Aye, he could have asked for 2 year. Amusing that that's the best thing to come out of this deal. "At least it isn't worse." It's very widely reported that he's wanted a 3 year deal all the way through. Reports are he wanted 3 years @ 100k, the club wanted 5 at 75k. The "compromise" is 3.5 (as it's January) @ 100k. This "compromise" is Theo getting his own way.
I think it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.We are assuming that the contract is £100,000 PW because the BBC says so.If AFC had let Walcott leave because they were unwilling to pay him some fans would have moaned.Now we are meant to be paying a susposed amount some fans are moaning.In all honesty none of us know how much Walcott will be earning and unless someone on here is able to hack the HMRC computer we never will know the amount.
But this isn't a one-off. Your squad gets paid a lot more than Spurs and for the last few seasons there is barely any difference in points gained/trophies won. Something is not right. Walcott is a lot worse than Bale, and about as good as Defoe or Lennon. Yet he would be the highest paid player at Spurs.
Nope, but the BBC is the most reliable non-Club source, so I'm very inclined to believe them. If Arsenal had offered him 90k & he'd rejected, then Arsenal had told the fans, I'm sure fans wouldn't have been miffed if he'd been sold & reinforcements brought in. It's selling with no foresight to replacements that irks the fans.
I think it's a bad decision to keep him, but people in this board got exactly what they wanted. They are now blaming the club for the exact outcome they wanted. Now we have a terrible excuse of a situational player that will delay us from getting players we need.
I have to disagree with you about Arsenal telling the fans.They never told the fans how much RVP or Nasri had been offered.
No they didn't, but maybe they should have? I think Theo is worth 90k tops. Under that is a great deal, at that is a good deal, above that is a bad deal. This wasn't the exact outcome I wanted, not by a long way. It's not an excuse to bash the club, this is genuinely a bad deal. Does anyone think he's worth 100k? The only way he is is if his sale value was so low that a replacement player on lower wages would cost so much more in transfer fee that they'd actually be more expensive over the life of the deal.
It isn't possible. But he was out of contract so his value can be decided by the market. I assume he would have gone if someone else had offered £105k. Now that he is under contract it would cost a transfer fee as well as £105k to allow him to leave so it can't happen unless he gets a lot better. The mistake was not tying him in on a smaller wage two years ago
Thank **** for that, this was one of the most tedious stories in football. Now he has signed, we can focus on bringing some new players. As for the wages, Podolski is meant to also be on £100K, so no surprise that Walcott wanted the same and fair play he got what he wanted by playing a perfect game.
Club offered 90k and 5 years h He wanted 100k and 3 1/2 A consensus has been reached - so it is actually somewhere in between - no where in he entire article does it say he is directly getting 100k for 3 1/2 years. I agree it is high but it is also the economic reality of football - Man city and Chelsea will happily stump that up or even more while Liverpool/Man Utd will atleast match it. Not only that we let the situation reach a point where he could have talked to foreign clubs while he was talking to us or EPL clubs in June and going on a free he could easily be asking for 130-150k with the bigger clubs. People need to grow up and realise it is not necessarily what you deem him him to be worth but what other clubs deem his worth. In fact he is probably taking a probable pay cut in staying with Arsenal. Again the guy is staying when others left but because you don't think he has good as RVP he is not worth the money and should be shot or keep him but screw ourselves. Yet when players leave they have no loyalty. Football fans of all walks are so hypocritical it is beyond belief
BBC says: This is a very good deal for Walcott, and although he isn't worth the money (even in today's market) any deal is a great deal for Arsenal when compared with the alternative of him leaving.
BBC also says : All it says consensus it doesn't state it is exactly 100k and more importantly no mention of length. They are presuming it must be close to or on a 100k they dont actually give details on the contract signed. But tbf there is not much diff between 90k and 100k especially when a consensus (implying in between) has been reached,
Consensus does not mean in between, it means agreement (not compromise). The first statement I posted would imply that the £100k is fact. I wouldn't put it past the BBC to be wrong, but not because of the word "consensus".
