Summer Transfer Speculation and Shit.

[Power n Glory]

It's rarely about how much skill you have.

It's about how you apply those skills in a match situation.

Theo uses his best ones (movement, off-the-ball runs, finishing, crossing and PACE) more effectively than most others do on the pitch. He is always going to be a frustrating player, but even when he's missing sitters, he's in the right position to miss them. Oxlade is just as frustrating, despite having more to his game. He makes stupid decisions and doesn't always use his attributes in the correct way. The need to put Theo up against Ox and others like Gnabry (who we shouldn't make any definitive judgements on at this stage of his career anyway) is silly. Why can't we use both and have a competitive squad to cope with four competitions a season and the usual 658 injuries?

Taarabt and Quaresma are more skillful than Walcott. Would you rather have them in the team too?

Falcao and Balotelli are more gifted than Giroud. Would you play them ahead of a player like Bif who improves season-on-season by getting the maximum out of his game by doing the right things in the right areas?

That's a good response to that sort of post.

[Master Splinter]

The Premier League and Champions League are hardly pointless. You think it's a coincidence that he froze out Walcott at this point and introduces an unheard of teen and announces that this kid has the potential to be a top player? That he's similar to Ox and Walcott and may be ready for first team action? There was no reason for Theo not to be starting games and for Wenger to introduce an unknown. He was talking as if Serge was ready that very season.

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-arc...eam-this-year-

He made a substitute appearance each in the PL, CL and League Cup and one start in the League Cup. So 1 start and 3 sub appearances.

That's less threatening than an Ozil penalty kick.

As I said, it's all fluff. Wenger and the website are hardly worth taking notice of.

[Marc Overmars]

It's rarely about how much skill you have.

It's about how you apply those skills in a match situation.

Theo uses his best ones (movement, off-the-ball runs, finishing, crossing and PACE) more effectively than most others do on the pitch. He is always going to be a frustrating player, but even when he's missing sitters, he's in the right position to miss them. Oxlade is just as frustrating, despite having more to his game. He makes stupid decisions and doesn't always use his attributes in the correct way. The need to put Theo up against Ox and others like Gnabry (who we shouldn't make any definitive judgements on at this stage of his career anyway) is silly. Why can't we use both and have a competitive squad to cope with four competitions a season and the usual 658 injuries?

Taarabt and Quaresma are more skillful than Walcott. Would you rather have them in the team too?

Falcao and Balotelli are more gifted than Giroud. Would you play them ahead of a player like Bif who improves season-on-season by getting the maximum out of his game by doing the right things in the right areas?

This post needs to be framed and shown to anyone who is blaise about Theo's ability and worth to the squad.

[Power n Glory]

He made a substitute appearance each in the PL, CL and League Cup and one start in the League Cup. So 1 start and 3 sub appearances.

That's less threatening than an Ozil penalty kick.

As I said, it's all fluff. Wenger and the website are hardly worth taking notice of.

I'd agree if none of it coincided with Walcott being frozen out of the squad because of his contract talks.

You say it's fluff now, but not so long ago you didn't see the connection and thought Serge made his debut last season.

Wenger said himself that he could have been ready for first team football that season and from what I remember, he wasn't ready and didn't feature again. You don't think that's odd? He gets a brief run in the team but once Theo's deal is sorted he's back down to the youth team. Think about it.

It's only because Theo has been frozen out of the team again that I'm bringing this whole saga up again. Wenger found it difficult to keep Theo benched at that time. Now that we have more competition for places, Wenger can flex his muscle and freeze him out. We're not struggling for goals and we're on a run. Fans aren't calling for Theo to 'sign da ting' and are more comfortable with letting him go this time.

I find it funny how some on here never take Wenger at face value with some of his comments, especially when he follows it up with action. He's always looking for internal solutions to problems before going outside. We should all know that by now. Example, when he's talking up Sanogo in the press and testing him out in games just as we're approaching a transfer window, he's really thinking about starting a young, inexperienced player instead of buying in the window. When you see him start Monreal as CB and then talk about a lack of CB options in the market...worry because he's really contemplating playing Monreal, as we've just seen this season. He's not just talking fluff and it's worth paying attention.

[fakeyank]

It's rarely about how much skill you have.

It's about how you apply those skills in a match situation.

Theo uses his best ones (movement, off-the-ball runs, finishing, crossing and PACE) more effectively than most others do on the pitch. He is always going to be a frustrating player, but even when he's missing sitters, he's in the right position to miss them. Oxlade is just as frustrating, despite having more to his game. He makes stupid decisions and doesn't always use his attributes in the correct way. The need to put Theo up against Ox and others like Gnabry (who we shouldn't make any definitive judgements on at this stage of his career anyway) is silly. Why can't we use both and have a competitive squad to cope with four competitions a season and the usual 658 injuries?

Taarabt and Quaresma are more skillful than Walcott. Would you rather have them in the team too?

Falcao and Balotelli are more gifted than Giroud. Would you play them ahead of a player like Bif who improves season-on-season by getting the maximum out of his game by doing the right things in the right areas?

I am not sure what you mean when you say Theo's best attribute is finishing. On his good days (which are very few), he may be good but on most days, he couldnt hit a barn door with his finishing. Again, in my previous post, I never mentioned that we should just offload Theo.. I'm saying if he is going to put his foot down and ask for an increase in his pay, then we do not need to shed a tear. He is not a special player and at his age, I dont think many will hold their breath for him to turn it around.

If Taraabt, Quaresma and Walcott were all available and did not play for Arsenal before, I would absolutely pick them over Walcott. At this point, Theo knows our style, has been at Arsenal for almost a decade, so he obviously scores higher than them.

Same goes for Falcao and Balotelli. IF they were available the same time Giroud was available in 2011, I'd have picked them over him. You are comparing a player who knows our system with players who have never played with us. Besides in the case of Giroud, this man has performed, stayed fit and hardly ever made news for holding the club to ransom.

I'll say it again.. I'd rather we keep him here, but if he and his advisers want to get a pay rise, he can leave tomorrow. In terms of promise, I'd rather the club invested in Ox and Gnabry than chase a person who is motivated by money.

[Özim]

I'd take Falcoa over Giroud any day of the week, you'd be mad not to, hasn't settled at Man U but he's a great finisher no question.

As for Walcott, highly overrated, in 10 years he's managed one decent season, plenty of players have done that, indeed someone mentioned Kane being a one season wonder until he does it next season, Walcott is just that and has had plenty of chances to prove otherwise and in my book has failed. Came here as the next big thing turned out he wasn't, could have signed Bale instead and what a mistake it was not to.

Wenger has made some great signings, but Walcott certainly isn't one of them, he's nothing special and his finishing really isn't all that either, when he has a good game it's good but at other times it's average and what's more he's anonymous. He's at an age now where he should have proven his worth given how long he's been with us, truth is he really hasn't, make all the excuses you like but that's a fact and I wouldn't shed a tear if he left and wouldn't worry in the least about facing him either.

[Zerlathon]

I'd take Falcoa over Giroud any day of the week, you'd be mad not to, hasn't settled at Man U but he's a great finisher no question.

As for Walcott, highly overrated, in 10 years he's managed one decent season, plenty of players have done that, indeed someone mentioned Kane being a one season wonder until he does it next season, Walcott is just that and has had plenty of chances to prove otherwise and in my book has failed. Came here as the next big thing turned out he wasn't, could have signed Bale instead and what a mistake it was not to.

Wenger has made some great signings, but Walcott certainly isn't one of them, he's nothing special and his finishing really isn't all that either, when he has a good game it's good but at other times it's average and what's more he's anonymous. He's at an age now where he should have proven his worth given how long he's been with us, truth is he really hasn't, make all the excuses you like but that's a fact and I wouldn't shed a tear if he left and wouldn't worry in the least about facing him either.

I'm not so sure on the Falcoa>Giroud idea, we can only really base opinions on present form and on that basis I would take Giroud over Falcoa any day of the week.

Walcott is an odd one for me, he shows moments of brilliance, but at the same time (and unfortunately the majority of the time) he is pretty average. In all honesty, his prior contract negotiations were at a point where we were in need of him in terms of squad numbers. This game him the opportunity to barter a wage that I really do not think someone of his calibre deserves.

So in general:

Do I want to keep Walcott? Well to be honest, yes.
Do you think he deserves a pay rise? Not at all!

[Niall_Quinn]

Do I want to keep Walcott? Well to be honest, yes.
Do you think he deserves a pay rise? Not at all!

Modern world, modern game. People don't get paid what they deserve they get paid in relation to what others have managed to wrangle before them. So every excessive deal in gypo or chavland has a knock on effect elsewhere. Even mediocre players are getting paid silly amounts now. Whatever the players and their grubby agents pretend, it's all about greed and excess and all without loyalty and gratitude. This is the real definition of "professionalism" in the modern world. You can behave like an utter fuck and it's okay because it's the professional thing to do.

Among fans, the lowest rung of football hell is reserved for the plastic. The guy who cheers for Club A one minute and then switches allegiance when Club B rises to prominence. Nobody takes that guy seriously. Everyone laughs at that guy. These aren't real fans, they are hangers-on who abuse the game because they can. The can afford the ticket when swathes of genuine fans can't. Fortunately these types are few and far between because the typical fan still recalls how to be a fan.

The same can't be said of the part-time, fair weather "fans" that are privileged enough to be playing the game. Most of the players are leeches with zero connection to the game. They have found a way in and a way to exploit and they have no appreciation whatsoever of the tribal nature of the sport - because they are "professional". We don't reserve the lowest run of hell for these bastards except in the odd case where the betrayal runs deep. Sol Campbell, Robin van Judas, Wayne Rooney if he'd have got his way.

Some will say it's money, it's a career, it's putting food on the table and you can't be sentimental about these things. But this argument has no perspective. When the fans pay for a ticket that's about money too, a significant portion of their livelihood. Fans aren't forced to be fans but neither are players so restrained. If money is all they care for then they should become vulture bankers and be done with it. But they prey on sport instead because it's easier given their talents, talents which are significantly on the wane since money became the key factor by the way.

I don't buy for a second the idea loyalty and tribe becomes insignificant or can legitimately be used as a bargaining chip simply because financial dopers down the road can pay a bigger fortune than the one you already enjoy. £100k per week or £200k per week, what's the real difference other than material excess? You can throw the "ambition" thing out the window, that's never been a valid argument. Loyalty and ambition are a great combination and some of the best stories in sport are tales of loyalty being rewarded. We hate the Gerrard story because he's not our tribe, but I'm thinking the Liverpool fans would love to see that loyalty rewarded (slightly tarnished loyalty when viewed in the cold light but impressive enough when taken in comparison to your usual player).

Tony Adams scoring that goal against Everton, Henry scoring that goal in the FA Cup. You have to go beyond the contract negotiations and the "professionalism" of money to ever achieve those moments.

So when Walcott and Arsenal sit down I hope there's more to it than cash and terms. I fear there won't be but if you are riding off on your shield having fun with the spud's tribe having contributed to defeating them then if that moment means anything at all the two parties will reach a compromise and Walcott will continue to play for Arsenal for the right reasons. Arsenal will have to give a little to acknowledge the hopelessness of the modern environment, Walcott will have to demonstrate a desire to be here for more than the cheque. This could all be achieved without agents, such a shame these vile bastards are permitted to foul the game.

Personally I think Walcott will be kissing a different badge next season. A shame. I WILL NOT under any circumstances understand of accept that decision if it turns out that way because it would be wrong to accept it. Theo isn't a kid looking for his big break any more. He made his way up the ranks and chose his club, hopefully for the right reasons. If he sticks then good for him, if he goes then fuck him. Whatever happens, 99.9% of the fans will stay like we always do. We give, they take. The ones who give a bit back are the real legends. Matt Le Tiss still gets the piss taken out of him for "blowing his career" with Southampton. For me he's the epitome of what football should be about.

[Power n Glory]

Modern world, modern game. People don't get paid what they deserve they get paid in relation to what others have managed to wrangle before them. So every excessive deal in gypo or chavland has a knock on effect elsewhere. Even mediocre players are getting paid silly amounts now. Whatever the players and their grubby agents pretend, it's all about greed and excess and all without loyalty and gratitude. This is the real definition of "professionalism" in the modern world. You can behave like an utter fuck and it's okay because it's the professional thing to do.

Among fans, the lowest rung of football hell is reserved for the plastic. The guy who cheers for Club A one minute and then switches allegiance when Club B rises to prominence. Nobody takes that guy seriously. Everyone laughs at that guy. These aren't real fans, they are hangers-on who abuse the game because they can. The can afford the ticket when swathes of genuine fans can't. Fortunately these types are few and far between because the typical fan still recalls how to be a fan.

The same can't be said of the part-time, fair weather "fans" that are privileged enough to be playing the game. Most of the players are leeches with zero connection to the game. They have found a way in and a way to exploit and they have no appreciation whatsoever of the tribal nature of the sport - because they are "professional". We don't reserve the lowest run of hell for these bastards except in the odd case where the betrayal runs deep. Sol Campbell, Robin van Judas, Wayne Rooney if he'd have got his way.

Some will say it's money, it's a career, it's putting food on the table and you can't be sentimental about these things. But this argument has no perspective. When the fans pay for a ticket that's about money too, a significant portion of their livelihood. Fans aren't forced to be fans but neither are players so restrained. If money is all they care for then they should become vulture bankers and be done with it. But they prey on sport instead because it's easier given their talents, talents which are significantly on the wane since money became the key factor by the way.

I don't buy for a second the idea loyalty and tribe becomes insignificant or can legitimately be used as a bargaining chip simply because financial dopers down the road can pay a bigger fortune than the one you already enjoy. £100k per week or £200k per week, what's the real difference other than material excess? You can throw the "ambition" thing out the window, that's never been a valid argument. Loyalty and ambition are a great combination and some of the best stories in sport are tales of loyalty being rewarded. We hate the Gerrard story because he's not our tribe, but I'm thinking the Liverpool fans would love to see that loyalty rewarded (slightly tarnished loyalty when viewed in the cold light but impressive enough when taken in comparison to your usual player).

Tony Adams scoring that goal against Everton, Henry scoring that goal in the FA Cup. You have to go beyond the contract negotiations and the "professionalism" of money to ever achieve those moments.

So when Walcott and Arsenal sit down I hope there's more to it than cash and terms. I fear there won't be but if you are riding off on your shield having fun with the spud's tribe having contributed to defeating them then if that moment means anything at all the two parties will reach a compromise and Walcott will continue to play for Arsenal for the right reasons. Arsenal will have to give a little to acknowledge the hopelessness of the modern environment, Walcott will have to demonstrate a desire to be here for more than the cheque. This could all be achieved without agents, such a shame these vile bastards are permitted to foul the game.

Personally I think Walcott will be kissing a different badge next season. A shame. I WILL NOT under any circumstances understand of accept that decision if it turns out that way because it would be wrong to accept it. Theo isn't a kid looking for his big break any more. He made his way up the ranks and chose his club, hopefully for the right reasons. If he sticks then good for him, if he goes then fuck him. Whatever happens, 99.9% of the fans will stay like we always do. We give, they take. The ones who give a bit back are the real legends. Matt Le Tiss still gets the piss taken out of him for "blowing his career" with Southampton. For me he's the epitome of what football should be about.

I understand what you’re saying but I’m having a real problem with the whole set up of the game these days. The players get far too much attention and it’s just too easy to throw them under the bus. There is an obscene amount of money being thrown about in football. The TV rights money, sponsorship, season ticket prices, transfer fees… it’s boarding on disgusting and prices keep going up each year. The guys paying these player wages are raking it in and stay anonymous for most parts. Football is run by vultures that have no compassion for the game but the player is the one that takes most of the brunt when we talking about greed in the game.

I have no idea what it’s like to be a footballer or live that lifestyle, but I can imagine them asking themselves why they should be the one to ‘rein it in’ when everyone else around them can run rampant with no restraint. Sponsorship deals and TV right deals continue to rocket, transfer fees keep going up and there has to be some boardroom level execs really having a ball of time with all the money they’re making. So if such a character wants to sit you down and downplay the difference between a £100k and £200k lifestyle, maybe lecture you on how loyalty to the club is important and thinking of the fans, you just can’t take them seriously. Why should you? It’s the principle.

I have no idea how Wenger’s contract talks went or why they took long to put pen to paper but the double standards in football ensure that sort of thing doesn’t go to the press. I think it’s bad that he’s talking so openly to the press about Theo’s contact, something that should be private and this is the same man that brought in the 30+ contract policy which goes against rewarding loyalty. That’s just one example of the double standards and contradictions in football. I just hope one day viewing figures and match day attendance numbers plummet hard enough to give some of these guys a real reality check.

[Zerlathon]

Modern world, modern game. People don't get paid what they deserve they get paid in relation to what others have managed to wrangle before them. So every excessive deal in gypo or chavland has a knock on effect elsewhere. Even mediocre players are getting paid silly amounts now. Whatever the players and their grubby agents pretend, it's all about greed and excess and all without loyalty and gratitude. This is the real definition of "professionalism" in the modern world. You can behave like an utter fuck and it's okay because it's the professional thing to do.

Among fans, the lowest rung of football hell is reserved for the plastic. The guy who cheers for Club A one minute and then switches allegiance when Club B rises to prominence. Nobody takes that guy seriously. Everyone laughs at that guy. These aren't real fans, they are hangers-on who abuse the game because they can. The can afford the ticket when swathes of genuine fans can't. Fortunately these types are few and far between because the typical fan still recalls how to be a fan.

The same can't be said of the part-time, fair weather "fans" that are privileged enough to be playing the game. Most of the players are leeches with zero connection to the game. They have found a way in and a way to exploit and they have no appreciation whatsoever of the tribal nature of the sport - because they are "professional". We don't reserve the lowest run of hell for these bastards except in the odd case where the betrayal runs deep. Sol Campbell, Robin van Judas, Wayne Rooney if he'd have got his way.

Some will say it's money, it's a career, it's putting food on the table and you can't be sentimental about these things. But this argument has no perspective. When the fans pay for a ticket that's about money too, a significant portion of their livelihood. Fans aren't forced to be fans but neither are players so restrained. If money is all they care for then they should become vulture bankers and be done with it. But they prey on sport instead because it's easier given their talents, talents which are significantly on the wane since money became the key factor by the way.

I don't buy for a second the idea loyalty and tribe becomes insignificant or can legitimately be used as a bargaining chip simply because financial dopers down the road can pay a bigger fortune than the one you already enjoy. £100k per week or £200k per week, what's the real difference other than material excess? You can throw the "ambition" thing out the window, that's never been a valid argument. Loyalty and ambition are a great combination and some of the best stories in sport are tales of loyalty being rewarded. We hate the Gerrard story because he's not our tribe, but I'm thinking the Liverpool fans would love to see that loyalty rewarded (slightly tarnished loyalty when viewed in the cold light but impressive enough when taken in comparison to your usual player).

Tony Adams scoring that goal against Everton, Henry scoring that goal in the FA Cup. You have to go beyond the contract negotiations and the "professionalism" of money to ever achieve those moments.

So when Walcott and Arsenal sit down I hope there's more to it than cash and terms. I fear there won't be but if you are riding off on your shield having fun with the spud's tribe having contributed to defeating them then if that moment means anything at all the two parties will reach a compromise and Walcott will continue to play for Arsenal for the right reasons. Arsenal will have to give a little to acknowledge the hopelessness of the modern environment, Walcott will have to demonstrate a desire to be here for more than the cheque. This could all be achieved without agents, such a shame these vile bastards are permitted to foul the game.

Personally I think Walcott will be kissing a different badge next season. A shame. I WILL NOT under any circumstances understand of accept that decision if it turns out that way because it would be wrong to accept it. Theo isn't a kid looking for his big break any more. He made his way up the ranks and chose his club, hopefully for the right reasons. If he sticks then good for him, if he goes then fuck him. Whatever happens, 99.9% of the fans will stay like we always do. We give, they take. The ones who give a bit back are the real legends. Matt Le Tiss still gets the piss taken out of him for "blowing his career" with Southampton. For me he's the epitome of what football should be about.

I completely agree with the sentiment about the modern game. The way I see things, we (as fans) no longer support a Football Club... We are now just punters to the "sporting ventures" of the rich and greedy. Within these ventures you have the contractors all just going through the motions earning their wages. When a better offer comes then they hand their notice in and then go.

This will continue to a problem whilst there is still people willing to pay the high prices demanded for the privilege of watching football.