#Arsenal re: rebuilding | I know we all want this club to be successful again. In that light, there is work to be done in terms of how we build-out the squad moving forward. But for me, that cannot be all about buying every single player (1/12) #AFC

We are undoubtedly going to be linked to a lot of names from now and running through the summer...but what truly makes the most sense? Where in the team are - right now - the biggest questions? For me it's CM, CB, and long-term at CF. Most of the spine (2/12)
Yes Auba extended and we still have Laca, but both are on the wrong side of 30, and long-term, it's unlikely they'll be here and performing. The only question we don't have at CB is around Gabriel. The CM debate continues about a number of players & if they're good enough (3/12)
Arguments can easily be made for a CM purchase in the summer, as well as a CB depending on how things shake out with Mavropanos, Chambers, and Saliba's loan at Nice. What there should not be questions on, is our attacking options (4/12)
I am always adamant about the necessity in finding a balance between veteran pieces, a core of prime players, and a sprinkling of young talent that have unquestionable futures. You need all three to be a club that can sustain itself both financially and in terms of results (5/12)
The issue for me around the discussion of #Buendia is that, at 24, he's not far-off his prime years. He'll want a long term deal. But he plays in the same position(s) as both Smith-Rowe & Saka. Yes you always want to improve but you can still do that with academy products (6/12)
Many other big clubs, despite spending habits, will leave pathways clear for young players to develop and feature as first-choice options how they deserve. Should we not do the same with Saka, ESR, and Martinelli? (7/12)
Is not buying a player from the Championship, who has limited PL experience - despite, yes, being a good player - as risky as persisting with the kids? Who guarantees he will settle? Get on at the club? Improve as a player? Every transfer is a risk (8/12)
There is no bigger risk in allowing the aforementioned young players retain their first-choice status and grow with them as part of a long-term rebuild, while addressing issues in the spine in other areas (9/12)
You can be critical about how rated someone like Saka is, for example. But you do not reach the Golden Boy list if your talent is undeniable. It's debatable if he's in the top 5-10 in his bracket, but his potential is not. Do you risk blocking that? (10/12)
Is buying someone like Buendia so important that we actively run the risk of taking valuable time and experience away from a player who should be utterly key for this club in the short, medium, and long term? Potentially causing him to want out? For me, it's not (11/12)
If I had to choose between Buendia, and persisting with ESR and Saka at 10 & RW, I know what I'm choosing. Solve the need via the market across other areas of the pitch, while allowing our bright young attacking talents to flourish at the club. We can do both and improve (12/12)

More from For later read

1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread

How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.

Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were


2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work

3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics

4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things

5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
Humans inherently like the act of solidarity. We are social beings. We like to huddle up and be together.
They used this against us.
They convinced us that it was an act of solidarity to flatten the curve, to wear a mask for others, to take the vaccines for others,


and to reach #covidzero for others. They convinced us that this was for the greater good of society.
In reality, this couldn't be further away from the truth. They have divided us and broken the core structure of our society. They have dehumanized us with their masks.

They set us against each other into clans on opposite sides of a spectrum. They have turned us into aggressive beings fighting for our survival. Some of us fear harm from the virus, others fear harm from the vaccine, and yet others fear harm from the attack on our civilization.

We are all on a flight or fight mode. We are all operating under the influence of fear. We must collect ourselves and reflect on what has happened over the last year.
How is this for the greater good of society?

They used a tactical warfare strategy against us.
'Divide and conquer'.
We fell for it.
Now we must become aware of it and fight back.
We must reunite. We must find true solidarity to save our world. To free ourselves. To regain our autonomy.

You May Also Like