• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

£50k p/w For Walcott?

qs

Established Member
Jameel46 said:
1. Walcott hasn't even come close to what Gallas has achieved in his career.

What Gallas has achieved for Chelsea, France and others is irrelevant. He's achieved nothing for us and I'm much more interested in in what Gallas and Walcott will achieve. Clearly Walcott will achieve more in the future.

Jameel46 said:
2. Gallas' importance to the defence (like him or not) is a hell of a lot more than Walcott's importance to the attack.

Not at all. Our attack has been in terrible form since Walcott got injured. When Toure and Djourou partnered up our defence was as good as with Gallas in.

Jameel46 said:
you seriously need to look harder at the comparisons you're making before voicing them.

:lol: Maybe you should look at yours. Gallas has been a negative influence on this club, he's a player in decline. How does that warrant more money than a player who is getting better and better as time goes by. A player Capello called Englands greatest talent.

Maybe you should stop living in the past.
 

RocktheCasbah

Established Member
I don't think Gallas and Walcott is the best comparison, but if people can't see how poor we've been in attack in Walcott's absence, well it's quite startling. That being said, we looked pretty good on Monday night.
 

qs

Established Member
number_0 said:
If people are accepting that he gets 50k I dont see why everyone is so up against ade having 80k

Of course he does. He scored 30 goals last season. People bang on about other teams players, take Rooney for instance, Ade is scores and assists more than Rooney. IMO he's a better player. How many here would say Rooney doesn't deserve £80k a week? By modern Premiership standards Ade is far from, over paid. He is in bad form but he's getting no service.
 

qs

Established Member
RocktheCasbah said:
I don't think Gallas and Walcott is the best comparison, but if people can't see how poor we've been in attack in Walcott's absence, well it's quite startling. That being said, we looked pretty good on Monday night.

Its a comparison of importance and value. Walcott as an asset is worth a hell of alot more than Gallas, we can't lose our assets like that over a few quid.
 

Kain

Established Member
Theo's attitude could take him a long way, hes a very likable player that in itself does not justify a huge wage but it sure helps when your young players can actualy act and be responsible. He came here with the weight of 'the next Theiry Henry!' on his shoulders and could of easily collapsed into complete mediocrity and yet has already shown what a devastating and scary (for the opposition) player he can be. We shouldnt be risking lossing Theo under any circumstances, im almost surprised the figure quoted is not higher.
 

lagos

Established Member
RocktheCasbah said:
I don't think Gallas and Walcott is the best comparison, but if people can't see how poor we've been in attack in Walcott's absence, well it's quite startling. That being said, we looked pretty good on Monday night.

It's not like we can't see, And it's not just Walcott who is absent, when he was around we were still poor, it's just we are now even poorer without him. the absemce of Cesc doesn't help either. There is nothing creative about Song, Denilson and Eboue, so we are always going to look poor. If those 3 are the standard by which we judge midfield creativity, then it is not going to take much to look good!
 

jay-d

Established Member
RocktheCasbah said:
I don't think Gallas and Walcott is the best comparison, but if people can't see how poor we've been in attack in Walcott's absence, well it's quite startling. That being said, we looked pretty good on Monday night.

If we were a Championship side then maybe that would be good enough.
 

RocktheCasbah

Established Member
My point is that there are two sides to this. I watched Theo Walcott rip up Everton after a ridiculously poor first half from the rest of the lads, I watched Theo Walcott terrorise whoever the Sp**s left back was in October, I watched Theo be part of a team that took United in a truly great game of football. He deserves his raise IMO.

But I was also acknowledging, and yeah maybe home to Cardiff isn't the best example, that he is but one cog in a much larger machine.

As I said earlier, my personal view is that with Arshavin, Nasri and (heaven help us) Rosicky all fit and available, Theo will find himself, for a while at least, subject to rotation, but still part of a matchday 18 and therefore he should be paid as any member of our first team would expect to be paid.
 

qs

Established Member
Well as I've said before you need at least 15 first team players and those players will look to be paid accordingly.
 

scytheavatar

Established Member
One thing I don't understand is why Nasri is just as inconsistent as Walcott, if not more, and yet everyone thinks that Nasri should be played ahead of Walcott. What did he do today against Sunderland?
 

qs

Established Member
Who is this "everyone" you're talking about? I think they're on a pretty similar level.
 

Latest posts+

Top Bottom