Neither was your suggestion that turning up one's nose at 30m for Walcott belies the cries that we show ambition, then. Bad decisions are bad decisions; 30m for Walcott would be such, ambitious or not.
How much did Everton pay for Sigurdsson? And how are Swansea doing without him?
The market has gone mad. That's how it is. Of course, we could shop in the bargain bins as usual, and hope to get lucky. Or we could take a punt on a proven PL player who, imo, could make all the difference between staying up and going down.
Sigurdsson is better, slightly younger, and with a far better record of health.
Walcott is nearly 29, oft-injured, and has 50 minutes of PL action this season.
We have multiple needs that we will need to address if we're to stay up. We're not going to spend the full 60m this window: we have already said as much. If we spend 30m on Walcott, that means we will have little to nothing to spend on a CB, on a number 10 type, whatever. Our window then becomes Walcott plus a backup calibre loan at some position. That's not going to do it..he's not a superstar.
You wouldn't want him for 30 though, would you?
Not at Arsenal he isn't. For us he could be. And how we need a Superstar now.
You wouldn't want him for 30 though, would you?
He's a posh Shane Long, he'd make runs and we'd ignore him.
Betting our whole transfer window on Theo Walcott being a superstar -- and eschewing all of our other needs -- strikes me as madness. I like Theo; I'd be happy to have him back. He's not that.


When did I say spend everything we have on Theo? He wouldn't be £30 million, certainly not up front.
I like Fats' costings.
We'd all do it for that. Again, I have no problem spending 15m on him, or 20 with incentives. But no deal ever involves incentives approaching 50% of the total value...if they're looking for 30m, they're going to want the vast majority of that up front.