The Sun is a shite publication, of course. I won't even wipe my arse with it.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/the-sun-get-t...-starlet/84717/

As for the Merida case, it wasn't Arsenal that was hit with the bill, but Merida. In moving, Merida was considered to be in breach of his personal agreement but not the buying club. The agreements some Barca players sign are effectively binding contracts without pay, so they're not professional yet but are tied down with obligations. This, in a sense, is a legal workaround from the professional contract minimum age which means that Barca can circumvent those restrictions.

http://younggunsblog.co.uk/2011/02/arsenal...rcelonas-toral/

There is a claim that the money for Toral Harper is training allowance, but if I'm honest, unless the clubs themselves put up an official press release, I won't want to speculate as to what the deal actually was and I doubt we will ever really know (unless he turns out to be a massive superstar as well, after which we'll get a torrent of speculation to sift through).

http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?thearti...201102148425574

There's a retrospective story for everything



Very out of the blue. The other names you've mentioned I've heard of before but not Toral.

Will be looking forward to as well, but I will still maintain that whatever they did was not enough

Check out my first link above as well, with quotes from Carles Rexach who talked about the brick wall blocking junior players that Cesc would've seen at the time. When Arsenal was promising a lot of first team appearances, it's hard to compete. I doubt Cesc would have had played nearly as many games as he did in Arsenal when he was 18.

I agree. I've never said otherwise. Barca wanted to keep him (but how much they wanted to keep him is another matter).



Oversimplified. Every year, I read up on dozens upon dozens of hugely potential kids. Some of these names are now in the Football League or Segunda Division.

If you follow youth development long enough you would realise that no matter how big the potential, every year of a player's life is vital for his development. Slip up for even one year and you would end up a mediocre player at best, a non-pro at worst (the vast majority don't turn pro, instead going into other careers). The years (nearly 7 years now) spent at Arsenal are just as important as the years spent at Arsenal.

You might argue that, seeing as that he would not have gotten as much game time at Barcelona than he would at Arsenal, Cesc Fabregas would not be good as he is today if he had stayed in Barcelona.


Never cared about this 'DNA' arbitrary bullshit.



Agreed. Never said otherwise.

But Cesc obviously thought that getting vastly more gametime was a good thing for him.



I agree again, but when you're 16 and you're driven, you want every opportunity you can get. World-class players who become a first-teamer fully only in the 20s are very rare. Would you take the gamble and pray that despite not getting much game time before you turn 20, you could eventually bloom in your 20s? That's a big risk to take. I would rather get my developmental opportunities in my teens, rather than take the risk and hoping I get game time in my 20s.



How many players come through La Masia every year? How many get lots of runs out?

It's not whether any players are promoted or not, is what are the chances of getting promoted. The statistics are simple, let me explain:

Say Barca promotes 5 youth players, but in their batch there were 40 players. That's a 5/40 (12.5%) chance

Say Arsenal promotes 3 youth players, but in their batch there were 10 players. That's a 3/10 (30%) chance.

And that was pretty much the situation as Cesc saw it. Wenger practically guaranteed him first-team opportunities and fulfilled that by making him a first-team player by 18. He saw much, much less chances in Barca.

Take into account more lenient Spanish laws that allow Barca to hoard more youth players and thus increasing competition and you can begin to understand where they're coming from.

Commitment must be followed by actions and the fact is, at the time, there was a ceiling that was quite hard to penetrate due to massive competition.

No. Even The Sun has a degree of journalistic integrity. Journalism in the West is vastly different. Viewpoints may be skewed, but faking quotes would result in legal action or sanctions from the ombudsman.

I don't wish to be pedantic, but Cesc not staying in Barcelona IS evidence that "enough" wasn't done.

Ponder on this statement:

"Barcelona did enough to convince Cesc to stay. Cesc did not stay"

Are those two sentences not contradictory? Of course they are, because if Barce did enough, Cesc would stay.

Put it this way, if I get enough points in my exam, I will get an A, if I don't get enough points, I won't get an A. Barca didn't do enough to convince Cesc, he didn't stay. That is the evidence.

You can keep arguing that Barca did "enough", but Cesc left.



Again, reread your post. It was provocative. You don't write provocative stuff and not expect people to be provoked, do you?

Don't act all innocent without self-reflection.

I will reply in full in the future (work has becoming less boring now) but it must first be said that Toral would not have a pro contract now: he's too young to be offerred one, even in England. You yourself know that he has to wait until his 17th birthday.

So IF it's true that he was "offerred" a pro contract, it would only be promissory, as in Arsenal promises to give him one on his 17th birthday.

Barcelona can do the same! They can promise a contract at 18 and they have one big advantage over Arsenal: they are vastly richer. Barca's wage bill is more than 60% higher than Arsenal's and their revenue outstrips Arsenal's by more than a third. When post-tax income is taken, Spain's more favourable tax rates mean that the big two of La Liga come out much brighter than English clubs.

The comparison made on the blog is false: it's not Arsenal's pro wage vs. Barca's scholarship because Arsenal cannot give a pro contract just yet either.

Secondly, of course, is again, Barca can invite kids from all over the world to stay in La Masia. Arsenal can only recruit under-16s within 90 minute travel time of their training ground. Had this not been the case, they would probably copy La Masia a lot more and start recruiting kids when they are 10, 11 or 12. So Barca has the advantage of getting a hold of vastly more youth prospects and imbibing a sense of loyalty.

Thirdly, as said, one year's wages does not make much of a difference. If a player is attracted by Arsenal paying them one year more of wages (much of which will be taxed at 50%!), then he is financially very short-sighted. And considering that most players now will have good advice from their agents, it's unlikely that they will not be able to discern which deal is more financially viable.

Overall, English clubs might have a financial advantage over La Liga clubs. But when looked at specifically, Barcelona does not suffer this disadvantage, being the club with the second highest revenue in the world. Have you heard of Blackburn Rovers poaching a La Masia kid?

In conclusion, taking into accound Barca's income and Spain's favourable tax environment, getting a Barca contract at 18 is financially the same or better with getting an Arsenal contract at 17.

Bolded sentences are contradictory.

Does that mean Wenger's promises are somehow more trustworthy and can be gambled on?

A 16-year-old kid moving to Arsenal is also gambling on a promise that he'll get a pro contract when he hits 17, so not much difference.

Also, it's not a big gamble that you think it is. If you don't get a pro contract from Barca when you're 18, there's a high chance you can get a pro contract elsewhere anyway. So why not try in Barca first and then if you fail, head over to the English Premier League? Or even other La Liga teams or a number of Eastern European big clubs who would gladly pay a lot of money for a former Barca youth who played with them until 18?

Even if you accept a promise from an English club, there's no guarantee that they'll keep you, so it's a gamble too.

So, no, it's not a gamble at all to stay in Barca and that is not a valid argument of unfair advantage.

It bears remembering though, that the high pressing of Barcelona means that they can tire out a bit after the 70th minute. That's when Arsenal got their goals at the Grove.

Van Persie was below par with holding up the ball, but that's not just his fault, but Arsenal relying on too many direct passes in tight situations.

But this does not preclude anything.

It is vital to remember that winning with less shots on goals is a common occurrance.

But yes, Arsenal must take it on the chin. Tactically a bit off.

As for taking tips from Hercules, not that we don't need tips, but if you watch Arsenal enough you'd know that van Persie is good at holding the ball up and building play with diagonals to running wingers or short passes forward to advancing midfielders. Judging from one game would result from an entirely flawed conclusion.

Opinion: Mascherano might be remembered from his sacrificial dash back to tackle Bendtner (who gifted him with a heavy, heavy first touch), but his passing throughout was very helpful to Arsenal.

---

Added on March 9, 2011, 10:11 pmStereotyping a set of fans does not reflect well on your moral fibre either.

Stop this "BPL fan" bullshit. In fact, I'd like to shoot the next person who calls it the BPL.

This post has been edited by minority: Mar 9 2011, 10:11 PM

Well, he made his personal opinions known, that's not trolling. You can just as well disagree by arguing what made the game good for you. Your first reply however, was a personal attack.

The bolded line is bullshit. It does matter how you lose.

Don't have time for "fans" who only look at scorelines. Some people actually watch the football, you know.

Discussing the match does not mean not accepting the results.

I believe forums are for discussions and airing of personal opinions, which we are doing here. If you disagree with any of the opinions of the general run-of-play then that may consequently be written. Nothing wrong with discussing it here if it is in reply to posts here. Barcelona was in the match too, you know.

I reply on here because I disagree with some people's view of Barca's position in the game, which in my opinion would not necessarily have stood until the end of the game where Arsenal's stamina from less vigourous pressing may have helped, as well as the introduction of perhaps less experienced subs.

If you feel more comments are not needed then ignore them according to your needs.

Nope, not trolling really. You could simply reply something like: "I disagree that it was a boring match. Passes were great etc. etc"

Instead, your reply was:

He made his opinions known about the match, which did not include any criticism of Barca or Arsenal, nor any personal attacks.

Your reply was to attack him as a "top 3 BPL team's troll". You could have argued his opinions but you chose to go personal instead.

-----------------------------------------------

Sorry for clogging your thread, but again, I feel like too many people get personal too quick.

As before, within the context of the result, I agree that Barca's performance was much better, but I was here to refute the contention made by some posters that the result would have certainly been the same if van Persie was not sent off. After all, Arsenal was playing at a slower pace and hoping for a late counter-attack, just like the first leg. The tactic was definitely blunted by the red card.

I am not blaming the ref, nor am I saying that if the red card was not served, Arsenal would definitely have won. I am saying that nothing was a foregone conclusion. Even if Barca continued to dominate, there was always a chance that the counter-attacking strategy would've paid dividends. Dani Alves' late mistake is proof that complete concentration is hard to maintain for 90 minutes even for the best players and that was what Arsenal was obviously banking on.

Apologies if anyone is annoyed by this subject being brought up again, but I discuss this without getting personal with anyone nor in an abrasive manner and discussion is free.

Haha come off it now, at the end of the day, Barcelona pretty much deserved to win, but only just.

I'd dare say that the second goal would not have happened if Pepe wasn't sent off because he kept MEssi quite quiet all night. Notice that the start of Messi's run was in loads of space, the space that Pepe was covering before.

So a bit unlucky that Pepe was sent off for a tame 50-50. Don't think he deserved a card. But on the balance, Barcelona was marginally more threatening and 1-0 would have been the correct score.

I think much of the anger though, stems from the image that is projected on Barca (whether by the media or whoever) that they are skillful masters of finding space etc. etc. Last night showed that they were just human as well and look to win in the same way others do and the previous image provoked a backlash.

Not to rain on your parade, but in the grand scheme of moral one-upping, playing defensively is considered fair, but trying to get the other player sent off by acting is a bit further from fair.

But hey, both sides resorted to the same tactics.

I thought it hit his shinguard, mostly.

But again, it's regular to see over-reaction nowadays to get something out of the referree.

Surely he's not saying all tackles that are really strong and painful should be a red card? Most matches will end before half time if that's the case.

The reason why Barca does not need to loan out players is because the reserve team already plays in the Segunda anyway. So they practially loan their players out to their reserve team. It's a luxurt the richest teams in Spain have that allows them to have tighter control of how their youth players are used by the loaning team, whereas other clubs have no choice but to loan to a team they cannot control.

In a sense, it's a brilliant system to develop youth, but one that favours bigger clubs.

You're right, didn't realise they stuck to Segunda B even when they won it.

but I would have to say that whether they are loaned out or moved into Barcelona B, the concept is still the same in that they are played in competitions with competitive intensity. This is very important. Playing in the English reserve league is always less intense, because the players have nothing much to fight for and will try to avoid injuries etc. Playing in Segunda etc. will pit you against teams trying their best to win the match and the competition.

So whether loaning to smaller teams or playing in the B team, the intent is the same - to give playing experience in a intense, competitive environment. It's why promising players can get promoted from the youth team a lot quicker, because they want to ramp up the challenge.

Massive advantage for teams who can afford B teams of course, also because they can give coaching staff experience as well and build a team in a competitive environment without risking losing control of your players to uncontrollable managers.