COMMENT: The England international publicly contradicted his manager on Twitter on Thursday and it is the latest in a long line of disputes over deals involving key players
This wasn’t the revolt at Stoke railway station or the rebellion of the banners at West Brom. Normally when there is dissent at Arsenal, the supporters protest against Arsene Wenger. This was something different. It is rare that a player issues a blanket rebuttal of the manager’s claims.
Theo Walcott has insisted, as he wrote on Twitter, that there is no “bust-up” between himself and Wenger. More instructive, though, was his emphatic contradiction of the Frenchman’s comments last week. Wenger said initial talks about a new contract have begun. Walcott said there have been no discussions whatsoever.
Arsenal is a club where, for better and for worse, history repeats itself. They are on course for their annual top-four finish, on one of those wonderful runs where they play the best football in the country and win: six times in the last six games, 14 in 16 attempts. But just like unwanted exits in the last 16 of the Champions League, invariably caused by first-leg failings, contract problems have become part of Arsenal’s complex, unique identity.
For Walcott, read Samir Nasri and Robin van Persie? The Frenchman and the Dutchman left in 2011 and 2013 respectively. Like Walcott now, both had one year left on their contracts, wouldn’t re-sign, so Arsenal cashed in rather than lose them for nothing. Both secured significant pay rises. Both won the title in their first season elsewhere.
Or read Walcott himself in 2013? As Wenger admitted then, the England international was “very difficult to convince” to stay. It cost them more than they had originally intended. It was one saga. This seems a sequel, another quest to persuade Walcott he has a prominent part in ambitious plans.
Or read Bacary Sagna in 2014, William Gallas in 2010, Mathieu Flamini in 2008 and Sol Campbell and Robert Pires in 2006? Because Arsenal have seen plenty of players depart on free transfers, often against the club's will. Wenger is the ultimate economist, the man who financed a stadium and ensured Champions League qualification on an annual basis with a limited budget, but there have been flaws in his fiscal models. There are times when Arsenal have been too rigid.
The policy of only awarding one-year contracts to players over 30 cost Arsenal experience. Insisting on constructing a squad on similar incomes meant they struggled to shift overpaid squad players while the top talents discovered they would earn more elsewhere. Now, by delaying talks with Walcott, Arsenal risk losing a €30 million asset on a free transfer.
Some might quibble at that valuation. After all, Walcott has only started five games in 14 months since he ruptured his cruciate ligament in January 2014. He has only begun one of Arsenal’s last nine matches. The statistics scarcely suggest he is indispensable.
But, paradoxically, the less Arsenal pick Walcott, the stronger his bargaining position. Because perhaps the most pertinent precedent of all is in Manchester. James Milner represents a warning from a rival. Like Walcott, he spent too much of the penultimate season of his contract on the bench. It gave him reasons not to renew. And, as Milner has discovered, a high-quality England international with an excellent attitude playing at his prime, attracts plenty of suitors. Manchester City were too slow to spot that.
Milner is back in the team now. He may yet choose to stay at the Etihad Stadium. But he has his pick of other clubs, both in England and abroad. They recognised his strengths and realised this is a chance to acquire a valuable player without paying a fee.
So if Arsenal do not tie Walcott down on a new deal this summer, expect a similar scramble for his services. The closer he gets to the end of his current contract, the more the vultures will circle. It is only two seasons since Walcott scored 21 goals and how many wingers in the Premier League are capable of doing that? His team-mate Alexis Sanchez and Chelsea's Eden Hazard, certainly, but perhaps no one else.
Those exploits made Walcott Arsenal’s highest-paid player and probably their best. He isn’t now. Wenger has shrugged off his straitjacket, cast aside the years of austerity and spent big on Mesut Ozil and Sanchez. Others have been displaced with the influx of attacking midfielders. As Olivier Giroud has become irreplaceable in attack, Walcott has suffered with the signings of Sanchez and Danny Welbeck. There are more options on the flanks. Walcott has spent more time on the bench.
Too much, probably. He has been underused. Wenger could have deployed his pace more, if only as a substitute to stretch his tiring defences in games when they have been clinging on to leads.
But while Walcott runs quickly, the past shows his contract negotiations progress slowly. Two years ago, Wenger had to show him that Arsenal weren’t a selling club. Now he has to convince him he is more than a mere replacement. But if the situation has changed in some ways, it is the same in others. It is very Arsenal.
