Transfer Rumour Theo Walcott

Would you like him?

  • Yes

    Votes: 690 66.2%
  • No

    Votes: 241 23.1%
  • Cheese on toast

    Votes: 112 10.7%

  • Total voters
    1,043
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sorry but what a waste Steve Walsh is. This transfer is another example of the piss poor running of football at this club. I like walcott, generally happy he is signing for us. Except for one thing.

Walcott was a fast exciting young winger when he broke through, just like lookman is now. We have a 19 year old Walcott already here! What is the point in signing the 10 years older version? Completely waste of money when we need defenders?

Sorry to sound grumpy but it's amazingly bad, so many glaring issues and we now sign players who we don't need in the short term.
Agree with you in the main mate but one would assume that he's being brought in for his experience and goalscoring/assists record. Doesn't hurt having an additional 'quick' player in the starting XI either.
 

proxy.php


Looks like this one is over the line now ! Welcome to everton Theo !
Luke Shaw signing too....
DEXATI20180116131743.webp
 
I'm sorry but what a waste Steve Walsh is. This transfer is another example of the piss poor running of football at this club. I like walcott, generally happy he is signing for us. Except for one thing.

Walcott was a fast exciting young winger when he broke through, just like lookman is now. We have a 19 year old Walcott already here! What is the point in signing the 10 years older version? Completely waste of money when we need defenders?

Sorry to sound grumpy but it's amazingly bad, so many glaring issues and we now sign players who we don't need in the short term.


LOL!! Lookman cannot even play 45 minutes without looking totally lost, YES, he is a good impact sub but that is it so far, he would NEVER offer us what Theo will this season, he is just not ready. Instead of crying about what Lookman "should" be doing, get real and see what he has not been doing an that walcott has.

It makes me wonder about some of our fans when they would rather have Lookman over Theo based on nothing more than about 3 games as opposed to 10 years at the top.
 

Reading the bbc comment section, I would just like to point out that not all Arsenal fans are happy to see the back of him.

Sorry if that bursts a few bubbles chaps
 
I can take the Walcot signing as long as it's instantly followed by a LB signing....but that won't happen cause we're Everton!

Will be Lucky to get Walnut signed to play Saturday :(
 
The accidental racism that this photo inspired on here was a thing of beauty.

"It's this black man."

"No, it's this black man!"

"But it looks like this black man?"
The fact that sunbeds have already been mentioned on this thread made me smile too.
 

A lot of hate for Walsh in this and other threads, like the idea of signing an established Premier League player with pace and experience of playing in big games, when we are struggling for goals and form and need some instant results is an indication that he is not doing his job properly, like you know what his job role is and how he has actually performed beyond heresay and assumption.

Well, by my own assumptions, I would argue that thus far, since his arrival, he has been lumbered with working with someone who proved himself to be stubborn and egotistical to a point of distraction, and the signings we made reflected this. It seems apparent to me that the majority of signings we made in his time here have been Koeman signings, as would be apparent if you looked at the history of him as a manager and them as players.

Bolasie, Schneiderlin, Sigurdsson, Stekelenburg, Martina, Rooney and Klaassen, on whom the majority of our budget has been spent, where all players that Koeman had either signed, tracked at previous clubs, or in the example of Rooney, openly discussed in interviews long before the signing happened.

Pickford and Keane appear to have been accepted by both, based on reputation and and potential.

Meanwhile Lookman, Vlasic, and Sandro, appeared to be Walsh buys, summits Ed based on the difference in cost/value and age, and the apparent reluctance by Koeman to play them.

Williams and Gueye were signed early on, so hard to say who called the shots on those, but Williams seemed an obvious, experienced like for like replacement for Stones, that at the time, none of us were really complaining about.

All of the younger signings, including DCL, were obviously down to Unsworth/Royal, and I'm sure Walsh would have been consulted on these as well.

And after all of that, we seem to find ourselves, having rightly, at the time at least, backed the manager with the money to sign who he wanted, found ourselves in a bit of a mess, and struggling beyond what anyone would've forseen 18 months ago.

Had we not backed Koeman and kept our word on promises made to him, he would not have accepted the job, and we would be complaining about being "small time" or lacking ambition. But we did back him, and in hindsight, maybe we shouldn't have. But we are where we are.

So back now to present day, and we have a new manager, who will also have been made promises, and equally needs to be backed, both to satisfy his desires and also in attempt to fix the mess we gmfinf ourselves in. And yet still people complain that we are attempting once again to spend money to alleviate our current situation.

Signing any player is always a gamble. He could be young and inexpensive, he might not perform. He could be older and more experienced, he might not fit in. He could be a prospect from abroad, a cheaper more exciting acquisition than the familiar, but might find it more difficult to adapt straight away. He could be a fringe player from a top team, or a star from a lesser team, and both are equally problematic once you throw them into a struggling team short on confidence.

So what exactly, other than suggesting players to his manager, and ensuring deals get done, is he to do? Whether that be the managers picks or bargain type gambles that he himself has scouted and earmarked for the team, there is a risk with any player, unless you are basically signing the absolute top of the pile, players that transform a team instantly. And those players, they are not coming here.

In short, I would just like someone to explain to me what Steve Walsh could've done differently at this point, and why he is getting as much stick as he is.

Well for sure he could identify the glaring holes that 40,000 match going Evertonians and every other fan around the world can see and sign players for said positions.

There is so much wrong with Walsh and what he does at the club, admittedly the club's remit for him might be different, but as a DoF he massively fails on what he should be doing... the point above is culpable to that - everyone knows our weaknesses, he should be fixing the holes instead of doing what he is.

He hasn't succeeded at one element of his job, going by the traditional roles and responsibilities of a director of football, so far in my eyes - he should have been held accountable as much as Koeman...

Add to the fact he's done a job for the boys with Allardyce - just makes me hate him even more.



If you never read all that, he's a beaut... a bad bad one.
 
Reading the bbc comment section, I would just like to point out that not all Arsenal fans are happy to see the back of him.

Sorry if that bursts a few bubbles chaps
This. He has something to offer. The risk in this transfer is whether his glass frame breaks.

Improves our team almost instantly and proven in the league. Not sure how anyone could oppose this.
 
I was more embarrassed when Koeman had us 19th and bottom of our EL group with 1 point like.

Anyway Theo Walcott is better than any of our attacking players isn't he?

Walcott is a cracking signing feller.

Koeman was a tool like don't get me wrong, but I even preferred him over allardyce
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top