WALCOTT - which position is best etc?

[augie]

It amazes me how some of the biggest voices on here in terms of demanding change and a show of ambition suddenly get on their moral high horse when the words "100k per week" are uttered

Get over it for fuck sake - its nearly 2013. We were all quick to point to the survey of the world's richest footballers how we were noticeable for our absence despite supposedly being the 3rd or 4th richest club in the world, and yet were happy to pay second raters 50-60k per week.

We should pay him 100k per week and play him at centre forward. If he is shit or mediocre then the fact that he's from Ing-er-lund and will be on a long term deal means we'll always be able to get 15m+ for him. That's the way the market works these days - look at Henderson, Carroll, Downing, Lescott etc. If he turns out to be a top class CF for years then we'll have pulled a masterstroke. How hard can it be FFS ?

If Wilshere chooses to accept a contract for less than 100k per week that is his choice. He doesn't have to - he's worth more than that already, so if he decided to play the long game he could do exactly the same, safe in the knowledge that every club in this country and several abroad would want him. Jack probably feels he owes the club more having been here since he was 12 and being a Herts lad. Walcott is from a Liverpool supporting family down in Hampshire, so doesn't have the some affinity for the club

Steve O you are being selective in what you are taking from our responses - nobody is saying that they are against 100k per week wages but we (or at least I am) saying that wally isnt worth the colour of that money per week. Is paying the best striker in the world (or at least in denmark) 52k per week a sign of ambition ? Surely ambition or not doesnt come into it and paying the wages a player deserves should be the only factor ? I would bet that nobody would be arguing that feo should get a 100k per week if we had a team of the quality that we had 8 years alongside him - are we saying that we should pay him that wages cos he is one of the better players (highly debatable imo) in a poor side ? We can argue this every which way but I just cannot see any justification for overpaying wally to the tune of 100k per week - put him on 75k with stipulations that will see his wages reach that 100k upon reaching pre agreed targets and then at least we can all be happy that he is delivering enough to justify his wage

[Old Rosie]

Why is nobody questioning Podolski's salary but are so quick to slate Walcott for wanting the same?

Walcott has produced far more than the overhyped Kraut this season, has been with the club a number of years and so to my mind can justifiably demand parity with someone who has under-performed in the main all season.

Players are free to ask for they want, they might get it and they might not, however nobody can begrudge someone at least the equal status of another who has done nothing of any note. Podolski came with a reputation in Germany as being an underperforming under-acheiver in Gemrmany but because of the lack of 'marquee signings' we swallowed the superstar status.

Bringing Bendtner into the equation is simply daft. We could not give the tosser away but Walcott could command a multi-million fee with only 6 months of his contract left.

Or maybe all those top Premier League and Serie A managers are mugs and we know best? Are any of them queueing up to buy Podolski?

[the playing mantis]

i agree augie. certainly not averse to big money wages, but only those who are worth it and have shown signs that hey could be worth it. i think we have sen enuff of walcott to know he isnt and wont ever be worth it at such a parsominous club as ours.

thats how we end up with nb52 on his big package and ramsey on 30+k a week soon to be increased for some god knows reason.

as for pod, i think his record suggests that he should be able to justify that wage if indeed hes on that which i doubt as koln didnt pay him anywhere near that and there was little competion for him. whether he justifies whatever he is on so far is another matter.

[SteveO 35]

I'll go back to my original argument - lets allow the player to leave then.

Please give us the list of better players that can replace him for wages of less than 100k per week. Last time we got as far as David Villa who would command double those wages for coming to this country

We'll soon discover that 100k for a striker in a PL team is actually the norm. I don't agree with footballers pay any more than I agree with nurses pay btw, but the market is the market

So come on, if he isn't worth it lets have the list of players that are worth that. There must be a long list because almost without exception everyone on here thinks we should be showing more ambition when it comes to top wages

[the playing mantis]

i cant say as im not up to speed with world football these days, im sure there are plenty of players kicking around europe the equal of walcott who we could pay a lot less than 100k for in his role, a one trick 'winge'. thats what scouts are for.

personnally though i dont see him as a striker and can never see him making it as a striker. regardless of him having been given much of chance or not. i dont rate him any better than the likes of agbonlahor as a pacy brainless striker cum winger

[LeftfootlegendGooner]

All this player wants this, player wants that.........it's their fukin agents that do all the negotiating not the player.

They might use the "i want to play up front" line to further increase wages etc but it's all about the agents, these fuckers will bleed every ounce out of every club and whne it;s dry won't give a flying fuck.......

GREED..........


That's it I've convinced myself............No more.

Bollox to em..........let's be honest most on here agree that the wages nowadays is absolutely ridiculous, average football players becoming millionaires.

Finished with it and I feel better already

[SteveO 35]

i cant say as im not up to speed with world football these days, im sure there are plenty of players kicking around europe the equal of walcott who we could pay a lot less than 100k for in his role, a one trick 'winge'. thats what scouts are for.

personnally though i dont see him as a striker and can never see him making it as a striker. regardless of him having been given much of chance or not. i dont rate him any better than the likes of agbonlahor as a pacy brainless striker cum winger

Well if there are plenty of players out there who would play as a regular top class PL / CL striker for less than 100k per week then there certainly aren't any kicking around at the top 3 clubs in this country. Yes 'scouts' - tell me about them. We have supposedly one of the most advanced global scouting networks around and lets see what they've come up with in the less than 100k per week bracket recently - Gervinho (dire) , Giroud (carthorse), Podolski (not sure a lot less than 100k and hardly setting the world on fire). Who is going to win the CL with a striker on say 50k per week banging in the goals - sorry it ain't going to happen.

The reason why we aren't finding world class strikers on 70k per week is because there aren't any. Huntelaar would command at least 100k per week knowing that he has an open market. If we're fishing in the cheaper pool it will be an unproven kid like Zaha or another French/African journeyman, neither of which will be a better option than Walcott.

People might start to point to the likes of Michu and Ba, but there is absolutely no guarantee that these blokes have the quality to do it at the very top level. I like both of them, but had never heard of Michu before this season (and there is a reason why a Spanish club let him go for just 2m) and Ba would be an unproven gamble for a club like ours commanding regular CL football (and not better than Walcott anyway)

[g88ner]

Please give us the list of better players that can replace him for wages of less than 100k per week. Last time we got as far as David Villa who would command double those wages for coming to this country

We'll soon discover that 100k for a striker in a PL team is actually the norm. I don't agree with footballers pay any more than I agree with nurses pay btw, but the market is the market

So come on, if he isn't worth it lets have the list of players that are worth that. There must be a long list because almost without exception everyone on here thinks we should be showing more ambition when it comes to top wages

Not really followed the Theo discussion between you, Augie, etc. but I'm not sure people are saying NO player should earn £100k+... just not Theo! or perhaps I've misunderstood.

Also, Theo isn't a striker, he's a wide player (1 game up front and 150+ on the wing makes you a wide player...) so I'm a bit confused why Villa was discussed as a replacement (Villa generally plays as a striker, doesn't he?) and why discussion is focussed on strikers.

If Theo is now a striker, then I think we need to sell quickly! the thought of Wenger passing up on Huntelaar so Theo can lead the line for us makes me feel ill

Anyway, to your question...

Better player than Theo for less than £100k? without thinking... Cazorla? he's twice the player and apparently on £70k.

For me, Cazorla would be a better wide player than Theo.

Anyway, I think - with him being English - £100k is probably the top end of acceptable... but only if Wenger sees him as a first team regular for years to come. If not, and he intends to sign a top class striker and wide player, then we don't want a situation of another big earner sat on the bench! been there, done that.

Hope he stays though. He seems far more productive these days.

[SteveO 35]

We're trying to find a better striker though g88ner. I take the point about him being unproven but by the same token he has shown more in that position this season than any of our other options - so the point is that if he goes we must all surely acknowledge that the central striker position needs strengthening. Don't we?

If that is the case - I presume the 1% that still want Giroud, Gervinho and Chamakh have been put back into their padded cells now - then who are the top strikers that would be earning less than that

Cazorla is a bargain I agree. There are other midfielders around who are too, but I'm struggling to think of top class strikers (for that is what we undoubtedly need) who will happily come here for 50-70k per week and start banging in goals regularly at PL and CL level

[g88ner]

We're trying to find a better striker though g88ner. I take the point about him being unproven but by the same token he has shown more in that position this season than any of our other options - so the point is that if he goes we must all surely acknowledge that the central striker position needs strengthening. Don't we?

If that is the case - I presume the 1% that still want Giroud, Gervinho and Chamakh have been put back into their padded cells now - then who are the top strikers that would be earning less than that

Cazorla is a bargain I agree. There are other midfielders around who are too, but I'm struggling to think of top class strikers (for that is what we undoubtedly need) who will happily come here for 50-70k per week and start banging in goals regularly at PL and CL level

Ah, I see!

Who've West Brom got?

We definitely need a striker, but Theo isn't the answer unless he's happy to flit between wing and attack when required because I can't ever see him being a world class first choice striker. Not when you consider our rivals have players like Suarez, Tevez, Dzeko, Aguero, Rooney and.... van Persie - compared to that lot, he's miles behind.

I'm hoping Huntelaar or Llorente arrive (based on what I've read, not seen with my own eyes at this point!) because Giroud doesn't look like becoming the answer either. Also, I think the club would now break the £100k barrier for a player of super super quality

It's a mess

[SteveO 35]

We're trying to find a better striker though g88ner. I take the point about him being unproven but by the same token he has shown more in that position this season than any of our other options - so the point is that if he goes we must all surely acknowledge that the central striker position needs strengthening. Don't we?

If that is the case - I presume the 1% that still want Giroud, Gervinho and Chamakh have been put back into their padded cells now - then who are the top strikers that would be earning less than that

Cazorla is a bargain I agree. There are other midfielders around who are too, but I'm struggling to think of top class strikers (for that is what we undoubtedly need) who will happily come here for 50-70k per week and start banging in goals regularly at PL and CL level

Ah, I see!

Who've West Brom got?

We definitely need a striker, but Theo isn't the answer unless he's happy to flit between wing and attack when required because I can't ever see him being a world class first choice striker. Not when you consider our rivals have players like Suarez, Tevez, Dzeko, Aguero, Rooney and.... van Persie - compared to that lot, he's miles behind.

I'm hoping Huntelaar or Llorente arrive (based on what I've read, not seen with my own eyes at this point!) because Giroud doesn't look like becoming the answer either. Also, I think the club would now break the £100k barrier for a player of super super quality

It's a mess

So....you agree then i.e. if we want a top class striker like the ones you've listed that's what we need to pay.

We might just get Odemwingie or Long for that but not sure they'd want to take a backward step at this early stage of their career

[Arsenal Till I Die]

Walcott needs to earn his contract but because he can walk in the summer we've lost the upper hand in this fight. We could of played him upfront sooner to see if he could cut the mustard and if he didn't we could say ##100k? fack off'' but because he's got just over 6months we're being bent over..

[the playing mantis]

does theo bang in the goals reguarlly enough to justify 100k though. the likes of bent imo would score more for us and be cheaper.

lets put it this way, id prefer theos 100k went towards the wage of someone on 150 k for example eho is far superior and a proper proven high class striker

[Old Rosie]

does theo bang in the goals reguarlly enough to justify 100k though. the likes of bent imo would score more for us and be cheaper.

lets put it this way, id prefer theos 100k went towards the wage of someone on 150 k for example eho is far superior and a proper proven high class striker

You may well prefer it that we have the kind of players who are worth 150k a week but the reality is we do not and never will have in the immediate future.

The reality is that we already pay players who have acheived less than Theo yet Walcott seems to be the criminal here. Again, there is nothing wrong with asking for parity with those who have delivered even less than yourself.

[QuartzGooner]

Agree with G88ner that Theo, if he stays, will have to accept playing either striker or wide midfield depending on the game.
No shame in that.

I also think that no one on this Forum thinks we should give Theo a new deal as THE striker, but in addition to a new striker being bought in January or the summer.

I think the long discussion over his wage value is really simple.
Market rates dictate that a 23 year old England regular in his position will get 100k per week or thereabouts at a few other Premier League clubs.

So it all boils down to - do you want him to stay or go?