Liverpool FC Forum

by **Aussie Style** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:04 pm

Arsenal's failure to offer Theo Walcott an extended contract in advance could cost the North London-based outfit dear, according to a report in the British tabloid the Daily Mirror.

The former Southampton star's contract at the Emirates Stadium is set to expire in the summer of 2010, and the 19-year-old is thought to be unhappy that the club has failed to offer him a new deal.

Consequently, it is claimed that the Gunners could lose the England international for a lowly fee of £400,000 because of a transfer loophole set down in FIFA's laws.

Apparently, any buyer would have to pay Arsenal, who signed Walcott from Southampton for an initial £5 million in 2006, just £80,000 for each year he will have been trained by the Gunners.

It is thought that the news has alerted the likes of Premier League money-men Chelsea and Manchester City, who should have no problem bettering his current wage of £20,000-a-week, as well as Spanish giants Real Madrid.

Indeed, Spanish sports daily Marca claims that Madrid are monitoring the situation very closely.

Ricky Brooks, Goal.com

Would be the steal of the century!!

by **DanAn** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:22 pm

Aussie Style wrote:Arsenal's failure to offer Theo Walcott an extended contract in advance could cost the North London-based outfit dear, according to a report in the British tabloid the Daily Mirror.

The former Southampton star's contract at the Emirates Stadium is set to expire in the summer of 2010, and the 19-year-old is thought to be unhappy that the club has failed to offer him a new deal.

Consequently, it is claimed that the Gunners could lose the England international for a lowly fee of £400,000 because of a transfer loophole set down in FIFA's laws.

Apparently, any buyer would have to pay Arsenal, who signed Walcott from Southampton for an initial £5 million in 2006, just £80,000 for each year he will have been trained by the Gunners.

It is thought that the news has alerted the likes of Premier League money-men Chelsea and Manchester City, who should have no problem bettering his current wage of £20,000-a-week, as well as Spanish giants Real Madrid.

Indeed, Spanish sports daily Marca claims that Madrid are monitoring the situation very closely.

Ricky Brooks, Goal.com

Would be the steal of the century!!

A 19 y/o english national who supported Liverpool as a kid is available for less than 1/2 a million.

Too good to be true......Please, please, please sign him up Rafa, my favourite no Liverpool player.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:14 pm

Fast, young, skillful, scores goals and cheap....... not what we are looking for at all!

by **metalhead** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:16 pm

I really don't rate Walcott to be honest, he is good at his best, but he is wasteful in the final third of the pitch. Yes he is fast and skillful, but his decision making and his touch is not that good.

for 1m, or 2m.. Ill take him, could be a good squad player

by **bunglemark2** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:22 pm

metalhead wrote:I really don't rate Walcott to be honest, he is good at his best, but he is wasteful in the final third of the pitch. Yes he is fast and skillful, but his decision making and his touch is not that good.

for 1m, or 2m.. Ill take him, could be a good squad player

are you on the wacky tabacky mate ?

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:22 pm

metalhead wrote:I really don't rate Walcott to be honest, he is good at his best, but he is wasteful in the final third of the pitch. Yes he is fast and skillful, but his decision making and his touch is not that good.

for 1m, or 2m.. Ill take him, could be a good squad player

Thats very generous of you metalhead, I am sure Walcott will be relieved and grateful that you are still willing to take him.

by **metalhead** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:42 pm

Im telling you S@int Im overgenerous

by **HacksawJimDuggin** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:31 pm

Walcott would well and truly solve the RM position good and proper.

If we have any sense we'll have made our interest known to his agent.

by **HacksawJimDuggin** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:32 pm

HacksawJimDuggin wrote:Walcott would well and truly solve the RM position good and proper.

If we have any sense we'll have made our interest known to his agent.

Although too good to be true if you ask me!

by **SupitsJonF** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:08 pm

I'm still recovering from the fake Aguero article, and now your throwing this at me. We wont get either of them, getting my hopes up

by **HacksawJimDuggin** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:33 pm

SupitsJonF wrote:I'm still recovering from the fake Aguero article, and now your throwing this at me. We wont get either of them, getting my hopes up

I love the transfer window...NOT :alien:

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:09 pm

bunglemark2 wrote:
metalhead wrote:I really don't rate Walcott to be honest, he is good at his best, but he is wasteful in the final third of the pitch. Yes he is fast and skillful, but his decision making and his touch is not that good.

for 1m, or 2m.. Ill take him, could be a good squad player

are you on the wacky tabacky mate ?

i think he meant Aaron Lennon

by **GOAT_2.0** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:11 pm

Naw he'll sign a new contract eventually, far too good to be true that

by **GOAT_2.0** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:12 pm

Mind you this is the mirror we're talking about so we may have to take this seriously

by **tubby** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:36 pm

I remember when he ran past Mascherano and Hyypia like they were not even there last season in that QF. Id love to see him here. Although I doubt Arsenal would sell him cheap. Cant see it happening though. Do you really think they paid 12mil for a kid they will allow to walk away like that? :laugh:

Liverpool FC Forum

Walcott anyone?

Who is online