £90m on 12 players, which is on average £7.5m per player, which isn't too bad. Considering we got Mata, Luiz, Ramires, Romeu, KDB, Cahill and others (mostly youngsters like Lukaku, Courtois, Bamford, Davila) for around £90m you can't say the club haven't brought in quality. Perhaps the Meireles and Benayoun buys were unneeded but it's negligible considering we got 6-7 quality players out of it. So CFC have bought quality, which we are building upon with the signings of Hazard and Marin. If we buy these guys at a young age the need to replace them and bring in quality lessens over the years, which will obviously allows us to make more profit again.

As for Theo Walcott and Alex Song getting into our first eleven alongside RVP... I don't think so. Walcott has a case as our right side of attack is basically non existent, but I wouldn't have Song in over Lampard, Mikel or Ramires.

As for the other players you've mentioned, they would definitely get games under squad rotation, but not as a guaranteed starter, which was the point I was putting across. Bar RVP and potentially Theo, none of their players would make the first team XI here IMO.

Giroud wouldn't either IMO. He'd be a good squad player but I wouldn't have him here over Torres or Sturridge.

[xPetrCechx 13,573]

Close.

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/olivier-giroud-agrees-deal-to-join-arsenal

[Jase 43,479]

Think we can close this thread now.

http://soccernet.esp...cc=4716

EDIT: Bah. Late by seconds!

[milka 3,393]

Ray Parlour and Paul Merson agreed that Olivier Giroud would be an ideal signing for Chelsea

Olivier Giroud would be a "perfect" signing for Chelsea as they look for a back-up to Alvaro Morata, according to Ray Parlour.

The Premier League champions have showed interest in West Ham striker Andy Carroll this month, and there have also been reports that they have made enquiries about Stoke's Peter Crouch.

While Sky sources understand Stoke are not aware of any interest, it appears Chelsea are on the hunt for a striker.

 

After Carroll , Crouch , Benteke   Giroud will be good signing ? 

[Unionjack 7,531]

I quite like Giroud. Got everthing we need. Tall for Conte. and as hes only had 1 start in PL this season I'd bet we could tempt him. Plus piss off a bunch of Arseholes. Be strange hin sxoring against Cech and us going bonkers! I'd feel like I was cheating.

[LAM09 7,062]

This deal would make too much sense for our board.

[yuvala 2,167]

Would not mind this at all I kinda like Giroud

[YorkshireBlue 3,279]

No way will arsenal sell Giroud walcott and Sanchez in same window.

[milka 3,393]

Breaking | Chelsea are sounding out the possibility of signing Arsenal striker Olivier Giroud on loan, according to @DiMarzio.

Arsenal have rejected Chelsea’s approach to sign Olivier Giroud on loan. [@DiMarzio] #afc

[Fernando 6,585]

He is the one we should buy. He is the perfect super sub. 

[LAM09 7,062]

He is the one we should buy. He is the perfect super sub. 

Going from one bench to another would certainly be enticing to him. [emoji1]

[Jase 43,479]

3 hours ago, milka said:

Breaking | Chelsea are sounding out the possibility of signing Arsenal striker Olivier Giroud on loan, according to @DiMarzio.

Arsenal have rejected Chelsea’s approach to sign Olivier Giroud on loan. [@DiMarzio] #afc

If that is true...how many scattered gun decisions can a club make?! 

[Special Juan 28,143]

Another name to pop into the endless list.

[the wes 7,212]

On 19/01/2018 at 6:01 PM, BluesMadLad said:

No way will arsenal sell Giroud walcott and Sanchez in same window.

If they sign Aubameyang I think they will sell him 

[the wes 7,212]

Olivier Giroud will be allowed to leave Arsenal in January if the club can sign Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang from Borussia Dortmund, says Arsene Wenger.

[the wes 7,212]

I read that giroud wife heavily pregnant and he doesn't what to move away from London that's why he rejected BvB move there is a chance we could sign him if arsenal get PEA 

[Azpinator 2,325]

50 minutes ago, the wes said:

I read that giroud wife heavily pregnant and he doesn't what to move away from London that's why he rejected BvB move there is a chance we could sign him if arsenal get PEA 

If this is true and we get him, then he will have literally fucked his way to join Chelsea.

[manpe 10,861]

I'd take him if he was available and if we insist on getting a washed up target man. Still a level above the trash we've been linked with bar Džeko, can still do a job coming off the bench. His contract at Arsenal runs until 2019 so we can offer him 1 year without him hopefully being a bitch about it. If we were serious we'd instead try to hijack Aubameyang, but everybody and their cat knows this ain't gonna happen.

The Giroud-Kurzawa alternative to Palmieri-Džeko isn't the worst we could do, but we won't get Kurzawa 100%.

 

PS Giroud is injured too, perfect, Roman probably has a raging boner on him.

[Laylabelle 9,536]

Be surprised if sell to a rival. Man U is different Arsenal aren't gana challenge for the league especially this season whereas we're with them in the aim for top 4.