augie wrote:SteveO 35 wrote:augie wrote:
I am going to say this for the last time and (hopefully) it will be my last post on the matter - I have no problem keeping him at a wage more reflective of his ability and performances but that for me is well short of 100k per week
I'm still waiting to hear who these players are that we could sign to improve upon Walcott for less than that amount of money. Not a single name put forward so far.
So you are effectively doing a Wenger - let him go and fail to improve upon him
Not clever
I never suggested spending less money - what I continue to say is that we should use that money far more effectively than giving him 100k per week. If we had a proper manager or if I was in charge (one and the same really) I would go out and buy a top player that is available and use that 100k to go towards that players wages - yes that would cost a big transfer fee but we all know that money is there. If you want a name then I will suggest the same name as I have been saying for months.......david villa - I absolutely believe that he is available and would be happy to leave barca for the right club. Of course this is all pie in the sky unless we finally act like a big club and start purchasing top quality players but you asked me what I would do and that move is a no brainer for me.
Steve O we clearly are at opposite ends of the argument here but would you not accept that what you continue to say is that we should keep wally cos we wont replace the guy for the cost of his 100k per week contract ? I dont see you arguing that he is worthy of that deal so basically, if I am right, it is you that is doing a wenger by accepting 2nd best purely as a financial decision - hardly a ringing endorsement of the guy is it ?
I think we need to try and move on from the 100k per week thing as if it's a big deal. Personally I think its bloody lunacy that any footballer earns that about. I think its a tragedy that a moron like Tevez earns double that and then refuses to come on to the pitch as a sub, and much as he's a good player I think Yaya Toure earning 200k+ per week is ridiculous too. The fact is that the going rate for an international player, playing in this country and regularly in the CL is somewhere in that region. Whether you and I think that's morally correct or not (any more than we think a nurse earning 20k is acceptable) is not the point. This is the market we operate in and we have a choice - do we pay the guy what other clubs will pay for a player of his talent or do we accept a substandard player on 50k per week.
David Villa is a fine footballer - but he will command substantially more in wages than 100k per week and the club will not pay that. FFS - we had one of the best players in world football in RvP and the club got to somewhere around 130k per week if we are to believe the rumours and we still couldn't do the deal because others pay more. If Villa's agent touted him around the big Milan clubs and City would come calling. He isn't in our league. Even Dzeko, who I also rate as a player is supposedly earning about 160k per week so unless City subsidised his wages he wouldn't be joining either
Walcott is a much better footballer than a couple of years ago. He'd never have made that cross on Saturday 2 years ago, his finishing has improved substantially and its reflected in his goal return. I still don't believe he's good enough to play as a lone striker in our gormless 4-5-1 formation but then again probably only half a dozen strikers in world football are. But if we switch to a formation that supports playing more than 1 striker he is certainly ahead of other players in our squad and a lot of others within our pay reach.
I didn't think that Bendtner, Denilson, Vela or Fabianski ever did enough to merit their 5 year deals on the money they were earning. The difference with Walcott is that he has shown a huge amount of progress in the past 12-18 months. Will he turn out to be a greedy twat that takes his foot off the pedal the minute the deal is done? Possibly. But IMO it's worth us keeping the guy and I would rather pay him 100k per week than sign a 17 year old or unproven talent like Zaha on half of the money
We'd all like to see a Benzema or Villa at Arsenal but that day isn't going to come any time soon
The money we are getting from sky is irrelevent - nobody is suggesting that we cannot afford it but I am advocating using that money is a sensible way for a change as opposed to throwing it around like confetti.
