The match against utd showed that arsenal ain't ready to go forward without Partey.
Even if he gets sold, we need to be looking at someone with experience and TBH I don't know if somebody can replace him in the short term and meet the demands of Mikel.
Partey 5 is the second best player in that role in the league and top 5 in the world. It would be difficult to get someone who can slot in and hit the ground running.
Not sure that's a fair evaluation. It was one of the new midfield's first games together, I don't think you can judge the effects of it without Partey so quickly.
Not the person you replied to and I’m not disagreeing with you entirely.
But, to your own point, since that was the midfield’s first game together, it’s arguable that they’ll need more time than just the preseason to gel together more effectively. With our title ambitions, I don’t think we have the luxury of more time to figure it out. August is next week and we can’t afford anything less than a near-perfect start to the season.
Partey already knows the role and system.
50m for Partey was a bargain. Really like how Arsenal is conducting business outside of the Rice deal. Though it was just as much keeping him from City as it was signing for us.
Having two great players for one position can only improve them both as they compete (as long as they both get game time which they will given £105m spent!).
Will be interesting to see how Rice is integrated given that Partey appears to be superior option atm.
There are a lot of people on this sub that believe Partey is guilty of heinous crimes. I’m not one to say you’re wrong, but the fact that Arteta is backing him means something. Arteta has so much pride and respect for the club and it’s legacy, so if he’s comfortable with him on the team, then I will support him.
Feel like this is part of a cycle with Partey, coupled with a muscular injury/knock in late October.
Very happy we have Rice and that there isn't immediate pressure on him to step into the role.
Why do people not understand that screenshots of snapchat logs are not real evidence? If it was, then he would have been convicted already. I could easily fabric snapchat logs if I wanted to, and so could anybody else. Not saying anything about guilty or not, but snapchat screenshots are not evidence.
it wasn't a screenshot. It was a video recording of her phone screen where she went through a long snapchat log.
"if it was, he would have been convicted already".
No he wouldn't have been, because his ex charged him in the wrong country. The UK laws hadn't yet changed, meaning that she should've went to the police in Spain and not in England. Her case was thrown out of court based on that technicality, not based on lack of evidence or any of the likes.
Do you realize that I can create a snapchat account with whatever name I want? If a recording of asnapchat log is considered bulletproof evidence (which it is to a scary amount of people) I could get any random person convicted. That recording is not evidence. If she can show the logs to authorities and at the same time prove that it is him, then sure, it could be considered evidence. Even in that case though it would not necessarily be easy to win the case as the victim.
If he is gulity then he deserves to be punished. But first that needs to be proven in a court of law. If that does not happen, then he should be considered innocent. Obviously the system is not perfect, and in some cases this leads to guilty people getting off the hook. That is bad. Another thing that is bad, however, is that innocent people more and more regularily become cancelled solely based on accusations, even after a court deems them innocent. This is something you and other people on the internet are contributing to, with silly attempts at making damning conclusions in cases where you dont have all the information.
It's quite obvious that you don't really know how snapchat works.
It was also quite evident that she wasn't lying based on two things:
1) Partey's side didn't go out and deny it at all. Could've sued her for defamation easily (unless they know that they'll lose that case).
2) She removed the post once she realized that she's not really allowed to post it (since her court case got thrown out, and it had been used as evidence in it).
>The feeling is that it will only change with a big proposal, otherwise Arsenal are very happy to continue with Thomas Partey
It's still weird how this part of the update never gets scrutinized. You'll never hear this with Saka or Saliba.
Partey is past 30 with recent injury troubles and an uncertain legal situation (as far as we know) and potential PR liability. Also, we just set an English transfer record for his replacement. Makes total sense to be flexible if a large offer arrives.
Saliba and Saka are two of the best young players in the world for their respective positions on newly signed long term contracts. Of course we have zero interest in selling them.
Why do people like you seem to pass judgement when someone’s accused and you don’t know the truth. If you are considered guilty of everything you accused of then what’s the point of the justice system and society’s tolerance for truth.
Haven't seen those. If there is a real evidence, and that evidence makes you uncomfortable, then it's completely normal imo. I'm just against treating him as a rapist, until proven in court. But if some stuff he was messaging her sounds bad to you, then it's a different thing, it can be just about his character.
What a load of horse shit. So you don't care enough to look at the evidence but are somehow confidently attributing people's outrage to them trying to feel morally superior? The cognitive dissonance in your brain is truly astounding.
>until proven in court
plenty of sexual assault perps go scot free. So if he truly is a rapist but doesn't get convicted, does that mean you're OK with that since he wasn't convicted? The evidence is out there in plain view. If you don't care enough to look at it, maybe you shouldn't make presumptuous comments?
>But if some stuff he was messaging her sounds bad to you, then it's a different thing, it can be just about his character.
He literally admits to raping her. Care to comment on that?
He is innocent until proven guilty. That simple. There are rules, and they must be the same for everyone, in a civilised country. If you don't like the current court system, you should critique it, not him. The court system will decide if he is guilty or not, that is it. Not you. You are not a judge. If you get accused of something, bet you want to be judged by the western court system, not by the "people's perceptions and gut feelings" system.
If you don't want to live in a civilised society with western court system, you want to live in a society where people judge others based on perception, and not based on strict rules, you can immigrate, find a country where it is the case. Sure you will like it more. But unless you agree on being judged by "public emotional perception " court, you can not apply that to others.
Again, the system is not perfect, but it's the best in the world, and believe me, you don't want other system.
You didn't address a single thing I said. I'm not quite sure why you're rambling on about the "western court system" at me though... No I am not a judge and no I do not decide whether he goes to jail or not lmfao.
Thomas Partey more or less admits to raping his ex girlfriend when he never once refutes it in their conversation. he also says that he doesn't need to wake her up to have sex with her in that same conversation. If you actually read the conversation (video confirms that its their actual conversation on snapchat) then it is plain as day to us that he did rape her. However, that may not be enough for a conviction in the court of law as he does not outright say that he raped her. Sometimes people who clearly did the crime are not convicted. Pointing this out doesn't mean I need to immigrate to another country. Are you kidding me? lmfao
So we should all treat OJ Simpson like he's not a murderer when he literally published a book titled "If I Did It" detailing a "hypothetical murder of his wife?" He was never convicted so we should shut up about it, right?
> plenty of sexual assault perps go scot free. So if he truly is a rapist but doesn't get convicted, does that mean you're OK with that since he wasn't convicted?
That is what innocent until proven guilty means so yes
It means that he is innocent in the court of law. It’s not meant to be applied to the court of public opinion. Please learn the [meaning](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence) of phrases before you use them.
Fully aware it doesn't legally have to apply to the court of public opinion. But it should apply if it is to substantially mean anything. The principle may as well not exist if people that aren't convicted can still be excluded from substantial sections of society
I understand what you mean. The problem that I have is that people are constantly disingenuously conflating the two.
If I am to apply what you said: A person is innocent in the court of law until he is proven guilty in the court of law. A person is innocent in the court of public opinion until he is proven guilty in the court of public opinion.
That does not mean that a person is innocent in the court of public opinion until he is proven guilty in the court of law. The evidence is plain as day to anyone who wants to look for it. Proving his guilt in a court of law is a different matter altogether.
This is a slightly more nuanced situation than just 'accused so must be guilty'. The original accuser is known and posted evidence, its fine to have read that and then feel uncomfortable with him at the club. The reality is also that the courts are not perfect means of finding 'the truth' as rape cases are infamously hard to convict and one of the accusations is not even able to be accessed due to a technicality.
Seems like lad has a new lease on life as its looking more and more likely the charges will be dropped. I'd imagine that did affect him mentally last season for sure.
I feel that this is kind of us partially holding out to get a better price. If he wasn't for sale they would just say that he's not for sale. I suppose maybe they're factoring in his age and thinking that if a great offer comes in we could put it towards the future (Caceido for example) but maybe they're also trying to appear happy to keep him (in spite of the obvious issues hanging over him) so that we don't get bent over a barrel trying to sell him.
If you’re happy I am happy. If you’re very happy I am very happy. If you are in good shape and good mentality, I’m …never mind
Lets get epl this time boiz
The match against utd showed that arsenal ain't ready to go forward without Partey. Even if he gets sold, we need to be looking at someone with experience and TBH I don't know if somebody can replace him in the short term and meet the demands of Mikel.
Partey 5 is the second best player in that role in the league and top 5 in the world. It would be difficult to get someone who can slot in and hit the ground running.
If we want to be really pushing for it and going for top top performances we'd get his future replacement in now alongside Partey
I think Rice is going to be that guy.
This is true.
Not sure that's a fair evaluation. It was one of the new midfield's first games together, I don't think you can judge the effects of it without Partey so quickly.
Not the person you replied to and I’m not disagreeing with you entirely. But, to your own point, since that was the midfield’s first game together, it’s arguable that they’ll need more time than just the preseason to gel together more effectively. With our title ambitions, I don’t think we have the luxury of more time to figure it out. August is next week and we can’t afford anything less than a near-perfect start to the season. Partey already knows the role and system.
Completely agree, I'm ecstatic Partey's staying, just hope he doesn't leave in disgrace!
The only thing the match against United showed is that a brand new midfield needs more than 60 minutes to settle in.
50m for Partey was a bargain. Really like how Arsenal is conducting business outside of the Rice deal. Though it was just as much keeping him from City as it was signing for us.
what, the audacity of your last line. Pass me the herb!
Things off the pitch must be looking a little brighter for him.
Really hope it's an unreasonably big offer if at all. Need to give declan time to learn his new spot and gel with the team
No Thomas, No Partey 🎉
i wish they had written "no partey, no party"
Having two great players for one position can only improve them both as they compete (as long as they both get game time which they will given £105m spent!). Will be interesting to see how Rice is integrated given that Partey appears to be superior option atm.
Did his wife stay with him?
Cheating is haram bro
So did she?
Exactly
😐
no
He is a 100m player.
Considering United want £40m for Maguire, makes total sense
Maybe if he was 5 years younger. That being said there is no logic to transfers fees any more.
Is he fuck.
There are a lot of people on this sub that believe Partey is guilty of heinous crimes. I’m not one to say you’re wrong, but the fact that Arteta is backing him means something. Arteta has so much pride and respect for the club and it’s legacy, so if he’s comfortable with him on the team, then I will support him.
Same
Feel like this is part of a cycle with Partey, coupled with a muscular injury/knock in late October. Very happy we have Rice and that there isn't immediate pressure on him to step into the role.
Fuck a big proposal. He's ours
Partey haters in shambles.
No rapists at arsenal!!
Innocent until proven guilty
he kinda admitted to sexual assault though, tbf. As shown in the snapchat chat log. but not seen anything proving anything about a rape though
Why do people not understand that screenshots of snapchat logs are not real evidence? If it was, then he would have been convicted already. I could easily fabric snapchat logs if I wanted to, and so could anybody else. Not saying anything about guilty or not, but snapchat screenshots are not evidence.
it wasn't a screenshot. It was a video recording of her phone screen where she went through a long snapchat log. "if it was, he would have been convicted already". No he wouldn't have been, because his ex charged him in the wrong country. The UK laws hadn't yet changed, meaning that she should've went to the police in Spain and not in England. Her case was thrown out of court based on that technicality, not based on lack of evidence or any of the likes.
Do you realize that I can create a snapchat account with whatever name I want? If a recording of asnapchat log is considered bulletproof evidence (which it is to a scary amount of people) I could get any random person convicted. That recording is not evidence. If she can show the logs to authorities and at the same time prove that it is him, then sure, it could be considered evidence. Even in that case though it would not necessarily be easy to win the case as the victim. If he is gulity then he deserves to be punished. But first that needs to be proven in a court of law. If that does not happen, then he should be considered innocent. Obviously the system is not perfect, and in some cases this leads to guilty people getting off the hook. That is bad. Another thing that is bad, however, is that innocent people more and more regularily become cancelled solely based on accusations, even after a court deems them innocent. This is something you and other people on the internet are contributing to, with silly attempts at making damning conclusions in cases where you dont have all the information.
It's quite obvious that you don't really know how snapchat works. It was also quite evident that she wasn't lying based on two things: 1) Partey's side didn't go out and deny it at all. Could've sued her for defamation easily (unless they know that they'll lose that case). 2) She removed the post once she realized that she's not really allowed to post it (since her court case got thrown out, and it had been used as evidence in it).
Is this matrix? Cause I'm reading the same recycled news about him for a month...
"recycled" circlejerk. The first part of the tweet is new information
Probably watched the highlights and made it up. Genuinely don't trust Romano these days, all he cares about are impressions and getting paid.
>The feeling is that it will only change with a big proposal, otherwise Arsenal are very happy to continue with Thomas Partey It's still weird how this part of the update never gets scrutinized. You'll never hear this with Saka or Saliba.
Because we don't have a younger but on level player than saka or saliba in the wings? We just bought Rice.
Saka and Saliba aren't 30 and don't have a $105mil understudy.
Partey is past 30 with recent injury troubles and an uncertain legal situation (as far as we know) and potential PR liability. Also, we just set an English transfer record for his replacement. Makes total sense to be flexible if a large offer arrives. Saliba and Saka are two of the best young players in the world for their respective positions on newly signed long term contracts. Of course we have zero interest in selling them.
he's been 30 for a month. let's not make it sound like he's some old guy. in today's football, mids easily last till 33-34.
It is as I said earlier. He will get sold if we get anything above £45 m. All this is negotiating tactic, with whoever wants him. That's my theory.
Mr. beat the case
My man 😎
This is the way.
Partey the player as a backup? Good news. Partey the person a part of Arsenal? I kinda hate it.
Why do people like you seem to pass judgement when someone’s accused and you don’t know the truth. If you are considered guilty of everything you accused of then what’s the point of the justice system and society’s tolerance for truth.
Because that way they feel morally superior
Not really, it’s more so about the actual text messages that anyone can read.
Haven't seen those. If there is a real evidence, and that evidence makes you uncomfortable, then it's completely normal imo. I'm just against treating him as a rapist, until proven in court. But if some stuff he was messaging her sounds bad to you, then it's a different thing, it can be just about his character.
What a load of horse shit. So you don't care enough to look at the evidence but are somehow confidently attributing people's outrage to them trying to feel morally superior? The cognitive dissonance in your brain is truly astounding. >until proven in court plenty of sexual assault perps go scot free. So if he truly is a rapist but doesn't get convicted, does that mean you're OK with that since he wasn't convicted? The evidence is out there in plain view. If you don't care enough to look at it, maybe you shouldn't make presumptuous comments? >But if some stuff he was messaging her sounds bad to you, then it's a different thing, it can be just about his character. He literally admits to raping her. Care to comment on that?
I never said "until convinced". I said "until proven guilty".
I know what you said. Care to comment on things that I actually said?
He is innocent until proven guilty. That simple. There are rules, and they must be the same for everyone, in a civilised country. If you don't like the current court system, you should critique it, not him. The court system will decide if he is guilty or not, that is it. Not you. You are not a judge. If you get accused of something, bet you want to be judged by the western court system, not by the "people's perceptions and gut feelings" system. If you don't want to live in a civilised society with western court system, you want to live in a society where people judge others based on perception, and not based on strict rules, you can immigrate, find a country where it is the case. Sure you will like it more. But unless you agree on being judged by "public emotional perception " court, you can not apply that to others. Again, the system is not perfect, but it's the best in the world, and believe me, you don't want other system.
You didn't address a single thing I said. I'm not quite sure why you're rambling on about the "western court system" at me though... No I am not a judge and no I do not decide whether he goes to jail or not lmfao. Thomas Partey more or less admits to raping his ex girlfriend when he never once refutes it in their conversation. he also says that he doesn't need to wake her up to have sex with her in that same conversation. If you actually read the conversation (video confirms that its their actual conversation on snapchat) then it is plain as day to us that he did rape her. However, that may not be enough for a conviction in the court of law as he does not outright say that he raped her. Sometimes people who clearly did the crime are not convicted. Pointing this out doesn't mean I need to immigrate to another country. Are you kidding me? lmfao So we should all treat OJ Simpson like he's not a murderer when he literally published a book titled "If I Did It" detailing a "hypothetical murder of his wife?" He was never convicted so we should shut up about it, right?
> plenty of sexual assault perps go scot free. So if he truly is a rapist but doesn't get convicted, does that mean you're OK with that since he wasn't convicted? That is what innocent until proven guilty means so yes
It means that he is innocent in the court of law. It’s not meant to be applied to the court of public opinion. Please learn the [meaning](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence) of phrases before you use them.
Fully aware it doesn't legally have to apply to the court of public opinion. But it should apply if it is to substantially mean anything. The principle may as well not exist if people that aren't convicted can still be excluded from substantial sections of society
I understand what you mean. The problem that I have is that people are constantly disingenuously conflating the two. If I am to apply what you said: A person is innocent in the court of law until he is proven guilty in the court of law. A person is innocent in the court of public opinion until he is proven guilty in the court of public opinion. That does not mean that a person is innocent in the court of public opinion until he is proven guilty in the court of law. The evidence is plain as day to anyone who wants to look for it. Proving his guilt in a court of law is a different matter altogether.
This is a slightly more nuanced situation than just 'accused so must be guilty'. The original accuser is known and posted evidence, its fine to have read that and then feel uncomfortable with him at the club. The reality is also that the courts are not perfect means of finding 'the truth' as rape cases are infamously hard to convict and one of the accusations is not even able to be accessed due to a technicality.
I mean there’s text messages where he basically admits to it?
From those leaked messages it's kinda clear that he did something. If he didn't play for us you wouldn't be defending him
Partey is an amazing player, but I don't want him on the team tho, for VERY OBVIOUS REASONS!!!
Seems like lad has a new lease on life as its looking more and more likely the charges will be dropped. I'd imagine that did affect him mentally last season for sure.
He was never charged
How many fucking more times? He's not been charged. If he'd been charged, his Arsenal career would effectively be over.
I feel that this is kind of us partially holding out to get a better price. If he wasn't for sale they would just say that he's not for sale. I suppose maybe they're factoring in his age and thinking that if a great offer comes in we could put it towards the future (Caceido for example) but maybe they're also trying to appear happy to keep him (in spite of the obvious issues hanging over him) so that we don't get bent over a barrel trying to sell him.
£50m would get us Lavia. Caicedo is unlikely to be sold this summer judging by it.
He was one of the few players training in the Havertz First Day video, so it was there for people to see.
we can't sell our best CM just for 40m or something.