Not sure about this. The specific point that I was reacting to was the notion that he would not sign a 1 year deal. I always thought that a long term deal is good business for clubs because it protects their ownership in the asset (I.e. the player), and for other amortisation reasons. However there is no fee for Wilshere, so there is no amortisation consideration. So what are West Ham gaining by offering a 1 year deal?

I get the point about Wilshere’s fitness, but there is nothing over the last couple of seasons to suggest he is really that injury prone, he played 29 league games two seasons ago, and 38 games overall last season. So Wilshere could theoretically take the money from West Ham, have a stormer, and then move on after a year. Effectively it is a season long loan where Wilshere gets paid rather than Arsenal.

All seems very odd.

Do you think West Ham’s signing on fee offer is 3 years worth of wages above what ours is because if it isn’t you’d have to be bat sh1t crazy to take it and bat sh1t crazy to offer it. Never going to happen, which is why it doesn’t happen with good players in their 20’s.

West Ham have probably tried it on and Wilshire is having none of it with a few irons in the fire. Excuse the pun.

It's great to have a dream!!