What is stalling Theo??

[Niall_Quinn]

Those are my thoughts too. Wenger won't play him in his preferred position, has frozen him out of the team this year, he obviously feels he has better players ahead of him. He's bought Podolski, Gervinho and Ox over the past couple of seasons. He's also bough Gnarby and has talked up his potential. Theo is already in a battle with Ox for England international duties and probably feels unwanted by his club and manager. He signs on for this deal he could end up on the bench as for sort of right winger nobody wants and it would be a real struggle to find another top club that would play him as a striker. It's now or never.

Do you think it would be a good idea to play Theo up top and construct the team around him? And then watch him walk out the door? Why is it Wenger that has frozen Walcott out? Why not look at it as Walcott having frozen himself out with his demands? When he could be playing instead of Gervinho. Walcott is either the thickest footballer alive today or has the thickest advisor alive today. He can go and take what he wants, right now. Sign a contract, wait a couple of weeks for Gervinho to completely fuck it up, move into his slot (just as Wenger says will happen), make himself invaluable and get his fucking money. That's what a smart guy would do. And a smart manager would say you;re either with us or somewhere else and until that's determined sit your arse on the bench because the long term future of the team takes precedence over the wishes of a single wantaway.

[Power n Glory]

Because he won't sign a new deal, not because he don't rate him.

But he's signed other wingers, strikers and is only offering Walcott squad money. The fact that Wenger has frozen out one of our best performers from the squad for so long suggests he thinks he's replaceable.

[Niall_Quinn]

How much of this is a dance for the benefit of the fans anyway? The usual questions - why did we let the contract run so late without renewal? Why won't Walcott commit? It's convenient, isn't it? If the plan is to let Walcott go. More money for Theo, more money for the board's balance sheet. It always turn out to be a loss for the fans though? Pure coincidence no doubt. And both sides get to play the victim and provided you can split the fans one way or the other you can survive the criticism. We all heard PHW, thanks for our interest in affairs that don't concern us.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

How much of this is a dance for the benefit of the fans anyway? The usual questions - why did we let the contract run so late without renewal? Why won't Walcott commit? It's convenient, isn't it? If the plan is to let Walcott go. More money for Theo, more money for the board's balance sheet. It always turn out to be a loss for the fans though? Pure coincidence no doubt. And both sides get to play the victim and provided you can split the fans one way or the other you can survive the criticism. We all heard PHW, thanks for our interest in affairs that don't concern us.

[LDG]

How much of this is a dance for the benefit of the fans anyway? The usual questions - why did we let the contract run so late without renewal? Why won't Walcott commit? It's convenient, isn't it? If the plan is to let Walcott go. More money for Theo, more money for the board's balance sheet. It always turn out to be a loss for the fans though? Pure coincidence no doubt. And both sides get to play the victim and provided you can split the fans one way or the other you can survive the criticism. We all heard PHW, thanks for our interest in affairs that don't concern us.

Completely agree.

[Power n Glory]

Do you think it would be a good idea to play Theo up top and construct the team around him? And then watch him walk out the door? Why is it Wenger that has frozen Walcott out? Why not look at it as Walcott having frozen himself out with his demands? When he could be playing instead of Gervinho. Walcott is either the thickest footballer alive today or has the thickest advisor alive today. He can go and take what he wants, right now. Sign a contract, wait a couple of weeks for Gervinho to completely fuck it up, move into his slot (just as Wenger says will happen), make himself invaluable and get his fucking money. That's what a smart guy would do. And a smart manager would say you;re either with us or somewhere else and until that's determined sit your arse on the bench because the long term future of the team takes precedence over the wishes of a single wantaway.

Wenger hasn't played Walcott up front at all over the last few years so why would he sign a new deal and then take Wenger's word for it? That would be thick. He's already lost his England International spot to Ox and people keep assuming he's a winger and in a few years time, he could end up like Arshavin or Chamkah. A bench player. If Wenger had any intention of playing Theo up front, he wouldn't have bought Giroud and he's been quick to give Gervinho his chance. Walcott could wait for Gervinho to fuck up but Giroud would be next in line and then Podolski, then Chamakh. Walcott is way down the pecking order to play that role.

He has no faith him and Wenger doesn't sound in a hurry to play him up top. A smart guy would run his contract down and find a club willing to play him up top and develop him as a striker.

[Cripps_orig]

Wenger hasn't played Walcott up front at all over the last few years so why would he sign a new deal and then take Wenger's word for it? That would be thick. He's already lost his England International spot to Ox and people keep assuming he's a winger and in a few years time, he could end up like Arshavin or Chamkah. A bench player. If Wenger had any intention of playing Theo up front, he wouldn't have bought Giroud and he's been quick to give Gervinho his chance. Walcott could wait for Gervinho to fuck up but Giroud would be next in line and then Podolski, then Chamakh. Walcott is way down the pecking order to play that role.

He has no faith him and Wenger doesn't sound in a hurry to play him up top. A smart guy would run his contract down and find a club willing to play him up top and develop him as a striker.

Pretty much

[Niall_Quinn]

And they say Gnabry on what - 15K a week? (anyone know?) - is the next big thing? They said they were going to slash the wage bill. They may be congratulating themselves on delivering yet another self interested promise. £100K player, a couple of years in the squad, a few headlines, £10mill transfer as soon as the first wage demands come in.

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Little bit lacking oil.

[Niall_Quinn]

Wenger hasn't played Walcott up front at all over the last few years so why would he sign a new deal and then take Wenger's word for it? That would be thick. He's already lost his England International spot to Ox and people keep assuming he's a winger and in a few years time, he could end up like Arshavin or Chamkah. A bench player. If Wenger had any intention of playing Theo up front, he wouldn't have bought Giroud and he's been quick to give Gervinho his chance. Walcott could wait for Gervinho to fuck up but Giroud would be next in line and then Podolski, then Chamakh. Walcott is way down the pecking order to play that role.

He has no faith him and Wenger doesn't sound in a hurry to play him up top. A smart guy would run his contract down and find a club willing to play him up top and develop him as a striker.

So we should only have one striker and that should be Theo Walcott? Then he would be happy? RvC left, Chamakh is a mega flop, why wouldn't the club sign Giroud? You speak as if Walcott has some sort of automatic entitlement the club has scandalously dishonoured.