Arsenal fans are tired. Tired of not winning trophies, not spending the money required to attract high-profile signings, and routinely losing their best players to rival clubs. Can you blame them?
Every week the Gunners faithful are forced to watch Robin van Persie score yet another wonder-goal for bitter rivals Manchester United, and they are left wondering what if? What if Van Persie was still at Arsenal? Maybe it's this line of thinking that has Arsenal fans so out of wack with the Theo Walcott contract situation.
Walcott is reportedly demanding £100,000 per week, a salary he feels he deserves as an important member of the first-team squad. On the face of it, Walcott's demands are somewhat justified - a quick glance at the club's goalscoring charts shows Walcott sits at the top of the pile with eight league goals to his name and 14 goals in all competitions this season.
With his current contract set to expire in July, the time is now to sign or sell, to avoid losing the 23-year-old England international for free in the summer. Many Arsenal fans are calling for Ivan Gazidis, the club Chief Executive, and manager Arsene Wenger to give him what he wants to avoid losing yet another key player.
But is he really worth it? Is Walcott a player who has the ability to produce the goods on a regular basis and lead the line for a club challenging for a title, a la Van Persie?
No he is not.
Yes, he has shown glimpses of the player Wenger thought he could be when he spent big to lure the Southampton academy graduate from St. Mary's, but he is yet to produce that kind of form on a regular basis. His recent hat-trick against Newcastle United in the 7-3 mauling of Alan Pardew's side was arguably Walcott's best performance in an Arsenal shirt, but I have my doubts he can perform at that level consistently.
He is slight of frame for a central striker and more often than not, he makes bad decisions in front of goal. His pace frightens even the very best defenders, but even when Walcott does beat his man, his final ball regularly lets him down.
£100,000 per week equates to £5million per year. Ask yourself, is Walcott really worth £20million over a four-year period? Unless Walcott accepts that he is best suited to playing out wide and reassesses his hefty wage demands, I think Arsenal would be better served selling Walcott and spending that money on a top-class striker that can supplement the likes of Olivier Giroud and Lukas Podolski.