Have to agree with gent and PISKIE here. They did the right thing. Besides why is soo much being made of the 100K a week? Had he signed for Chelsea or Man City would no doubt be earning considerably more.
As i've already said,it's a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't.If we'd not got Walcott to sign a new contract people would have moaned.Now Walcott has signed a new contract people are moaning.
As mentioned, some people's whole premise is based on criticising the club, so it suits to moan about the wages / length of contract etc the same as it would have done to moan if the club had sold him.
People complaining about Walcott being paid too much seem to be directing their complaints at Theo, not the club. We're a bit angry that he's demanding so much.
I don't think there's too much to complain about to be honest. As Bear says, if we'd sold him to City or Chelsea he likely be on a considerably higher wage and people would be complaining about us losing our best players / being a selling club etc. Also, people have moaned endlessly about not paying Nasri, RVP etc the going rate being the reason we've lost them to our rivals, our board have come out and said that they can now match these sorts of wages; Walcott's wage represents that. It's at the higher end of what we pay, but it's nowhere near what some players are on at Utd, City and Chelsea. As Cym says, for some it's a case of damned if they do and damned if they don't. My personal opinion is that Walcott is a player who is worth hanging onto and that's the going rate we need to match to keep him at Arsenal
