Should Arsenal give Walcott a new contract, or the boot?

ARSENAL have opened contract negotiations with England winger Theo Walcott in what The Daily Telegraph describes as an attempt to "avert a repeat of their nightmare summer last year" when Cesc Fabregas quit the club for Barcelona and Samir Nasri left for Manchester City.
 
But would Arsenal really miss Walcott if he did leave? They would hardly be facing the same challenges they have encountered this season had it been Walcott rather than Fabregas or Nasri who had jumped ship. Rather than worry about Walcott, the Gunners should surely be concentrating their efforts on retaining the services of Robin van Persie, whose contract also expires at the end of next season.
 
Unlike Walcott, Van Persie is vital to Arsenal's success. The Dutch striker has played in every league game of the season and has 17 goals and five assists under his belt.
 
Walcott has managed two goals and four assists in his 19 games. That is worse return than the much-maligned Gervinho (four goals, five assists in fewer games). Perhaps it is time to stop seeing young Theo as the future as Arsenal.
 
Since he arrived from Southampton six years ago Walcott has threatened to bloom on many occasions, but every flickering of greatness has been swiftly snuffed out, often by injury. This season he has stayed fit, but has hardly flickered at all.
 
Of course all of this has been said before. Chris Waddle and others have stuck the knife in, and in 2010 Fabio Capello left the winger out of his World Cup squad, prompting unfulfilled pledges from the player that he would "show people what I can do".
 
Much is made of his lack of killer instinct in front of goal, despite all kinds of attempts to conjure up the hidden assassin, and he appears to lack it off the pitch as well. Could it betray a lack of ambition?
 
The Telegraph reports that Walcott earns £60,000 a week. That is a mind-boggling sum for anyone except a Premier League footballer of Walcott's profile. For example Bolton defender Gary Cahill is on a not dissimilar wage.
 
The Gunner has reportedly turned down the chance of a bigger pay packet at Chelsea in the past, and Jeremy Wilson of the Telegraph believes he could earn £100,000 a week at another, less homely, club than Arsenal. He also reveals that Walcott's camp have not made any demands of Arsene Wenger and are happy to listen to Arsenal's overtures.
 
It all sounds very loyal, and reminiscent of the way someone like Paul Scholes would go about his business. He is held up as a paragon of virtue in an age of greed, but even in his final seasons he was able to persuade Manchester United to cough up £65,000 a week for a bit-part player in his mid-30s.
 
Surely Walcott values himself more than that?
 
And talking of players in their mid-30s, the fact that the Gunners are so desperate to bring back 34-year-old Thierry Henry suggests that the man who inherited his iconic number 14 shirt has failed to adequately fill it.
 
It all leaves Arsenal in a cleft stick. But rather than scrabbling to keep Walcott on board, the time might be approaching where they have to tell their great enigma to shape up or ship out. ·