Theo Walcott joined Arsenal as a 16-year-old of almost frightening potential. He is now a 23-year-old of almost frightening potential. Only when more of that talent has been realised will he be worth in excess of £75,000 a week.

So reports that Arsenal have decided to sell him rather than increase an already generous contract offer reflect well on the club in an age when football’s apparently mindless profligacy often turns the public stomach.

The Emirates Stadium is unlikely to be stormed by disgusted season-ticket holders if Walcott leaves. He is popular, and rightly, for the effort he puts into his game and an improvement in its quality was evident last season as he set up several of Robin van Persie’s goals.

But the hope of greatness has been transferred to Alex Oxlade‑Chamberlain, whose progress will face one fewer obstacle if someone can be persuaded to stump up £12million for Walcott.

Spurs were among those disappointed when Walcott chose to leave Southampton for Arsenal but would they now swap him for yet another St Mary’s graduate, Gareth Bale? Would Spurs even reckon they have fared worse with Aaron Lennon on the wing these past few years? And why do England, who took Walcott to a World Cup six years ago and enjoyed the benefit of his career-best performance in Croatia while in his teens, still not regard him as a near-automatic choice?

Every Emirates regular knows it is a question of consistency. If he believes he can discover that quality elsewhere, or even crucially change his game by playing through the middle, where he believes his speed would be most effective, let him try.

If — and seldom is it possible not to overuse that word with Walcott — he becomes the player we all hoped he would become, he will be able to march into any chief executive’s office and write his own contract. Until that happens, common sense is in order and Arsenal are to be commended for displaying it.