and they won't continue under the new strategy, so move on,

A better measure is how many games they played for us. If a player (like Townsend) plays 4-5 seasons for us at 13m, it's a very successful transfer, even if they leave on a free. On the other hand Wickham was not.

Also, you fail to mention the very successful transfers, such as Ward, Ayew, Guiata, Bolaise, Zaha (back), etc.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Brentford decided that their academy wouldn't justify its cost to operate. Given our excellent catchment area, I think it makes sense to have a good academy.

Chelsea has a zillion dollars, and they churn out a neverending stream of very valuable players from their academy. There's no reason we can't do that too.

I think our plan is good, and let's give it some time to see what rewards we get from our academy.

2017 Feb. (Van Aanholt) Palace 1 - 0 Middlesboro
2018 Jan. (Sako) Palace 1 - 0 Burnley
2019 May (Batshuayi, Batshuayi, OG, Van Aanholt, Townsend) Palace 5 - 3 Bournemouth
2020 Feb. (Van Aanholt) Palace 1 - 0 Newcastle

1. With respect, they ARE sustainable. We're still here and healthy, aren't we?

2. They didn't leave for no return. No fee, true, but a very good return on investment. We're still in the Prem ten years later, aren't we? In almost all those cases, we bought mature players, got their best years, and let them run down their contracts. They weren't bought as young players you'd expect to be able to sell on for a profit.

3. Of the above, only Sakho in my view seriously under-delivered. Beneteke's 15 goal-season just about keeps him above the waterline. The others all contributed far more than we paid for them.

4. Signing a mature player, getting 2-4 good years out of him and letting him run down his contract and move on is a perfectly sustainable business model. Our current position both in the table and at the bank proves it.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

"Big" is the wrong metric for a stadium as it relates only to size. Big does help in that there are a few more seats to put bums on, but Old Trafford is a s*** stadium, big or not. What matters now is incremental revenue. A "top" stadium needs top facilities. More executive areas (that's where the money is really made) and better facilities and outlets (food, retail, etc.) Old Trafford struggles in all those areas. Spurs stadium has around 15,000 fewer seats than United's so it's not bigger, but it generates a whole lot more revenue due to the way it's appointed and that's what matters. In crude terms, you'd rather have 50,000 fans tempted to spend £20 at a match due to the attractive fare on offer than 75,000 paying £5 each. So United actually fail (or just get by) on the stadium measure too.

An interesting side note to underline the point. Two top hospitality seats at Anfield tonight will cost you £3,750-odd. That's the same amount of revenue you'd raise from 1,000 normal seats at £37.50 each. In short, these days a "big" (or top) stadium isn't measured by crowd capacity but by the quality of experience you can offer. For us, that's a big problem because much as we all love Selhurst, the incremental revenue potential (and facilities) are uniformly horrendous. I think that's what the new stand really aims to change, as opposed to simply expanding capacity.

Edited by sydtheeagle (15 Aug 2022 10.00am)

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

I am certainly NOT a reader of the 'Guardian' but I discovered the following link :

[Link]