Village Idiot Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 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. Try four times that... (Suppose you mistook me for one of the resident NUFC fans) But yeah, that's huge for Arsenal given their current standing in world football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 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. Koscielny's looked rather crap this season tbh. Mertesacker much improved over last year though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 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. Disagree. He's not a top-class defender and I wasn't implying he should be paid that level of money, hence the "maybe". However he's someone I'd be more willing to see as a key player for them than Walcott. Ultimately Wilshere is Arsenal's future. Build around him. Don't get the hype, if there is any as such, about Koscielny. He was awful when he first came, he has certainly improved but "improved" doesn't mean he's suddenly a very good defender. Vermaelen is better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 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. Try four times that... (Suppose you mistook me for one of the resident NUFC fans) But yeah, that's huge for Arsenal given their current standing in world football. Sorry, forgot who I was replying to there... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Brek Shea off to Stoke. Can he hoof it? I wonder how much hangtime he can get on that soccer ball. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 wat. Where's this from? Edit: I see Twellman said it. Interesting, just last night I was thinking about a potential move for him. Not sure he's good enough, tbh, but it could work out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 My brother-in-law is a season ticket holder at Arsenal and doesn't rate Wallcott at all, he says he is frustratingly inconsistent and extremely poor with the ball. To me, whenever I watch him, I just see a dangerous and quite effective player, someone who is never great but always capable of something good. Arsenal fans are spoilt in my opinion. Wallcott is a very good Premier League player, easily. Not worth the apparent 100K a week of course but he is one of their better players. I'd have him here in a shot. To be fair to him, he has been messed around by Wenger in regards to position and starts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Brek Shea off to Stoke. Can he hoof it? I wonder how much hangtime he can get on that soccer ball. Not really sure if he's ready for the jump. Lackluster this past season. Not sure if Stoke is a great fit either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Isn't Brek Shea fairly skinny and lightweight? He's gonna enjoy training with those cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Brek Shea off to Stoke. Can he hoof it? I wonder how much hangtime he can get on that soccer ball. I hope this is a lie. He's a fancy pants skill player in the Cristiano Ronaldo mould. But a lot shitter, and not massively skilful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Isn't Brek Shea fairly skinny and lightweight? He's gonna enjoy training with those cunts. He's pretty tall for a dancy player. Like Cristiano Ronaldo I say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Wiki says 6ft 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 What the fuck kind of name is that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Brek is a proper working mans name, you wouldn't see many Brek's in GosFORRRRTH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Isn't Brek Shea fairly skinny and lightweight? He's gonna enjoy training with those cunts. He's pretty tall for a dancy player. Like Cristiano Ronaldo I say. I know he's tall but I remember reading he was massively weak as piss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I don't think the physical side will be an issue, could've used a move to France or somewhere similar first just because I'm not sure he's good enough. Could turn into a decent player though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Isn't Brek Shea fairly skinny and lightweight? He's gonna enjoy training with those cunts. He's pretty tall for a dancy player. Like Cristiano Ronaldo I say. I know he's tall but I remember reading he was massively weak as piss. Well he's not a bull by any means. He's got plenty of talent, just still very raw. Could see him very easily wasting away on the bench at Stoke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Twellman says he wouldn't be surprised if he's used at LB. Twellman is an idiot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Isn't Brek Shea fairly skinny and lightweight? He's gonna enjoy training with those cunts. He's pretty tall for a dancy player. Like Cristiano Ronaldo I say. I know he's tall but I remember reading he was massively weak as piss. Well he's not a bull by any means. He's got plenty of talent, just still very raw. Could see him very easily wasting away on the bench at Stoke. He and Michael Kightly will become good friends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 He got his start at LB actually. Might've been a good wingback at one point, but no way Stoke will play him there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Miguel Piñero Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 But Pulis hates players with skill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 My brother-in-law is a season ticket holder at Arsenal and doesn't rate Wallcott at all, he says he is frustratingly inconsistent and extremely poor with the ball. To me, whenever I watch him, I just see a dangerous and quite effective player, someone who is never great but always capable of something good. Arsenal fans are spoilt in my opinion. Wallcott is a very good Premier League player, easily. Not worth the apparent 100K a week of course but he is one of their better players. I'd have him here in a shot. To be fair to him, he has been messed around by Wenger in regards to position and starts. We'd have loved to take him off their hands. Imagine if you're chasing a game and you have Bale, Walcott and Lennon behind Adebayor or Defoe. Up against, say, Williamson. Terrifying. Of course, I'm not convinced Walcott and Lennon have a football brain between them, but still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 He got his start at LB actually. Might've been a good wingback at one point, but no way Stoke will play him there. Yeah but Stoke play with four CB's across the backline, don't think he'd fit in there at LB at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Isn't Brek Shea fairly skinny and lightweight? He's gonna enjoy training with those cunts. He's pretty tall for a dancy player. Like Cristiano Ronaldo I say. I know he's tall but I remember reading he was massively weak as piss. Well he's not a bull by any means. He's got plenty of talent, just still very raw. Could see him very easily wasting away on the bench at Stoke. He and Michael Kightly will become good friends. Speaking of, from his wiki page: "He grew up supporting Manchester United but switched allegiances to Tottenham Hotspur after he realized that he was glory hunting." Because being from Essex and supporting Spurs isn't also glory hunting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 My brother-in-law is a season ticket holder at Arsenal and doesn't rate Wallcott at all, he says he is frustratingly inconsistent and extremely poor with the ball. To me, whenever I watch him, I just see a dangerous and quite effective player, someone who is never great but always capable of something good. Arsenal fans are spoilt in my opinion. Wallcott is a very good Premier League player, easily. Not worth the apparent 100K a week of course but he is one of their better players. I'd have him here in a shot. To be fair to him, he has been messed around by Wenger in regards to position and starts. Walcott hasn't been messed around in terms of position. He's not good enough to play as a lone striker, lets be fair - at least not in a team that wants to challenge for major honours. Media seem to go on like he's Ian Wright or Lineker, which is how good you need to be to succeed as that kind of forward. Wenger had the right idea trying to develop his game. All the young players he signs start out wide, or deeper in midfield before he gives them the the crucial #10 or #9 positions in his team. In Arsenal's current position mind with their striking options it probably is the best option to play him there, but that's more an indicament of the position they are now as a club and a squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts