Theo leaving would be the dumb for him, other than Liverpool, where else is he gonna start up front as a striker
Printable View
Theo leaving would be the dumb for him, other than Liverpool, where else is he gonna start up front as a striker
Me niether. Just pisses me off that all anyone guves a fuck about is money.
No loyalty left :(
Wouldn't mind a swap - Theo for Suarez. If we were managed by Pardiola it would happen because he is championship manager alpha as fuck.
No players are loyal otherwise they'd never move clubs and nobody would sign anyone.
Theo's been loyal to us. If Arsenal were loyal to him we'd have offered him a new deal two seasons ago when he was shit. We didn't because he was shit, but now he's come good. You win some you lose some.
We're only going to get our best players to be loyal when we start challenging for the league. Why would Walcott sign a new deal with us when we're unlikely to win anything during that new deal??
A deal has been on the table for 18 months. He's just refused to sign it.
It still doesn't make sense. If he wants to leave, he'll leave. If he has to run down his contract, that's what he'll do.
It makes perfect sense. The only way to keep our best players is by offering them big contracts when they're crap and no other top team will touch them with yours. "Sign this £80k pw deal Theo or we're selling you to Stoke next week who'll pay you £30k pw".
It's the only way an unsuccessful club like ours can keep their best players.
We've just done it with the Brit pack. The risk is Ramsey, Gibbs etc never improve. The alternative is what's happened with Theo happening with someone like Ramsey eg we didn't get him to re-sign and he suddenly rediscovers how to play football.
QUOTE=Maestro;238937]Interested to know opinions on here, if you were Theo ..why would you stay and sign on?[/QUOTE]
Basically the same as what cripps said....
5 of the British lads have signed up for long term (so that's basically at least another 3 years). If I were Theo id be thinking Im about to be a leader of one of the top clubs in the world. If I were him id be thinking I can be a legend here, im starting every game, the fans will love me. ...whats not to like??
He said its not about the money. ..it obviously is as he would have signed by now.
Out of the five, imo, Jack and Jenkinson are the ones that love the club and they show it in their performances. I think theo should show his commitment to the club and he'll get his chance to cement his place upfront, we've seen how easy it is to get contracts signed up so ge just needs to sign.
We need a group of players to decide that they want to achieve something together and win the furst trophy for the club in almost a decade. 5 have at least decided to start, no one knows if it will be achievable but if it happens it wont be forgotten....If I were him I'd want to be a part of that.
You don't play him. Join Stoke, sign a new contract or don't get in the squad for the remaining two years of your contract. He'd soon sign, Wenger tried to force him to sign by not playing him this season but it doesn't really work when the player can sign a pre-contract in January.
:doh:
Tbh Grebbo is right.
QUOTE=Grimandi's Perm;239025]:lol: You can't force anyone to sign for another club either. How are you going to sell him to Stoke if he doesn't wanna go there? Silly.[/QUOTE]
No you can't that is true, but you can tell them that that if they don't sign you will freeze them out and basically state it publicly that they are not a part of the clubs longterm plans.
Two years of bench warming for someone like Theo wouldn't of helped him at all, especially as the "no football brain" talk was considered fact back then.
The club stuck with him and yes maybe he has wanted to play upfront for some time but hes now getting the chance.
I think a lot of people have taken Theo for some soft kid and now he's not having it anymore and now he's in a position to take his time with whatever decision he wants to make.
Had, 18 months ago, we said sign or we're selling you, yes maybe we'd have lost him earlier but at least we'd be in a position of power.
Wenger is a truly soft touch and Theo has taken advantage of that.
Tbh he could because he's right.
:scarf:
No you can't that is true, but you can tell them that that if they don't sign you will freeze them out and basically state it publicly that they are not a part of the clubs longterm plans.
Two years of bench warming for someone like Theo wouldn't of helped him at all, especially as the "no football brain" talk was considered fact back then.
The club stuck with him and yes maybe he has wanted to play upfront for some time but hes now getting the chance.
I think a lot of people have taken Theo for some soft kid and now he's not having it anymore and now he's in a position to take his time with whatever decision he wants to make.
Had, 18 months ago, we said sign or we're selling you, yes maybe we'd have lost him earlier but at least we'd be in a position of power.
Wenger is a truly soft touch and Theo has taken advantage of that.[/QUOTE]
Name one example of a high-profile player being frozen out for a long period of time.
The question you should be asking is - how many high profile players walk out on a free? We're a special case so there won't by any empirical evidence to look at. The closest situations I can remember is Gareth Bale but somehow Tottenham got him to sign anyway.
Every other club seems to either sell in time or pay their players what they want. But we dont operate like that. It has happened a few times before where we've let the contracts of key players go down to a year. When you operate like we do, alarm bells have to be ringing when there are 2 years left. You sell at any cost or you give the player what you want. Failing that, you bully them into signing. You can't play hard ball when there's 6 months left because the player holds all the power. When he has 2 years left that's the time to freeze them out. Wenger had the right idea but just did it too late.
Obviously we all prefer to sort ourselves out and start paying players more, but if we're going to operate in a retarded way, grebbo's plan is the best plan out of the other retarded plans available.
Syn has had a shocker and clearly needs to stop drinking and/or doing meth.
Just because it has never got to such a stage where it's been made public that a high profile player has been threatened with being frozen out doesn't mean clubs haven't implied that would be the case if they didn't sign.
High profile players don't get frozen out for long periods because most clubs agree terms with the player or with the buying club before it gets to a stage of many months on the bench for said player....the reason for this??? It's because they are a high profile.
We are repeat offenders when it comes to letting our top asset get to the last year of their contract. Wenger won't let it happen anymore after Theo hence the Brit pack being signed together, koz and verm extending also. Arteta and mertz are stop gaps and cazorla could move on at the end of his contract but we've secured the majority of our guys.
I expect speculation every season but as supporters you just want your best players to have enough years on their contract for the club to be in a position of power and not in positions we have with theo and have had with nasri and rvc.
Yep, this.The fault lies with Arsenal and we are pretty unique in the sense that we let our stars run down their contracts, does this happen at Man United or Spurs? No it doesn't, you either pay the player the market rate or you lose...in our case we're losing.
We've been relatively lucky in the case of "Nasri", not so much with "RVP", but whatever we could have got for him wouldn't have made a difference because we wouldn't have spent it sufficiently.We're totally and utterly screwed with Theo, we either lose a 20mill + player on the cheap or more embarrassingly lose him for nothing.You have people like Gazidis, PHW & Arsene boasting about the club being financially prudent and sufficiently run yet we have "marketable" star players walking away for next to nothing and a bench full of flops who command circa 70k per week.Truly laughable, our business model sucks.
I agree with this to be honest, the players we've re-signed (whilst I'm not sure some of them will be any good at all) have signed at a time when they really have no other better options so they're only too keen to sign up.
One good season and their stock goes right up and we're not at the races anymore, some people don't seem to understand that unless we're competing for stuff no player who has any ambitions will want to stick around, especially when clubs with ambitions of success are showing an interest.
Cheers Geoffrey.Quote:
Geoff Arsenal @GeoffArsenalAW to offer Theo a long term deal that makes him the clear highest earner at AFC plus a signing on fee of £4-5m.
Ah but you can't have it both ways. Because we're not challenging for the league our best players will naturally want to leave. If you let them run down their contract they will leave. They'd be fools not to. Arsenal is in terminal decline.
However, the one hope you've got of keeping star players is to sign the 'future' star players on long term contracts. This is risky because you end up paying Ramsey and Gibbs £60k pw and at the moment they're a bit shit. But Wenger does have a gift of spotting young talent so history has told us that most of these young talents will come good. Some will also remain shit and you're stuck with them on £60k pw and that's the risk of this strategy.
The bench full of flops on £70k pw could have been/could be star players.
Man U only keep their star players because they're the best team in England. They'd soon leave if they went 8 years without winning anything. Spurs must have offered Bale a get out if he re-signed for them, like they did with Modric.
The mystery for me is how on earth did Liverpool get Suarez to re-sign??!!
He must have a gentleman's agreement he can leave if he wants otherwise it's a mystery given how shit Liverpool are and how good he is.
:gp:
When Rooney started making noise, Utd had to pay up because they couldn't afford to lose Rooney after losing Ronaldo. They signed him up quickly. But they have RVP now and let's see if Rooney runs his mouth again. Isn't Nani stalling on signing a contract and he's been frozen out?
We're pinned to a corner and if it's about money it makes no sense to lose him on a free. The difference between £75k and £100k is minor, a few million in a year. That won't break us. Losing another key player, that will reopen some old wounds and get a few more players questioning the clubs ambition and logic.
Paying over inflated prices for young players is silly in my opinion, especially for the British core. As I read somewhere else, players like Jenkinson and Jack would probably be happy playing for Arsenal even if they were on the dole. They'd play for peanuts. Young players in general will play for peanuts and just want the chance to play in the first team. It would make more sense to keep them on low wages for as long as possible until they have shown thy are worth the money. It shouldn't be based on potential and it's misguided thinking it protects us from poacher clubs.
If City, Chelsea etc wanted to offer Jack a massive contract we wouldn't be able to compete with that offer. They can easily trump £85k a week if they wanted to. In essence what we're doing is pay over the odds for 2/3 years when a player is still developing. It doesn't make sense to me and this isn't true loyalty if we're already rewarding players with cash incentives when they haven't even paid their dues on the pitch. If these players were to really hit the heights, the top clubs would be offering way more than their current deals and the only way to stop them from leaving is to match the offer or offer something competitive at least. This preemptive strike thing we have going on is silly. We're just fattening up our wage bill and when one the vultures come circling for new talent we have nothing left in the pot to give because we've needlessly blown millions on potential.