Arsenal: Pros and Cons of Bringing Thierry Henry Back on Loan

The Guardian reports that Arsene Wenger is showing a little more openness to the idea of bringing Thierry Henry back to Arsenal on loan from the New York Red Bulls, the team at which Henry currently plays.

Henry, 34, has been training with the Arsenal squad to maintain fitness while the MLS is on break.

Reporters have been pointed in their inquiry about this possibility, and Wenger has matched their eagerness with an equal amount of evasiveness.

But the Guardian seems to have dictated a softening towards the idea.

"It has to come through my brain at some stage, but I haven't been concrete on the case," Wenger is reported as saying.

But what are the advantages and disadvantages of signing Henry on loan?

First, the disadvantages.

1. Henry is now an idea, an ideal and an inspiration.

To bring him back runs the risk of ruining that. How often are we disappointed when finally we  meet our object of idealization, only to be shocked and disappointed by their all too evident and disappointing humanity?

The idea that certain celebrated individuals inspire are—as a rule—more powerful than the individuals themselves. Henry may be more useful to Arsenal as an idea.

2. Henry's love for Arsenal and his loyalty could be detrimental.

It is best—more often than not— for powerful individuals to leave the scene so a new generation can be grown. Their persistence is often a hindrance to the younger ones who may be cowed  by the individual's larger-than-life personality.

Resentment could arise when it is felt that the person is taking away opportunities best given to  the younger generation. In this case, Henry's signing could hinder both Ju Young Park and Alex  Oxlade-Chamberlain from opportunities they could otherwise enjoy.

This could be true of even Theo Walcott, who may be hindered from getting the opportunity to play more centrally, an opportunity that could become available in January from the inevitable need to rest Robin Van Persie in the absence of both Gervinho and Chamakh, who will be away on national duties at the Africa Cup of Nations tournament. 

3. Henry could ruin his legacy if he signs and is unable to produce the goods.

How would fans react if Henry signs but flops like Nikolas Bendtner or Marouane Chamakh? Would they still idolize him, or would they resort to booing and abusing him?

4. Henry's past achievements could stand in both his and current players' way.

What will happen in a match in which Henry misfires? Would the coaches treat him similarly     to other players? Would the captain be able to admonish him? Would Henry be open to correction, or would he be constantly hacking back to the past?

5. Henry could lose the respect of everyone.

His good relationship with the club and Wenger could be ruined if things don't turn out well.

Advantages

1. Henry loves Arsenal.

He'll work his heart out to make sure Arsenal succeeds in the coming difficult stretch of the season.

2. Henry is already used to the Premier League.

He'd need no time to adapt unlike other new signings.

3. His mere presence could be a boost.

This could still be true even if he's unable to recreate his former form. His devotion to the club, for example, at a time when loyalty is in short supply, could teach current players the importance of this virtue.

4. His presence could be helpful to Theo Walcott's, who aspires to be like Henry one day.

In addition, Henry could use this period to work with the younger players in a semi-coaching capacity—totally at his prerogative, of course.

5. In life, some things are meant to be.

Henry could recover his scoring form for Arsenal, a very welcome prospect.

What do you think, reader? Should he be signed, or should he not be? What other advantages and disadvantages do you see? Please, share.