As Arsenal allowed Jorginho to leave the club, some fans were relieved. The midfielder arrived from Chelsea as another unwanted player offloaded by their London rivals, and despite some decent performances, supporters were never fully convinced he was the right fit.
Fans had hoped this summer would be different. After watching the likes of Raheem Sterling and Willian arrive from Stamford Bridge in recent seasons and fail to meet expectations, they were eager for Arsenal to steer clear of Chelsea players altogether. A fresh transfer strategy seemed to be on the horizon, one that would avoid recycling players discarded by underperforming rivals.
Arsenal’s move for Kepa continues frustrating transfer pattern
However, that optimism has quickly been undermined by news that Kepa Arrizabalaga is on his way to the Emirates. The Spanish goalkeeper has been considered surplus to requirements at Chelsea, and yet, Arsenal have chosen to bring him in to compete with David Raya. The club had initially targeted Joan Garcia, but after missing out on him, they turned to Kepa as their fallback option.
This decision is understandably frustrating. Arsenal have spent the last few seasons outperforming Chelsea in the league and building a strong identity under Mikel Arteta. Turning to a club that is still in transition and finishing lower in the table raises serious questions about recruitment strategy.
Fans call for a shift in direction away from Chelsea rejects
The problem isn’t just Kepa. Arsenal have also been linked with two more Chelsea players, Noni Madueke and Nicolas Jackson. While both are younger talents with potential, the trend of relying on cast-offs or surplus players from a rival struggling to find form is disheartening.
Supporters want the club to be more ambitious. With a solid financial base and Champions League football secured, Arsenal should be shopping from a higher shelf, targeting players in their prime who are wanted by other top clubs, not simply filling gaps with Chelsea’s bench.
It is time for Arsenal to distance itself from Chelsea’s mistakes. A smarter, bolder recruitment approach that reflects their current status, not one that feels like picking through another club’s leftovers.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
ADMIN COMMENT
So here are some simple rules which I must insist commenters follow….
You agree not to give any personal abuse to other Arsenal fans. Everyone is allowed to hold their own opinions even if you disagree with them. It COSTS NOTHING TO BE POLITE TO OTHER ARSENAL FANS.
CALLING ALL ARSENAL FANS! Anyone who would like to contribute an Article or Video opinion piece on JustArsenal, please contact us through this link…
At the beginning of the Boehly era the 8 year contracts and a supermarket sweep of young talent took place. Too many players were bought so there are some to offload. I’m not saying that buying them is necessarily a good or bad idea but just because they signed for Chelsea doesn’t automatically make them rejects that Arsenal should avoid
True.
Chelsea tends to sell well so it’s unlikely there will be too many bargains when they inevitably move on some of their army of players. As always though, it’s which one(s) you go for.
If a player is good enough and fits with a clubs strategy then what difference does it make where he comes from? I see no mention of Haevertz in anything I have read.
Long have I desired that we steer clear of Chelsea rejects. But I keep hearing several excuses such as:
– the player is cheap
– Chelsea was in disarray so the player couldn’t fulfil his potential there
– every transfer shouldn’t be linked to a previous one as they’re all unique
I’ve said it more than a thousand times that Chelsea will not sell us a good player.
Kepa was cheap, yes. But it’s telling that a goalkeeper in the middle of his prime chose to come and be a backup when the world cup is approaching.
At the end of the season, while our rivals are lifting trophies and having open bus parades, we will come back and make excuses for incompetence by saying we lost the league cos we didn’t have quality backups. Rinse and repeat. This club never ever learns.
Bang on the money mate 👍
Pants down on Kai comes to
Mind ,65 million for a Xhaka replacement,could t hack it so gets put upfront and the Arteta fans now saying he’s a good option to have up top , No a good option would have gone in for Isak for the same money and on less wages .
How on earth he’s our top wage earner per week the mind boggles ,no one else came in for him but out manager thought that was the best we could do .
Ridiculous
Kai is miles ahead of Xhaka, who was great for only one season… So yes Kai was an excellent replacement for Xhaka ,an then some.
Last I checked, Rice played the B2B role last season because Kai was highly incompetent there. Though he has done quite well as a CF, you wonder why we are currently going after another expensive and established striker.
And whisper it quietly, Kai will be on the bench next season when said striker comes. Rice will retain his B2B role while Zubimendi plays DM. Odegaard is starting as well which means only a bench role will be available for Kai. So much for being an adequate Xhaka replacement
If Havertz sit on the bench next season there will be eggs crisis.
The current stock has been depleted after Slot first season wonders because a lot of them have ended in Arteta apologists faces.
Surely you’re joking .
If not ……….
despite of very expensive signing, Kai always performed poorly in midfield. So his purchase was a very dumb idea, for that money we could have got any good striker like Halland, Isaak. But we got backup option. This kind of ridiculous deals Arteta did is the reason we could not afford title winning squad even spending fortunes.
Haevertz? We saw how you struggled without him or are you cherry picking to prove a point? There is never a gurantee that a player will fit into another teams style. Was Eden Hazard a bad buy, one would not have thought so but a number of factors made his stay at Real a disappointing one
I’ve heard more than once down the years people say that the while the teams like Liverpool and Manchester City and Chelsea shop at Harrods, we shop at Lidl’s.
And when you see us constantly linked with these big names, you just know that we aren’t going to go for a majority of them. Now while I want to see the team be sensible regards most transfer fee’s, I’m afraid if they want to compete with the big boys, there going to have to act like big boys themselves and compete better in the transfer market.
While we watch others make there moves, are we really serious about winning the League. Or is it true as certain poster’s on here say that a top four finish will do. I’m beginning to wonder myself.
Lazy and thoughtless commentary.. that also goes for the article.
Every signing and every team mentioned have unique circumstances that allow them to do as they do…. wouldn’t want any of those three over Arsenal
Get a grip! We happen to be not as rich and frivolous as Manchester City and Chelsea. You would have us do a Leeds with massive risky spending. Liverpool bought NOBODY last year so they had plenty of money this window considering they also won the league and received a wealthy cash prize. Had we purchased nobody in a summer transfer window would you have approved? You really want to spend like Liverpool? Our failed gamble on Pepe set us back a few years. If we had successfully bought Mudryk then we would have been financially crippled. We have to get the transfer fee down to sustainable levels. What is being asked for Gyokeres and Sesko is extortionist. They are unproven at the highest level. I’m glad the team is well run. Management have professional standards and reputations to worry about. Armchair pundits sit on a basement sofa and spend imaginary millions of pounds/dollars they don’t have.
👍 many times over
Do a Leeds ?
We spent net approx 15 million in the last 3 windows
Got more money then you make out
Looks great when you mention the ‘last 3 windows’ but extend it a bit to the last 3 years and Arsenal have a 300 million net spend. Which is one of the highest in Europe.
So disingenuous to just mention 3 windows.
But Derek, who’s linking us with these big name players?
Certainly not the club, as they always keep any transfers close to their chest.
So it’s the media and if you believe everything they say, then that’s up to you – I just wait for the official site to annkunce any signings, as they are the only ones who really know, wouldn’t you agree?
The top 2 players of the league the last 10 years were “Chelsea rejects”. I guess you lot are glad we never bought them too. Salah and de Bruyne would have been terrible buys. Lukaku was a good ‘Chelsea reject” purchase by Everton.
Philmar,
Regarding the points you make about the Chelsea rejects, and you mention about Salah, De Bruyne and Lukaku. Well you have them as the good ones.
Well we didn’t try to sign them did we.
We signed the likes of Luis, Willian, Jorginho, Havertz, and loaned Sterling. The real top notch ones. (NOT). 🙄🤦♂️🤷♂️
Sometimes i feel if Arsenal became a REAL big club, certain fans will become disinterested. Pepe set us back for years???
Yep, we have an appallingly negative, entitled, toxic fan base. And this site is the absolute epitome of it. Complete toilet of a place.
Scrubbychubby,
You say an appallingly negative, entitled, toxic fanbase. Well what should we expect from our club, please enlighten us on this. I’m Shaw my fellow poster’s on here would love to know how to behave on any of the clubs issues.
Are Arsenal supposed to rule out a player just because they have played for Chelsea? This would be an odd, parochial and rather pathetic approach to making decisions about a player.
The author of the piece seems to be advocating for an approach to transfers that is completely unrealistic at this time.
David,
There’s nothing wrong with signing the good players from Chelsea, but they wouldn’t sell their good ones to us for obvious reasons.
On what planet, was it ever a good idea to take Sterling on loan.
Nelson might have his critics, but he would have been a better bet as cover for Saka, than Sterling ever would have.
This is not a particularly useful approach to transfers. The question for Arsenal is whether the said player is a suitable option for us at the given time and we can afford the arrangements. Alongside this is to consider alternatives that are viable.
Your starting point of “Chelsea won’t sell us a good player” is unhelpful in the real world.
It is a reasonable argument to make that Nelson, if fit, would probably have been a better option than Sterling as a backup. However, you have to take into consideration Nelson’s particular circumstances at the time he was sent on loan. He had become a bit part player and the loan was supposed to give him more playing time.
It’s a lot easier to pile in now with the criticism given what happened with Sterling. However, on the face of it, a loan move for a player with Sterling’s profile should not have been so disastrous.
David,
You say that nelson needed more game time, well his replacement hardly got any playing time did he.
And as for your comment regarding a loan move for a player with Sterling’s profile should not have been so disastrous.
Come on, all you had to do was look at his less than impressive performances for Chelsea to see that the Sterling we were getting was not that of the Liverpool and Manchester City vintage.
We got the version that corked, and very badly at that. It has left a very sour taste in deed.
I’m not sure why you can’t understand that Nelson left to get more playing time. He was (and still is) a relatively young player who was yet to cement a place in Arsenal’s team
That is separate from Sterling’s limited playing time as backup at Arsenal which was related to his performances.
Sterling as back up may not have been the most exciting of transfers but I don’t think it was unreasonable to expect better from him.
David,
Regards Nelson, I remember going to watch him play for the academy side years ago. Do you notice I said years ago.
He’s been at Arsenal a very long time, even back in the Wenger era. You say he’s still relatively young, and then say that he’s yet to cement a regular place. Well he can’t can he if Arteta doesn’t pick him. The only reason they gave him his new contract was to keep his transfer value.
So instead of mucking him about the club should just sell, because it’s quite obvious to everyone and their dog, that Arteta clearly doesn’t trust him.
And yet trusted a busted flush named Sterling. Doe’s anyone else have their doubts about Arteta’s decision making, or is it just me?. 🤷♂️
I don’t think many would quibble with selling Nelson. However, you need a buyer. If there were no suitors a loan was a reasonable option.
At the time there was nothing particularly egregious about loaning Nelson out as he wouldn’t have had regular playing time at Arsenal.
Sterling was seen as an option to provide cover. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out. This happens in football as not all transfers will work.
Sure, you may say it was all obvious to you that Steling wouldn’t work. However, quite a few people praised the deal at the time.
He’s not good enough
Derek,
The principle of signing a Chelsea player is fine as long as the criteria is met by the buying club. You may not appreciate Havertz, but I do and Arsenal do otherwise they wouldn’t have forked out £65m Just my opinion of course. Sterling could have worked out as a squad player for the season. He didn’t but wasn’t it worth a try, before you use the benefit of hindsight? The cost was low I believe
SueP,
David above says about Nelson still being relatively young and needed game time, hence he was loaned to Fulham.
As for your remark about hindsight, you didn’t need to be psychic to know that using Nelson more and not getting Sterling on loan was never needed. Regardless of whether it was a loan or not.
Nelson just doesn’t have Arteta’s trust, and yet Arteta then thought it a good idea to go for Sterling. Dress it up all you like, the Sterling deal was one that should never have happened.
And hindsight has nothing to do with it, I said from day one when we signed him it was a mistake.
To have Nelson, and then go for Sterling just never made sense at any level, full stop.
David talks with forked tongue Derek. Nelson was average at best But he would have been far better in the Arsenal squad than Sterling ever was, or would have been. What a waste of space Sterling was. Absolutely dog s….
You need to clarify this or withdraw this slur. In what way I have talked in the way you so disgracefully describe.
Lols
Lols
“Supporters were never convinced he was the right fit” about Jorginho?! Speak for yourself, I’d wager that the VAST majority of supporters actually appreciated that he was a savvy, good value, experienced signing that have quality strength in depth in the middle of the park. Maybe not when he first arrived but certainly when he left.
I appreciated him as well, Scrubbychubby
I did as well SueP. A quality player with a great footballing brain.
Could we call them ex Chelsea players please? I really hate this “Chelsea Reject” label.
Jax, totally agree with you. Also I can’t stand the terms ‘farmers league’ and ‘deadwood’.
Yeah HD, so disrespectful.
Like calling Real Madrid the Cemmentery of talents ? Lol
How is describing RM a cemetery of talents disrespectful? The players who don’t make it there and were surely lured in by the name, Real Madrid and, therefore, only have themselves to blame and then lower their sights, or confine themselves to being bit part players
Because it’s simply not true
In the last two decades more youngsters have been successful at Real Madrid then Arsenal