WALCOTT - which position is best etc?

[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

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

gotta agree again,this is my stance too

[armchair]

What is Walcott earning now?

[augie]

What is Walcott earning now?

60k seems to be the consensus - you tell me if he has done enough to justify almost doubling his wages

Do those that want Wally to get his 100k per week view him as an automatic starter or a squad player ? 100k per week is a tad expensive for a sub imo and if he is viewed as first 11 now then we are seriously fcuked

Quartz to say you are being selective is putting it mildly - we would all like to see chamakh, arshavin etc sold before we flog the wally but they are not part of this equation cos their contracts are not running out. We have a straight decision here......pay him what he is demanding or get rid of him in January and the status of other players has no influence on this decision. Of course we have big cash sitting in a vault somewhere but that doesn't justify overpaying walnut or if it does then shouldn't we be paying Gibbs, jenks, chesney etc 100k per week too ? All those players have shown at least as much value as walnut and some have actually delivered more but we ain't offering them a mega deal are we ?

[QuartzGooner]

Augie

I want Walcott as first choice right midfield.
I do not see that as a sign of weakness.

The other players I mention?
Arshavin and Squillachi have less than a season on their contracts as far as I can tell.
Chamakh, Gervinho and Santos do not, but so what?
If they do not perform then sell them...in Chamakh and Santos's case I would have sold last summer, Gervinho I would give until this summer to prove something.
(I go against my 'one season to adapt' rule with Santos, who clearly is not a left back, though is not too bad left midfield).

Again I do not agree with your idea of "Overpaying".
100K a week (if that is what the figure is, none of us know for sure) for Walcott would be the going rate.
Heck none of our players deserve over £50,00 per year if you think what nurses earn but that is another argument.
And yes, if I was manager I would give Jenkinson and Sczcesny commensurate pay rises if they demanded them.
Gibbs no, as his injuries make me wary so he could be on a lower basic wage plus a pay as you play bonus system.

[dPmunky]

Do those that want Wally to get his 100k per week view him as an automatic starter or a squad player ? 100k per week is a tad expensive for a sub imo and if he is viewed as first 11 now then we are seriously fcuked

Quartz to say you are being selective is putting it mildly - we would all like to see chamakh, arshavin etc sold before we flog the wally but they are not part of this equation cos their contracts are not running out. We have a straight decision here......pay him what he is demanding or get rid of him in January and the status of other players has no influence on this decision. Of course we have big cash sitting in a vault somewhere but that doesn't justify overpaying walnut or if it does then shouldn't we be paying Gibbs, jenks, chesney etc 100k per week too ? All those players have shown at least as much value as walnut and some have actually delivered more but we ain't offering them a mega deal are we ?

I agree that he may not be worth the 100k a week figure but I think the squad is better with him, even in the shyte formation we're playing. If a deal can be done we must at least try. letting him go to liverpool (or anywhere else) would seem like a waste of developing him to this point. the way i see it, on the squad now who takes his spot?

[augie]

Do those that want Wally to get his 100k per week view him as an automatic starter or a squad player ? 100k per week is a tad expensive for a sub imo and if he is viewed as first 11 now then we are seriously fcuked

Quartz to say you are being selective is putting it mildly - we would all like to see chamakh, arshavin etc sold before we flog the wally but they are not part of this equation cos their contracts are not running out. We have a straight decision here......pay him what he is demanding or get rid of him in January and the status of other players has no influence on this decision. Of course we have big cash sitting in a vault somewhere but that doesn't justify overpaying walnut or if it does then shouldn't we be paying Gibbs, jenks, chesney etc 100k per week too ? All those players have shown at least as much value as walnut and some have actually delivered more but we ain't offering them a mega deal are we ?

I agree that he may not be worth the 100k a week figure but I think the squad is better with him, even in the shyte formation we're playing. If a deal can be done we must at least try. letting him go to liverpool (or anywhere else) would seem like a waste of developing him to this point. the way i see it, on the squad now who takes his spot?

I agree that the squad would be better with him but 100k per week is not a squad wage and he is not first 11 standard imo I cannot believe how many fans have changed from wanting him kept as an impact sub to now believing he is of a high enough quality to be a starter for a club of our size

[flash gunner]

We need to keep hold of Theo

[augie]

We need to keep hold of Theo

At 100k per week ?

[SteveO 35]

Augie - lets hear you're first choice XI then without Walcott in it? Who plays up front, whats the formation?

FFS - of course he should be in the first team, its an absolute bloody no brainer. If he plays on the right, what's the other option - the Forehead, the fat lazy Russian, Wenger's new winger Ramsey? The Ox is the only option and there is no way on god's earth he is ready to be a natural first choice playing 40-50 games per season. He will get there but not for at least a couple of years. Gnabry looks like another Quincy

And if we go with 2 strikers then who is up there with Le Chapman? The Chamster?

[augie]

Augie - lets hear you're first choice XI then without Walcott in it? Who plays up front, whats the formation?

FFS - of course he should be in the first team, its an absolute bloody no brainer. If he plays on the right, what's the other option - the Forehead, the fat lazy Russian, Wenger's new winger Ramsey? The Ox is the only option and there is no way on god's earth he is ready to be a natural first choice playing 40-50 games per season. He will get there but not for at least a couple of years. Gnabry looks like another Quincy

And if we go with 2 strikers then who is up there with Le Chapman? The Chamster?

Le chapman is doing fairly well at the mo wouldnt you agree ?

Anyway for the record the ox would be my first choice in this current system (although 4-4-2 with podolski and giroud would be my preferred option) - I know that the ox isnt ready to play 40-50 games per season which is why I would support the idea of keeping walnut and using him as an impact sub and to give the ox a breather during the season too but for me wally would have to then accept a wage more befitting a guy playing the back up role. My gripes here are, and always have been, that the wage demands are way off a realistic level and that the notion of walnut being first choice saddens me beyond belief

[flash gunner]

We need to keep hold of Theo

At 100k per week ?

Unfortunately we're not in a position to be choosey, we havent got an Henry in the wings like it or not feo is one of our better players these days. As most people know i don't care about money if £100k keeps him then so be it

[SteveO 35]

To expect Walcott to play second fiddle to the Ox is nonsense, Augie. You're now just becoming too defensive over Walcott.

You claim he has done little to merit being a first team regular and then you select a guy that has done even less and is even more inexperienced to be first choice. I like the Ox - I think we all do - but to suggest Walcott should play backup to him is laughable. It should be the other way round.

I've already explained that 100k per week is not the big number it once was - if the club are going to get serious and compete at the top of the table we need half a dozen players on that wage level. Honestly, where are you going with this 100k per week debate? If the club doesn't pay it then we moan that we can't compete, and if they do then we say they are overpaying

Augie, again mate - who should we bring in of the required standard for 100k per week if Walcott leaves ?

[highburyJD]

IMO Feo massively improved last season,
started defending properly, great goal/assist stats.
His confidence went right up and with it his match intelligence (biggest weakness) also improved
Feo is arguably our highest profile player
and is the longest serving player near the first team (Djourou 4th/5th choice, Diaby physio's 1st choice)

That said I think we are right to play hardball, if we cave what happens?
2014 our sponsorship income flies...
But we end up paying £100k to Wilshere, Sagna, Verminator, Tets, Mertesacker et al
it won't actually have made any difference

[augie]

To expect Walcott to play second fiddle to the Ox is nonsense, Augie. You're now just becoming too defensive over Walcott.

You claim he has done little to merit being a first team regular and then you select a guy that has done even less and is even more inexperienced to be first choice. I like the Ox - I think we all do - but to suggest Walcott should play backup to him is laughable. It should be the other way round.

I've already explained that 100k per week is not the big number it once was - if the club are going to get serious and compete at the top of the table we need half a dozen players on that wage level. Honestly, where are you going with this 100k per week debate? If the club doesn't pay it then we moan that we can't compete, and if they do then we say they are overpaying

Augie, again mate - who should we bring in of the required standard for 100k per week if Walcott leaves ?

A few years ago I might have agreed but imo we have been burnt far too often for anyone to be ok with accepting this deal. Most, not all, seem to be advocating paying the guy his 100k per week simply cos of a lack of other options rather than actually believing that the guy is worth that wage and for me that is accepting the level at which we currently sit Where is the ambition for the team and club to improve ? I still refer back to the 52k per week bendtner is getting and the outrage amongst Gooners at that deal - granted he is better than the worlds greatest striker ( ) but is he worth 100k per week which is almost double than of the danish streak of pish ? The 100k per week does still seem a huge amount to me but it isnt just about the amount itself as much as it is about value for that wage and imo there are few very few players in our squad that are worthy of that type of wage (arteta,cazorla,wilshire,sagna,BFG,podolski and possibly tv5). For me it isnt that we need more players at that wage level but that we need more players performing at the level required to justify that wage for this club to progress.

I have said for a long time that we should have offloaded the dead weights in our squad (too numerous to name them ) but the type of money that they are on makes it nigh on impossible to find a club to buy them and pay their existing wage. I have continually advocated taking a financial hit on these players by agreeing to pay half of their wages until their contract runs out if they fcuk off to another club - on the face of it, it looks like a bad financial move but for me it free's up wages that can go towards better players coming in. I see this situation being something along those lines - we can use those wages in a more beneficial way if it is used to pay better players coming in but if we commit to this 100k per week over the next 4 or 5 years then that is a huge huge financial commitment to a player yet to show enough to suggest that he is going to be top level. I have read ludicrous suggestions that if we tie him down to this deal that we can then sell him for good money in a year or two if it doesnt work out but again I refer back to the likes of bendtner, denilson etc who we cannot offload due to the big wages we have them on. To agree to this deal then it is shit or bust......either he makes it big or we will have yet another financial wage disaster to add to the other deals and people will rightly question how we are judging the merits of these contracts

[supergeorgegraham]

If and it looks like when Walcott leaves I will come on here and remind the haters just how bloody good he is every time he scores a goal which will be often.
Without Walcott in the team we have lacked pace and direction.
Yes Walcott has taken a long time to develop but he is playing his best football now at the age of 23 so his best years are just coming up.
He had that Injury that really stopped his progress and an ever changing team around him but he is a very very good player. Arsenal receive even more money from Sky next season so I dont see the problem with the wage demand at all when we have Diaby, Rosicky on big money and never playing for years.