[Albion] Dunk to Arsenal in January for £35-40m

[Kalimantan Gull]

Utter madness of a reply.

It really isn't, its exactly what you're arguing Tony Bloom should do.

We don't have to sell him you know.

 

[BensGrandad]

I have always said that I think Dunk will go to Arsenal but having seen the way Mustafi played against Spurs I think that they may have 2nd thoughts on buying him. I also watched MOTD and noticed that Cahill is playing the same role as Dunk for Chelsea so perhaps they could be surprise chasers which would blow the other teams out of the water. Apparently he is a Chelsea supporter plus they have the financial clout. I also think that Liverpool will not come in for him as they have set their minds on Van Dijk just a matter of timing and price.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

It really isn't, its exactly what you're arguing Tony Bloom should do.

I'm not arguing anything fella, I wish for Dunky to stay without a doubt, however, there is a difference between realism and shrieking like a little girl. At the moment I can hear your decibels from here.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Clever ending to your synopsis however you are not taking Dunk into your consideration, it's just club, club, club. Contracts mean nothing, it just gives you better bargaining power when selling. If a player is unhappy and puts in a transfer request, there is very little you can do about it. I know we had similar with Stephens and remained steadfast, he got his wish, he's a Prem player. But this isn't about the Prem, it's about England and a WC in the summer. Dunky is so close he can smell it and if that means moving to a top six club he will do it and the club will let him go with their best wishes.

Contracts can only be broken with clauses fulfilled or agreement between both parties to end them, contracts in football aren't meaningless, it is simply that on many occasions the contracting parties are in agreement to end them. That is a fairly simple truth. I think I made it quite clear how that would be fulfilled on the part of the club, who no doubt would wish Dunk well, if they feel they are not weakened significantly as a result. You stated 'it's about the player not the club', but both have to be happy to agree to it. TB may well be delighted for Dunk and want him to fulfil his England ambitions, but he will only do so if he is happy with the deal on offer.

The one thing in the club's favour is that if we do hold on to him in January and he has England ambitions, Dunk cannot afford to sulk or let his performances dip. We could hold him until the summer and he will still have a chance of the World Cup if he plays well for us. I'd feel fairly confident we wouldn't have a sulking disenchanted player on our hands. He'd have to be motivated to play to break into England and keep a said big move alive.

You say there is very little you can do to keep a player who hands in a transfer request - this is patently untrue. You only let them go if the deal is equally beneficial to you. Rightly or wrongly, Liverpool and Southampton both held onto players who handed in transfers requests and were offered huge fees for.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I'm not arguing anything fella, I wish for Dunky to stay without a doubt, however, there is a difference between realism and shrieking like a little girl. At the moment I can hear your decibels from here.

Well thats just pathetic, this was a good debate til now

 

[Return of the Rev]

Sell now and pump the money into the building of the wsu water slide!

 

[Mellotron]

Clear disagreements on here about where the balance of power lies - in the hands of the players or the clubs. For my money, more now than ever at the top end, the players have a LOT of power IMO.

If Dunk REALLY wants to go in January for his England chances, I think he will probably go.

The idea that clubs NEVER let players go that they weren't happy to see go is utter nonsense and club spin.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Contracts can only be broken with clauses fulfilled or agreement between both parties to end them. That is a fairly simple truth. I think I made it quite clear how that would be fulfilled on the part of the club, who no doubt would wish Dunk well, if they feel they are not weakened significantly as a result. You stated 'it's about the player not the club', but both have to be happy to agree to it. TB may well be delighted for Dunk and want him to fulfil his England ambitions, but he will only do so if he is happy with the deal on offer.

The one thing in the club's favour is that if we do hold on to him in January and he has England ambitions, Dunk cannot afford to sulk or let his performances dip. We could hold him until the summer and he will still have a chance of the World Cup if he plays well for us. I'd feel fairly confident we wouldn't have a sulking disenchanted player on our hands. He'd have to be motivated to play to break into England and keep a said big move alive.

You say there is very little you can do to keep a player who hands in a transfer request - this is patently untrue. You only let them go if the deal is equally beneficial to you. Rightly or wrongly, Liverpool and Southampton both held onto players who handed in transfers requests and were offered huge fees for.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding player power. Also, we have no idea what is written into Dunks contract or whether he has a buy out clause. I've said it previously, I'll say it again, I don't want us to lose our jewel, but if the right offer comes in, he will go.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Clear disagreements on here about where the balance of power lies - in the hands of the players or the clubs. For my money, more now than ever at the top end, the players have a LOT of power IMO.

If Dunk REALLY wants to go in January for his England chances, I think he will probably go.

The idea that clubs NEVER let players go that they weren't happy to see go is utter nonsense and club spin.

I think you are wrong principally because of the ridiculous level of transfer fees recently. £25m for Arnautovic tells you that the holding club is holding the cards in a transfer negotiation. The only time this starts to swing back to the player is when that contract ticks down below 18 months left.

You have a player with a 3 or 4 year contract, you are seriously only letting that player go if you are absolutely happy with the offer on the table.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Contracts can only be broken with clauses fulfilled or agreement between both parties to end them, contracts in football aren't meaningless, it is simply that on many occasions the contracting parties are in agreement to end them. That is a fairly simple truth. I think I made it quite clear how that would be fulfilled on the part of the club, who no doubt would wish Dunk well, if they feel they are not weakened significantly as a result. You stated 'it's about the player not the club', but both have to be happy to agree to it. TB may well be delighted for Dunk and want him to fulfil his England ambitions, but he will only do so if he is happy with the deal on offer.

The one thing in the club's favour is that if we do hold on to him in January and he has England ambitions, Dunk cannot afford to sulk or let his performances dip. We could hold him until the summer and he will still have a chance of the World Cup if he plays well for us. I'd feel fairly confident we wouldn't have a sulking disenchanted player on our hands. He'd have to be motivated to play to break into England and keep a said big move alive.

You say there is very little you can do to keep a player who hands in a transfer request - this is patently untrue. You only let them go if the deal is equally beneficial to you. Rightly or wrongly, Liverpool and Southampton both held onto players who handed in transfers requests and were offered huge fees for.

Exactly.

I wonder how many players Dunk would really leapfrog by going to Arsenal? He'll stay behind Stones, Cahill, Dier, Jones, Smalling, Gomez and Macguire regardless, and if they are all fit and in form, there's no WC place anyway. Dunk will move ahead of Keane if Keane continues playing like this right now. Who's left - Mee and Tarkowski, arguably Dunk is already ahead. Who else?

This whole - 'He must go to Arsenal to get a WC place' is a completely manufactured argument created on this thread. Southgate is not an idiot, he can see Dunk's quality.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding player power. Also, we have no idea what is written into Dunks contract or whether he has a buy out clause. I've said it previously, I'll say it again, I don't want us to lose our jewel, but if the right offer comes in, he will go.

I'm not arguing with you on that point. I am arguing with your point in which you stated it is only about the player. I've already said that contracts can be broken through clauses being fulfilled, or agreement with both parties.

If the right offer comes in, he will go: because it is the right offer for the club and the player.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I think you are wrong principally because of the ridiculous level of transfer fees recently. £25m for Arnautovic tells you that the holding club is holding the cards in a transfer negotiation. The only time this starts to swing back to the player is when that contract ticks down below 18 months left.

You have a player with a 3 or 4 year contract, you are seriously only letting that player go if you are absolutely happy with the offer on the table.

We have no idea of Dunk's contract details.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I'm not arguing with you on that point. I am arguing with your point in which you stated it is only about the player. I've already said that contracts can be broken through clauses being fulfilled, or agreement with both parties.

If the right offer comes in, he will go: because it is the right offer for the club and the player.

I didn't say it was only about the player, I said they have more power than a club. And of course we won't undervalue his stock, but he will go if there were 30 mill+ offered for his services from a top six club and he felt it's the right move for him.

 

[Bold Seagull]

We have no idea of Dunk's contract details.

No, but if we gave him a contract with a clause in it, then we were happy with that when we agreed the contract vis a vis we are happy to release him with that clause being fulfilled.

 

[Bozza]

We have no idea of Dunk's contract details.

That's a good point. There could be a £30m release clause (it could actually be less than that) and/or there could be a "Top 6 club" release clause.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But it's about the player not the club, do you not get it?

I didn't say it was only about the player, I said they have more power than a club. And of course we won't undervalue his stock, but he will go if there were 30 mill+ offered for his services from a top six club and he felt it's the right move for him.

I must have misread your earlier post then?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

No, but if we gave him a contract with a clause in it, then we were happy with that when we agreed the contract vis a vis we are happy to release him with that clause being fulfilled.

Which is part of my whole point about him moving on if it is seen as a step up.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

In an ironic way Dunk will be able to show Southgate how good a player he is by staying with us. If he goes to one of the big clubs he will have better players around him than he will with us. Stay with us and he will have more attacks coming at him so that he can show how good he is at repelling them.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I must have misread your earlier post then?

Apologies, I missed out the bleeding obvious.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I can see him leaving if he feels confident that we're safe. Players are ultimately selfish and have their ambitions - playing for Arsenal could ultimately mean he finds his way into the England World Cup squad, that probably won't happen if he stays with us. I think that as a club we won't to sell him in January, but it might end up happening anyway.

I hope not, but I can see it going through.