Saints Fan in peace I see Arsenal are now not only linked to Chamberlain but now also another one of our young lads named Luke Shaw, he’s another one of our young lads getting close to breaking into the first team, could this be true or just another rumour? What I really don’t understand is say the chamberlain deal goes through for let’s say 10 million (and the rumour is 30-40% sell on clause) That’s a lot of money for a young lad who will be at best be in the reserves for at least a season, and with your current side once again fading in the premier league run in surely it seems your money may well be better spent on a couple of big name signings! You have a great side but it always seems you lack that couple of experienced big names to carry you through to the end of a season! Don’t you think it’s time you bought for the now and not the future?
I really doubt we will sign Chamberlin, no way he is worth that kind of money. Besides I think if Wenger buys a teenager this summer and says he is the answer then most arsenal fans will just shoot ourselves.
We still need to buy young players, we can't afford to buy 30 million players in most positions like united/chelsea so young players are helpful, even if we sell them on after a year or 2 for a few million, it's all profit But at that kind of price, unless he's gonna be wilsheres standard within a season atleast it's well to much!
If you want to know about how to set up and run your own academy then I am sure the Saints board will help you. We are pretty good at running an academy you know so we know how to do it properly. Too be honest I am really surprised you don't have a decent academy of your own already.
Lol, I like the cheeky pop at Utd and Chelsea! Although we only have two ã30 million players in our entire squad, and seven academy products, so maybe you could have researched that one a little better The key imo has always been to blend youth and experience. If you look at Utd's famous kids side from 95/96, yes we had Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Neville and Butt who were all young, but we also had Irwin, Pallister, Bruce, Cantona etc. In fact, we had 7 players from our previous title winning side in 93/94, which made the difference when Newcastle were way ahead of us at the sharp end of the season. So surely the question is not "can Arsenal afford to buy established and experienced players?", instead it's "can Arsenal afford not to?"
My point exactly. There's no problem with buying ã30 million players as long as they contribute to the team and pay their way in terms of success. And Rio and Berbatov have, imo, done exactly that over the past few years. Oh, and you have two academy products in your first team squad
Rio, Rooney, Berba. And not really a pop, just a fact, i spose the whole point of what arsene/arsenal is trying to do is get a whole young team who will grow up together and be together for years with the whole team being leaders and experienced IF it works, and arsenal become the top team, we could stay there for 5+ years with the same team who would just get better and better and with the likes of fabregas being a top class player bought for basically pence, it shows that not spending alot on players can work, but i agree we could do with spending abit to help get instant success to build on you've got the spend money to make money, and spending 30 mil on a player or 2 to possibly win the title and cups a couple of times would easily bring profits I just can't wait until the stadiums paid off and we can spend millions a season for fun!
technically yes, but players that have been at the club since the age of 16 and went into the academy i would count as products of it aswell.
I wasn't trying to say that there is anything wrong with having mega-signings in your team, just that its a bit rich to say you 'only have 2' (forgetting Ferdinand?) when we have none.
To be honest, I'd love to see Wenger add a couple of ã20m - ã30m players this summer. The team of ã2m and ã3m players, whilst admirable, has only taken us so far and we need to step up to the next level.
Nicely, I disagree and would very much keep him here, he's a poacher who has been prolific for the reserves and at the Dallas cup since returning from his loan with Yeovil.
Rooney was only ã25 million. Ok that's still a lot, but given he was 18 at the time that's arguably similar value to getting Arshavin for ã15 million aged 28. And of course with it being Utd and him being English, at least ã5 million was added on to the price compared to if he'd been an overseas player or we'd bought from an overseas club. It is a big "if" tho. When you bring players in with little or no experience, they need to learn and improve but also pick up experience from those around them. But if you only have experienced players who've been at one club (Arsenal) for most of their careers they often only learn to play in a certain way. You need players who can mix it up and add to the team. When we brought in players like Carrick and Berbatov, they didn't justify their transfer fees by the skills they had, but by the experience and their ability to play the game in different ways and address weaknesses in our team. Even Barca, who have the most successful academy of the last decade, have brought in big names like Deco, Van Bommel, Henry and Villa to give the side the experience and balance that just can't be learnt when you have a team full of players that have only really played for one club. I agree, and that works fine when you have three or four young players who have come through the ranks. But when you're trying to bring 80% of your players through from a young age, you're giving yourself a very narrow experience base to work with. Imo that's one of the main reasons Arsenal have been quite one dimensional at times this season - too many players in the squad have all learnt to play exactly the same way all the time. See above. Rooney's still a big signing, but not what I'd call a mega signing in the modern game. And the price always gets bumped up for Utd, particularly for Ferdinand who we bought from Leeds, one of our main rivals. And imo Arsenal could have made mega signings. You have ã110 million in the bank according to the latest accounts, so I think the lack of big signings represents stubborness on Wenger's part as much as actual financial constraints.
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/documents/may_11/gun__1304684768_Interims.pdf On page 23, "Cash at bank and in hand" you have ã110,357,000 in the bank as of 30th Nov 2010. Of that, around ã22.5 million is held as a reserve to cover your long term debts, but there is still over ã87.8 million just sitting there in the bank doing nothing. So either Wenger is too stubborn to spend it, or the board won't let him. But given that the chairman's statement on page 13 says that all the cash the club generates will be invested back into the club, that implies it is Wenger's choice not to buy established players.
I agree - he's definitely not stupid but he is very stubborn. Like he said in one of his interviews, he seems to be of the opinion that remaining in the top 4 without spending money, and having a chance to win the odd trophy, is better than spending money to regularly challenge for and win the PL. That would be admirable if he were managing a smaller club with less money and minimal profits. But he's managing one of the biggest three clubs in England and with the second highest revenues and operating profits. So imo he should be aiming higher, even if it causes the club to lose a bit of cash by paying over the odds for players it needs.
