Joe Willock’s status as a Newcastle United player was very much uncertain right up until the transfer window slammed shut at the start of September.
With one year left on his contract and a more than fair offer on the table courtesy of Turkish club Besiktas, there was a large portion of the fanbase who thought it was time to move on and take the money.
But that didn’t happen and, since then, Willock has become an integral part of Matthias Jaissle’s squad, emerging as one of the most potent attacking threats with three goals in seven appearances thus far.
Newcastle United are expected to once again be presented the chance to sell Willock, and possibly for an even better price given his form, with Besiktas’ chairman speaking openly about the fact that he still believes his club will sign Willock in January.
“Our manager wanted Joe Willock from day one, it was Willock, Willock, Willock.”
“He could sign in the mid-season. They asked for £20m. We can sign in January, and I will.”
So the question remains, should the Magpies sell Willock or keep him around?
Willock proving the doubters wrong
Willock has always had something and, if it wasn’t for an abhorrent run of injuries, goodness knows just how important he would have become to post-takeover Newcastle United.
Due to those injuries and some rather lacklustre performances when he did find minutes, it was absolutely defensible to suggest that, in the last year of his contract, he should be moved on.
But Matthias Jaissle came in with a clear direction of how he wants to play; a system that Willock is clearly a perfect fit for.
Now, while the 27-year-old hasn’t been some indomitable force that has become undroppable, his contribution thus far can’t be understated and I think it’s fair to say he has proved a lot of the doubters wrong.
The issue is that this is part of the problem.
£20m in January?
Willock has been good, but not so good that there aren’t still questions over his place in the starting XI.
Of course, we must remember that we are only five games into the Premier League season and, by January, a lot could have changed. But it does feel like there will be a very difficult decision to make if this continues.
If the Magpies decided to sell Willock in the winter window, the fee received would go down as close to pure profit given the fee paid to Arsenal for Willock is now almost entirely amortised. That might be something that the club simply can’t turn down no matter how well he plays between now and then.
But if Newcastle do decide to keep Willock, it means they will have to make a decision about either giving him a shiny new contract, which may not be thought of too fondly if the Newcastle 2.0 project is as ambitious as has been suggested, or losing him on a free at the end of the season, which would feel like a massive loss given the club has already turned down a very healthy offer for his services.
Could a new contract be worth it?
The option of a new contract, which many people will have already ruled out given the fanbase’s opinion of Willock over the last couple of years, may not be quite as unfathomable as it was in the summer.
Ross Wilson has spoken about how player trading will be a big part of this new era, but doing that still requires an underlying stability to the squad and keeping some players around who know the club well.
Willock is now performing at a level which has genuinely endeared him to Jaissle as a vital member of his squad. If that continues who is to say that the midfielder isn’t one of those players who can make up the core for at least a couple of years?
At 27, it isn’t as though Willock is past his prime. In fact, he’s just entering it and now seems to finally be free of the injuries that have plagued his Newcastle career so far.
So why can’t he play his way into a new contract? It might not be the most glamorous of decisions and I’d imagine there’d be a good chunk of the fanbase who wouldn’t be too fond of the idea, but if the current lay of the land is anything to go by, there will be a conversation to be had before long.
Add us as a preferred source on Google