Had a good chat with a friend of mine today, who may or may not work for the club

and they were telling me how much a certain chairman of a certain club based in south Bradford opposite a crumbling sports centre admires Arsenal Football Club!



In particular there approach to 'growing' not 'buying' talent and running the club within it's means while other clubs spend cash they don't have yadda yadda yadda.



In short they told me no marquee signings are on the way for next year (no real surprise) and the club will give more opportunities to a number of our own youngsters.



Whilst I crave success as much as the next person I understand the approach to running the club this way, even though the last two years have been hard to take and I don't rate our coach!



It looks as though we have a few barren years in front of us, and I want the club to be honest about that so they can take us with them, they should also expect more crowds like Sunday's in the short-medium term while the club rebuilds in this way.



Is it just me or does anyone else think that we can have both, at least one marquee signing to generate a buzz would be a good start whilst the club would also do well to market the crop of kids coming through as Bullpower 2.0 etc.

We will make another "big" signing, whether it is considered "marquee" will be down to personal opinion.

The club should be making one or 2 good signings per season, and filling up the rest of the squad with a host of our most promising youngsters.



And to be fair, we've done that this season, but ordinary signings like, PLatt, Worrincy, Feather, Sheriffe etc, shouldn't be considered.

What a load of tosh

By the title I thought this was going to a Bill Hicks thread





It's funny. Just not THAT funny

If we play more youngsters, then I'm all for it.

Yeah, because Arsenal can't move for the silverware. Where as the Man Utd model for bringing in youth players with that season's marquee signing has brought them nothing but 3 championships on the bounce

Now don't let facts get in the way of an undeniable argument.

I do not believe you. And I have seen your avatar used by a particular agent provocateur in the past.

Who.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/5130064/Manchester-United-debt-soars-to-700m-despite-record-season.htmlThat's this United, right?[/url Not [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_United_A.F.C.#2001-2004:_Financial_implosionthis United[/url. Or [url=http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/05/30/reality-begins-to-bites-for-newcastle-united-61634-23747745/this one[/url.

???



The Man United debt was created by the new owners borrowing a shedload of money to buy the club, through the new holding company. This saddled the new group with a crazy, and probably unsupportable, amount of debt. Crazy crazy gearing. I thought it was pretty disgraceful at the time.



Nothing to do with the operating financial or onfield performance of the club. This was the equivilent of a "private equity" buy of a cash-generating business, turning it into a business burdened with huge debt at only limited financial risk to the new owners. A scandal IMO.