Watkins decision, Osimhen obstacle and Jason Ayto scrutiny – Arsenal’s January window explained

Despite all the signs, the messages and the hope, Arsenal ultimately ended the winter transfer window without making any signings for the second year in a row. Last season, even closer to the top, a lack of deals was referenced as a potential reason for the side falling short.

In reality, the side won every game bar two – the draw at Man City and the defeat at home to Aston Villa. This season, however, the gap to the top is already significant. Mikel Arteta has also lost Gabriel Jesus for the season while Bukayo Saka is injured too.

The need this time around has, therefore, been far greater, and yet the result is the same. Arsenal have been without sporting director Edu Gaspar since his resignation and into the void Jason Ayto has stepped into an interim position with no decision yet taken on a permanent replacement for the Brazilian.

football.london understands that the process is ongoing and the club are not rushing any decision with many candidates they are keen on still in positions at clubs working through this final transfer window of the season. The likes of Tomas Rosicky, Roberto Olabe and Luis Campos are all names believed to have been considered but it was Ayto’s role when it came to leading the Gunners’ business during the window.

He too is one of the potential candidates for the role, but the outcome of this window will be very difficult for supporters not to hold against his potential selection. So what happened and why have Arsenal not signed any forward?

Well, the short answer is similar to that of the summer, whereby the window was lacking a plethora of obvious options to go for. While certainly, I am sure that you will have seen a selection of names suggested, but for Arsenal, there are many requirements before a commitment would be made.

The first is the most obvious, quality. Arsenal categorically will not compromise when it comes to quality should they be making a significant investment in either transfer fee, or wages or both. Of course a signing on the last deadline day like Raheem Sterling may have many questioning whether this is the case, but as discussed in a previous piece, the offer from Chelsea in the situation that Arsenal were in having seen four attacking players exit the club – Fabio Vieira, Emile Smith Rowe, Reiss Nelson and Eddie Nketiah – it was a no-lose scenario.

Ironically there has since emerged a downside to the deal in that Sterling took up one of the two Premier League loan slots, the other occupied by Neto, and at no point were any of the three parties needed to agree on a loan termination in January close to that reality. Arteta did hint that a recall of Fabio Vieira was an avenue that was considered but he too has remained with FC Porto until the end of the season.

There was one quality option that was presented to Arsenal in the mid-to-late part of the window, Ollie Watkins. With a chance to potentially cash in on the 29-year-old talks between both Aston Villa and Arsenal were initiated with Watkins’ side looking for a figure in the region of £60million.

Contrary to reports at the time, which broke last week with Arsenal due to play Girona, when in reality discussions had been held days prior, the proposal that was made by Arsenal was in the region of £40million plus add-ons, football.london understands. Watkins came off with an injury in Villa’s defeat to Wolves before the window closed which also perhaps impacted any hopes of a late second offer by the club in the final hours of the window.

This is the second principle of Arsenal’s transfer reality, cost-effectiveness. A 29-year-old Watkins simply did not warrant a fee as high as Villa wanted with Arsenal seeing a move for around £20million less as what they felt the player was worth to them in the short-to-medium term. For the record, it is the understanding of football.london that Watkins was keen on the idea of a switch to Arsenal and had the clubs agreed on a deal, the player would indeed have made the switch to north London.

Some might think that jumping up to the £60million asking price would have been worth it but there were things at play behind the scenes that while fans do not like to think about, are still relevant. It was suggested earlier in the window that Arsenal could make big losses and still comply with Profit and Sustainability regulations.

While true to a degree, sources have told football.london that UEFA Financial Fair Play is what the club remains keen to comply with and are what are more restrictive in regards to spending – turning the Gunners back into title challengers has not come cheaply and successive losses over many years have taken its toll. The club, now back and established as a title challenger, have taken a sustainable approach and the expectation now will be that the summer will have much more freedom when it comes to spending – no excuses indeed.

Both quality and cost-effectiveness were in part behind why the club opted against a late move for Mathys Tel. Despite exploring the move, they never formalised that interest and the promise of game time at Tottenham got the Frenchman to change his stance – something which certainly would have not been the case with every forward bar perhaps Sterling ahead of him in the order.

Tel would have given Arsenal depth and cover for potential injuries, but it was unlikely to be little more beyond that. The idea of a dry loan to develop a player for Bayern Munich to potentially sell later on down the line or even an option which would have been above £40million was not appealing either.

Wages certainly would have factored into profiles like Dusan Vlahovic and Victor Osimhen, whose wage demands are understood to have seen them become the club’s highest earners without a guarantee that either immediately start having zero Premier League experience and finishing numbers (goal per shot), which comparatively stack up similarly to Kai Havertz. However, it is important to point out that it was not like there was nothing Arsenal could have done.

Some players who moved on loan during the window could have made an impact for the side or at the very least offered some cover. Alvaro Morata joined Galatasaray on loan to cover the injured Mauro Icardi.

Randal Kolo Muani joined Juventus on loan from PSG and has already scored three goals in two games. Would he have been convinced of the game time at Arsenal having come to Turin and already displaced Vlahovic? Maybe not.

Andre Silva joined Werder Bremen from RB Leipzig on loan with minutes hard to come by, much to do with Benjamin Sesko. Quality would have been a question, but short-term depth arguably better than having no one behind Havertz.

And that is the reality: Arsenal are a Havertz injury away from having no senior recognised centre-forward in the squad. It is a scenario that now could have dire effects on the season’s aims.

That said, Sunday’s 5-1 win in which five different goal-scorers, none from set pieces, shows that even without Saka this Arsenal side can perform to an elite level. But it will require fortune between now and May to succeed and that is something very much absent from the campaign to this point so… cross those fingers.

Arsenal did not see any major outgoings despite some links emerging. Jakub Kiwior and Oleksandr Zinchenko will stay until at least the summer despite interest from Italy and Germany respectively.

Kieran Tierney will join Celtic but again he will have to wait until the summer before completing that move. While Jorginho may also leave for Flamengo but football.london understand the club were very much against the Italian leaving this winter.

In terms of the younger players, Ayden Heaven left and joined Manchester United permanently with football.london understanding that the club received a significant compensation fee above £1million. Josh Robinson was sold to Wigan at the start of the window and leaves on a permanent deal having made the senior bench for the club. Maldini Kacurri and Brian Okonkwo left on loan to Bromley FC and Hitchin Town respectively.