sad.man.loves.vgc said:
highwaystar101 said:
My take on the whole "big-money" debate is this...
David Beckham, Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Gary Neville, Phil Neville, Nicky Butt... These players cemented Manchester United's dominance of the Premier League in the 90s. They were not the product of money, they were the product of good management and one of the most nurturing youth systems ever. Sure they've spent big in recent years, but that is only possible due to their earlier, self-made success.
Manchester city are missing that. Outside of Joe Hart, I can't think of one player still at Man City who has risen through the ranks.'They even gave away their home-grown star Stephen Ireland, once voted 'player of the year', just so they could spend £24m on another player. I think something valuable has been lost from the club when that happens.
Chelsea did exactly the same thing. The only remaining product of the pre-Abramovich era are John Terry and Frank Lampard. Surely the real feeling of victory is missing from a club like that. It's like cheating in a video game; you'll win, but it wont feel the same.
|
Well even young talents are bought and not just "raised".
Barcelona bought Messi at the age of what? 10? It's still buying imo.
|
And yet there are so many talents that basically every club has a chance of buying them in case not everyone is talking about them. The difference is that it's very risky to do since you can't just buy 1000 players at the age of 10 every year and even if you could, it's very possible that these players are leaving to play for other clubs in lower divisions to get a real chance of playing football professionally.
Now Messi wouldn't have been this good if he had been bought by some other club with a not as good youth academy.
