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.

Who.

rlThat's this United, right?rl Not rlthis Unitedrl. Or rlthis onerl.

???

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.

Are Man United not succesful on the pitch and don't the play in front of 73k sell out crowds. Boy I 'd hate for us to follow that plan.

I agree that the Glazers should never have been allowed to take such a gamble with one of the country's greatest sporting institutions. And perhaps it was a poor choice of angle to take. Of greater relevance is that United attained their position initially through the Busby Babes, and regained it with a spine drawn from their youth team.

If we had 80k there every week then we could be thinking about splashing for the equivalents of Rooney and Ferdinand. As it is, the Arsenal model is not a bad one to follow (they only come top four every year and they only made the CL semis last season), regardless as to whether it is in fact Hood's particular line of thinking.

The reason I brought up the Glazer issue is that I suspect Wenger sees them at United, the Yanks at Liverpool and Abramovich at Chelsea and thinks "If we can just weather the storm..."

Comparisons with soccer can be misleading because soccer doesnt have a salary cap. Marquee signings on marquee wages generally dont work in SL because they use up too much cap space. How successful were Wigan in Trent Barret's days ?