Was selling Joe Willock to Newcastle good business?
Was selling Joe Willock to Newcastle United good business?
Just hours before falling to defeat at Brentford in the opening game of the new Premier League season, Arsenal confirmed Joe Willock had been sold to Newcastle United.
The transfer fee is in excess of £20million, which may soften the blow slightly for some fans, but many were sad to see a promising academy graduate sold on, at a time when the midfield is short on quality.
On a streak of scoring in seven straight games at the end of last season, in a loan spell for Newcastle, many Arsenal fans thought it was possibility Willock would have a part to play in the new campaign.
Instead, manager Mikel Arteta and the club hierarchy have decided that the 21-year-old was disposable.
Fans appeared divided on whether Willock should be sold or given another chance following his successful loan move in January.
Let’s take a look at whether the transfer is ‘good business’ for Arsenal.
Yes - Savvy work in the market
If the Willock deal can be considered good, the club needed to first of all get a good price. They managed it.
Newcastle ended up paying north of £20million for Willock. Even in the crazy modern-day transfer market, that is good money for a player who has essentially had one good half-season in the Premier League.
Consider as well that as an academy graduate, he didn’t cost Arsenal a transfer fee originally. Most would class this as smart football business, particularly for someone who was never a regular starter.
Management needed to identify which young players could be part of the team for next three or four years, and which, put simply, were not good enough.
Willock was a tough one to call, but clearly Arteta didn’t feel he would be as important to his sides’ DNA as the likes of Emile Smith Rowe or Bukayo Saka.
When you take this into account, a return of £20million which (hopefully) can now be invested back into the first-team, is good business.
No - Late deal for less than top price
There was talk a few weeks back that Arsenal could even get more for Willock, than the £20million eventually agreed.
One newspaper even suggested they weren’t entertaining anything below £28million. As good as the transfer fee has been perceived as being, could the Gunners have held out for a higher price?
You also have to wonder about the timing of the transfer.
Willock spent the whole summer in North London, and featured in a number of pre-season matches.
Elite football clubs like to get their business done early, in most cases. How Arsenal didn’t know what they were going to do with Willock at the very start of the summer, is frankly baffling.
His progress and performance at Newcastle was tracked throughout.
Whether Willock was leaving or staying in North London, the deal should have been thrashed out far earlier in the window.
Now, although a decent price has been fetched, time is running out to bring in a replacement.
Further concerns were raised just hours after Willock's move was confirmed, in the alarming performance at Brentford.
Looking at the standard of Arteta’s sides attacking play that night, it is hard to not to see how Willock couldn’t have offered something different, even if he was only brought off the bench.
Verdict
Willock’s sale cannot be truly considered a good move for the club until we know if anyone is brought in to replace him.
The team looked short of any variety in attack on Friday night. Although Willock may never have been the answer long-term, more performances like that will have many asking why he wasn’t kept on.
The transfer fee will need re-investing in a new signing before anyone can even think of this sale as good business.
Image Credit: Getty Images
