What now for Walcott?

[Power n Glory]

as syn said, he will struggle to do better than us at the moment and start games regularly.

sure, if it really is a dispute over his transition to striker then fair enough, i'd really respect him if he left and went somewhere else below to play as a striker. hard to see it happening though.

Liverpool need a striker and in my opinion, he may need to take a step backwards to go forwards with this one. He needs to go to a manager that is going to develop him and at his age you might not find a manager that's willing to do that. What does he do? Continue to trust Wenger or move on?

[Kano]

we'll see his playing time, attitude and position over the next few months, so we'll get a clearer idea then.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Liverpool need a striker and in my opinion, he may need to take a step backwards to go forwards with this one. He needs to go to a manager that is going to develop him and at his age you might not find a manager that's willing to do that. What does he do? Continue to trust Wenger or move on?

He is with a manager who is amongst the best in the business at developing players. And his development is slow. His abilities are limited and he needs to take a step backwards if only to find his true level. Some desperate team like Liverpool may offer him the 6 figure salary he seems to want, but nobody else will.

[Power n Glory]

He is with a manager who is amongst the best in the business at developing players. And his development is slow. His abilities are limited and he needs to take a step backwards if only to find his true level. Some desperate team like Liverpool may offer him the 6 figure salary he seems to want, but nobody else will.

If he's limited and his development is slow, does it make any sense in him playing in such a technically demanding role? There are certain players Wenger hasn't been able to develop and if you're saying he's slow and limited, do you really think Wenger can get anything more out of him? Especially on the flanks?

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Funny story this, Wenger thinks that if he hasn't signed by April it will be hard to give him a new contract. I would have thought that if he hasn't decided to leave already he would have by January and will already be looking to sign a pre-contract agreement by then.

Wenger is so deluded, reminds me of the Flamini situation where he was convinced Flamini would sign all season and Flamini kicked dust in his face and said thanks for the memories but I'm off to Milan



http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19633113

Not really, no Wenger is not dumb if enough to think Theo won't be sold if a deal has not been agreed by Jan, the board won't let him go for free. But AW is hardly going to say he will be sold in jan is he.

[selassie]

I reckon we'll get 10mill max for him in January, can't see anyway of him staying TBH. In some ways, Arsene giving him bench time will ease the loss of him, Theo is a very nice option to have in the squad but...if he wants his money then he needs to go elsewhere.

[fakeyank]

Is it really hard to put in a contract that states "You start with 75K/week this season and if you have x no. of assists and y no. of goals, your contract automatically goes into 100K/week next season and also compensates the difference in wages earned this season"? Am I missing something here?

Frankly I dont rate Theo a whole lot but some part of me still thinks he along with the other GHEL's could form a formidable back bone for our club in years to come.

[Bergkampwonderland10]

I reckon we'll get 10mill max for him in January, can't see anyway of him staying TBH. In some ways, Arsene giving him bench time will ease the loss of him, Theo is a very nice option to have in the squad but...if he wants his money then he needs to go elsewhere.

Yeah can't see anyone paying more than 10million either and it's looking very unlikely that he has any intention of signing a new contract with us. He'll talk to other clubs in Jan and discuss his 'signing-on' fee...probably pocket a good few million from that. Am sure he'll end up at Man City or Chelsea in Jan as a squad player or maybe Van Persie will put in a good word for him at United...
For anyone who thinks a footballer and their cronies are not motivated by money and it's just 'footballing reasons' then I'm afraid to say you are sadly deluded. This whole contract is about money...I don't think walcott himself is bright enough or arrogant enough to demand 100k a week but his agents and family are...and he chooses to listen to them.
I'll be pleasantly surprised if he signs with us...but if not, get as much as we can from his sale and move on.

[Power n Glory]

I don't think this issue boils down to money, but if it did, the club are being foolish and fans saying he's not worth £100k a week need their heads testing. If we're going to start talking about value and worth, we need to look at this logically and count the cost.

If it is true and Theo is holding out for £100k, just give it to him so we don't lose him on a free transfer. It's as simple as that. The difference between £75k a week and £100k is small for this club and we've wasted as much on players like Park in a year.

On £75k a week we spend £3.9m in a year. £100k we spend £5.2m. Give him the money for goodness sakes. If we're not happy, sell him for £15-£20m. That's common sense. Losing him on a free it's plain stupid and we recoup nothing. If we're going to talk about what he's worth, consider the above.

[Niall_Quinn]

He won't be allowed to go on a free, that's for sure. He'll be off in January if no agreement can be reached. I can see the logic of paying him in terms of the illogical world of football, but it might also be better to let him go and get a replacement in January. Doubt it will be entirely a money issue with Wenger. Maybe he doesn't see Walcott as part of the long term plan. Maybe he's finally learned his lesson regarding players, their motivation and attitude. If the RvC thing fucked us off and sent out huge signals then it will be multiplied tenfold for Wenger. In the end, if Walcott isn't chomping at the bit to play for the club or will only do so with reservations then get rid of him and get somebody in who's keen. Knowing Arsenal they probably have a cheaper (and who's not to say better) alternative lined up. Save money, get a more consistent performer, might be the better way to go anyway. The problem will come if nobody wants Walcott. Can't see why Chelsea or City would want him, he's not really Fergie's type. That leaves Liverpool and (it wouldn't at all surprise me) the spuds. That's risking non-CL football. Walcott may find that the only clubs out there who agree with the valuation he's placed on himself, in terms of money and ability, are not going to be good for him in the long run. Maybe Wenger senses this too. RvC had a strong hand. I don't see the same for Walcott, not unless he gets on the pitch between now and January and puts in a consistent showing. Which is the whole problem with him really and the reason he's not getting what he wants.