What now for Walcott?

[Xhaka Can’t]

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.

I understand the logic of what you are saying. However if we were to offer him a contract in excess of his worth we would find it very difficult to transfer him to other Clubs.

This is why we have so Many players we no longer want, out on loan.

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2

[Syn]

I'm happy with the sub-role he's playing at the moment. Theo is a kebab that'll save the day on a night out but you don't want it as a main meal. You want grease as the main dish. I don't think Theo can play in a team that tries to play pretty football. 'Try' being the operative word but we are looking a bit sexier than we have in previous seasons. The couple of new replacements have given us more shape. We're filling out a bit better these days no doubt. Gervinho is a bit gay but his close control has always been more solid. Ultimately though, when it comes to finishing, Gervinho is not even in the same league as Theo. But when you are trying to walk it in, it's less of a problem.

[Marc Overmars]

I don't think we'd have a shortage of takers for Theo, he's got a much higher profile than some of the shit we're stuck with like Denilson and Bendtner. This is why I would personally give him the contract he wants because he will still have a sell on value.

[Power n Glory]

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.

Selling him in January and hoping to get a replacement is still a silly decision. For starters, we won't find many clubs willing to pay over £10m for a cup tied player with less than a year left on his contract. I don't even think City or United are that stupid and those guys don't need him. We'll be lucky to get £10m for him. In fact, we'll be luckily to get any bids because everyone will know that he can sign a agreement with them in January and then move in the summer for free.

As for getting a replacement that's better. Will they be able to adapt with no pre season training and jump straight into our squad? Can we find anyone that won't be cup tied and has the right quality? Talking of quality, the type of player we're looking for will probably cost us £10m+, will take home a minimum of £50k a week…when you weigh that all up, we might as well just give Theo the money. As said, we'll be lucky to get over £10m for him and then it makes no sense to go out and then spend that money plus extra on a player that won't be ready until next season.

[selassie]

I don't think we'd have a shortage of takers for Theo, he's got a much higher profile than some of the shit we're stuck with like Denilson and Bendtner. This is why I would personally give him the contract he wants because he will still have a sell on value.

I agree but...I don't think the likes of Chelsea or City or even Liverpool will move mountains for him if he extends his contract on a 100K per wage. Hypothetically, Theo on a 2 or 3 year contract is probably worth 20-25mill given English tax and all that, at present with his contract running down he's worth what 10mill which is relatively loose change and the going rate for a sub/squad player at either Chelsea or City.

I don't for one minute think either Chelsea or City would be prepared to pay a premium for essentially another "English Mascot" to fill there quota so IMHO Theo either gets sold now as in the January window or he stays long term.

I do see both sides to this argument but ultimately Theo is being very badly advised IMHO, if he makes the wrong move it could wreck his career.

[Power n Glory]

I agree but...I don't think the likes of Chelsea or City or even Liverpool will move mountains for him if he extends his contract on a 100K per wage. Hypothetically, Theo on a 2 or 3 year contract is probably worth 20-25mill given English tax and all that, at present with his contract running down he's worth what 10mill which is relatively loose change and the going rate for a sub/squad player at either Chelsea or City.

I don't for one minute think either Chelsea or City would be prepared to pay a premium for essentially another "English Mascot" to fill there quota so IMHO Theo either gets sold now as in the January window or he stays long term.

I do see both sides to this argument but ultimately Theo is being very badly advised IMHO, if he makes the wrong move it could wreck his career.

His career isn't looking too hot while here with Arsenal. I think he's fucked either way.

[Niall_Quinn]

Selling him in January and hoping to get a replacement is still a silly decision. For starters, we won't find many clubs willing to pay over £10m for a cup tied player with less than a year left on his contract. I don't even think City or United are that stupid and those guys don't need him. We'll be lucky to get £10m for him. In fact, we'll be luckily to get any bids because everyone will know that he can sign a agreement with them in January and then move in the summer for free.

As for getting a replacement that's better. Will they be able to adapt with no pre season training and jump straight into our squad? Can we find anyone that won't be cup tied and has the right quality? Talking of quality, the type of player we're looking for will probably cost us £10m+, will take home a minimum of £50k a week…when you weigh that all up, we might as well just give Theo the money. As said, we'll be lucky to get over £10m for him and then it makes no sense to go out and then spend that money plus extra on a player that won't be ready until next season.

Whether a silly decision or not, you won't see our board letting him walk on a free. The price touted in this windows was £11mill so I can't see it being more than half that in January, but they'll want the cash anyway. A player swap is another possibility, under those terms City and Chelsea might be back in the picture but Walcott would be an absolute fool to go to either place if he's serious about his career. I agree, he's fucked either way. Somebody has advised him he has enough stock to play this game, but he doesn't. His best move would be to sack his agent and denounce his parents. It's awful when grubby outsiders who can't do the job themselves exploit somebody who can - especially if it's the parents FFS! Anelka again, except Anelka was much more talented and so in a much better situation than Walcott. Perhaps his best move would be to knuckle down and add some consistency to his game. Then he'd start accumulating the power he mistakenly thinks he already has. I don't know what the fans in general think but a lot of people here couldn't seem to give a shit either way if he goes or stays, myself included. That says a lot about the true worth of Walcott. He'd be smart to pay attention.

[Niall_Quinn]

His career isn't looking too hot while here with Arsenal. I think he's fucked either way.

His career at Arsenal has put him in the national team and seen him on the European stage year after year. He's had the stage, he just hasn't lived up to the billing. Isn't this the real truth about Theo Walcott?

[SayNoMore]

Not Theos biggest fan, but he really is an asset that we cant afford to 'gift' to any premier league team. Keep him or shift him abroad. If he stays in england he stays at arsenal, will be a huge mistake to sell him to a team that will play to his strengths.

[GP]

His career isn't looking too hot while here with Arsenal.

It'll be as hot as he's willing to make it, regardless of where he's playing.