Grendel
Well-Known Member
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.
How can you even compare the two? You are actually simple.
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.
Another intellectual reply. If your phone is ringing it's probably Mensa.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not absolutely correct.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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?