Arsenal Transfer Rumours: Marouane Chamakh Set to Leave Gunners for West Ham
Arsenal are finally ready to let go of failed signing Marouane Chamakh in the January transfer window.
The 28-year-old Moroccan has been one of the biggest flops of Arsene Wenger's 17-year reign at the North London club. Chamakh joined the Gunners in the summer of 2010 from Bordeaux and has become one of the most disappointing signings in club history.
In his first season with the club, Chamakh made 29 EPL appearances and scored just seven goals. His production dropped even more during the 2011-12 season, as Chamakh scored just one goal in 19 appearances in all competitions. This season, Chamakh's time on the pitch has been limited at best with just four total appearances.
With his time at Arsenal all but over, Chamakh is looking to reignite his career, and a move to Upton Park could do just that.
Allardyce also took a gamble on another failed signing over the summer by giving Andy Carroll another chance to succeed, as the English forward was brought to the club on a seasonlong loan from Liverpool
Currently, Carroll is out with a knee injury that he suffered back in December and is not expected to be back for another month (via Daily Mail).
The injury to Carroll left Carlton Cole and Modibo Maiga as the only healthy forwards on the roster to fill the position in Allardyce's 4-2-3-1 formation.
Whether or not the Moroccan can find the same goal-scoring form that he had at Bordeaux (Chamakh scored in 13 and 10 goals, respectively, in his final two seasons with the Ligue 1 outfit) remains to be seen as he has been a fringe player for most of his time at Arsenal.
If Chamakh does begin to recapture his form from his Ligue 1 days at Upton Park, he could become a potential steal when the summer transfer window comes around with his days at Arsenal most likely coming to a close.
For more transfer updates on Arsenal and the other 19 EPL clubs, follow me on Twitter, @JTansey90.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?