I agree with all of your 9:02. For all Theo’s good stats (not amazing though), he goes missing in far too many games. When the opposition defence play deep, which is happening more and more against us, he offers very little for long periods. I get the feeling that if the Ox was a year or 2 further on in his development then we would be more likely to let Theo leave, so do we give him the money knowing we could get shut in 2 years if performances don’t improve and Ox comes through? Or do we take the hit now and let Gervinho play in his natural position of wide right, where he played at Lille?

….. New post ……

No doubt there is a deal in the pipeline for a Walcott replacement, although The Ox is ready and waiting to take up the role or even Gnabry could do the job.

Most notably is the fact that no matter how much we offer City could increase it and increase it substantially to what, 200 a week?

If you put yourself in AW’s position a tipping point exist, a point when the club feels it could get better value for the money.

TA

I wouldn’t take your bet. Walcott is perfect for City, as someone said above they could afford to have him on the bench only bringing him on when the game is stretched.

We, on the other hand, have to kiss his butt and play him when he is better suited to be on the bench, the Sunderland game being a good example.

I am not a Theo lover, not because I don’t believe he is an asset to the club and agree with all the defence 26 gives above but it could so easily be better, we could and should have someone who can opperate not only when the game is stretched but when space is tight as well.