Man Utd agree 24m deal for RVP

First topic message reminder :

I heard 24m anyhow. Also 195k a week for 3 years with a Utd option for a 4th.

Can't help but feel this is somewhat of a 'we need a statement name' signing. While hes better than Welbeck and Hernandez the money could've been spent on areas where a big upgrade is needed.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think it is a good deal for Arsenal getting £24M for a 29 year old.

Just a case of let's see what Wenger does with the money.

He'll spend half of it on nearly free Africans, a bit on a random European and the rest will replenish the coffers. Dealing players is the only way Arsenal can make money these days as prize money has been thin on the ground for much of a decade....

When all is lost, talk about the trophies won recently.. nice ploy of the glory hunters.

Bell end.

Really don't understand people like you, it's so pathetic, you must have no pride in your life.

two_tone wrote:Think I have worked out TopHat who the little twerp supports. Hates United and Liverpool and has a resentment for all the teams that spend money plus he mentioned something about Liverpool the other day. Reckon he is an Evertonian, no wonder he's misreable trawling the boards slating other teams all day...

I always had him down as a Citeh fan, explains why he's only recently grown a set of balls and got all arrogant. Or maybe he's just 12. Or just a Muppet.

Be honest lads. How tempted are you to put on the City shirt and jump bandwagons?

#blueisthecolour

TopHat24/7 wrote:

two_tone wrote:Think I have worked out TopHat who the little twerp supports. Hates United and Liverpool and has a resentment for all the teams that spend money plus he mentioned something about Liverpool the other day. Reckon he is an Evertonian, no wonder he's misreable trawling the boards slating other teams all day...

I always had him down as a Citeh fan, explains why he's only recently grown a set of balls and got all arrogant. Or maybe he's just 12. Or just a Muppet.

Don't doubt that for a minute.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Be honest lads. How tempted are you to put on the City shirt and jump bandwagons?

#blueisthecolour

Like you appear to have done? Back under your bridge little troll.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

You compare a team who have regularly broken British and World transfer records (from Roy Keane and Bryan Robson back in then day) and has a number of players costing upwards of £20m in their team (some bought when £20m was the transfer record) to a side whose transfer record was £13m for Wiltord until this season and who built a double winning side (1998) with no player costing more than £10m, with a host of unhearald and unheard of youngsters including Viera, Cole, Anelka & Overmars as the big signing for £5m at 24 years old.

They have also (in case you didn't know) brought through a raft of youngsters through the years, relying on these instead of breaking their modest tranfer record, these include Fabergas, Flamini, Cole, RVP, Szczenzy, Toure, Viera, Clichy, Sagna, Anelka, Lauren & Reyes.

But true I suppose they do spend huge amounts of money on Wilcott, Chamberlain and Henry because they don't really give youth a chance...

You also haven't compared Man Us budget when the Prem started to the rest of the teams therein and how many transfer records they've broken when you talk about 'driving up the price of players'...

None of those players came through the Arsenal youth system. And you're still missing the point. If you can't see the difference between United (I've never denied they're big spenders) and Chelski/Citeh then theres no point discussing football.

Ahh of course I forgot that players like Ashley Cole and Gael Clichy had been bought for massive transfer fees like Rooney and Ferdinand - silly me (doh!).

and you said that 1. "Arsenal have spent too" and 2 " but [Man U] also have the best record in the EPL for bringing through youth"

I was responding to the above, ie that Arsenal have spent a very significant amount less than Man U while relying heavily on youth players, and also that Man U haven't got the best record for bringing through youth players in the EPL as you claim, as they have relied heavily on the big signings I've underlined. I think you are missing my point.

you also go on to say that Arsenal haven't been successful because "Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka."

Conviently ignoring your claim that Man City's spending (as well as Chelsea's and Man U's transfer record breaking spending before that) has priced other teams out of the market and stopped them competing. As well as ignoring the players like Fabergas, Flamini, RVP (which your club has rated enough to pay £24m for), Nasri, ect who we've developed since then who it could be said are equal or better players.

True Man C are a multi billionaire's play thing and have distorted the market by repeatedly breaking transfer records and pricing everyone else (almost) out of the market. But my point was that Man U were doing this way before Man C, through the Sky money they recieved at the start of the PL (before that they weren't hugely successful, definately not dominant) - meaning only 3 teams had won the PL in 11 years before Abramovichs millions. Man U do bring through youngsters but they've built their side around Rooney, Ferdinand, Evra, Van Der Sar (previously), Vidic, Nani/Young/Valencia, and even Carrick/Anderton, the only players in their 1st team that have come through the youth are Giggs & Cleverly, with Fletcher and Wellbeck on the bench.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Be honest lads. How tempted are you to put on the City shirt and jump bandwagons?

#blueisthecolour

Didn't jump bandwagons when Arsenal were unbeatable, didn't jump bandwagons when Chelsea looked unstopable, didn't jump bandwagons when we bought Djemba-Djemba. I think I'll be ok....

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

You compare a team who have regularly broken British and World transfer records (from Roy Keane and Bryan Robson back in then day) and has a number of players costing upwards of £20m in their team (some bought when £20m was the transfer record) to a side whose transfer record was £13m for Wiltord until this season and who built a double winning side (1998) with no player costing more than £10m, with a host of unhearald and unheard of youngsters including Viera, Cole, Anelka & Overmars as the big signing for £5m at 24 years old.

They have also (in case you didn't know) brought through a raft of youngsters through the years, relying on these instead of breaking their modest tranfer record, these include Fabergas, Flamini, Cole, RVP, Szczenzy, Toure, Viera, Clichy, Sagna, Anelka, Lauren & Reyes.

But true I suppose they do spend huge amounts of money on Wilcott, Chamberlain and Henry because they don't really give youth a chance...

You also haven't compared Man Us budget when the Prem started to the rest of the teams therein and how many transfer records they've broken when you talk about 'driving up the price of players'...

None of those players came through the Arsenal youth system. And you're still missing the point. If you can't see the difference between United (I've never denied they're big spenders) and Chelski/Citeh then theres no point discussing football.

Ahh of course I forgot that players like Ashley Cole and Gael Clichy had been bought for massive transfer fees like Rooney and Ferdinand - silly me (doh!).

and you said that 1. "Arsenal have spent too" and 2 " but [Man U] also have the best record in the EPL for bringing through youth"

I was responding to the above, ie that Arsenal have spent a very significant amount less than Man U while relying heavily on youth players, and also that Man U haven't got the best record for bringing through youth players in the EPL as you claim, as they have relied heavily on the big signings I've underlined. I think you are missing my point.

you also go on to say that Arsenal haven't been successful because "Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka."

Conviently ignoring your claim that Man City's spending (as well as Chelsea's and Man U's transfer record breaking spending before that) has priced other teams out of the market and stopped them competing. As well as ignoring the players like Fabergas, Flamini, RVP (which your club has rated enough to pay £24m for), Nasri, ect who we've developed since then who it could be said are equal or better players.

True Man C are a multi billionaire's play thing and have distorted the market by repeatedly breaking transfer records and pricing everyone else (almost) out of the market. But my point was that Man U were doing this way before Man C, through the Sky money they recieved at the start of the PL (before that they weren't hugely successful, definately not dominant) - meaning only 3 teams had won the PL in 11 years before Abramovichs millions. Man U do bring through youngsters but they've built their side around Rooney, Ferdinand, Evra, Van Der Sar (previously), Vidic, Nani/Young/Valencia, and even Carrick/Anderton, the only players in their 1st team that have come through the youth are Giggs & Cleverly, with Fletcher and Wellbeck on the bench.

Who have Arsenal brought through their youth system other than Cashley? And no, just buying young players doesn't count, that's not investing in youth that's a refusal to spend above £10m because you got your fingers burned on Reyes.

Who has a better record on bringing youth through its academy other than United (and West Ham)?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

You compare a team who have regularly broken British and World transfer records (from Roy Keane and Bryan Robson back in then day) and has a number of players costing upwards of £20m in their team (some bought when £20m was the transfer record) to a side whose transfer record was £13m for Wiltord until this season and who built a double winning side (1998) with no player costing more than £10m, with a host of unhearald and unheard of youngsters including Viera, Cole, Anelka & Overmars as the big signing for £5m at 24 years old.

They have also (in case you didn't know) brought through a raft of youngsters through the years, relying on these instead of breaking their modest tranfer record, these include Fabergas, Flamini, Cole, RVP, Szczenzy, Toure, Viera, Clichy, Sagna, Anelka, Lauren & Reyes.

But true I suppose they do spend huge amounts of money on Wilcott, Chamberlain and Henry because they don't really give youth a chance...

You also haven't compared Man Us budget when the Prem started to the rest of the teams therein and how many transfer records they've broken when you talk about 'driving up the price of players'...

None of those players came through the Arsenal youth system. And you're still missing the point. If you can't see the difference between United (I've never denied they're big spenders) and Chelski/Citeh then theres no point discussing football.

Ahh of course I forgot that players like Ashley Cole and Gael Clichy had been bought for massive transfer fees like Rooney and Ferdinand - silly me (doh!).

and you said that 1. "Arsenal have spent too" and 2 " but [Man U] also have the best record in the EPL for bringing through youth"

I was responding to the above, ie that Arsenal have spent a very significant amount less than Man U while relying heavily on youth players, and also that Man U haven't got the best record for bringing through youth players in the EPL as you claim, as they have relied heavily on the big signings I've underlined. I think you are missing my point.

you also go on to say that Arsenal haven't been successful because "Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka."

Conviently ignoring your claim that Man City's spending (as well as Chelsea's and Man U's transfer record breaking spending before that) has priced other teams out of the market and stopped them competing. As well as ignoring the players like Fabergas, Flamini, RVP (which your club has rated enough to pay £24m for), Nasri, ect who we've developed since then who it could be said are equal or better players.

True Man C are a multi billionaire's play thing and have distorted the market by repeatedly breaking transfer records and pricing everyone else (almost) out of the market. But my point was that Man U were doing this way before Man C, through the Sky money they recieved at the start of the PL (before that they weren't hugely successful, definately not dominant) - meaning only 3 teams had won the PL in 11 years before Abramovichs millions. Man U do bring through youngsters but they've built their side around Rooney, Ferdinand, Evra, Van Der Sar (previously), Vidic, Nani/Young/Valencia, and even Carrick/Anderton, the only players in their 1st team that have come through the youth are Giggs & Cleverly, with Fletcher and Wellbeck on the bench.

Who have Arsenal brought through their youth system other than Cashley? And no, just buying young players doesn't count, that's not investing in youth that's a refusal to spend above £10m because you got your fingers burned on Reyes.

Who has a better record on bringing youth through its academy other than United (and West Ham)?

Jack Wilshere/Martin Keown/Parlour/Paul Merson/David Rocastle/Michael Thomas/Kevin Campbell

David Bentley/Steve Sidwell

What about Crewe Alexandra? They have spawned some talent in their time.

Almost forgot Tony Adams.

Arsenal spening this century:

Podolski £11m
Giroud £13m
Cazorla £20m (not sure that’s quite right)
Gervinho £10.6m
Ox £12m
Arteta £10m
Mertesacker £10m
Koscielny £10m
Vermalen £10m
Arshavin £15m
Nasri £16m
Aleksandr somebody £11.2m
Reyes £17m
Wiltord £13m
Henry £10.5m

Yeh, Arsenal never spend a penny......

And that's excluding all the rubbish bought in the £4-10m bracket like Santos and Park last season. For the cost of Mertesacker and Santos you could have had Phil Jones!

Henry was signed in 1999!!!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

You compare a team who have regularly broken British and World transfer records (from Roy Keane and Bryan Robson back in then day) and has a number of players costing upwards of £20m in their team (some bought when £20m was the transfer record) to a side whose transfer record was £13m for Wiltord until this season and who built a double winning side (1998) with no player costing more than £10m, with a host of unhearald and unheard of youngsters including Viera, Cole, Anelka & Overmars as the big signing for £5m at 24 years old.

They have also (in case you didn't know) brought through a raft of youngsters through the years, relying on these instead of breaking their modest tranfer record, these include Fabergas, Flamini, Cole, RVP, Szczenzy, Toure, Viera, Clichy, Sagna, Anelka, Lauren & Reyes.

But true I suppose they do spend huge amounts of money on Wilcott, Chamberlain and Henry because they don't really give youth a chance...

You also haven't compared Man Us budget when the Prem started to the rest of the teams therein and how many transfer records they've broken when you talk about 'driving up the price of players'...

None of those players came through the Arsenal youth system. And you're still missing the point. If you can't see the difference between United (I've never denied they're big spenders) and Chelski/Citeh then theres no point discussing football.

Ahh of course I forgot that players like Ashley Cole and Gael Clichy had been bought for massive transfer fees like Rooney and Ferdinand - silly me (doh!).

and you said that 1. "Arsenal have spent too" and 2 " but [Man U] also have the best record in the EPL for bringing through youth"

I was responding to the above, ie that Arsenal have spent a very significant amount less than Man U while relying heavily on youth players, and also that Man U haven't got the best record for bringing through youth players in the EPL as you claim, as they have relied heavily on the big signings I've underlined. I think you are missing my point.

you also go on to say that Arsenal haven't been successful because "Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka."

Conviently ignoring your claim that Man City's spending (as well as Chelsea's and Man U's transfer record breaking spending before that) has priced other teams out of the market and stopped them competing. As well as ignoring the players like Fabergas, Flamini, RVP (which your club has rated enough to pay £24m for), Nasri, ect who we've developed since then who it could be said are equal or better players.

True Man C are a multi billionaire's play thing and have distorted the market by repeatedly breaking transfer records and pricing everyone else (almost) out of the market. But my point was that Man U were doing this way before Man C, through the Sky money they recieved at the start of the PL (before that they weren't hugely successful, definately not dominant) - meaning only 3 teams had won the PL in 11 years before Abramovichs millions. Man U do bring through youngsters but they've built their side around Rooney, Ferdinand, Evra, Van Der Sar (previously), Vidic, Nani/Young/Valencia, and even Carrick/Anderton, the only players in their 1st team that have come through the youth are Giggs & Cleverly, with Fletcher and Wellbeck on the bench.

Who have Arsenal brought through their youth system other than Cashley? And no, just buying young players doesn't count, that's not investing in youth that's a refusal to spend above £10m because you got your fingers burned on Reyes.

Who has a better record on bringing youth through its academy other than United (and West Ham)?

Well depends when you buy them or signed them doesn't it. If you signed them at 16 or 17 and develop them, doesn't that count?

Cos if were being picky Tom Cleverly actually started off at Bradford, Ryan Giggs started off at Man City.

All teams spend money. They have to if they want to remain successful. Yes you could argue some less than others, but I think it's fair to say that the youth academies have dried up in producing real world beating quality. Look no further than the current England team. That tells you really that there is a real diverse mix in where the players spent their youth days. Gone are the days when the England team had a Utd/West Ham feel to it.

Well if we're including pre-EPL:

Charlton, Best, Edwards etc

If we're staying sensible and EPL era:

Sharpe, Beckham, Butt, Giggs, Gillespie, G Neville, P Neville, Savage, Scholes, Wes Brown, Platt, Welbeck, Fletcher, Mark Hughes, Jonny Evans, David Healy.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Henry was signed in 1999!!!

99/00 season.

Beckham was from Spurs and Savage from Crewe

TopHat24/7 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Henry was signed in 1999!!!

99/00 season.

He was signed in 1999. That's not this century.

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

GSC wrote:No, I just didn't agree with the holier than thou approach some Utd fans had when City spent a ton of money and 'bought the league'. Everybody who's won it besides Arsenal has spent big money

Rubbish.

1) Arsenal have spent too, and the fact they haven't spent quite as much is not a testament to them merely an explanation of why they haven't won anything for about 8 years. Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka.

2) There's a big difference between growing a club, building on success, developing a massive international scale and the money that comes with it and investing it and being a nothing/nobody club getting bought out by a bored oligarch looking for a new plaything and buying every decent player under the sun, driving prices through the roof so nobody else can compete and, funnily enough, winning the league like a fat kid playing Champ Manager on his computer.

You compare a team who have regularly broken British and World transfer records (from Roy Keane and Bryan Robson back in then day) and has a number of players costing upwards of £20m in their team (some bought when £20m was the transfer record) to a side whose transfer record was £13m for Wiltord until this season and who built a double winning side (1998) with no player costing more than £10m, with a host of unhearald and unheard of youngsters including Viera, Cole, Anelka & Overmars as the big signing for £5m at 24 years old.

They have also (in case you didn't know) brought through a raft of youngsters through the years, relying on these instead of breaking their modest tranfer record, these include Fabergas, Flamini, Cole, RVP, Szczenzy, Toure, Viera, Clichy, Sagna, Anelka, Lauren & Reyes.

But true I suppose they do spend huge amounts of money on Wilcott, Chamberlain and Henry because they don't really give youth a chance...

You also haven't compared Man Us budget when the Prem started to the rest of the teams therein and how many transfer records they've broken when you talk about 'driving up the price of players'...

None of those players came through the Arsenal youth system. And you're still missing the point. If you can't see the difference between United (I've never denied they're big spenders) and Chelski/Citeh then theres no point discussing football.

Ahh of course I forgot that players like Ashley Cole and Gael Clichy had been bought for massive transfer fees like Rooney and Ferdinand - silly me (doh!).

and you said that 1. "Arsenal have spent too" and 2 " but [Man U] also have the best record in the EPL for bringing through youth"

I was responding to the above, ie that Arsenal have spent a very significant amount less than Man U while relying heavily on youth players, and also that Man U haven't got the best record for bringing through youth players in the EPL as you claim, as they have relied heavily on the big signings I've underlined. I think you are missing my point.

you also go on to say that Arsenal haven't been successful because "Investing in cheap continental cack and spending a decade in vain trying to discover the next Viera or Anelka."

Conviently ignoring your claim that Man City's spending (as well as Chelsea's and Man U's transfer record breaking spending before that) has priced other teams out of the market and stopped them competing. As well as ignoring the players like Fabergas, Flamini, RVP (which your club has rated enough to pay £24m for), Nasri, ect who we've developed since then who it could be said are equal or better players.

True Man C are a multi billionaire's play thing and have distorted the market by repeatedly breaking transfer records and pricing everyone else (almost) out of the market. But my point was that Man U were doing this way before Man C, through the Sky money they recieved at the start of the PL (before that they weren't hugely successful, definately not dominant) - meaning only 3 teams had won the PL in 11 years before Abramovichs millions. Man U do bring through youngsters but they've built their side around Rooney, Ferdinand, Evra, Van Der Sar (previously), Vidic, Nani/Young/Valencia, and even Carrick/Anderton, the only players in their 1st team that have come through the youth are Giggs & Cleverly, with Fletcher and Wellbeck on the bench.

Who have Arsenal brought through their youth system other than Cashley? And no, just buying young players doesn't count, that's not investing in youth that's a refusal to spend above £10m because you got your fingers burned on Reyes.

Who has a better record on bringing youth through its academy other than United (and West Ham)?

Well depends when you buy them or signed them doesn't it. If you signed them at 16 or 17 and develop them, doesn't that count?

Cos if were being picky Tom Cleverly actually started off at Bradford, Ryan Giggs started off at Man City.

I'd say there's a big difference between 14 and 17. Buying a player and putting him pretty much straight into your first team doesn't constitute developing youth (Fabregas and Flamini [being previously cited examples of Arsenal 'youth']).

legendkillarV2 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Henry was signed in 1999!!!

99/00 season.

He was signed in 1999. That's not this century.

I was doing it by season.

If you want to be pernickety then fine take Henry out, makes absolutely no difference.

Lee Sharpe was at Torquay

If we go by the quality of what has come through the ranks, I would say the Man Utd crop take some beating.

Let's put another spin on this.

Out of these crop of players, who would you pay the most for based on their peak years?

Man Utd - G. Neville, Scholes, Beckham, Giggs, P. Neville

Arsenal - Adams, Cole, Merson, Wilshere, Parlour

Liverpool - Carragher, Gerrard, Thompson, Fowler, Owen

Actually pretty tight. Gerrard's peak was pretty substantial, Fowler was a fantastic striker, Owen I don't think was as good but at his peak he had so much hype he'd cost a bomb.

Arsenal are probably bottom of the list, Adams is awkward as, whilst he was awesome, he was in a cheaper era therefore arguably his 'peak' price is only about £12m. In today's money though he'd be double or triple that. Cashley has been one of the top 3 left backs in the world for so many years now he'd be another expensive buy.

Then you have Beckham, Scholes and Giggs. All massively valuable and probably a match for the Liverpool three, maybe slightly ahead.

Can we replace Thompson with McManaman?

That said the Utd crop would shade it.

Ahh I see so by your reckoning we didn't develop Fabergas and he was exactly the same quality player when he left as when we brought him in?

The same with Christine Ronaldo? hmmm I think maybe there was a little bit of investment and development in those players. I mean you could say that Beckham was developed by Spurs if you use your method.
Or you could reason that by developing players through their formative years of 14-18 (such as Beckham, Anelka, Fabregas & Clichy) is similar to players such as Tony Adams, Ashley Cole, Wilshire, or Frimpong.

Who knows maybe you are right and Beckham was worth £25m when he played for Spurs or Fabregas was worth £25-£30m when he left Barce (great steal for Arsenal getting him for a free and selling the same player back to Barce for that amount...)

Smirnoffpriest wrote:Ahh I see so by your reckoning we didn't develop Fabergas and he was exactly the same quality player when he left as when we brought him in?

The same with Christine Ronaldo? hmmm I think maybe there was a little bit of investment and development in those players. I mean you could say that Beckham was developed by Spurs if you use your method.
Or you could reason that by developing players through their formative years of 14-18 (such as Beckham, Anelka, Fabregas & Clichy) is similar to players such as Tony Adams, Ashley Cole, Wilshire, or Frimpong.

Who knows maybe you are right and Beckham was worth £25m when he played for Spurs or Fabregas was worth £25-£30m when he left Barce (great steal for Arsenal getting him for a free and selling the same player back to Barce for that amount...)

jesus christ this is like banging my head against a brick wall.

I am talking about youth academies, bringing talent through your youth system. I'm not talking about buying 17/18 yr olds, shoving them in your first team and watching them flourish (Fabregas or Ronaldo).

Fabregas joined Arsenal on 11 September 2003. He debutised 1 month later and was playing regular first team football within a year. In no way possible is that a testament to the quality of Arsenal's academy set-up or an example of a 'home grown player' coming up through the ranks.

OH MY GOD, STOP THE PRESS, A TOP EPL SIDE HAS A GOOD FIRST TEAM TRAINING PROGRAMME.