Which of the two do you prefer? A big name, big money signing that walks straight into the team or a young player either brought through the clubs youth systems or signed from elsewhere for their potential. The rewards for both are high but come at different costs and risk levels. A big name player comes with expectation and an already impressive reputation while a youngster comes without the reputation the expectation often remains. Looking at this in the view both succeed for the club which would bring you the most satisfaction? I have to say a youngster breaking through and making it beats any big name signing. It gives you a satisfaction to see a Welbeck or a Giggs or a Scholes score the winning goal, especially against clubs who are full of high paid players. This isnt to say I dislike our big signings scoring or doing well, anything but, just a case of which is that little bit more satisfying.
How about bargain buy legend? Cantona and Irwin and Schmeicel spring easily to mind and don't fit into the big name buy or club product category.
Well obviously a young player breaking through is the best option and the option because there very little or no transfer fee, more loyalty etc and there is absolutely no drawbacks, but that doesn't necessarily mean its always the path to take. Its more risky certainly. Look how many young flops we've had over the years. Big name players could of course struggle to settle in or fit the system, but they've generally already proven their full ability and their much easier to find. In the end its a tiebreaker nothing more since we'll all prefer the better player no matter how we got them. Look at the fine margins this year, if the big name is even slightly better it could have a massive effect.
