Been a few rumours recentley that we're after Walcott, what do you guys think?

I personally have never rated him that highly think he's all pace and not much else. Still better than Aaron Lennon.

I prefer lennon. But want neither.

^ you cant be serious?.. That one trick pony. Walcott isn't any better to be honest. Both a no for me.

If were after a speedy winger with no end product Im sure SWP would be available for the right price! Lmfao!

Cant see why he would leave Arsenal starts for them, would cost far too much but would be decent additional perhaps swap deal for sturridge?

His contract is out in 12 months time and has threatened to leave arsenal if they sell RVP

Would be a good bossman signing as a squad player

I'd be happy with Walcott coming here, could see him being a replacement for Kalou's position with the squad. He'd be a fantastic option to have off the bench and starting the occasional game, would just depend if he'd be content with that kind of role though

swap deal for sturridge no thanks

He's never progressed since that night in Croatia.

He is fast and that's about it, if he cannot get past a defender then he is useless for his team.

Would be a mistake bringing him in when we need something totally opposite.

a swap deal for sturriddge would be nice.

a swap deal for sturriddge would be nice.

Would it?!

a swap deal for sturriddge would be nice.

For who exactly, because it wouldnt be good for us.

He is a secret gooner!

Kalou > Walcott any day of the week!

a swap deal for sturriddge would be nice.

No it wouldn't , i would rather have Sturridge.

Practically invisible in the Euro's, and I've never been overly impressed by him. He never lived up to the lable of "Another Wenger Wonderkid" and I'd much rather Danny in our ranks

Practically invisible in the Euro's, and I've never been overly impressed by him. He never lived up to the lable of "Another Wenger Wonderkid" and I'd much rather Danny in our ranks

That's a bit tough, as he was mainly a sub, and he made England progress to the quarters (goal and assist vs the Swedes after coming on in the 2nd half).

Well, these rumours have never gone away so they may have substance to them. It looks like we've been tracking him for over a year and are fully aware of his contract situation, which has one year to run. If I'm not mistaken, Danny's has one year to run also, can anyone confirm this? I fear a swap deal coming on, as we are badly in need of a right-winger, and Walcott also has ambitions of playing centre-forward. It was always Wenger's stated aim to convert him eventually, as he did with Henry. Therefore, he would provide cover for Torres, in the same way Sturridge does now. Don't forget also, we were after Walcott initially but he chose Arsenal because he felt he would develop more. It has taken him surprisingly long to develop, he has been there a long time, and has spent most of his time out the team. Personally, I don't rate him that highly, I just don't think he'll ever be the whole package, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is genuine interest so hold on to your hats. Will Danny go to Arsenal? We are paying him a hell of a lot, around 80k a week if I remember rightly. He would want his next contract to be better. I'm not sure Arsenal would meet that. One thing about Danny, he has a very high valuation of himself, which is no bad thing in a striker. And that's what he is folks, a striker. I would like to see him get a run of games up top, and so would he I imagine. He's waited a long time. Not sure Robbie agrees with me though, so there you go. I am not the manager, Robbie is, and if you don't like it, take it up with the club.

If we gave them Danny for Theo we would be the biggest mugs in the country. Kalou was better than Walcott is.

Just say no

I would take a punt on him, I think he has got his best years to come.

Then again I thought Barton might have been worth a risk this time last year, Holland were going to win the Euros, and AVB would never manage again so don't listen to me.

The only definite positives about signing Walcott are that he's homegrown and he's very fast, but that's about it. He's not a good passer, not a good dribbler and very erratic finisher. Plus, he's injury prone.

I just could never understand what the hype was about. I look at Bale, and I get it. Walcott? I just don't see it.

The only definite positives about signing Walcott are that he's homegrown and he's very fast, but that's about it. He's not a good passer, not a good dribbler and very erratic finisher. Plus, he's injury prone.

I just could never understand what the hype was about. I look at Bale, and I get it. Walcott? I just don't see it.

Agreed.

Not impressed we're being linked with him but it gives me another topic to read.

If it was a straight choice between Walcott or Moses (Or Jarvis) I'd go for Theo. He's still only 23 and he has international experience. Okay, he's not set the world alight so far, but I tihnk he still has potential he's not yet exploiting, and with the right manager and coaches he could improve quite a lot. Only for sensible money though, he's got 1 yr left on his Arsenal deal, so no more than £10m-£12m.

If it was a straight choice between Walcott or Moses (Or Jarvis) I'd go for Theo. He's still only 23 and he has international experience. Okay, he's not set the world alight so far, but I tihnk he still has potential he's not yet exploiting, and with the right manager and coaches he could improve quite a lot. Only for sensible money though, he's got 1 yr left on his Arsenal deal, so no more than £10m-£12m.

I don't see any improvement in Walcott he is 23 i think this is it what we are seeing now.He is is not very good technically on the ball,without his pace he doesn't have anything.Moses is good on the ball and is strong and is far more direct and effective.