WALCOTT - which position is best etc?

[augie]

Well the contract negotiations are not as simple as have been reported, of that we can be fairly sure.
As a club we take ages to get these things done; it so often develops into a "saga".

But if it does take 100K a week to keep him, and I am really not convinced that is the figure we need to keep him, then pay it!

Fed up of players leaving.

What would it achieve to let him go now?

Ridiculous...we would need Ox to produce consistency he has yet to show, and Gnabry to take a huge leap in class on a regular basis, and Gervinho to deliver consistency he has never shown.

Agree with Quartz.

Why does the ox need to produce consistency to replace walnut ? Lets be honest here, Wally has never been consistent so if ox plays one good game in six then he will be at least as consistent as him Sometimes I don't understand people's thinking when it comes to feo......I get that he is English, I get that he seems a nice guy, i can understand why some fans are concerned that he might develop into a top player elsewhere and I get that the fans are pissed off with players leaving the club but are any of those reasons enough to keep him at the club for big wages ? There is nothing that can guarantee that he will ever be a top player and develop consistency to his game and I thought that today was another of example that cos he was very good in the first half and anonymous in the 2nd half.

I know that footie fans are known to be fickle but seriously how can a run of 4 good games wipe out the previous few seasons of largely crap performances ? I know that the guy has commercial value but there is no way in the world that he is worth 90-100k per week on football performances alone

[QuartzGooner]

Why does the ox need to produce consistency to replace walnut ? Lets be honest here, Wally has never been consistent so if ox plays one good game in six then he will be at least as consistent as him.

I know that footie fans are known to be fickle but seriously how can a run of 4 good games wipe out the previous few seasons of largely crap performances ? I know that the guy has commercial value but there is no way in the world that he is worth 90-100k per week on football performances alone

His performances from 2006 - 2010 are almost irrelevant now.

Walcott is 23, so personally I judge him on last season and this season when he has shown consistency, better passing and has been physically stronger.

He was only 16 when he arrived, 17 when he first played for us, and had two messed up season through shoulder problems that have now been solved.

Letting him go means we have to find a replacement which is never a certain success...for example Arshavin.

Right now I find it hard to understand how people can watch our team and think it is worth letting Theo go.

[supergeorgegraham]

I have never agreed with the Walcott bashers on this forum and if we do sell him he will come back to haunt us just as bad as RVP will. Walcott is finally looking like the player he always could be and his pace is still just plain awesome. Its Arsenal FC going crazy again and without him and playing the utter shite Ramsey in his place will see us lose any chance of Champ League football.

[markyp]

ive always hoped walcott would finally become the finished article,his performances this season have been awesome,to sell him now just as he's blossoming would be a joke,who would you prefer,raheem sterling,daniel sturridge,scott sinclair?? we are lucky enough to have the best of that bunch and also have the ox too.i bet chelski,liverpool and city would gladly swap 'their' walcott for the real deal.Theo you is finally da man

[I Hate Hleb]

Why does the ox need to produce consistency to replace walnut ? Lets be honest here, Wally has never been consistent so if ox plays one good game in six then he will be at least as consistent as him.

I know that footie fans are known to be fickle but seriously how can a run of 4 good games wipe out the previous few seasons of largely crap performances ? I know that the guy has commercial value but there is no way in the world that he is worth 90-100k per week on football performances alone

His performances from 2006 - 2010 are almost irrelevant now.

Walcott is 23, so personally I judge him on last season and this season when he has shown consistency, better passing and has been physically stronger.

He was only 16 when he arrived, 17 when he first played for us, and had two messed up season through shoulder problems that have now been solved.

Letting him go means we have to find a replacement which is never a certain success...for example Arshavin.

Right now I find it hard to understand how people can watch our team and think it is worth letting Theo go.

I agree with Quartz again. Sure, Theo didn't live up to the early hype (including for some of the reasons Quartz stated) and he isn't anywhere near the greatest player in the world. However 50 plus goals and a similar amount of assists - although maybe not deserving of £100 pw - is hardly '4 good games'. And as has been pointed out, given the problems and cost of replacing him, in my opinion it would be madness to not give him that extra few grand now that he is finally starting to mature and is showing a bit more consistency. We could always then sell him in the future if he doesn't continue to kick on but for now we need to hang on to him.

[donaldo]

Why does the ox need to produce consistency to replace walnut ? Lets be honest here, Wally has never been consistent so if ox plays one good game in six then he will be at least as consistent as him.

I know that footie fans are known to be fickle but seriously how can a run of 4 good games wipe out the previous few seasons of largely crap performances ? I know that the guy has commercial value but there is no way in the world that he is worth 90-100k per week on football performances alone

His performances from 2006 - 2010 are almost irrelevant now.

Walcott is 23, so personally I judge him on last season and this season when he has shown consistency, better passing and has been physically stronger.

He was only 16 when he arrived, 17 when he first played for us, and had two messed up season through shoulder problems that have now been solved.

Letting him go means we have to find a replacement which is never a certain success...for example Arshavin.

Right now I find it hard to understand how people can watch our team and think it is worth letting Theo go.

I agree with Quartz again. Sure, Theo didn't live up to the early hype (including for some of the reasons Quartz stated) and he isn't anywhere near the greatest player in the world. However 50 plus goals plus a similar amount of assists - although maybe not deserving of £100 pw - is hardly '4 good games'. And as has been pointed out, given the problems and cost of replacing him, in my opinion it would be madness to not give him that extra few grand now that he is finally starting to mature and is showing a bit more consistency.

A few extra grand make that 25 extra grand or an extra £1.3m a year.All this bollocks about the cost of replacing Walcott we have a replacement already in the Ox.I believe the Ox will be a much better player than Walcott ever will be and he wont need 6 fucking years to prove it

[begeegs]

I've got to agree with Quartz and the other posters - we should hang on to Walcott. I am not his greatest fan, but three things strike me with this dilemna -

1. He shouldn't have ever been in a position in which he was a starter before the past couple of years - this is a problem caused by Wenger more than Theo. He should be learning his trade underneath a seasoned pro with some sub performances. I fear that it is a similar problem with Ramsey and the Ox. As they are thrust into first team action far too young, people have unrealistic expectations of them.

2. What is the likelihood that we will replace him with proven quality? I'd say less that 20%. Wenger talks about replacing him with quality, but I don't trust that he will. I think that we may get close to £8 million, but is it worth selling him and replacing with someone like Zaha, who hasn't ever played in the prem?

3. Is the Ox better than Theo is right now? I'd say no. He probably will be better, but he isn't at the moment.

I'd say the best scenario would be to buy Zaha or similar in the winter and keep Theo until the end of the season and lose him for nothing. It makes no sense to sell him mid-season.

[augie]

This decision shouldn't be made based on cost of replacing him....it should be based on whether his on field performances are worthy of 100k per week and even Stevie wonder can see that they are not Those wanting him to stay seem to be basing their decision on pace and sentimentality which seems ridiculous to me. If the guy was willing to accept 75k per week then I could maybe agree with keeping him but the guy has notions above himself and thinks he deserves more We have had better players than him leave our club and fail to make it elsewhere and I absolutely stand by my opinion that he wouldn't even be classed as an average footballer if he hadn't got that pace. Any time we have faced a team with a tactically astute manager and disciplined players they have totally cancelled him out of the game just by sitting deep and it is literally that easy

For years we have been angered by the clubs policy of financially rewarding players based on future potential (bendtner, Denison,diaby etc) rather than what they have done to date in their career and now we want the club to continue down that error strewn road - I for one am happy that the club have decided against continuing down that road and if he doesn't lower his demands then he should be sold without hesitation in january

[QuartzGooner]

Donaldo

I do not see Oxlade-Chamberlain simply as a replacement for Walcott.
He can play wide right, but I see Oxlade-Chamberlain also playing wide left.
Say Giroud was injured, we could play Podolski up front and use Ox and Theo wide midfield.
I also see The Ox as an eventual option central midfield, either in place of Artetea or Cazorla if they were injured...but not this season, I am talking about two or three seasons in the future.

Begeegs

I would not want Walcott to leave for nothing either.
Even if people are insistent on getting rid of Walcott, then in a purely business sense surely best to extend the contract now and sell in summer of 2014 for decent money?
Any pay rise would be more than recouped.

[SteveO 35]

Let Walcott go and it is further proof that the club are incapable of keeping players into their peak years. FFS we put up with 4-5 years of mostly shitey performances from the bloke, and then after a year of chipping in with some vital goals and assists we won't pay the money and will watch him go and do well elsewhere.......preferring to go back to square 1 with a Gnabry or Sterling. I just don't get it at all

100k per week is ridiculous but only because that's the way football is these days. Joe Cole is earning that money and is a fucking reserve in an average Liverpool team, Wayne Bridge was supposedly on 85k per week, Adebayor was on 170k per week at City, Arshavin is on 80k per week to sit around warming the bench

Walcott is not world class but I know what happens if we let him go - we go further downhill

[markyp]

Let Walcott go and it is further proof that the club are incapable of keeping players into their peak years. FFS we put up with 4-5 years of mostly shitey performances from the bloke, and then after a year of chipping in with some vital goals and assists we won't pay the money and will watch him go and do well elsewhere.......preferring to go back to square 1 with a Gnabry or Sterling. I just don't get it at all

100k per week is ridiculous but only because that's the way football is these days. Joe Cole is earning that money and is a fucking reserve in an average Liverpool team, Wayne Bridge was supposedly on 85k per week, Adebayor was on 170k per week at City, Arshavin is on 80k per week to sit around warming the bench

Walcott is not world class but I know what happens if we let him go - we go further downhill

100% agree steveO

[augie]

Let Walcott go and it is further proof that the club are incapable of keeping players into their peak years. FFS we put up with 4-5 years of mostly shitey performances from the bloke, and then after a year of chipping in with some vital goals and assists we won't pay the money and will watch him go and do well elsewhere.......preferring to go back to square 1 with a Gnabry or Sterling. I just don't get it at all

100k per week is ridiculous but only because that's the way football is these days. Joe Cole is earning that money and is a fucking reserve in an average Liverpool team, Wayne Bridge was supposedly on 85k per week, Adebayor was on 170k per week at City, Arshavin is on 80k per week to sit around warming the bench

Walcott is not world class but I know what happens if we let him go - we go further downhill

Steve O you are listing all players that are not worthy of their wages but what chances are there of wally joining that list if we pay him 100k per week ? I'm not sure why you would list players that are overpaid as a reason to justify overpaying walnut - surely you are not suggesting that cos others do it we should overpay too ?

Your point about not keeping players approaching their peak years is selective too - bendtner, denilson and flappy are all approaching their "peak" years but nobody is suggesting that we should keep them on the basis of that fact.

Would fans feel differently about wanting to keep him if we had a manager that would use funds to bring in a better player ? If so then it isnt exactly a vote of confidence in feo then is it ? The bottom line must be whether a player is worthy of 100k per week and he def isnt - every other point is moot after that

[I Hate Hleb]

If the criteria was as simple as 'only pay what they are worth' then based on their performances this and last season, the only people 'worth' their wages at Arsenal would be Arteta, Cazorla, Wilshere and Sagna whilst some of our players should be on the minimum wage at best!!

[QuartzGooner]

Following on from IHH's above point which I agree with...

1.) Would fans feel differently about wanting to keep him if we had a manager that would use funds to bring in a better player?

2.) The bottom line must be whether a player is worthy of 100k per week and he def isn't - every other point is moot after that.

1.) I would of course like a better player to join, who wouldn't?

But if one did, then I would rather see Squillachi, Arshavin, Chamakh, Gervinho and Santos let go before Walcott was.


2.) Disagree.

The key point must be, will we be a weaker squad without Walcott?

I would say we would be.

Other points are -


3.) Can we afford to pay Walcott 100k per week (if that is the figure he is asking for, and none of us know for sure).

I would say yes, we have £150M in the bank!


4.) Would we rather give Walcott a pay rise and get the extra cash we pay him in his wages/image rights from money that would otherwise have been paid to Squillachi, Arshavin, Chamakh, Gervinho and Santos etc?

Yes!
Sell these players off, and save on their wages.


5.) Would a replacement for Walcott be a guaranteed success?

No, one can never tell for sure.


6.) Do our alternative options for Walcott inspire?

Oxlade-Chamberlain - yes but still inconsistent and not able to play every game.
Gnabry - great potential for a 17 year old, so let us see if he makes it or ends up like David Bentley.
Gervinho - does not inspire me, best used as a sub.
Miyaichi - who knows?
Ramsey - in poor form.
Jenkinson - good crosser so could be worth a go right midfield in front of Sagna, but surely needs to be tried pre-season and in reserves first?
Rosicky - can play wide right but injury worries again.


7.) Do we keep selling off first team players?

Yes, and though some I understand (Cesc, Nasri, Song) others grate on me (RvP, Clichy).

[SteveO 35]

Let Walcott go and it is further proof that the club are incapable of keeping players into their peak years. FFS we put up with 4-5 years of mostly shitey performances from the bloke, and then after a year of chipping in with some vital goals and assists we won't pay the money and will watch him go and do well elsewhere.......preferring to go back to square 1 with a Gnabry or Sterling. I just don't get it at all

100k per week is ridiculous but only because that's the way football is these days. Joe Cole is earning that money and is a fucking reserve in an average Liverpool team, Wayne Bridge was supposedly on 85k per week, Adebayor was on 170k per week at City, Arshavin is on 80k per week to sit around warming the bench

Walcott is not world class but I know what happens if we let him go - we go further downhill

Steve O you are listing all players that are not worthy of their wages but what chances are there of wally joining that list if we pay him 100k per week ? I'm not sure why you would list players that are overpaid as a reason to justify overpaying walnut - surely you are not suggesting that cos others do it we should overpay too ?

Your point about not keeping players approaching their peak years is selective too - bendtner, denilson and flappy are all approaching their "peak" years but nobody is suggesting that we should keep them on the basis of that fact.

Would fans feel differently about wanting to keep him if we had a manager that would use funds to bring in a better player ? If so then it isnt exactly a vote of confidence in feo then is it ? The bottom line must be whether a player is worthy of 100k per week and he def isnt - every other point is moot after that

What I'm saying is that 100k per week is no big deal these days if you have aspirations of "competing with Europe's elite" - that is the going rate and any team really serious about competing at the top end of the PL will have a handful of players on those wages. It is ridiculous to say that £5m+ per year is the 'norm' but in the bubble of PL / CL football that is the reality. Who would you say we could sign realistically who would be worth 100k per week in an attacking position (and by the way Dzeko earns about another 60k on top before his name gets suggested again).

Listing Denilson, Bendtner and that clueless Polish prick are hardly good examples either are they? Every team has players it can't get rid of and none of those 3 suddenly looked better when they got to 23 years old - if anything they all went backwards or carried on being shit. What I am saying is that just like Cesc and Nasri, we are talking about a player that the club supposedly wants to keep and is unable to - why is that? And in this instance it's even more fucking galling because we are not talking about Barcelona or Man City coming calling - we're talking about a team that can't even fucking qualify for the CL any more and that has a turnover significantly lower than us.

Now your final point is completely different and one I agree with of course. If I was told we were selling Walcott to Liverpool because the club were signing a Goetze, Mata, Willian calibre of player then of course it would be different. But I have already said that we won't do that - we will either overpromote Gnabry and/or sign someone like Zaha who despite all the hype has never played PL football and would set us back double the money in transfer fees. Where is the fucking sense in that?

There are better players out there than Theo Walcott without a doubt, but we won't sign any of them so I would rather keep a guy who has started to perform in the last 12 months than take a gamble on another fucking 17 year old