Date: 10th December 2012 at 4:00pm
Written by:

Former Gunners boss believes Theo Walcott should only sign a one-year deal and then prove to everyone at the club that he deserves the reported £100,000-a-week wages he craves.

The ’s contract is set to expire at the end of the season and appears unwilling to put his John Hancock on a £75,000-a-week deal which have offered him.

But Graham reckons the club should try a new approach by offering the 23-year-old a short-term deal and prove to and the board why they should give him what he wants.

He recently told talkSPORT:

‘I think [Arsenal] have made a stance on [the contract dispute]. I think probably he’s a squad player. He’s not really a regular, for me, in the Arsenal team and I think that [£75,000] is a very good offer.’

He added:

‘If I was Theo I would say, ‘I will sign that on a one-year contract’, and if he’s got enough confidence in his own ability and signs the one year deal and does the business on the pitch then he can go in there and say, ‘now I want this [amount of money].’’

I think this is a great route for the club to explore. Why should they grant, in my opinion, an inconsistent performer what he wants? Does he really deserve the wages he is demanding? Not in my eyes.

If indeed Arsenal want to keep him then they should offer him a one-year contract worth £75,000-a-week, with the incentive of granting the winger what he wants, but only if he produces on the pitch during that period.

I don’t think Theo would be too keen on the idea and if that proves to be the case then Arsene Wenger has a tough decision to make in January.

Would this be a good route to take?

Give us your thoughts on the matter below