Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Arsenal don't have much to gain from delaying the signature, the pressure is all on them. They stand to lose an asset whereas Walcott doesn't really lose much unless he gets seriously injured. Instead he can get a bigger signing on bonus and/or wages from a new club if he signs on a free transfer.
Arsenal won't offer £100,000 a week for Walcott and he'll leave. The rest of it is a just a PR game. Walcott will continue to find other reasons he cannot sign and Arsenal will keep saying they want a deal. They are at an impasse. Arsenal won't offer much more and they're too far apart on the salary.
Also this isn't tabloid fodder or Goal.com invented tripe. It's the BBC and the reporter, David Ornstein, is very reliable. He was the only reporter to say M'Vila wasn't '99.9%' done in the Summer, which was correct, he got the Podoski signing correct (when it was actually done rather than speculation). So I don't have reason to doubt him this time. He reports transfer rumours very rarely and is right when he does: https://twitter.com/bbcsport_david |
I can't remember where I heard it, might have been paddy Barclay categorically saying it last night although tbh I'm no fan of him and I've never even heard of this,BBC guy and what's Stuart Robson's problem with wenger, I really rated him as a player for us but some of the things he said about wenger seemed more than a bit personal, in fact I think he might post on here under the username of thenry
---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:47 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
Better then nothing.
|
Actually if your one of the big, challenging clubs I'd say nothing is probably better.