davieG Posted 18 December 2005 Share Posted 18 December 2005 £8.5 Mill for a 16 year old! Spurs steal march for Walcott? By Chris Stanton - Created on 18 Dec 2005 <h2 class="sIFR-replaced">Related links</h2> Team Pages: Player Pages: Theo Walcott Tottenham are reported to have stolen a march on Chelsea and Arsenal by tabling a bid of £8.5 million for Theo Walcott. Southampton's hugely promising 16-year-old has been in scintillating form in The Championship this season and a number of clubs are jostling for position ahead of the transfer window reopening in January. Spurs' sporting director Damien Comolli has reportedly been in contact with Saints chairman Rupert Lowe concerning a move for the prodigy who recently intimated his desire to remain at St Mary's beyond his 17th birthday. Lowe would be loath to lose his prize asset but may be swayed by Spurs' offer to loan back Walcott for the remainder of the season before making the move to White Hart Lane next summer. Spurs offered a similar deal to Derby for midfielder Tom Huddlestone and Saints could be tempted by the offer as they seek to utilise Walcott to the full in a bid to make a quick return to The Premiership. Walcott became Saints' youngest-ever scorer when he netted on his debut aged just 16 years, seven months and two days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 18 December 2005 Share Posted 18 December 2005 Why is it crazy? They could see the benefit of his talent for many years to come. They're taking a bit of a chance, but in many ways, it's better than spending the same money on a 26 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 18 December 2005 Author Share Posted 18 December 2005 Why is it crazy? They could see the benefit of his talent for many years to come. They're taking a bit of a chance, but in many ways, it's better than spending the same money on a 26 year old. Because I believe buying/selling any player for £8.5 is immoral, so selling 16 years olds to me is beneath contempt and should be made illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 18 December 2005 Share Posted 18 December 2005 Well yeah, £8.5 million for a player is a lot. But its odd you pick out this example when many players have commanded £20million plus figures before. Don't see why age is a factor, it still seems a little immoral (although I don't know specifically how) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 18 December 2005 Author Share Posted 18 December 2005 Well yeah, £8.5 million for a player is a lot. But its odd you pick out this example when many players have commanded £20million plus figures before.Don't see why age is a factor, it still seems a little immoral (although I don't know specifically how) At that age money should not be the determining factor in how he's allowed to develop, we're not talking about cattle here, this a 16 year old kid, who will be manipulated by money grabbing adults who's only interest is themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertine Posted 18 December 2005 Share Posted 18 December 2005 I don't see what the big fuss about him is anyway. Hasn't got anything other than pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gené and Tonic Posted 18 December 2005 Share Posted 18 December 2005 8.5mill is perhaps too much for him at this stage in his career, he still has alot to prove, and although he looks amazing right now, you never know. A gamble if it's true, as it may affect him phycologically; a move that big while he's so young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 19 December 2005 Share Posted 19 December 2005 I think big transfer fees are a good thing, as long as the buying club aren't going to go broke over it. Think of it like this: David Beckham earns huge amount of money, and the press regularly make him out to be a bad person because he spends £25k on a party (for example). This is a poor argument, because if he keeps his money, the only people who benefit are his financial advisors and bankers. If he spends it on a party / car / day out or whatever, the money goes back into mainstream economy benefitting everyone from the caterers to the waiters / waitresses. Spending lots of money is a good thing! If Spurs give Southampton £8.5m, Southampton are secure, have some cash to spend that they will hopefully filter down to lower league clubs, and might even benefit the Soton fan's pocket in terms of helping the club avoid price increased if they don't get promoted. On the down side, the game has a problem when 25% of the fee goes to some dodgy agent who spends it on a house in the Costa Brava. Ban them all. Whether Walcott is worth it, is in the eye of the beholder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-man Posted 21 December 2005 Share Posted 21 December 2005 I don't see what the big fuss about him is anyway. Hasn't got anything other than pace. his finish against Luton was class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 21 December 2005 Share Posted 21 December 2005 Yeah but Gary Coatsworth scored a screamer once! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 21 December 2005 Author Share Posted 21 December 2005 Yeah but Gary Coatsworth scored a screamer once! Comparing again I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 21 December 2005 Share Posted 21 December 2005 Only in fun though! As you have said.. comparisons are rarely relevant in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.