The point with Gnabry is we're supposed to be a club that develops talent and we're going to have to start from square one with some other prospect now. We're going to have to spend £15m on the next Chamberlain or some Ligue 1 17 year old and then wait 4 years to see if they turn out first team worthy.
Serge would have required 18 months maximum to truly see if he had what it takes before giving up on him and the signs were positive over his ability and his potential. I'd have rather gone all out and given him good money and assurances to convince him to stay than to lose him then have to gamble on the next kid for more money. We scout the world looking for prospects and gambling on them, so it's a disaster IMO to lose a prospect that you already had before they'd truly failed. Why do we even have this process of finding young talents and trying to bring them on if we're willing to risk losing them half way through the process? Were we just arrogant in thinking he'd definitely stay because we're the mighty Arsenal?
And it's not even like we're gambling on the next kid. Chamberlain is clearly never going to be a top player, so putting time and effort into him is completely pointless to me. If you're going to accept that your backup player is going to be flawed, I'd rather it was a younger player more suited to the club with a chance of breaking out, than an older player not suited to the club with pretty much no chance of breaking out.
What first struck me with Gnabry is the same thing that struck me with Iwobi after seeing him in the first team. He's a textbook Wenger player. Cutting in, one-twos, good on the ball and see's shit happening. He's not just a kick it down the line and hope you're quicker than the fullback player or a let's whip it in the box and hope someone's there winger. I don't want to say that the likes of Chamberlain and Ramsey are awful players but they're just not the type of players Wenger gets the best out of so why do we persist when there are alternatives?