The question mark surrounding the future of William Gallas as an Arsenal player brings into focus the uncertainties and flaws of Arsene Wenger's policy regarding the contracts of players who have passed their 30th birthday. Isn't it illogical to give young players, whose future fitness and form is uncertain, lucrative long-term contracts, whereas older players must settle for a short-term deal? Hindsight is of course a great thing, but how many Arsenal fans today would choose to have Walcott or Vela in the squad, as opposed to Pires or Henry?

You shouldn't rule out the idea of giving older players contracts of longer than a year. Look at the post 30th birthday form of Giggs, Bergkamp and Pires to name but a few. Arsene Wenger has always been a believer in the thinking 'if you’re good enough, you’re old enough'. Well, if you’re not going to discriminate a player for being too young, then surely you should also not discriminate a player for being too old. Judge each player on their individual merits.

It is of course a balancing act for Arsene Wenger: A successful club needs, among other things, the right blend of experience, youth and financial stability. Since the club won its last trophy in 2005, the balance doesn't appear to be right. But what is clear now is that the skill and experience of Pires, for example, would have been invaluable in the campaigns of recent years. What significance that Arsenal won two league titles and three FA cups with an ageing Bergkamp in the team? Experienced players have been allowed to leave, while young, raw, inexperienced players have been tied to the club on long-term deals.

The exception to this policy is the signing of Mikael Silvestre. Arsene’s failure to sign a centre half in the summer of 2008 led to a last minute attempt to sign Silvestre at the end of the transfer window. With other clubs such as Man City vying for the player’s signature, Wenger offered Silvestre a two-year contract, presumably out of desperation to sign a centre back.

Perhaps each contract should be assessed individually. William Gallas has, without doubt, been one of the positives in Arsenal's 09/10 campaign. The relationship formed between the two centre backs, Gallas and Vermaelen, has been a real positive this season. Despite, the captaincy being taken away from him in frankly embarrassing and humiliating circumstances, it was easy to think that Gallas would have left the club. But credit to him, he has stayed and for the first time since Toure and Campbell, Arsenal appear to have a settled centre back partnership. If Gallas moves on in the summer, most likely due to the manager's reluctance to offer him a contract of two or more years, it will be a huge loss. To replace a man of his quality and Premiership experience, will probably cost millions. It just seem like such a huge gamble, to potentially allow Gallas to move on a free, while young, unproven youngsters are given big contracts.

Of course, there are logical, economic reasons why Arsene is reluctant to offer over 30's big contracts - fitness and form being key concerns. It is also true that the failure to secure the future of younger players has cost Arsenal – Flamini being a prime example. However, what is the point of the existence of football clubs? Yes, to compete for trophies. Football clubs should be run in a responsible way, and the last thing any Arsenal fan would want is the club to go down the same path as a Leeds United. However, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that the manager’s obsession with economic shrewdness is having a detrimental effect on the team’s chances of competing for trophies. This economic obsession is also manifesting itself in the manager’s transfer policy.

And if the latest tabloid reports are to be believed, Louis Saha turned down a deadline-day move to Arsenal due to the club’s offer not being up to that of Everton's – a consequence of Arsene's policy of not offering a proper contract to over 30's. Meanwhile, Denilson, Theo et al continue to pocket huge salaries while appearing to contribute about as much commitment, hard work and quality to Arsenal as John Terry to monogamy.

Something seems wrong there.