Mikeb

Apparemment Mou veut lui donner un plus grand break car c'est le premier depuis 3-4 ans et qu'il a besoin de recharger les batteries. Je pense que c'est un bon choix pour Utd si c'est vraiment la raison de son absence.

S'ils signent Sarri, Jorginho, Golovin et Rugani, ce qui semblerait en bonne voie, c'est pas mal quand-même. Reste à voir qui va partir? Willian probablement, et la grande question c'est Hazard.

Je me réjouis de lire l'avis des joueurs sur la nouvelle méthode d'entraînement car leur quotidien a du être complètement chamboulé avec le changement de coach. Pour ceux qui aiment bosser ça doit être tellement motivant. Même Bouldy je n'ai pas le souvenir d'avoir vu autant d’énergie sortir de lui depuis de nombreuses années. Ca fait plaisir et j'espère que les résultats suivront!

A 2'30 on voit qu'ils sont en train d'apprendre à Mustafi la base pour savoir défendre, ils partent de loin mais ils vont peut-être arrivé à en faire un défenseur potable

Il ferme le jeudi avant la première journée de PL à 18h si je me trompe pas, donc le 9 août.

Contrôle physique de la rentrée, enregistrement de données sur chaque joueur, ça doit se faire à chaque retour de vacances je pense.

Tu peux pas juste dire que Christensen c'est 40mio si tu l'engages pas quand il est encore gosse. Il faut déjà prendre en compte le coût de la formation et du salaire partiellement payé lorsqu'il était en prêt. Ensuite pour un Christensen qui t'a fait ne pas dépenser de l'argent car tu l'as formé combien de jeunes engagés, achetés quelques 100k, pour qui t'a payé leur formation et qui partiront gratuitement car tu ne leur a pas donné de contrat? Ca a un coût également. Dans un monde idéale tu arrives à sortir un Loftus, un Christensen chaque saison ou chaque 2 saison mais c'est loin d'être la réalité.

Ca semble plus ou moins sûr qu'on va essayer de vendre Mustafi maintenant. Chambers mérite ce nouveau contrat, à chaque fois qu'il est rentré ou qu'il a joué il avait le niveau, ses derniers matchs étaient bons. L'avantage également c'est qu'on ne se retrouve pas avec des joueurs qui ont une certaine valeur en fin de contrat. Bon travail!

Bravo et merci!

En voilà un qui est frustré de ne pas faire parti des plans d'Emery. Je trouve sa dernière phrase un peu puérile. On a pas vu une once de l'attitude de 2004 l'année dernière lorsqu'il était là en tout cas. Je l'aime beaucoup Jens mais il aurait pu partir sans polémique.

https://www.lequipe.fr/Football/Actualites/Yassin-fortune-d-arsenal-a-sion/910368     Choix surprenant. Pour très bien connaître le club c'est pas évident de percer et de se faire remarquer tant le président fait la pluie et le beau temps mais bonne chance à lui!

Vu qu’apparemment c'est Kroenke qui prendra la décision finale on peut penser qu'il choisira Arteta en espérant que le résultat soit aussi probant qu'avec ses LA Rams et la nomination de Sean McVay qui avait 30ans quand il a été nommé et aucune expérience de coach. Il a été nommé coach de l'année en 2017 d'ailleurs.

Ozil en bonne compagnie       Ca fait polémique en Allemagne car Erdogan a utilisé ces photos pour sa campagne électorale 

Je comprends pas que le club accepte ces horreurs. Quand tu vois les nouveaux maillot de Palace je trouve qu'ils sont vraiment beaux! Pourquoi on a pas des maillots identiques?

  En lisant ton poste je pense à Pat Vieira, il pétait un cable de temps en temps, il contestait les décisions arbitrales, il s'énervait régulièrement et je me souviens de lui comme d'un capitaine emblématique d'Arsenal donc oui c'est compatible. Par contre nous n'avons pas encore de joueur dans ce groupe qui peuvent s'approcher du caractère de Vieira, les plus proches sont en effet probablement Granit et Wilsh.

Intéressant de voir qu'on s'en sort pas trop mal niveau blessure cette saison.   Il me semble qu'on était habitué à une place dans le top6 les saisons précédentes. Preuves que le nouveau staff fait du bon boulot ou juste de la chance?   http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/11348129/which-premier-league-club-has-suffered-most-from-injuries-this-season  

Vraiment cette relance est magnifique!    http://arsenalist.com/f/2017-18/arsenal-vs-atletico-madrid/dat-ospina-pass.html

Conférence de presse de Gazidis à 18h heure française ce soir. Peut-être qu'on en saura déjà plus.

Voilà Ramsey score et c'est l'hécatombe, RIP Mme Colluci et Mr Higelin.

Wilsh devrait également être disponible dixit Southgate.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/interview-with-mertesacker-about-exit-from-arsenal-football-a-1198260-amp.html?__twitter_impression=true     Très bel entretien avec beaucoup de sincérité. Je comprends que certaines de ses paroles on pu être mal perçues car les footballeurs restent des privilégiés mais il ne doit pas être le seul à avoir souffert pendant sa carrière et peut le disent aussi ouvertement.

Sur la photo c'est ça qu'il porte Laca   https://eu.puma.com/ch/fr/pd/haut-afc-pour-lentra%C3%AEnement/751702.html?dwvar_751702_color=Puma%20Black     Par contre c'est sur le site Suisse, je ne sais pas si c'est en vente dans d'autres pays.

Article (payant) paru dans le Times de hier sur la Russie et plus particulièrement Roman et le fait que l'argent que les russes placent en Angleterre est louche et devrait être confisqué.   Avec les tensions actuelles si le gouvernant Britannique saisi la fortune de certains magnat ça pourrait être un coup dur pour Chelsea et son propriétaire.   MATTHEW SYED march 14 2018, 12:01am, the times Russian spy case could spell trouble for Abramovich and Chelsea matthew syed Share Save Scene one: A courtroom, just off the Strand in London in 2011. The room is small and functional. There are cases of mauve-and-blue files near a wall. Halogen strips illuminate lawyers making polite argument as slips of paper are passed back and forth. Lady Justice Gloster smiles as Laurence Rabinowitz, QC, the counsel for Boris Berezovsky, mispronounces the name of Roman Abramovich, the defendant. Abramovich, a few places away, remains expressionless. Scene two: An isolation cell in Moscow in 2009. Sergei Magnitsky, a corporate lawyer who has investigated wrongdoing at the highest levels of the Russian state, is lying on the floor. He has been held without trial for 11 months. He has been beaten with batons. He has been deprived of sleep. Pleading for his life, he calls for a doctor. He is met by a phalanx of riot police, who bludgeon him to death. His only crime, according to campaigners, was to “tell the truth”. Keep these two scenes in mind as we try to “tell the truth” about the chicanery that followed the Boris Yeltsin privatisations. This is a story that will encompass the question, ducked for so long, about whether the ownership of Chelsea Football Club should be removed from Abramovich through legal decree, but it will also call out the near-silence that has surrounded one of the biggest scandals in British sport. This is an issue that should have been confronted far earlier. First, let’s explore why Magnitsky was murdered and why a clause in his name may soon be a part of British law. Magnitsky worked for Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund owner. As told in Browder’s startling book Red Notice, the financier had been the victim of a £150 million tax fraud from which Vladimir Putin’s associates had benefited. Magnitsky, Browder’s lawyer, had courageously named the men he believed were guilty. The Kremlin responded by having him jailed, assuming that this would be the last of it. The power of Putin is so absolute that few people dare stand up to him. Browder had different ideas; successfully lobbying the American Congress for a change in the law to hit Putin’s cronies where it hurts most. Officials in Russia siphon off money from legitimate businesses through threat and intimidation. They then squirrel the money out of the country, into prime assets in the West, ready for their retirement and holidays, and as a bolthole to escape justice when Putin finally leaves office. The Magnitsky Act of 2012 is, in part, about confiscating that money. It is not anti-Russian, but pro the Russian people who have been swindled by gangsters and oligarchs for so long. As Browder put it in a column in The Mail on Sunday: “It only takes a stroll through Belgravia in west London to see this. Every self-respecting member of the Putin regime has an expensive home in Britain. They like our property ownership laws, which guarantee them title and give them a safe asset abroad should they ever need to flee. “For them, there is no greater status symbol than a townhouse in Belgrave Square or Eaton Terrace. They send their children to public school and enjoy shopping on the Kings Road. It is important to remember that Putin’s cronies have bought these grand houses with billions stolen from the Russian state. Our response should be to seize these houses, bank accounts and shares.” Abramovich has owned Chelsea since 2003PAUL GILHAM/GETTY IMAGESBrowder is right. The US has already passed a version of the Magnitsky Act and has seized the assets of dozens of corrupt Russians. The law sent a chill through Putin’s kleptocracy. We should introduce a beefed-up version of the same law. Why should anyone be allowed to benefit from defrauding their own people and then enjoy the trappings of gilded privilege in London? And this takes us back to scene one. For, in his legal scrap with Berezovsky, Abramovich opened up for the first time about how he amassed a personal fortune of £8 billion. Jonathan Sumption, QC, his lawyer and now a judge in the Supreme Court, admitted that the auction that handed Abramovich control of Sibneft, the Russian energy giant, was “rigged”. The court also heard that it was a “stitch-up”. In essence, this was one of a series of deals in which Yeltsin handed the mineral wealth of the Russian people to the oligarchs at a fraction of its true cost in return, it is claimed, for free advertising on their TV channels in the build-up to the 1996 election. Paul Gregory, the economist, described the Sibneft deal as “the largest single heist in corporate history and a lasting emblem of the corruption of modern Russia”. Abramovich’s involvement may only have gone so far as the “stitched-up” auction, but surely that is corruption. For Yeltsin, the gamble worked. He won the election having trailed in the polls. As for Abramovich, who has always denied knowledge of anything corrupt, he became rich beyond his dreams. The deal enabled him to emerge victorious from the notorious aluminium wars. He bought a fleet of yachts, helicopters, his own private Boeing and homes around the world, including a £125 million London mansion in Kensington. He also bought Chelsea FC, presumably confident that his assets would be safe in a nation that has long enjoyed the cash flowing from oligarchs. A strong UK version of the Magnitsky Act could change all that. It could enable the state to determine whether assets owned in Britain were paid for with ill-gotten cash. If our legislators have the courage to draft a rigorous clause, the deal could be looked into and it is not just Abramovich’s homes and private assets that may then be at risk, but Chelsea FC. This could also bring to an end a long-running saga that has shamed the English game and received scant scrutiny. In football, the oligarch is mentioned affectionately for his engaging grin and enigmatic personality. People eulogise the money he has lavished on Chelsea and his charitable causes. This is moral chicanery, however. How can a man be praised for spending a fraction of the wealth that, according to his barrister, was obtained through a stitch-up? The closeness of Putin and Abramovich can be seen by examining Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, the book by Karen Dawisha, professor of political science at Miami University. “Abramovich helped fund the purchase for $50 million of Putin’s first presidential yacht,” she writes. Regular readers will know that this subject has often been tackled in this space, triggering hate mail and anonymous threats. As for Putin’s enemies, they have met all manner of curious ends. Berezovsky ended up dead in a locked bathroom, a ligature around his neck. A British coroner recorded an open verdict but US intelligence officials suspect an assassination. Buzzfeed has chronicled 13 other suspicious deaths in the UK, including Alexander Perepilichnyy, who suffered a heart attack while jogging, and Alexander Litvinenko, who died after drinking tea laced with a radioactive substance. A public inquiry found that Litvinenko’s assassination was probably ordered by Putin himself. Yesterday, Nikolai Glushkov, who was a friend of Berezovsky and who testified in the case against Abramovich was also found dead. Putin cronies act with impunity because they have, for too long, got away with it. They have never feared retribution because policy has been so lax. British political parties have taken Russian money, guaranteed anonymity for investors in London and only belatedly tackled issues such as Baltic defences and the strategic danger of Russia’s gas export monopoly. This could be about to change. History teaches that bullies are only stopped when they are met by a stern response. That is why the Magnitsky law is not just about justice, but geopolitics. It is one of the few usable weapons that Putin and the oligarchs fear. As for Abramovich, he may be wondering, perhaps for the first time, whether that rigged auction is finally about to catch up with him.

  Ce n'est pas pour vendre son "torchon" sinon il ne serait pas parti du club il y a 3 ans.

  L'excuse facile