Tender_Branson said:
The standard needed at Arsenal? You must admit that their weakest link is the back four, and you must also admit that is where Chelsea have built their (soon to be) Premiership winning team from. This backline includes John Terry and Wayne Bridge, two internationals for England. It's all well and good to mention "The standard needed at Arsenal", but the fact is, they are third. I will not hide my hatred for Manchester United, but their youth development has been a major factor in their success, many players being English (The Nevilles, Beckham, Scholes). Chelsea, no matter how much money they spend now, have more English players in their team than they did five or six years ago, when they were full of Italians (Zola etc).
It is called the "English Premier league" for a reason- it's English. And having foreign players is good in some respects, when your whole squad of 16 is not born in the country your playing in, it makes a mockery of the competition. This is why their should be restrictions on the amount of overseas players in a team, as it will solve the problem you seem so outraged about- overpriced quality English players.
What bollocks. The standard required of a young player at Arsenal is so much hgiher than 95% of the clubs in Europe it isn't funny. Arsenal currently supply half of the English national team defence and three of their most consistnet junior performers in recent seasons(Pennant,Hoyte and Bentley). They're best local players in Pennant, Bentley,Taylor and Stack are all out getting first-team experience whereby they'll hopefully become better mor battle hardened players when they return to the club.
And I don't see what the big fuss about Chelsea and their English plaers is. Apart from Terry and Lampard the rest of them rot on the bench or in the reserves. They can afford to spend 10mill on Parker 7mill on Johnson etc and not play them . For Arsenal that option isn't available they don't have a sugard-daddy willing to splash the cash like Chelsea do and they aren't the marketing machine Manchester United are.
And just because the team is based in England makes it a pre-requisite that Arsenal have to buy inferior,over-hyped, overpriced locals when they can get better players with a better attitude,who are far more technically proficient and would cost half as much? Arsenal have no obligation to buy English players, as long as they are a winning side it doesn't matter two bob where their players are from. And they are a very succesful club under Wenger.
Also, how would imposing a foreigner restriction solve the problem of over-priced locals> Englishmen would be so much more a necessity that the prices clubs can charge would be ridiculous. You could collapse the transfer market further by doing that.
Tender_Branson said:
Hope I'm not interpreting this the wrong way, but your making it seem as though Arsenal are a cash strapped bunch of battlers. Lets look at this from a statistical point of view. In figures released only this week for income over the 2003/4 season:
1: Man United - 171.5 million pounds
2: Real Madrid - 156.3 million pounds
3: AC Milan - 147.2 million pounds
4: Chelsea - 143.7 million pounds
5: Juventus - 142.4 million pounds
6: Arsenal - 115 million pounds
I think this goes to show that, while it's true The Arse aren't quite as wealthy as Chelsea, when you are talking in hundreds of millions of pounds, 28 million is a fair gap, but it definatly isn't a chasm.
It may be foolish to invest in a local player, but thats the the point I'm making. I'm not talking about economics or trophies, I'm tlaking about the fact that it's a fucking English league.
Those figures don't reflect relative wealth of clubs, they're income generated over the last financial period. When you consider Arsenal's huge wage-bill, maintenance costs and their very significant stadium repayments there is very little if anything left over to strengthen a squad with. And to strengthen Arsenal's team you need a lot of money which isn't available. They aren't cash-strapped, they just need to tighten the belt untill their stadium is completed. Then the extra-revenue generated should allow the manager to spend on whoever he likes, but now bargain hunting is the way.
Arsenal are bound by financial constraints that Chelsea aren't at the moment, and whether it's not about economics or trophies in your mind, football clubs are a business and must be run like a business. That's why it's not justified buying local chaff when overseas players would do a better job.
Oh and you still havent named me one English player available this summer who'd improve Arsenal's first team, wouldn't be exhorbitantly overpriced and demand ludicrous wages?
