Tevez Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 Arsenal have swooped to sign Croatian international striker Eduardo da Silva from Dinamo Zagreb. The 24-year-old, who scored against England in a Euro 2008 qualifier in October, has signed a four-year contract at the Emirates Stadium. The fee is undisclosed and Da Silva will be unveiled as an Arsenal player after completing a medical at the club. Da Silva moved to Croatia when he was 15 and took nationality at 22. He has scored seven goals for his country. Da Silva scored the first competitive goal at the Emirates when Arsenal beat Dinamo Zagreb 5-1 on aggregate in last season's Champions League third qualifying round. He finished the Croatian season with a record 34 goals. Think he's a good player, but he can't be the replacement for Henry.
The People's Hero Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 They don't necessarily have to simply replace Henry like-for-like... in fact, it would be very difficult to do so. A predict a modified change of approach for Arsenal next season. They have some great players and I don't necessarily believe the loss of Henry is the nail in the coffin.
Joe. Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 He's always looked good whenever I've seen him playing for Croatia and that goalscoring record last season speaks for itself. Good signing I think
Manwell Pablo Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 He's always looked good whenever I've seen him playing for Croatio and that goalscoring record last season speaks for itself. Good signing I think Alright signing, reasonable player, not good enough for them IMO, he's hardly going to give them the edge over the other 3 big teams though.
breadandcheese Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 They don't necessarily have to simply replace Henry like-for-like... in fact, it would be very difficult to do so.A predict a modified change of approach for Arsenal next season. They have some great players and I don't necessarily believe the loss of Henry is the nail in the coffin. I was saying this to my Arsenal friend and he said you're right, but it depends on your expectations of the club. Whilst they should qualify for the Champions League, Arsenal's aim should be to win the league. I don't think they're strong enough to do this, when compare player for player against Chelsea and Man U. Soon players like Gallas and Fabregas will start to kick up a fuss about Arsenal's lack of high profile signings and strengthening. I still think Wenger needs to sign a bigger profile player to show intent to his own players.
The People's Hero Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 I was saying this to my Arsenal friend and he said you're right, but it depends on your expectations of the club. Whilst they should qualify for the Champions League, Arsenal's aim should be to win the league. I don't think they're strong enough to do this, when compare player for player against Chelsea and Man U. Soon players like Gallas and Fabregas will start to kick up a fuss about Arsenal's lack of high profile signings and strengthening. I still think Wenger needs to sign a bigger profile player to show intent to his own players. Arsenal don't tend to go out and sign huge profile players though - or haven't done in the past. Obviously they get big names, but often Wenger signs players who have not yet peaked or have simply fallen out of favour a bit elsewhere. I back him to turn it round. To be honest with you, I do think Manchester United and Chelsea will continue to leave Liverpool/Arsenal/Spurs et al behind as they just have that extra pull and the necessary financial clout to match it. I'd love to see Torres go to Arsenal... give them a different dimension. Not sure the 'high-profile' thing will be an issue for any of the existing Arsenal players though. Many of them who are now regulars like Toure, Fabregas, Adebayor etc will know that Wenger took a risk on them and as such must accept that the same will continue to happen in the future.
Manwell Pablo Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 Arsenal don't tend to go out and sign huge profile players though - or haven't done in the past. Obviously they get big names, but often Wenger signs players who have not yet peaked or have simply fallen out of favour a bit elsewhere.I back him to turn it round. To be honest with you, I do think Manchester United and Chelsea will continue to leave Liverpool/Arsenal/Spurs et al behind as they just have that extra pull and the necessary financial clout to match it. I'd love to see Torres go to Arsenal... give them a different dimension. Not sure the 'high-profile' thing will be an issue for any of the existing Arsenal players though. Many of them who are now regulars like Toure, Fabregas, Adebayor etc will know that Wenger took a risk on them and as such must accept that the same will continue to happen in the future. True, but they're most sucesfull period came after siginng two pretty big time players in Dennis Bergkamp and to a slightly lesser degree Partrick Vierra. With the loss of Henry this is now what they lack. He's got 16 million he should wake up and use it for once.
Stevosevic Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 Dont know much about him but they need an out and out striker, i see Van Persie as a replacement for Henry.
breadandcheese Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 Arsenal don't tend to go out and sign huge profile players though - or haven't done in the past. Obviously they get big names, but often Wenger signs players who have not yet peaked or have simply fallen out of favour a bit elsewhere.I back him to turn it round. To be honest with you, I do think Manchester United and Chelsea will continue to leave Liverpool/Arsenal/Spurs et al behind as they just have that extra pull and the necessary financial clout to match it. I'd love to see Torres go to Arsenal... give them a different dimension. Not sure the 'high-profile' thing will be an issue for any of the existing Arsenal players though. Many of them who are now regulars like Toure, Fabregas, Adebayor etc will know that Wenger took a risk on them and as such must accept that the same will continue to happen in the future. Apparently, Arsenal have the money, it's just Wenger chooses not to spend it. The board there get flak for it, but it is Wenger's decision. You're probably right that they won't sign any big name players, which I know will disappoint a lot of their fans. They expect a team capable of mounting a title challenge, pay a fortune for a season ticket to watch a team able to compete for top prizes, and I wonder if that sort of pressure will make Wenger either leave at the end of his contract next season for Barcelona (i.e. fans blaming him for a poor season) or in the end pressure Wenger to make a significant capture in the transfer market. Whilst I think players like Adebayor and Toure would stay, I think Fabregas would reconsider his options if the rumours are to be believed of Real and Barca's interest. Gallas, I think would look to engineer a move next Summer if he feels Arsenal aren't strenghtening. It'll be interesting to see Arsenal fans' reactions if they finish well off the pace in fourth again next season (or even worse Spurs finish higher than them).
The People's Hero Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 I'm wondering whether Wenger is really going to be at Arsenal much longer.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 True, but they're most sucesfull period came after siginng two pretty big time players in Dennis Bergkamp and to a slightly lesser degree Partrick Vierra. With the loss of Henry this is now what they lack. He's got 16 million he should wake up and use it for once. Vieira wasn't big time at all when Arsenal signed him. He'd played in the French league for a small team and then spent a season in AC Milan reserves. He's still going to have to be clever in the transfer market - £16million won't necessarily buy you a world class striker in today's market, and Arsenal can't expect to beat teams outside of the Big Four to transfers at the drop of a hat anymore with all the money floating around these days.
The People's Hero Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 Vieira wasn't big time at all when Arsenal signed him. He'd played in the French league for a small team and then spent a season in AC Milan reserves.He's still going to have to be clever in the transfer market - £16million won't necessarily buy you a world class striker in today's market, and Arsenal can't expect to beat teams outside of the Big Four to transfers at the drop of a hat anymore with all the money floating around these days. Spot on. Nice stadium and being a London team helps. I'd back Wenger though - if his heart is still in it. Agree that it might be a good idea to go proven and high profile, but most of those players have their pick of teams and I believe Arsenal are generally fairly principled and sensible in terms of wage budgets, so don't expect them to go head to head with Chelsea/United in bidding/wage wars. It'll be interesting to see how they fare without Henry - but that squad is still very capable. Just can't see them catching United/Chelsea regardless of who comes in upfront.
Manwell Pablo Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 Vieira wasn't big time at all when Arsenal signed him. He'd played in the French league for a small team and then spent a season in AC Milan reserves.He's still going to have to be clever in the transfer market - £16million won't necessarily buy you a world class striker in today's market, and Arsenal can't expect to beat teams outside of the Big Four to transfers at the drop of a hat anymore with all the money floating around these days. I said lesser extent, obviously he wasn't as high profile as Dennis Bergkamp but he was tipped to be the next best thing, and that was before every half decent player was tipped to be the next best thing. Arsenal got him cheap as I believe he had a problem with the amount of racist abuse he was getting, I don't think Milan wanted to let him go. He definatley wasn't a secret
chili_con_carne Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 I've heard of him but i've never actually seen him play. Doesn't sound like he's good enough to replace Henry but its a good signing on a free
Joe. Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 I've heard of him but i've never actually seen him play. Doesn't sound like he's good enough to replace Henry but its a good signing on a free He's not signing on a free...
Geo V Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 Ive seen him on the box for Croatia and he looks like a right handful. One thing about Wenger is he is usually a very good judge of a players ability and it wouldnt surprise me if we are sitting here in 4 months talking about another great player that he has sourced from a smaller European club.
The People's Hero Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 I might duck out of this thread now as I don't know a huge amount more about Arsenal than what I've already said! I reckon this could be a good signing though in summary - just don't think United or Chelsea will be too concerned.
Geo V Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 £16.25 million according to Zagreb. :pinch: Wow if thats the fee then they have basically swapped TH for him.
lookwhaticando Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 He's got 16 million he should wake up and use it for once. £16.25 million according to Zagreb. Bloody hell! :pinch:
Gené and Tonic Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 Their chairman just guessed it. He said he thought it would be that much as that was what Arsenal got for Henry. It's probably around 8 mil or something, although it does strike me as strange that the chairman is guessing how much he sold his player for.
lookwhaticando Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 what a joke. BBC Sport now say they 'understand' the fee to be in the region of 7.5m quid instead. Is that a more realistic valuation, or is it still a bit keen?
dandannieldanok Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 BBC Sport now say they 'understand' the fee to be in the region of 7.5m quid instead. Is that a more realistic valuation, or is it still a bit keen? It is still a bit keen but much closer to what he is worth.
Manwell Pablo Posted 2 July 2007 Posted 2 July 2007 BBC Sport now say they 'understand' the fee to be in the region of 7.5m quid instead. Is that a more realistic valuation, or is it still a bit keen? 16 million is stupid. 7.5 is probabley about right.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.