Donyell Malen (Gone)

[Dave]

It seems pretty simple that a delay because a deal hasn't been agreed yet, and may never be, and wanting a delay in a deal that has been agreed by all parties are different things.

We have agency in this situation. The point is that one of the parties (i.e us) shouldn't fully agree to it until we are in a position to play somebody in his stead.

If the Abraham deal is in the balance enough that it's fine for him to play for his current club and risk the hypothetical ACL that you raised, then we shouldn't be bundling Malen into a car to the airport just yet.

[Dave]

As I keep saying, long term it may be that the sacrifice of 1 player v Everton was well worth it. Or come the end of the window it may look a staggeringly bizarre mess up. For some reason wanting to see what happens before getting worked up seems a hot take.

A bit like waiting until the end of the match before making any comment on team selection choices?

[PeterWithesShin]

If we agreed a deal with a player and then let him carry on playing for his club as it suits them I reckon the club would be getting pelters, especially if he if did then get crocked. Look at some of the stick dished out for playing our own players v Spurs.

[Drummond]

I would make a pretty strong argument for not signing players rather than selling Malen. But losing him before this game was just daft.

Not signing players? Malen does not make us. If argue your point could stand for Rogers but Malen?

Timing wasn't great, but Emery's gamble didn't work for one game, one that you'd hope we would have had enough for.

He wasn't the reason we lost yesterday, that was having no Kamara, Onana and then McGinn (plus Sancho).

[ChicagoLion]

We saw what happened, we had no alternative to Watkins, we had to play Guessand and lost.
Brilliant business.

[PaulWinch again]

I would make a pretty strong argument for not signing players rather than selling Malen. But losing him before this game was just daft.

Not signing players? Malen does not make us. If argue your point could stand for Rogers but Malen?

Timing wasn't great, but Emery's gamble didn't work for one game, one that you'd hope we would have had enough for.

He wasn't the reason we lost yesterday, that was having no Kamara, Onana and then McGinn (plus Sancho).

Well in terms of impact on the attack, he’s done plenty this season. I’m not saying don’t sell, but it’s far from an obvious call unless we’ve got a very useful alternative.

The timing was just daft. Malen might not have made a difference yesterday, but I guarantee we have a better chance of getting something from the game had he been on the bench.

[kippaxvilla2]

Yesterday we had the ridiculous situation of having to leave Watkins on because there were literally no other alternatives on the bench.  Malen comes on and has often changed games.  It’s utter football suicide to have got rid of him at all let alone without a replacement.

[Drummond]

The deal for Malen may have been off the table if we hadn't done it then.

We clearly can't take the risk of buying before selling, so it's the right choice for the longer term,. It's made a difference in one game, that in my opinion we wouldn't have lost if McGinn had played 90 minutes.

I'd rather Abraham than Malen.

[ROBBO]

I'm not so sure that Emery sanctioned the Malen sale, he seemed really pissed off after the game, we sold the one backup for Watkins before a replacement came in, Emery is fanatical about detail and that transaction doesn't seem like his decision.

[Dave]

The deal for Malen may have been off the table if we hadn't done it then.

Why? Are we about to take the deal for Abraham "off the table" because it hasn't happened as quickly as we'd have liked?

They signed him because they wanted him. They don't stop wanting him if we say "but we don't have a forward on our bench for our game this weekend, so we need him for another few days. Or, use whatever influence you have with Besiktas to hurry along our Abraham deal".

[brontebilly]

The deal for Malen may have been off the table if we hadn't done it then.

We clearly can't take the risk of buying before selling, so it's the right choice for the longer term,. It's made a difference in one game, that in my opinion we wouldn't have lost if McGinn had played 90 minutes.

I'd rather Abraham than Malen.

What use was Malen against well organised PL defences sitting deep? He would definitely have come on yesterday but more to go two up top, not instead of McGinn. Need to find the plan b to Gallagher and get him and Tammy in asap.

[kippaxvilla2]

Malen had quite a lot of interest if you believe the reports.  In my opinion we would’ve had no issues selling him at a time of our choosing.  Not that I wanted him sold.

[eamonn]

I think we don't lose the game with McGinn and maybe win it with Malen but I think they should have beaten us at the Hill-Dickinson when we were Blose so points-wise I've reconciled my anger and am prepared to move on.

Newcastle away less than 3 days after playing in Turkey is not the fixture you want next though and consecutive league defeats will put some of our chasers on our tails.

[PaulWinch again]

I just don’t buy the argument Roma walk away from a player they want because we’re not in a position to sell yet. Obviously there’s a risk of injury, but on balance given how short we were in terms of attacking options it is a poor decision.

[Olneythelonely]

The deal for Malen may have been off the table if we hadn't done it then.

We clearly can't take the risk of buying before selling, so it's the right choice for the longer term,. It's made a difference in one game, that in my opinion we wouldn't have lost if McGinn had played 90 minutes.

I'd rather Abraham than Malen.

It’s made a difference in 1 game SO FAR. Our option up front is currently to run a poorly performing Watkins into the ground on Thursday and Sunday. But even if it only is one game, I am, maybe the players are too, a bit more worried about Liverpool, Man U, Chelsea than we might have been.

There’s no evidence we’re close to signing Abraham as it stands.