Let's be frank about this, Arsenal have been pretty shoddy at dealing with contracts over the past twelve months or so. Why they seem to continuously get themselves backed into a corner where they not only end up selling their best players, but end up selling them to title rivals, is a mystery. Surely they have smarter business acumen than that. But at the end of the day, it is the players who hold all of the powers really; refusing to play (Clint Dempsey) and refusal to sign new contracts and partake in that long lost tradition of loyalty. With money dangled in front of players, you can hardly blame them.
But Arsenal could have done so much better. Letting Gael Clichy and Samir Nasri go to Manchester City, followed by the fiasco of Robin van Persie going to Manchester United. Arsenal have just given their stock value away to their biggest rivals, so why didn't Chelsea jump on the bandwagon and try and get their hands on Robin Van Persie? Why didn't they get aggressive and raid Arsenal? The Blues have been willing to stump up more for the acquisition of Hulk, so why not plump for a proven Premier League star? To be frank again, Manchester City were a bit foolish not to push harder for Van Persie and Chelsea, while they have been linked with just about every striker on the continent, didn't even make contact. It doesn't make sense.
Ludicrous. For both City and Chelsea's title ambitions, and one supposes you could draft in Liverpool, Newcastle and what would have been a deliciously fun bid from Tottenham to this as well, buying Robin van Persie, stumping up that money would have served a dual purpose. Firstly, it should guarantee you a good twenty league goals to kick things off with, and secondly by purchasing last season's top Premier League goalscorer, you would have taken a big advantage away from your opponents. Man City in particular just handed their closest rivals an easy route to catch them up.
City could have gotten Van Persie and shipped out Edin Dzeko and Mario Balotelli and still would have been fine next season. Now they have let United steal in and grasp the opportunity team up Van Persie and Wayne Rooney who scored 57 league goals between them last season. Did Roberto Mancini forget that he only won the league title on goal difference last season? All of the top clubs could have used Van Persie, so why were Chelsea reticent in making approaches? Seeing him link up with Juan Mata, Oscar and Eden Hazard could have been a beautiful thing. The Blues may have even been able to grab Theo Walcott as well as he only has a year left on his contract at the Emirates. A double whammy to weaken their London rivals further.
Why Chelsea, why not grab Robin van Persie instead of traipsing all over Europe fruitlessly in search of a striker? I have not been able to really find a reason for Roberto Di Matteo not pleading Abramovic to go and knock on Arsenal's door. What, couldn't solve the problem of having Torres and Van Persie in the same side? Didn't want to upset El Nino? £24 million for Van Persie? Didn't think the Gunners would sell their top asset to a rival? They have been talking that kind of money for Andre Schurrle, more for Hulk, it was pretty much what they paid for Juan Mata. Manchester United got a steal and Arsenal, along with Chelsea and Manchester City allowed themselves to get robbed. At the end of the day, you would buy Robin van Persie and sit him on the bench (not literally of course) to stop your main title rivals having him.
