Theo Walcott

[malg]

Some reports saying a short term deal agreed, so might have signed a 1 year extension. Keeps predators at bay for 12 months I guess.

[Fredo]

Our squad is thin. Seems like Adams and co will be expensive squad fillers as from now on, unless we sell them before the deadline. Don't think we'll be getting anyone in though.

[Fivex]

Our squad is thin. Seems like Adams and co will be expensive squad fillers as from now on, unless we sell them before the deadline. Don't think we'll be getting anyone in though.

Sorry to be the one to say, but what a cluster**** of a post this is.

[Fredo]

Sorry to be the one to say, but what a cluster**** of a post this is.

**** off then. ****.

[Fivex]

I've read it a few times and can't make any sense of it. Maybe it's just me. Sorry man.

[bonzai]

still think he'll sign a new contract at the Arse. if he wouldn't come to us first time when we were a regular Champions League team, he's not gonna come now. Hope I'm wrong though.

[Vermilion]

I'm with Dom on this. It seems much more like Wenger is one of the few in football who recognises that there is a sensible price to pay and after that you are just throwing away money on extra wages. It is obviously a conscious decision and given that Arsenal have consistently out performed ourselves and Spurs it seems to not be a terrible way to operate.

Really? but we've won more trophies than them in the last 7yrs.

Sure, they've been in the champions league, but what good has it done them, they've earned good money yes, but if that money isn't used to entice the top players, they will for ever be also rans. imo.

[Vermilion]

Manchester City striker Edin Dzeko, 26, has emerged as a shock transfer target for Arsenal, as a potential makeweight in a deal taking 23-year-old forward Theo Walcott the other way.

Full story: The Metro

[Norbs]

Surely Dzeko is worth more than Walcott, no?

[dww]

Really? but we've won more trophies than them in the last 7yrs.

Sure, they've been in the champions league, but what good has it done them, they've earned good money yes, but if that money isn't used to entice the top players, they will for ever be also rans. imo.

I think Rafa over performed (although some will argue about how much we spent). I think he is a better manager. I don't think the league cup is much of a barometer of anything really.

I think the point is that they have bought within amounts they can sustain. Other clubs clearly have not. Ourselves, City, United and Chelsea have all spent more money than makes any sense (United is a special case as that is probably only true as the Glazers have put purchase debt on them). I would of thought our recent brush with financial disaster would make people reflect a bit on some of those aspects.

[kris90210]

They might well be a rich club but who is to say that the owners want to reinvest in the squad? Wengers attitude is one of the main reasons anyone would describe them as a rich club.

I really think you have to consider the likes of City and Chelsea as being financially doped. Other than that the only more successful team would be United and they would probably have to be considered richer (spend more, earn more, pay higher wages). I don't think Wenger actually has a case of underperforming to answer.

That might be the case, but they've come out in the past and said they would back the manager if he asked for funds. The length of time he's been at the club, and the influence he has, I'd be very surprised if transfer policy wasn't driven by Arsene Wenger.

And yes, there's no doubt that he's one of the main reasons Arsenal are where they are today, but how long can he live off of past glories? Indefinitely? I know several Arsenal fans who would disagree with you regarding the charge of underperformance. They've gone from 'the invincibles' to not having a single trophy in the past 6 years. When Benitez came in, he had an enormous amount of ground to make up in catching Arsenal. And yet he won everything there was to win apart from the league during his time here while Arsenal won nothing. We weren't spending Chelsea / City sums on players.

We can agree to disagree mate. I definitely think they have underperformed over the past few years, and Wenger needs to take his share of responsibility for that. His obsinance over developing young talent and refusal to compete in the transfer market has seen them decline to the extent where it's going to be very, very difficult for them to compete for the title in a pre-FFP Premiership containing City and Chelsea.

They generate a tonne of money every home match. They are the best supported club in London. The fact that they are based in London gives them an advantage over most clubs. They have a phenomenal, albeit stubborn, manager. They have everything they need to be successful, but they need to start flexing the financial muscles they undoubtedly have.

[dww]

That might be the case, but they've come out in the past and said they would back the manager if he asked for funds. The length of time he's been at the club, and the influence he has, I'd be very surprised if transfer policy wasn't driven by Arsene Wenger.

And yes, there's no doubt that he's one of the main reasons Arsenal are where they are today, but how long can he live off of past glories? Indefinitely? I know several Arsenal fans who would disagree with you regarding the charge of underperformance. They've gone from 'the invincibles' to not having a single trophy in the past 6 years. When Benitez came in, he had an enormous amount of ground to make up in catching Arsenal. He won everything there was to win apart from the league during his time here while Arsenal won nothing. And we weren't spending Chelsea / City sums on players.

We can agree to disagree mate. I definitely think they have underperformed over the past few years, and Wenger needs to take his share of responsibility for that. His obsinance over developing young talent and refusal to compete in the transfer market has seen them decline to the extent where it's going to be very, very difficult for them to compete for the title in a pre-FFP Premiership containing City and Chelsea.

They generate a tonne of money every home match. They are the best supported club in London. The fact that they are based in London gives them an advantage over most clubs. They have a phenomenal, albeit stubborn, manager. They have everything they need to be successful, but they need to start flexing the financial muscles they undoubtedly have.

But remember what H&G said when they were in charge. These things tend to mean different things to supporters/journalists and owners. For example they bought Podolski, Giroud et al. before selling RvP - I would imagine they would say that was backing the manager in the market.

They have the second biggest income behind United apparently (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...laid-bare.html) but look at how much Chelsea and City are subsidised. Even if they spent all their income (which given they still have a big stadium debt would be madness) they still couldn't out compete them for top players.

They could pay more but it wouldn't put them on a par with United, Chelsea or City. They already out compete everyone else on the budget they use.

[kris90210]

But remember what H&G said when they were in charge. These things tend to mean different things to supporters/journalists and owners. For example they bought Podolski, Giroud et al. before selling RvP - I would imagine they would say that was backing the manager in the market.

They have the second biggest income behind United apparently (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...laid-bare.html) but look at how much Chelsea and City are subsidised. Even if they spent all their income (which given they still have a big stadium debt would be madness) they still couldn't out compete them for top players.

They could pay more but it wouldn't put them on a par with United, Chelsea or City. They already out compete everyone else on the budget they use.

In fairness, he seems to have changed his approach somewhat this year. Buying more established players. But the damage has already been done and they're a fair bit behind now. Regarding RVP, I don't think he *had* to sell him in order to fund the other signings they'd already made. We can only speculate on that.

I agree with you that Chelsea and City are operating on a different level in terms of finances. But Arsenal have basically capitulated over the past few years, whereas Utd have remained right in the mix, despite not spending half as much as either club.

Like I said mate, there are plenty of Arsenal fans out there who are extremely frustrated at the way things have gone at the club over the past few years, and feel that Wenger's arrogance and stubbornness have played a large part in them not winning anything. They are hemorrhaging key players every season because of the wage constraints they place on themselves, all the while Wenger is sitting pretty earing £7m a year. That's what's unsustainable!

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Arsenal drop out of the top 4 this season.

[BigChief]

But for RvP Arsenal were no better, or worse, than us last season. RvPs not around now so let's see how Wenger does.

[Fivex]

But for RvP Arsenal were no better, or worse, than us last season. RvPs not around now so let's see how Wenger does.

The same's said every time Wenger or the scum sell their best player. Always seem to maintain their position though don't they?