I respect the fact that most arsenal fans want to win a trophy. However arsenal have long been known for being a club giving their players a chance and opportunities to prove themselves. One might argue we may overdo it but in man city we have the opposite scenario wherein money is flaunted about and players given the boot at the faintest glimpse of weakness. We have achieved what we have today on a reasonable budget and a sustainable growth model. Obviously we have made mistakes along the way but would you sacrifice club policy and adopt a ruthless streak in order to achieve this and would you derive any satisfaction out of it. For the record I know this may be unpopular but I just wanted to gauge general opinion and confirm it.
I'm happy with how we do things, we just need to spend bloody money when we need to. I think even Wenger himself is aware that his project hasn't worked out and I fully expect him to do what is necessary. The next transfer window will either make or break him. I don't want us to pay big money for any player and I certainly don't want us to pay over the odds for mediocrity.
I think we should not lose sight of a sporting entity like ourselves needing to win and having a history of being victorious. Our policies are not wholly out of place and a little tweaking could get us back on track hunting down trophies again. No we need not be like a City or Chelsea nor would we wish to but you have to keep making adjustments when a particular approach doesn't appear to be working. The youth policy had promise. Lots of promise in fact and we were close a few times but last season's crumble and the nearly-there years showed it was not enough. It got us to the top but only until February. The season ends in May and just a few tweaks to get all the way to May is all fans ask. 120m in the bank and a balance that is presumably rising and untouched assumes that till now not all the tweaks are in place. That said, the future does look good as long as we play our cards right this summer. It could be the springboard of many good seasons.
I'm going to say that I hate making spending money synonomous with ambition, and so I have to also oppose any idea that we are not spending money out of a higher ideal, otherwise I would have to say that would constitute a lack of ambition, in some ways. I think we don't spend money, because the market for players has tightened up considerably in the last few years. The number of bone fide top class players that do not go to the mega rich clubs has diminished rapidly. Finding a world-class player at a reasonable price is very difficult indeed, and in the end the premium you pay is not worth the risk that they will not adapt to your team. I get a lot of sarcastic comments when I write this, but for me the situation with Djourou and Bendtner are prime examples. These guys pedegree is impecable. If they were now playing in France or Holland, we would have thousands of fans urging us to buy into their world class quality. They both perform excellently internationally. But the reality is that if you cant find a Ronaldo or a Messi etc. the group of players in behind them is densely packed, and if you ask me the difference in quality between Bendtner/Djourou and any of a huge number of players playing in the top flight is negligable. The drop then down to a player like Miquel is pretty slight too. If we define players who are "World Class" as those players that you can build a team around, then no team has more than one or two. We can dream about a team of Galacticos, but it simply isn't going to happen, and based on the Real Madrid/Man City experiments, it isn't guaranteed to work. If we then say that the next group are the "quality" players, then, like it or not, Djourou and Bendtner are in that group. If you get the tactics right, then you could easily win a title with a team of Bendtners and Djourous, as long as you had one or two word-class, show-changing players to mix in with them. They make everyone around them look better. Our problem at present is that we don't have those world-class game-altering players, and we cant buy them. Truth is, no one in England does have them right now. Our success depends on us developing those 2 players, because we are never, ever, going to be able to buy them. So the answer to the question is, I think we have to stick with our policy, but not due to any moral superiority. We should stick with it because it provides the basic material for our team at a reasonable price and it also gives us a shot at producing those one or two "special" players that we need, because we are not going to get them any other way.
I think the ideal lies in between City's model and Arsenal's - certainly much closer to Arsenal's. It makes enormous sense to seek out value and sign quality players for reasonable prices that others have not spotted, or develop youth. However, just one signing of a high profile quality player can have an enormous impact on a club - the fans and the other players. Many have mentioned the model of the Oakland A's in baseball, made more famous by the movie Moneyball, but it is worth pointing out that their model has yielded no honours. I have to say I totally disagree with you if you think we can't afford to spend money in the region of £30m for one player.
Much as I hate to say it, but Jayram's model is describing Manchester United of recent. Thye have made far fewer big signings than they used to, have developed players from within and have shipped the unrequired quickly and efficiently. They play to their strengths and adapt their game to suit their opponenets. That is why they will beat City to their twentieth title and the rest of us will look at a team that, by their high standards, hasn't shown outstanding individual quality this season. I dont honestly think that Evans or Jones are better than Djourou or that Wellbeck is more advanced than Bendtner.
Nah, I don't agree pretty much with any of that TT Neither Djourou or Bendtner had impeccable pedigree. Djourou did look good for Switzerland but not really at Arsenal although you could see he had the tools. Bendtner looked decent for Denmark but never looked special at Birmingham, again although he had the tools. It is not about Messi/Ronaldo ... then the rest. There are multiple layers of player between them and the likes of Bendtner/Djourou. Below Messi/Ronaldo - who are ultra elite, you have the elite players that cost in the region of £40m like David Silva and Fabregas then you have good players that cost around £30m like Cavani and Ozil, then you have the £20m players like Podolski and Robben who will improve any team. Below them you have the £10m players like Cisse who could be a risk but at £10m could be well worth it. I expect Arsenal to be competing in the £10m - £25m region for players, these players are better than the likes of Bendtner and Djourou and are in plentiful supply. You have it shockingly wrong I am afraid, the pool of players Arsenal can choose from is far greater than you claim, we do not have to scrape the barrel like we have been, there are plenty of decent players out there who would make our squad better without us spending much.
I believe we could, and should, push to the £30m Ozil / Cavani's of this world - but agree that there is no shortage of players that we could sign that would help us in the range you have mentioned.
I think Manchester United's policy has become almost identical to Arsenal's. I just think that the difference between £10M and £30M is not £20M worth in terms of ability, most of it is hype.
I agree with that - the ranges are too general but are used to make a point. It just underlines the fact that there are plenty of affordable players that could make a real difference. I would still maintain though that a marquis signing would have a big effect on the other players and the whole mood of the club, plus make a massive statement to the rest of the league.
I think we should only sign players who can improve on what we've got. There are a couple of positions that could do with improvements and strengthening, they don't necessarily need to be marquee - or £30m signings, they just need to be the right players.
I think there is a difference in talent - especially when you look at how much English players cost. Leagues of course play a part, players from unfashionable leagues (Belgium) will not cost as much as players from top leagues (Spain, Italy). Also, you can't tell me the likes of Tevez are not worth £30m when compared to Bendtner for £10m.
Goes without saying - agree. What makes me think that we need a 'name' (of course with the talent to back it up) is the kind of effect we saw when Dennis Bergkamp arrived. It lifted the whole team to a new level. We've seen the opposite happen recently - big players leaving (regardless of whether it was the right time or not)
I get confused with the use of World-class. To me it should indicate a player who most continents' club managers would list in a group say 11 multiplied by 3 or4 = 33 to 44 World-class. What we see going on in this forum is a player meriting World-class where it seems to fit an England 11 multiplied by 4. That extrapolated runs into hundreds of players. Therefore wrong description. A better standard would be National Class. For me RVP is about World-Class - but I find it hard to add another in our squad. There are some PL clubs with no World-Class players, and probably no National either.
