Wilson scores again (2 Viewers)

[Grendel]

How can you even compare the two? You are actually simple.

He actually has before said that Wilson is a better prospect than chamberlain or it may have been Walcott. I think it was Walcott. So we should have got that sort of fee for him.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

How can you even compare the two? You are actually simple.

Another intellectual reply. If your phone is ringing it's probably Mensa.

 

[skybluetony176]

He actually has before said that Wilson is a better prospect than chamberlain or it may have been Walcott. I think it was Walcott. So we should have got that sort of fee for him.

Statistical correlation probably proves me to be correct on that score. Care to check with your yard stick?

 

[FRY-CCFC]

Another intellectual reply. If your phone is ringing it's probably Mensa.

Oxlade-Chamberlain is not only ten times the player Wilson is, he is also younger.

You clearly know nothing about football and are just a wum.

 

[Grendel]

Again you're countering your own argument. Chris Stokes was clearly undervalued or we would never have got him on trial in the first place and then signed him on a free. He is to us what Wilson is to Bournemouth. Were laughing that we picked him up as cheap as we did as I would imagine so are Bournemouth, given that he was a key player for them in gaining premier league status and it's already clear that if Bournemouth defy the odds and maintain that status that is going to be to a large part down to Wilson.

Same as us. If we can get a top six finish or even better that's going to be in part because of a player we signed under his true value.

The mistake your making is that you automatically assume the selling club sets a price and that's the valuation.

That's as has been pointed out numerous times not the game. You attract bids and try to secure the highest. We did.

Stokes had I assume no interest in him. So his value was nil. We paid the market value.

 

[Nick]

Again you're countering your own argument. Chris Stokes was clearly undervalued or we would never have got him on trial in the first place and then signed him on a free. He is to us what Wilson is to Bournemouth. Were laughing that we picked him up as cheap as we did as I would imagine so are Bournemouth, given that he was a key player for them in gaining premier league status and it's already clear that if Bournemouth defy the odds and maintain that status that is going to be to a large part down to Wilson.

Same as us. If we can get a top six finish or even better that's going to be in part because of a player we signed under his true value.

No I'm not, I am talking about people on here raving about potential and not always being correct.

At the time Stokes was a reject and people weren't happy we signed him because a non league team didn't even play him.

Haynes was the hailed as if he was the next gareth bale.

Surely if Haynes had so much potential he would be playing ahead of a non league reject?

 

[skybluetony176]

Oxlade-Chamberlain is not only ten times the player Wilson is, he is also younger.

You clearly know nothing about football and are just a wum.

Time will tell. It's probably wise to see what they've achieved by the end of their careers before making a claim like that. Oxlade Chamberlain might have been discovered earlier in his playing career that's not an indication of what they'll achieve and what the ceiling of their potential is m look at players like Ian Wright, Stuart Pearce for example.

 

[skybluetony176]

The mistake your making is that you automatically assume the selling club sets a price and that's the valuation.

That's as has been pointed out numerous times not the game. You attract bids and try to secure the highest. We did.

Stokes had I assume no interest in him. So his value was nil. We paid the market value.

Oh I see. So now you're saying Wasps did pay market value for ACL. Interesting.

Any news on the statistical correlation between Wilson, Oxlade Chamberlain and Walcott? Who with the yard stick you insist is Gospel is the better player? I'm genuinely interested to know.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

No they thought he was worth that - they paid that to secure his services,

No one thought Wilson was worth more than what Bournmouth paid - or they would have made a higher bid.

Not absolutely correct.
The thing was we weren't willing to wait and took the first offer.
Oh and how do you know that no one else would have come in if we had waited till the next transfer window

 

[stupot07]

Walcott and Oxlade had both played numerous champions league games and played for England senior team well before the age Wilson got to the PL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[stupot07]

Not absolutely correct.
The thing was we weren't willing to wait and took the first offer.
Oh and how do you know that no one else would have come in if we had waited till the next transfer window

How do we know it was the first offer? There may have been other lower offers, in fact bournemouth would have likely offered lower, before coming back with an improved bid. We were losing £7-8m per annum and had cash flow problems. If we'd have kept a hold of him, we'd if likely not been able to bring in Johnson, JOB, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[skybluetony176]

Walcott and Oxlade had both played numerous champions league games and played for England senior team well before the age Wilson got to the PL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Stuart Pearce was 25 when he made his full England debut. I'm sure if I could be arsed I could probably find dozens of players who made their full England debut at a younger age than him and didn't go on to achieve what he did in his club or international career. Age of debut on it's own only tells you part of the story.

 

[stupot07]

Stuart Pearce was 25 when he made his full England debut. I'm sure if I could be arsed I could probably find dozens of players who made their full England debut at a younger age than him and didn't go on to achieve what he did in his club or international career. Age of debut on it's own only tells you part of the story.

So what. For every Stuart Pearce there are dozens of Steve guppy's, Michael Ricketts, Michael Gray, Nugents, Etc, etc. you're asking why was Walcott and Oxlade worth more at the time. Well they were both younger and have both Proven to be top quality England international and champions league players.

£3m at the time was the best bid when we needed money. He's gone, get over it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[skybluetony176]

So what. For every Stuart Pearce there are dozens of Steve guppy's, Michael Ricketts, Michael Gray, Nugents, Etc, etc. you're asking why was Walcott and Oxlade worth more at the time. Well they were both younger and have both Proven to be top quality England international and champions league players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

My point being that none of their careers are over and it's more than possible that Wilson could yet be proved to be the more accomplished of the three despite being behind them at the same age. Stuart Pearce being a perfect example of being late to the game and far surpassing what overs who had achieved more at a younger age had achieved by the time their careers had ended.

 

[Grendel]

My point being that none of their careers are over and it's more than possible that Wilson could yet be proved to be the more accomplished of the three despite being behind them at the same age. Stuart Pearce being a perfect example of being late to the game and far surpassing what overs who had achieved more at a younger age had achieved by the time their careers had ended.

Between them the two arsenal players have played 60 times for England already.

Just quit - it's becoming tiresome.

You are in a minority of one in this debate. That at least should tell you something. Chamberlain was considered excellent yesterday in the game against Newcastle and will play many many more times for England. As will Walcott. Their technique is massively superior to wilsons.

 

[stupot07]

My point being that none of their careers are over and it's more than possible that Wilson could yet be proved to be the more accomplished of the three despite being behind them at the same age. Stuart Pearce being a perfect example of being late to the game and far surpassing what overs who had achieved more at a younger age had achieved by the time their careers had ended.

The equivalent of Pearce to Wilson and Oxlade/Walcott would be Ashley Cole........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[SkyblueBazza]

The wonderful world of football transfers explained to a degree - out of interest...

Deadline day: The ins and outs of a transfer request - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34091820

...onwards & upwards PUSB

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Walcott and Oxlade had both played numerous champions league games and played for England senior team well before the age Wilson got to the PL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

So who's to say that if wilson would have been in a bigger teams academy he wouldn't have achieved the same.
That is the problem playing for Coventry and the like.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

How do we know it was the first offer? There may have been other lower offers, in fact bournemouth would have likely offered lower, before coming back with an improved bid. We were losing £7-8m per annum and had cash flow problems. If we'd have kept a hold of him, we'd if likely not been able to bring in Johnson, JOB, etc.

So how do you know we wouldn't have been able to bring in these players?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[stupot07]

So who's to say that if wilson would have been in a bigger teams academy he wouldn't have achieved the same.
That is the problem playing for Coventry and the like.

You have completely missed the point. And neither Walcott or Oxlade came through arsenals academy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Nick]

So who's to say that if wilson would have been in a bigger teams academy he wouldn't have achieved the same.
That is the problem playing for Coventry and the like.

Who is to say if I went into the Barcelona academy when I was 4 or 5 I wouldn't be a top class player now?

Both of those players didn't go through Arsenal's academy either.

 

[stupot07]

Because we were cashstrapt lost £8m, the previous financial year, on top of the £7m the season before and the season before that. We were still at sixfields with tiny ST sales and very little cash flow. It doesn't take rocket science to make the deduction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[skybluetony176]

The equivalent of Pearce to Wilson and Oxlade/Walcott would be Ashley Cole........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Or Micah Richards

 

[stupot07]

Or Micah Richards

We could sit here and bash names about all day, there are plenty of players that have been good enough at a young age and have had a long champions league and international career. Stating that Wilson has as much potential as Walcott and Oxlade and therefore worth as much/more than them based on something he hadn't done yet is ridiculous. Plenty of top quality players who have done well in the championship or in the PL haven't cut the mustard in a top 4 side (e. Zaha, Sinclair, etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[skybluetony176]

We could sit here and bash names about all day, there are plenty of players that have been good enough at a young age and have had a long champions league and international career. Stating that Wilson has as much potential as Walcott and Oxlade and therefore worth as much/more than them based on something he hadn't done yet is ridiculous. Plenty of top quality players who have done well in the championship or in the PL haven't cut the mustard in a top 4 side (e. Zaha, Sinclair, etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I was comparing Wilsons value when he hadn't done anything to Oxlade Chamberlain price when he'd done marginally more by being part of a team who won promotion to the championship. I still also wasn't suggesting that Wilson was worth what Oxlade Chamberlain was worth at the same level in his playing career. Oxlade Chamberlain was reportedly signed for £12M plus add ons, I was suggesting that Wilson was worth £5M plus add ons when we sold him. Posters have countered with the age difference and because OC has played for England at an age that Wilson won't be able to because he's already passed that age must make him a better player than Wilson will ever be. What a load of tosh I say. The fact is at the age Micah Richards made his England debut Stuart Pearce was still playing for non league Wealdstone and working full-time as an electrician. Now Micah is 27 and I don't think you need a crystal ball to know that his career (for country especially) isn't going to eclipse Stuart Pearce's despite Stuart Pearce taking a longer route.

Perhaps I am talking bollocks but I see Wilson as a special player who is still a diamond in the rough and can only get better. How much better? We'll have to wait and see. Whereas Walcott and OC are both very accomplished and very talented players no argument there but the case is building that they're ability has peaked already, sure they'll gain from experience but the basis of there skills and raw talent is polished. Wilson is yet to reach the pinnacle of his ability in my opinion, he's still very much a diamond in the rough. How much more can be polished is yet to be seen.

 

[ccfc92]

Who is to say if I went into the Barcelona academy when I was 4 or 5 I wouldn't be a top class player now?

Both of those players didn't go through Arsenal's academy either.

Because yourrrrr'e shit, ahhh

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Between them the two arsenal players have played 60 times for England already.

Just quit - it's becoming tiresome.

You are in a minority of one in this debate. That at least should tell you something. Chamberlain was considered excellent yesterday in the game against Newcastle and will play many many more times for England. As will Walcott. Their technique is massively superior to wilsons.

Sorry - not having that. Give it 2 seasons and compare.... I know you like to keep a note of people's posts, please feel free to see how they are doing then.