Some Arsenal fans are never happy.
They wants us to “sell dead wood” and cash begin raising more funds from academy products that are not at the required level.
And then they moan £25million is underselling a player not required and moan about selling an academy product that is not at the required level.
£25million for Joe Willock is a good deal for Arsenal.
Willock has had his chance
Joe Willock has played 78 games for Arsenal since making his debut in September 2017.
He has shown glimpses of being a decent player, but has not shown enough, on a consistent basis, that he will ever be top player.
Compare Willock to 2 academy products who have cracked it – Bukayo Saka and Emile Smith Rowe.
Both Saka and Smith Rowe are younger than Willock and have performed to a higher level.
Last season whilst Willock was struggling for game time, Smith Rowe came in and took his chance with both hands.
Smith Rowe moved ahead of Willock in the pecking order which was the main reason he was loaned out and ultimately sold.
Willock turns 22-years-old soon. So lets stop the talk about how much potential he has.
Arsenal need better than Willock (and Smith Rowe)
If we want to progress as a team, we need better players than what we have.
That is why we are targeting someone like James Maddison.
Maddison is levels ahead of Smith Rowe, who is levels above Willock.
When you are targeting someone to come in at the top end of the squad, someone at the bottom end will end up making way.
If we are looking at Willock as a 10, buying Maddison drops him down to 3rd choice. £25million for a 3rd choice player is a good deal.
Position
“But he can play deeper than 10” is an argument I have seen some people use.
For Newcastle, his fantastic performances came playing in behind a striker. For Arsenal, when he has played deeper, his passing has been exposed.
Willock could become a good box to box midfielder. He certainly has the energy to get around the field. But his passing is his poorest aspect of his game.
You can not play central midfield if you can not pass.
Willock’s strength is finding space in the box and scoring goals.
We have already established that he already has Smith Rowe and potentially Maddison (or another 10) ahead of him as an attacking midfielder. He also has numbers ahead of him deeper.
Split our 4 central midfielders up into 2 groups – the ones that sit and the ones that press.
In the press group it is Thomas Partey and Albert Sambi Lokonga. Granit Xhaka and Mohamed Elneny are the sitters.
Partey is clearly ahead of Willock and Lokonga has shown enough in pre-season for me to say he is also the better player. So Willock would be “3rd choice” for that position.
As a sitting midfield; Willock has never played this position.
Yes, you could argue that “Willock is a better footballer than Elneny” but this is irrelevant as Elneny is a better sitting midfielder than Willock.
So at best, Willock would be 3rd choice at 10, 3rd choice at “8”. You could argue that he would be good to keep him around covering both positions. But I would rather have the £25million
£25million is too low. It should have been £40million
I do wonder sometimes if people understand how the transfer market works.
A player is only “worth” how much a team (or teams) offer for him.
If Willock at £25million was too low, where were all the clubs competing for his signature?
Literally no other club than Newcastle was in for him.
Had Everton, Leicester City or West Ham wanted him, it could have created a bidding war which would have pushed his price up.
But there was no bidding war. No multiple clubs after him. It was just Newcastle.
So this left Arsenal to negotiate a price that suited Arsenal, whilst Newcastle were negotiating a price that suited them. I the end £25million wad considered a fair price.
Had Arsenal demanded £40million, the deal would have collapsed. Newcastle would not have paid that.
Likewise, if Newcastle refused to pay any more than £15million, Arsenal would have walked away from the deal.
With no other suitors, Arsenal had a choice:
Take the £25million or pull the plug on the deal like they did with Xhaka to Roma.
What would happen if we kept him?
So lets say we pulled the plug on the deal. What would have happened?
We would have had a player who was 3rd choice and hardly playing – he started just 2 Premier League games for Arsenal when he was higher up the pecking order.
His contract expires in 2023; so if we kept him we would have had kept him it would be a new 5 year contract.
In 2 years time when he has had a couple more loan deals and barely played a game, the same people moaning that £25million is too low would be moaning that we were stupid turning down the offer and giving him a new contract..
Where were the other clubs
When selling a player, I always think about where he ends up.
There is a reason why Willock has ended up at Newcastle and was not being targeted by Leicester City, West Ham, Everton, Leeds or Aston Villa.
He is mid-lower table level; not Arsenal level.
And the future?
Well with £25million in our pocket and a squad place freed up Arsenal can get back to recruiting.
Lets lay out a mythical situation.
Leicester City want £60million for Maddison.
Arsenal have just raised £25million selling Willock.
In negotiations, we offer Ainsley Maitland-Niles as part of the deal – Maitland Niles nearly joined Leicester in January for £20million.
If both clubs honour that valuation, than it is realistic Arsenal could agree a deal with Leicester that is £40million + Maitland Niles.
£25milion of that £40million is covered by the sale of Willock.
So we would see a net swing of £15million expenditure to bring in James Maddison with two academy products who were surplus to requirement also making way.
Summary
In summary, Arsenal have got £25million for a 22-year-old midfielder who was not good enough for us. With just one club in the running for him we have maximised the transfer fee.
If we can now do similar with other academy products (Eddie Nketiah, Reiss Nelson), then the rebuild can continue.
I would suggest there are some fans who will moan about everything that the club do.
They have moaned we are selling Willock. They would moan had we kept him and offered him a new deal. They think it is cool to be an “anti-fan”.
Keenos
She Wore A Yellow Ribbon 
Spot on! I like your blog because it speaks common sense which apparently isn’t common these days. I have seen others moan at the lack of opportunities given – there have been plenty. There aren’t many more without the UEL which means his value would gradually reduce. Or moan at the fee as though like you say there is a bidding war.
This deal takes me back to so many, fans moan at. The Ox was a fan favourite and his move to Liverpool hurt. His injury record wasn’t great (still isn’t) and he rarely found the back of the net. Is he the reason Liverpool have kicked on to win the Champions League and Premier League? No, but I am pleased for him that he got those medals.
Iwobi was another, flattered, but never got us anywhere – did we sign a better player in Pepe? Yes, overpaid maybe, but yes.
AMN should have gone to Wolves last summer, but he was given another chance. Has he kicked on since? No. He’s argued for more playing time in the centre of midfield where he would be 3rd or 4th choice. He didn’t want to be back up LB and wasn’t very good when he played there. He played CM for WBA with mixed results and they went down. Unlike Willock who saved Newcastle from the drop (at the Baggies expense). We should have taken the £20m then. His Market value took a 33% drop since, before climbing back 10% with game time at WBA (as per transfermarkt). If he isn’t sold or loaned out again, then the value drops further. The latter is worse for Arsenal as he runs his contract down.
Willock may kick on at Newcastle or might end up being a flash in the pan for them; time will tell. Hopefully, it’s the former and I expect Arsenal to include both buy-back and sell-on clauses. Liverpool inserted a 20% sell-on clause in Ings and are still getting paid on a 29-year-old! It’s just good business sense.
We have about 10 players at Arsenal that ought to be sold imo to raise funds for upgrades: Runarsson, Kolasinac, Bellerin, Torreira, Willock, AMN, Willian, Nelson, Lacazette, and Nketiah. Whether you agree or not, it is my opinion. Some will fetch nothing (Runarsson and Wllian) while Kolasinac will have to be paid off (contract termination). Bellerin clearly needs a new challenge, and Lacazette has proven to be worse for goals than Giroud (who is ageing like French wine). Torreira will be a loss unless he is moved on this year, and Nelson desperately needs minutes. It looks like Brighton want Nketiah, if we get £20m for him in addition to £20m upfront for Willock, then £40m plus AMN should get Maddison. It improves the Arsenal first team which is what you want. Insert the usual buy-back + sell on should they kick on and we hope they do because they are Hale End products but also because we’d love to have them back at Arsenal.
The problem last season wasn’t our defence. We conceded the 3rd fewest goals despite occasional mistakes at the back. Arteta has shown he knows how to organise a backline. Aubameyang has also shown he is capable of being the league’s top scorer if he gets the service but the creativity was missing. ESR is a gem but still needs refining as much as protecting. Another creative player – Maddison (or Aouar) is needed to push us on from a woeful back to back 8th place finish, not Willock. The best part which never gets talked about is the exciting crop of Hale End products like Azeez and Balogun who will get fewer opportunities with AMN, Willock, and Nketiah ahead of them. The next Saka and ESR might be in there…
LikeLike
Totally agree. I like Willock and I hope he goes onto have a good career but I`ve watched him closely since he was a kid and he`s a head down footballer. I`d be amazed if he ever catapulted himself into being a seasoned Champions League player and that`s the level we have to be looking to get back towards. He`s definitely got a goal in him and he might do a decent job at Newcastle but the only reason people are upset about this deal is because he`s an academy product. 25 million for Willock is a great deal for us. As the poster above says, we have plenty more players on the payroll that we need to get shot of as well. We need a good clear out and whilst I`m happy with the start Arteta has made of it, there`s a long way to go. I actually think we`ll have a decent season but I`m prepared for a bit of short term pain. I`m sick of the stagnation and slow deterioration. Its time for radical change, it should have been done years ago and Arteta should have been more ruthless after winning the Cup but he`s started the rebuild now and I reckon we`ll have a seriously competitive side in a couple of years time. That`s why Maddison would be a good signing, its very important we get our recruitment right over the next few years and a player like him is pretty much nailed on to improve the side. I`d rather pay a few quid more for a proven quality premier league player than start taking chances on cheaper alternatives on the continent. We cant afford to piss anymore money up the wall on unproven players.
LikeLike
The ‘net swing of £15million expenditure to bring in James Maddison’ is a good point-in-favor for the moves. Granted, we’ll be likely doubling Maddison from his current £60k/wk. But again, some of that is offset by the outgoing pair of players’ wages.
On a related note– Martin Odegaard has been given just one 30-minute look (and some cameos) by Ancelotti in Real’s preseason– where peripheral players like Isco are getting more minutes than he. I suspect that Martin Odegaard is leaning toward a jump back to Arsenal, sooner than later.
Arteta seems to have Odegaard then Maddison, respectively, as his creative midfield targets. Preferring MO it seems– but has irons in the fire to move for Maddison– if MO ends up staying at Real. If neither, the plan seems to make a play for Houssem Aouar at/near the deadline.
LikeLike