Theo Walcott Signs Extension with Arsenal: The Pros and Cons to the Deal

Michael LingbergCorrespondent IIIJanuary 18, 2013

LONDON, ENGLAND - DECEMBER 29:  Theo Walcott of Arsenal in kicks the ball during the Barclays Premier League match between Arsenal and Newcastle United at the Emirates Stadium on December 29, 2012 in London, England.  (Photo by Clive Mason/Getty Images)
Clive Mason/Getty Images

It's about time.

Theo Walcott's refusal to sign a new contract extension with Arsenal—until now—has left us all with considerably less hair.

Walcott will be paid in the neighborhood of £100,000 per week. He has also been granted his wish of playing as a center-forward. This was obviously some very positive news for a club that has been shellacked with negativity this season, but there should be one serious question asked about this deal.

Was it worth it?

Was it worth it to give in to Walcott's holdout? He and his agents were using the club's recent troubles of holding on to its best players against it. For a while there, many people feared losing Walcott in the same way Arsenal lost Robin van Persie, Samir Nasri, Cesc Fabregas and others.

To decide whether or not it was a good idea to keep Walcott, let's look at the pros and cons first.



Now that Arsenal's most pressing problem is a thing of the past, Arsene Wenger can now focus on the next most important task: signing new players during the remaining 13 days of the transfer window.


This is something Arsenal desperately needs to do, as the highly sought after fourth position slips farther and farther away. 

And with Twitter buzzing with the rumor that Arsenal have put in a £30 million for a "mystery player," it looks like there's an exciting ending in store for the current January transfer window. While those whispers are highly unlikely, it's still an intriguing thought.

While it is highly doubtful Wenger would bid that much for any player, it doesn't mean he isn't looking. Walcott is sorted out. Gooners everywhere should now look forward to some fresh blood coming to London.



Walcott is the definition of inconsistent. Just look at the last several weeks.

 Remember Theo's third goal against Newcastle during that 7-3 demolition? It was absolutely genius how he fell down while making four defenders look foolish, and then got back up to chip it over Tim Krul for a beautiful goal. It reminded us all of his effort in the 5-3 win over Chelsea at Stamford Bridge last season.

That was the good Theo.

Wednesday's FA Cup replay against Swansea City was the bad Theo, and we see that side a little too much. Missing easy shots and not playing the obvious pass makes anyone want to scream in fury.

But now that Walcott has this new extension, hopefully we don't have to see that side as often.



Arsenal has a young core of British talent, as Walcott was the sixth British extension this season, along with Carl Jenkinson, Kieran Gibbs, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Aaron Ramsey and Jack Wilshere. The team was also able to keep another one of its best players, something it has had trouble doing in recent times.

This is a sign that Wenger wants to move forward and strengthen the club. He recognized what the fans want, and that eases the fear and cynicism around Emirates Stadium for the time being.

A little positivity goes a long way. 



Arsenal had to overpay Walcott—simple as that.

Signing Walcott was great for the morale of the club and its supporters, but it was bad business. And the bottom line is what's most important to this club.

He is now the second Gunner being paid in that range, the other being Lukas Podolski.



I'm on the fence with this extension.

One one hand, I'm happy this saga is finally over and that Arsenal keeps one of its best players. On the other, I'm disappointed the club gave in to Walcott's demands. But I'm leaning more towards liking the deal.

What do you think?

Follow me on Twitter @Lingberg2000