The Arsenal chairman says the club will not break their wage structure to keep their captain. Surely the opposite should be true?
Arsenal supporters will likely have mixed views on the comments of their chairman Peter Hill-Wood yesterday.
He told The Sun “He is vital to us and has been an extremely good captain, but if somebody comes along and offers Robin £250,000 a week then I am afraid we cannot compete with that. With players, you never know what they are going to do.”
So should the club cave in and pay the huge wages? After his sensational performances for Arsenal last season, many feel that the striker should be paid whatever it takes to keep him at the club.
Peter Hill-Wood has a reputation as a tight wad, a man unwilling to relinquish control of the club, but at the same time unwilling to invest heavily or do deals with big overseas investors.
He remains on the right side of the majority of Arsenal supporters, who admire him for running the club in a proper financial manner, but this could be the straw that break’s the camel’s back.
If Arsenal are serious about winning trophies, and competing with the big guns at home and abroad, then keeping Robin van Persie is absolutely integral to that aim.
The Dutchman scored 36 for his club last season, and dragged them into third place, and without him it would have been a long, hard season for the team.
Van Persie’s decision will take into account winning trophies and silverware, and he clearly is not convinced that Arsenal is the best place to be for that.
So that concern is already one reason not to stay at Arsenal. Hill-Wood has now hinted that money could be a big factor.
The chairman should match any offer Van Persie receives. He is a special player, one too important to lose. He must not give the captain a second reason to leave the club by offering him a second-rate deal.
Should Arsenal pay Van Persie £250,000 a week? Is Hill-Wood wrong?
image: © wonker
Receive exclusive football transfer news and updates twice a week to your mailbox
