I always found myself in the minority when Cesc Fabregas or Van Persie left, angry they were gone but never angry at them.
They were two great players who deserved medals, it would have been a tragedy if neither had won the Premiership.
Both gave it their all at the Emirates but reached a point when it was obvious there was zero ambition from our owners to be anything else but a top 4 side.
Fabregas never made a secret of his love for Barcelona; it was always a case of when and not if he would return to where he grew up. Yet when he left the Nou Camp the second time it was our choice not to take him back.
Mr Wenger has since admitted we had a buy-back clause that we chose not to take up even when the midfielder made it clear that was his first choice.
Not for the first or last time, saving money was more of a priority then making the squad as strong as possible.
Blaming him for joining Chelsea when we rejected him? I don’t see that logic at all. That was my outlook before his interview this week on the Arsecast podcast where if his intention was to fix a few fences with gooners it worked?
While I never doubted that our former captain always gave 100 percent, it sounds like he went above and beyond to convince his employers to buy Xavi Alonso.
It seems in 2008 his Spanish teammate and close friend wanted the transfer to happen and used his countryman as a go between.
That’s the type of signing which could have turned a young side from challengers into winners. Real Madrid gave Liverpool 30 million. 30 million to dramatically improve your midfield. It’s the kind of capture which might have made him think twice about Spain. Instead, the moment you hear the owners say no, you ask your agent to hurry up and get in touch with Barca.
Cesc Fabregas debuted for us at 16 and became the leader of a side who just needed that added experience to get over the line.
The narrative has always been he pushed for a transfer years before he got his way. In reality he was doing everything he could to make Arsenal as good as they could be, going as far as trying to tap up his friend. He’s shown class in waiting this long to give evidence which confirms what we knew, Stan Kroenke didn’t show the ambition to convince him to stay. Which is kind of what Van Persie said in his ”little boy” statement.
I really don’t see how either can be painted as the bad guy? Can you?