Interesting Walcott Conspiracy...

MrJoeSoap

http://www.football365.com/opinion/mailbox/story_186122.shtml

Does anyone know why this week's England game was a 'B' international? Because there is a rumour going round the south coast that it's because Arsenal would have had to pay us an additional 2 million quid for Theo if it had been a full international...

It's a fact that we get a lot of money per international that Theo plays. I think you can find the structure of the deal online somewhere. At the end of the day, they'll still have to pay us the money at some point, as he is clearly going to play plenty of internationals (the majority of England and indeed Arsenal fans won't have seen him play, so just take my word for it...), but the reason they haven't picked him for their first team is that they want to be sure about him before they have to pay us any more money.

In fact, I bet you he goes out on loan somewhere next season in a further attempt to put off paying for him. That human paraquat Redknapp has been sniffing round apparently. That would be almost too much to bear...

I'd like to know when it was decided that the friendly would be a 'B' international. If it was decided since it emerged that Theo would be in the squad, there is clearly something very dodgy going on.

I like most Saints fans was very upset when Theo went, and this has rekindled my rage. The FA need to do something to stop the likes of Arsenal raping smaller clubs, because that's what it amounts to- what is effectively the non-consensual buying of our players. With Spurs and Liverpool apparently sniffing round our brilliant young defender Gareth Bale it is increasingly concerning.

What's the point in having a kick-arse academy if your best youngsters are going to end up at other clubs before they've played a full season for you? It's not our responsibility to provide players for the 'big five'. Clearly though, nothing is going to change while snakes like David Dein are involved. Allegedly he also vetoed the possibility of Wenger being offered the England job. What a surprise.

What makes it worse is that if Theo makes an impact at international level, Wenger will claim all the credit, when he deserves none. It is unbelievable that when he was selected in the squad, the likes of Redknapp and Wenger were immediately basking in the reflected glory, yet almost no mention was made of our academy staff Georges Prost, Malcolm Elias and Huw Jennings ('Who?' you might ask...).

We're not whiter than white. We've essentially done the same thing, poaching players from Notts County, Oxford and others. Theo himself was briefly on Swindon Town's books. It's not really Arsenal I have a problem with- I admire Wenger's crusade to win the title back using the rough diamonds he has 'unearthed'. It's the rule, whereby players can be transferred for a fraction of their true worth if they are under 17, that I am objecting to, and the obvious conflict of interest of having David Dein and his ilk effectively running the game.
Tom Williams, Southampton

Now I think its pretty much common knowledge that the reason Theo has yet to feature for Arsenal is that they are still checking him out and want to be 100% sure of him before they start paying Southampton even more money.

The recent England 'B' international, however, seems even more ridiculous. How or why was it a 'B' international? Fair enough, it wasn't exactly the first choice England side by a long shot, but these are still players who are in the squad and most of whom are likely to feature at some stage or other in the finals.

Now, of course, Theo Walcott is in this group of players, and Arsenal will owe Southampton a good deal of money if and when he makes his full debut, and for each cap after that I'm sure (up to a certain limit, be it 5/10/20). The add-on clauses in the deal add up to 7 million, whilst the initial deal was 5 million. We may very well see Theo in the World Cup, but I still don't get why last weeks game with Belarus was classed as a 'B' international. And indeed when the friendly was classed as a 'B' international. And with David Dein in the position he is in, there are some questions to be answered.

There may be simple answers of course...

What are peoples thoughts? I've a feeling I may be berated for this one...

Big Nelly

Wouldnt think England give 2 f**ks about Southampton getting money etc, when the friendly was annoucend I dont think Walcott was even mentioned in the England setup so I wouldnt think this is the reason

p.pete

Very interesting

MrJoeSoap

Big Nelly wrote:

Wouldnt think England give 2 f**ks about Southampton getting money etc, when the friendly was annoucend I dont think Walcott was even mentioned in the England setup so I wouldnt think this is the reason

Yes but when the friendly was announced was it classed as a 'B' friendly?

And David Dein (the Arsenal chairman) is on the board of the FA, so its not as black and white as saying England don't care about Southampton getting money. Even ignoring the Walcott situation, surely that is a conflict of interests?

p.pete

Big Nelly wrote:

Wouldnt think England give 2 f**ks about Southampton getting money etc,

I think you're missing the point there.

eirebhoy

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Yes but when the friendly was announced was it classed as a 'B' friendly?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51444653&postcount=33

MrJoeSoap

In that case, can anyone give me a reason as to why it was a 'B' international?

England played Paraguay, South Korea and Cameroon in the build-up to the 2002 World Cup, none of which were classed as 'B' games. The friendly was still only confirmed less than three weeks before the squad, not a huge length of time.

Again, I'm just curious after the half-season Walcott has spent at Arsenal without any first team action.

Big Nelly

MrJoeSoap wrote:

In that case, can anyone give me a reason as to why it was a 'B' international?

England played Paraguay, South Korea and Cameroon in the build-up to the 2002 World Cup, none of which were classed as 'B' games. The friendly was still only confirmed less than three weeks before the squad, not a huge length of time.

Again, I'm just curious after the half-season Walcott has spent at Arsenal without any first team action.

Correct me if wrong but it was put as a "B" so he could play players that are on standby at the moment and not in full squad

also allowed for a **** result so Sven wouldnt look bad

MrJoeSoap

Big Nelly wrote:

Correct me if wrong but it was put as a "B" so he could play players that are on standby at the moment and not in full squad

also allowed for a **** result so Sven wouldnt look bad

The only players who got that chance (as far as I can see anyway) are Dawson and Defoe (11 minutes) and Carson (47 minutes, enforced).

Big Nelly

MrJoeSoap wrote:

The only players who got that chance (as far as I can see anyway) are Dawson and Defoe (11 minutes) and Carson (47 minutes, enforced).

Still if it was a full international they wouldnt be an option

p.pete

Big Nelly wrote:

Still if it was a full international they wouldnt be an option

Why not?

Also - the links showing that it's always been a B International are all on the FA's own website - which correct me if I'm wrong can be changed by them to suit their own needs. So the story from several months earlier can easily be edited to include the letter 'B'.

Superdub2

Big Nelly wrote:

Still if it was a full international they wouldnt be an option

ye why woudlnt they have been, is there some rule there or was that just a silly comment!

Pepe LeFrits

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Now I think its pretty much common knowledge that the reason Theo has yet to feature for Arsenal is that they are still checking him out and want to be 100% sure of him before they start paying Southampton even more money.

Don't be silly, Wenger isn't going to pay £5m for a 16 year old unless he thinks he is the real deal. He's hardly going to get the board to pay £5m for a kid he hasn't really watched, and THEN check to see if he's any good because he's worried it'd cost Arsenal a few more grand. He didn't play for Arsenal this year for a number of reasons, but none of them were because of clauses in his contract. Arsenal were struggling and needed to win every game, so he couldn't be risked. He was also sent on holiday because he had played too much for Southampton, and he got injured.

The recent England 'B' international, however, seems even more ridiculous. How or why was it a 'B' international? Fair enough, it wasn't exactly the first choice England side by a long shot, but these are still players who are in the squad and most of whom are likely to feature at some stage or other in the finals.

Now, of course, Theo Walcott is in this group of players, and Arsenal will owe Southampton a good deal of money if and when he makes his full debut, and for each cap after that I'm sure (up to a certain limit, be it 5/10/20). The add-on clauses in the deal add up to 7 million, whilst the initial deal was 5 million. We may very well see Theo in the World Cup, but I still don't get why last weeks game with Belarus was classed as a 'B' international. And indeed when the friendly was classed as a 'B' international. And with David Dein in the position he is in, there are some questions to be answered.

There may be simple answers of course...

What are peoples thoughts? I've a feeling I may be berated for this one...

From the Independent online:

Eriksson seeks go-ahead for England B international
By Steve Tongue
Published: 05 March 2006

World football's governing body, Fifa, are expected to turn down a request from Sven Goran Eriksson to be allowed to use more than six substitutes in England's two remaining matches before the World Cup. He therefore wants to play a B international in London during the preceding week, the first time such a fixture would have been staged in eight years.

Having fought so hard to obtain a gap of five weeks between the final Premiership games on Sunday 7 May and the start of the tournament, head coach Eriksson is now concerned that some of the reserves in his squad will become too ring-rusty.

Wikipedia:

The frequency of the games depends almost entirely upon the head coach of the England squad. For example, there were no B team internationals under Sir Alf Ramsey, meaning that there were none between 1957 and 1978. Ron Greenwood reintroduced them and Sir Bobby Robson used them regularly - there were nine B team internationals in 1989 and 1990. This period saw the likes of Paul Gascoigne enter the England team via the B squad

Sounds like Sven's doing to me.

MrJoeSoap

p.pete wrote:

Why not?

Also - the links showing that it's always been a B International are all on the FA's own website - which correct me if I'm wrong can be changed by them to suit their own needs. So the story from several months earlier can easily be edited to include the letter 'B'.

It wasn't changed.

http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38696&sid=29cc1424de109da72ef64c908fdc9a54

Iago

In fairness there were 296 caps between the squad that played in that game, doesn't sound like a "B" international to me, whatever the reasoning behind it.

England were beaten by a poor side, calling them the "B" team doesn't make a difference. I'm not sure the Walcott piece holds merit though, he's not in the Arsenal team becuase he doesn't have the presence or build for the premiership yet and there are good players in front of him.

MrJoeSoap

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

He's hardly going to get the board to pay £5m for a kid he hasn't really watched, and THEN check to see if he's any good because he's worried it'd cost Arsenal a few more grand.

This isn't a few grand.

To say Walcott had played too much for Southampton is way off the mark, he had only made 13 starts for us... hardly fatigued now was he?

And his "injury":

""I think he’s tweaked a ligament just down the side of the knee. I think it's just a few days' rest and recuperation."

Pepe LeFrits

Got a break down of the transfer clauses then? Because somehow I don't think a sub appearance here or there for the Arsenal first team is going to have the cash rolling into Southampton.

All immaterial anyway, unless you think there's a conspiracy because he couldn't displace Thierry Henry...

Stky10

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Now I think its pretty much common knowledge that the reason Theo has yet to feature for Arsenal is that they are still checking him out and want to be 100% sure of him before they start paying Southampton even more money.

Nah, he wasn't in the team because simply he's not good enough to play in the first team at the moment. And you don't pay 5m for a player and stick him in training to see if he's good enough. The only way to see that is to play him in the first team.

I'd imagine he'll be eased in to the first team gradually, but as a 17 year old his body is still developing, and being kicked around a pitch isn't going to help him. Look at how many promising players fail to make it every year because of injury knocking them back in their development. Rooney is an exception to the rule because his physical development allowed him to put up with the physical requirements.

growler

nice of Mr Dein to save the gunners a few quid.

Chucky the tree

Oh christ, i dont even know where to start.

jank

Perhaps we should have our own Dein conspiracy board :rolleyes:

gandalf

LOL this is going to run and run

Did wonder myself about why it was a B international, the subs explaination makes sense as Sven Ericrapson loves to change nearly everyone for a friendly game! (Shame they couldn't sub the manager )

KdjaCL

How much did Saints expect to get for a 17 year old unproven in the PL ?

Is 12 overall not enough? Work out the same as C Ronaldo thereabouts.





kdjac

beer enigma

jank wrote:

Perhaps we should have our own Dein conspiracy board :rolleyes:

Da Vinci code eat your heart out !!

Ok, Dein is part of the FA, but they're hardly going to play a 'B' International just to save the Gunners a few quid.....

And yes....if I was a Southampton supporter I'd be hacked off at losing a talent like Walcott...but c'mon lads..........

And as for calling Redknapp "human paraquat" - is that because he left you for a rival team ??....where did he come from ................

shepthedog

This is such rubbish.... How can you believe that the entire FA are going to re-class an international just to suit Arsenal..Come on...
This couldnt have anything to do with Theo Walcott... Isnt he going to make his debut in couple of wks anyway so whats the difference between playing now and couple of wks later.. .Hardly going to bankrupt Arsenal now is it?
Also, Southampton cant complain about getting 12m for a player unproven in Prem no matter how "promising"..

The Muppet

shepthedog wrote:

This is such rubbish.... How can you believe that the entire FA are going to re-class an international just to suit Arsenal..Come on...
This couldnt have anything to do with Theo Walcott... Isnt he going to make his debut in couple of wks anyway so whats the difference between playing now and couple of wks later.. .Hardly going to bankrupt Arsenal now is it?
Also, Southampton cant complain about getting 12m for a player unproven in Prem no matter how "promising"..

As long as there is a conflict of interest at the deciison making level of the FA they will open to such alligations. I do believe that Dein's positionn has influenced decisions concerning Arsenal in the past so why not again?

tred

MrJoeSoap wrote:

http://www.football365.com/opinion/mailbox/story_186122.shtml



Now I think its pretty much common knowledge that the reason Theo has yet to feature for Arsenal is that they are still checking him out and want to be 100% sure of him before they start paying Southampton even more money.

The recent England 'B' international, however, seems even more ridiculous. How or why was it a 'B' international? Fair enough, it wasn't exactly the first choice England side by a long shot, but these are still players who are in the squad and most of whom are likely to feature at some stage or other in the finals.

Now, of course, Theo Walcott is in this group of players, and Arsenal will owe Southampton a good deal of money if and when he makes his full debut, and for each cap after that I'm sure (up to a certain limit, be it 5/10/20). The add-on clauses in the deal add up to 7 million, whilst the initial deal was 5 million. We may very well see Theo in the World Cup, but I still don't get why last weeks game with Belarus was classed as a 'B' international. And indeed when the friendly was classed as a 'B' international. And with David Dein in the position he is in, there are some questions to be answered.

There may be simple answers of course...

What are peoples thoughts? I've a feeling I may be berated for this one...

I think hes going to get a run in the next international against Hungary..so above must be horse c**p!. Unless they have a clause which says, if He plays a B international before a full one then hes not to cost arsenal a cent more!!!

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote:

As long as there is a conflict of interest at the deciison making level of the FA they will open to such alligations. I do believe that Dein's positionn has influenced decisions concerning Arsenal in the past so why not again?

What conflict of interest?

He sits on the Main Board of the FA as a representative of the PL (elected by his fellow chairmen) along with Bolton's Phil Gartside, Blackburn's Robert Coar and PL Chairman Phil Gartside.

Members of the Main Board are the non-executive directors of The FA.

He also sits on the the FA Council as a representative of the PL, along with Richards, Gartside, ManYoo's David Gill and Aston Villa's Doug Ellis.

astrofool

Did anything ever come of Chelsea's european fixture complaint? (i.e. Arsenal having lots of home/london fixtures after Euro ties, and Chelsea having barely any over a number of years, eliminating randomness).

MrJoeSoap

astrofool wrote:

Did anything ever come of Chelsea's european fixture complaint? (i.e. Arsenal having lots of home/london fixtures after Euro ties, and Chelsea having barely any over a number of years, eliminating randomness).

Wikipedia wrote:

However in the long run this has mostly evened out; in the period 1998–2005 Arsenal had 53% of their matches after a Champions League tie at home, while Chelsea had 55%

.

The Muppet

therecklessone wrote:

What conflict of interest?

He sits on the Main Board of the FA as a representative of the PL (elected by his fellow chairmen) along with Bolton's Phil Gartside, Blackburn's Robert Coar and PL Chairman Phil Gartside.

Members of the Main Board are the non-executive directors of The FA.

He also sits on the the FA Council as a representative of the PL, along with Richards, Gartside, ManYoo's David Gill and Aston Villa's Doug Ellis.

The conflict of interests as alledged in this thread and others too . Football associations tend to be run as Old Boys clubs as we in Ireland know only too well , The FA must be impartial and should take steps to put themselves beyond this type of criticism.

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote:

The conflict of interests as alledged in this thread and others too . Football associations tend to be run as Old Boys clubs as we in Ireland know only too well , The FA must be impartial and should take steps to put themselves beyond this type of criticism.

Allegations. Thats all they are.

Tin foil hat conspiracies more like. We've exploded the myth that the game last Thursday was a B international for Arsenal's benefit, Mourinho's "Arsenal get all home games after their CL ties" was shot down here and elsewhere.

the FA wrote:

Major business, strategic and commercial decisions are taken by the Main Board, comprised of six representatives from the professional game and six from the national game, plus The FA Chief Executive and The FA Chairman. The Board was established in December 1999 to make the decision-making process more streamlined.

So unless you're suggesting we do away with the 6 representatives from the professional game, of which Dein is one, then the argument has no merit.

Everybody join with me:

"Dein, Gartside, Coar and Richards out (plus the other two who nobody cares about)!"

Except there's not many think the other five are up to no good, is there?

p.pete

therecklessone wrote:

Allegations. Thats all they are.

Tin foil hat conspiracies more like. We've exploded the myth that the game last Thursday was a B international for Arsenal's benefit, Mourinho's "Arsenal get all home games after their CL ties" was shot down here and elsewhere.



So unless you're suggesting we do away with the 6 representatives from the professional game, of which Dein is one, then the argument has no merit.

Everybody join with me:

"Dein, Gartside, Coar and Richards out (plus the other two who nobody cares about)!"

Except there's not many think the other five are up to no good, is there?

You're awfully defensive on this issue

WhiteWashMan

DAVID DEIN ATE MY HAMSTER!

but not before playing it in a 'B' international to save arsenal a few quid, and only then because it kept henry at arsenal for another season.....

the man obviously has henous plans that would put lucifer to shame!


*BLAM*

to the conspiracy forum batman!

*KERPOW*

AnCapaillMor

Ah fecksake i can't post it.

therecklessone

p.pete wrote:

You're awfully defensive on this issue

I know...:p

Ah, I've seen enough of this sh*t on the Spurs boards, it grows tiring after a while. When people can't be arsed checking simple facts before concocting the latest fantasy, or worse still can't be bothered reading between the lines when one of Arsenal's rivals has a dig at them.

Chucky the tree

so much for this conspiracy...

gandalf

AnCapaillMor wrote:

Ah fecksake i can't post it.

Here is a piccie of David Dein before he went off to do his bit for the White Hart Lane redevelopment plan

WhiteWashMan

its only to put you off the scent.

in the darkened arsenal board room, david dein's face is lit only by the cigar he smokes, and all the while he laughs quietly to himself.

5starpool

How much did Dein save by postponing the debut for a few days? Will they be able to buy many new players with it??????

MrJoeSoap

Might pay a bit of Henry's signing on fee.

Pepe LeFrits

Woops.