Other clubs' transfers

[Dokko]

Walcott worth the 100k a week?

 

Absolutely. After them losing so many key players and it looking likely it would happen again, only this time way before his potential is realised, then yeah, for arsenal and their situation Walcott on £100kpw is well worth the money.

 

He's a very good player when he's on fire, he could be a massive player for them in the next 5 years along with Wilshere (and Ox a few years later)

 

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

Nasri is a far better player than Walcott will ever be, imo. That, and he's at the richest club in the world. Walcott's price is OTT.

[ponsaelius]

He's only worth it symbolically as a way of closing the door on exiting players IMO. A good move in that sense.

[Neil]

Walcott worth the 100k a week?

 

Not a chance. That level of money suggests someone you'd build your team around, someone who will lead the way to success.

 

Cazorla, Wilshere, maybe Vermaelen are players Arsenal should build their team around. Not Walcott.

 

Not to say he can't be a very dangerous player, nor that he isn't going to score you goals, but I think he's the archetypal "will play well against poorer opposition" player. Just don't think he's cut out to make his mark regularly against top teams, which is what you'd expect of someone on that sort of wage. Dunno if that's a clichéd observation but that's what has always struck me about him.

 

In that sense it's a big risk giving him that much money as it implies Wenger thinks he will develop into that player. I can't see it, but we'll see.

[Jimburst]

Cheers.

[Dokko]

He's only worth it symbolically as a way of closing the door on exiting players IMO. A good move in that sense.

 

Yeah, they had no choice but to offer him what he wants, I think it would have been the final straw for a few, maybe even Wenger himself.

 

 

[Beren]

I think he is - in terms of making sure they don't continue to be seen as a selling club, so they can keep hold of Wilshere, Santi et al.

 

Also, he's not bad, and pretty young. Needs a bit more consistency to his game, but he's a fine Premiership player.

[Unbelievable]

With the new TV money deal coming into effect next season I'd expect average player wages to increase massively over the next few years. From that perspective 100k for an important first team player at a top Premiership club will be par for the course in the near future I'd expect, as silly as that sounds objectively (100k per week FFS).

[Beren]

Also, the Arsenal fans love Theo. Important to keep them onside.

[NG32]

Also, the Arsenal fans love Theo. Important to keep them onside.

 

Yeah, dont want to wake them up from their slumber.

[Mole_Toonfan]

That's really the whole problem his consistency..... if he was consistent then this wouldn't even being discussed probably.

 

He has 8 goals and 5 assists in 3 games: Coventry, Reading and Newcastle. ( ) and has 6 goals and 4 assists in his other 21 appearances.

 

He has the ability to be worth that sort of money but until now hasn't shown the consistency and i'm not sure he ever will.

 

Anyway time will tell.

[Village Idiot]

With the new TV money deal coming into effect next season I'd expect average player wages to increase massively over the next few years. From that perspective 100k for an important first team player at a top Premiership club will be par for the course in the near future I'd expect, as silly as that sounds objectively (100k per week FFS).

 

I agree with that; it won't be such an impressive figure in the near future, and there's already a bunch of not-really-that-great players earning these amounts.

[Deuce]

To be frank, I'd consider Cazorla or Wilshere more "star" players than Walcott.

 

This. Walcott's not Arsenal's top player. I rate Podolski higher than him too.

[Tiresias]

Cazorla is 10x the player Walcott is, Wilshere is better, Podolski probably and hell even Giroud while struggling to adapt will be a better player, albeit maybe needs different squad around him.

[alexf]

Also, the Arsenal fans love Theo. Important to keep them onside.

 

Every Arsenal fan I know (5) always criticise walcott regularly to me. Soon changed their tune though when they thought he might be staying and after than game against us.

[Tooj]

Wilshere is Arsenal's best player IMO. Mainly because he has more drive than the rest of the team as well as his outstanding ability.

[Tooj]

Walcott worth the 100k a week?

 

Not a chance. That level of money suggests someone you'd build your team around, someone who will lead the way to success.

 

Cazorla, Wilshere, maybe Vermaelen are players Arsenal should build their team around. Not Walcott.

 

Not to say he can't be a very dangerous player, nor that he isn't going to score you goals, but I think he's the archetypal "will play well against poorer opposition" player. Just don't think he's cut out to make his mark regularly against top teams, which is what you'd expect of someone on that sort of wage. Dunno if that's a clichéd observation but that's what has always struck me about him.

 

In that sense it's a big risk giving him that much money as it implies Wenger thinks he will develop into that player. I can't see it, but we'll see.

 

Vermaelen is definitely not worth that amount of money. He's still error prone, liable to lapses in concentration and his on the pitch decision making isn't that great.

[Mole_Toonfan]

Walcott worth the 100k a week?

 

Not a chance. That level of money suggests someone you'd build your team around, someone who will lead the way to success.

 

Cazorla, Wilshere, maybe Vermaelen are players Arsenal should build their team around. Not Walcott.

 

Not to say he can't be a very dangerous player, nor that he isn't going to score you goals, but I think he's the archetypal "will play well against poorer opposition" player. Just don't think he's cut out to make his mark regularly against top teams, which is what you'd expect of someone on that sort of wage. Dunno if that's a clichéd observation but that's what has always struck me about him.

 

In that sense it's a big risk giving him that much money as it implies Wenger thinks he will develop into that player. I can't see it, but we'll see.

 

Vermaelen is definitely not worth that amount of money. He's still error prone, liable to lapses in concentration and his on the pitch decision making isn't that great.

 

 

He shouldn't even be starting for them tbh, Koscielny and Mertesacker are superior defenders.

[Tiresias]

Walcott has been the next big thing for what seems like ages, he's never going to be the next Henry, though to be fair you could prolly look for the next 10 years for the next Henry and not find him (or arguably they had him and he left).

 

To me for ages now Arsenal have struggled due to a lack of quality wide men to back up their usual lone forward. Walcott has never been entirely trusted because he's not actually all that good, he's just quick and can do the occaisional good finish (they tend to come in flurries).

[Village Idiot]

Walcott worth the 100k a week?

 

Not a chance. That level of money suggests someone you'd build your team around, someone who will lead the way to success.

 

Cazorla, Wilshere, maybe Vermaelen are players Arsenal should build their team around. Not Walcott.

 

Not to say he can't be a very dangerous player, nor that he isn't going to score you goals, but I think he's the archetypal "will play well against poorer opposition" player. Just don't think he's cut out to make his mark regularly against top teams, which is what you'd expect of someone on that sort of wage. Dunno if that's a clichéd observation but that's what has always struck me about him.

 

In that sense it's a big risk giving him that much money as it implies Wenger thinks he will develop into that player. I can't see it, but we'll see.

 

Vermaelen is definitely not worth that amount of money. He's still error prone, liable to lapses in concentration and his on the pitch decision making isn't that great.

 

 

He shouldn't even be starting for them tbh, Koscielny and Mertesacker are superior defenders.

 

Arsenal fans love Vermaelen though, because of his forward surges and the fact he scores loads for a CB.

[Mole_Toonfan]

Walcott worth the 100k a week?

 

Not a chance. That level of money suggests someone you'd build your team around, someone who will lead the way to success.

 

Cazorla, Wilshere, maybe Vermaelen are players Arsenal should build their team around. Not Walcott.

 

Not to say he can't be a very dangerous player, nor that he isn't going to score you goals, but I think he's the archetypal "will play well against poorer opposition" player. Just don't think he's cut out to make his mark regularly against top teams, which is what you'd expect of someone on that sort of wage. Dunno if that's a clichéd observation but that's what has always struck me about him.

 

In that sense it's a big risk giving him that much money as it implies Wenger thinks he will develop into that player. I can't see it, but we'll see.

 

Vermaelen is definitely not worth that amount of money. He's still error prone, liable to lapses in concentration and his on the pitch decision making isn't that great.

 

 

He shouldn't even be starting for them tbh, Koscielny and Mertesacker are superior defenders.

 

Arsenal fans love Vermaelen though, because of his forward surges and the fact he scores loads for a CB.

 

Aye true, fortunately i'm not an Arsenal fan and i get to rate him on his defensive ability without any emotional attachment 

 

I agree with what you say mind, but personally would prefer Koscielny and Mertesacker as they are just better at defending.

[Guest Miguel Piñero]

Wilshere is Arsenal's best player IMO. Mainly because he has more drive than the rest of the team as well as his outstanding ability.

Cazorla

[jdckelly]

Walcott worth the 100k a week?

 

Not a chance. That level of money suggests someone you'd build your team around, someone who will lead the way to success.

 

Cazorla, Wilshere, maybe Vermaelen are players Arsenal should build their team around. Not Walcott.

 

Not to say he can't be a very dangerous player, nor that he isn't going to score you goals, but I think he's the archetypal "will play well against poorer opposition" player. Just don't think he's cut out to make his mark regularly against top teams, which is what you'd expect of someone on that sort of wage. Dunno if that's a clichéd observation but that's what has always struck me about him.

 

In that sense it's a big risk giving him that much money as it implies Wenger thinks he will develop into that player. I can't see it, but we'll see.

 

Vermaelen is definitely not worth that amount of money. He's still error prone, liable to lapses in concentration and his on the pitch decision making isn't that great.

 

 

He shouldn't even be starting for them tbh, Koscielny and Mertesacker are superior defenders.

 

Arsenal fans love Vermaelen though, because of his forward surges and the fact he scores loads for a CB.

doesn't make him a good defender though, one of my biggest annoyances in recent times was the british media working out he was a good defender when arrived because he had scored a fair few goals

[Tooj]

Wilshere is Arsenal's best player IMO. Mainly because he has more drive than the rest of the team as well as his outstanding ability.

Cazorla

 

Don't think Cazorla has the character that Wilshere does. I've seen him go missing quite a few times this season. Whereas Wilshere reminds me of Gazza in the respect that even if he is having a bad game he'll still shout for the ball and try and make things happen.

[leffe186]

With the new TV money deal coming into effect next season I'd expect average player wages to increase massively over the next few years. From that perspective 100k for an important first team player at a top Premiership club will be par for the course in the near future I'd expect, as silly as that sounds objectively (100k per week FFS).

 

I agree with that; it won't be such an impressive figure in the near future, and there's already a bunch of not-really-that-great players earning these amounts.

 

Arsenal's wage bill is massive. Of course, so are all the other clubs in that echelon, but their net transfer spend doesn't tell all the story. They spent 143M on wages last year, which is probably more than a million a week more than us. No idea what yours was, but the year before you were at 54M. With all that, 100Kpw isn't really that much of a impressive figure for them already.