If Walcott doesn't want to come, what about Welbeck? He is in a similar position with returning from injuries and needing playing time for any chance of the World Cup.
Transfer Rumours Saint Theo!
- Thread starter Libby
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Welbeck isn't really an improvement on who we have already so it's a no from me.
Plus if Southgate has any sense he'll leave Welbeck far away from the England squad this summer.
Really? Taking away his injuries I think Welbeck is a cracking little player, normally plays well for England too and has a very respectable record.
Not a great record as a striker. His Premier League goal returns since 2011/12 (the first year he made 30 appearances) are:
2011/12 - 9 goals
2012/13 - 1 goal
2013/14 - 9 goals
2014/15 - 4 goals
2015/16 - 4 goals
2016/17 - 2 goals
All those performances in relatively successful teams too. Those are roughly Shane Long numbers and I suspect Welbeck would cost a fair bit more than Long.
I don't think Welbeck is a poor player but I don't see how he would improve us.
Regarding England his record is decent but I feel we need to look at younger players. That and Welbeck's history with injuries means relying on him in the summer would be too much of a gamble.
I don't like these goal to minute ratio things as (like a lot of stats) it looks at it far too literally. A lot of people on here want Gabbi to play more, what is his goal to minute ratio for us?
Welbeck is a good player I think, as long as injuries haven't ruined him which we don't know yet. Was definitely better than Walcott who most people seem to want, probably because he is an ex Saint.
Welbeck is a good player I think, as long as injuries haven't ruined him which we don't know yet. Was definitely better than Walcott who most people seem to want, probably because he is an ex Saint.
How many games of which were sub appearances and how many did he play wide?
I would also add my initial surprise was the England comment who he has 15 in 36 for, largely playing wide. Good record thar at international level.
Schad has done the goals per minute comparison with Long so that covers the sub appearances.
Let's assume most of his games have been out wide. In which case I'll point out that Tadic has scored more goals than him in the last 3 seasons.
He's not a poor player by any means but he's likely to want high wages and is unlikely to be the solution to our goal-scoring problem.
On the England thing, he's scored about half his goals against pretty small teams (3 against San Marino, 2 against Moldova, 1 each against Lithuania, Malta and Scotland).
It's a warning sign when a guy plays three years of his prime at a high-scoring team and struggles to score. Those numbers are actually pretty much the same as he has posted for his career, too, and while he has been deployed wide, Walcott has been deployed wide with more frequency and has been a much more regular goalscorer.
I'm just not sure that Welbeck was ever more than a decent player, who through injury has been reduced to a rotation-calibre option who would cost far more than his station.
I think that Walcott is quite good when healthy, and a better-rounded player than Welbeck to boot. My only qualm with Walcott is that I don't think that he is a panacea, and if he costs us the vast majority of our transfer budget for this window, we're still going to be short of quality at a number of positions.
I feel expectations running away again. The market prices are crazy. We are going to have to do one of two things:
1. Pay a lot of money for an ok player
2. Sign a relative unknown or untested player for a lower fee.
Either way, the fans will be moaning.
It is more important to me that whatever we do in the next few weeks, be it signininy new players, getting movement on the board, sacking the manager or having nice player lunches, that we find or do something that installs some confidence in the club as a whole.
On their own, the signings won’t be the answer but they may be the catalyst.
1. Pay a lot of money for an ok player
2. Sign a relative unknown or untested player for a lower fee.
Either way, the fans will be moaning.
It is more important to me that whatever we do in the next few weeks, be it signininy new players, getting movement on the board, sacking the manager or having nice player lunches, that we find or do something that installs some confidence in the club as a whole.
On their own, the signings won’t be the answer but they may be the catalyst.
Agreed FLT; eluded to that a couple of days ago. Also add that Theo signing would seem highly unlikely but maybe a loan to season end might be possible. The team needs a pickup; signings are important as it makes competition harder for places and sends a positive message to the players, fans and others associated that we mean business.
Unlike some teams where managers have limited power, Wenger is someone to be reckoned with at Arsenal. If he says he wants to keep Theo as back up and let his contract run down, that is what will happen. On that basis, I can't see a loan being acceptable to him because he'd lose the player and still have run his contract down further. It would suit Theo if he can't find an acceptable team because he would be showcased and hope to get a good move in the summer. I honestly can't see him considering us as a long term option at this stage in his career. Ready to be amazed, but I would have expected a quick signing when the window opened or not happen at all.
I posted on another thread but what about looking at the Chelsea stable and see who they would let us sign or have on loan? When we have signed any of their players in recent years they have been successful - Cork, Bertrand and Romeu.
As for Walcott at £30m? Really? £15m max!!
The current articles seem to suggest us and everton have offered £20m. I doubt we will go to £30m.
It all comes down to how the board have adjusted to the new transfer market. At present all the evidence would suggest that they haven't adjusted at all when it comes to buying players (some might argue selling as well with Mane). When we bought Gaston/Wanyama/Van Dijk/Mane there were reports at the time that there were numerous teams interested but we outbid them all making us the selling clubs preferred buyer. We did this by bidding around the 12-15m mark with these players when other clubs would seemingly only go to £10m or so. This was a good strategy and we need to keep doing it.
If we are sticking to our guns about the prices of players, that £15m which was enough to outbid clubs a few years ago is **** all now and would probably put us in the category of being outbid ourselves at worst or paying a fee that loads of other clubs would be prepared to pay so we are in competition with them. Both of these things make it less likely we actually sign the player.
Our two signings in the summer were reportedly between £15-18m and have been OK so far, too early to really judge them. Have to remember that they are both more defensive minded players as well which are generally cheaper. Strikers have always had a premium attached to them, that is no different nowadays just the premium is a lot more than it was if you want quality. The Balotelli deal is never going to happen, he is too good. The Carillo rumour seems to have more legs, and is in our ballpark of £15-£18m but that is because he is a backup at his current club, is not a proven goalscorer and comes with risk. I am not against the signing because as much as I hate playing with a target man in football our squad is completely set up for it, so we really need one this window. The bottom line is that because he is a back up player is why he is in the old price range. If we want to be buying starters from decent sized clubs we need to be re-jgging our transfer policy
If we are sticking to our guns about the prices of players, that £15m which was enough to outbid clubs a few years ago is **** all now and would probably put us in the category of being outbid ourselves at worst or paying a fee that loads of other clubs would be prepared to pay so we are in competition with them. Both of these things make it less likely we actually sign the player.
Our two signings in the summer were reportedly between £15-18m and have been OK so far, too early to really judge them. Have to remember that they are both more defensive minded players as well which are generally cheaper. Strikers have always had a premium attached to them, that is no different nowadays just the premium is a lot more than it was if you want quality. The Balotelli deal is never going to happen, he is too good. The Carillo rumour seems to have more legs, and is in our ballpark of £15-£18m but that is because he is a backup at his current club, is not a proven goalscorer and comes with risk. I am not against the signing because as much as I hate playing with a target man in football our squad is completely set up for it, so we really need one this window. The bottom line is that because he is a back up player is why he is in the old price range. If we want to be buying starters from decent sized clubs we need to be re-jgging our transfer policy
- Status