Having had the first chance this Sunday to discuss recent events with regard to a possible takeover with fellow season ticket holders, I really wonder if people are looking at this through seriously rose-tinted glasses, and hoping that what they wish for arrives, rather than seeing what the facts are probably pointing to.

At the Lane the previous weekend the guy behind me was slagging off everything we did from when we went a goal down up until we equalised (after that ''we were brilliant''). Every other sentence involved ''getting the Yank in ASAP '' in order that ''we could spend some money.'' At the time I thought this was borne out of frustration with a forward line that in recent weeks has been one in name only, combined with the thought at the beginning of the Spuds game that we would not get a result and having the worst fears confirmed by going a goal down thanks in part to Jens having another hissy fit, and summing up the general dissatisfaction with the season.

Yet on Sunday all anyone could comment on was that the sooner we had Stan the man the better. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not in the camp of we don’t need a bloody Yank or we don’t need his type over here etc, but I cannot understand why people believe this would be the solution to all our problems. Do people really believe that he, as a shrewd businessman is going to put his own money into buying not only Arsenal but also its debts without something in return ?

Leaving aside Chelsea as an anomaly in this regard no-one else has found either success or piles of available moolah through the selling of their club to foreign investors.

Man Utd, as we all know, were bought by Glazer taking the debt and loading it onto the club and hence the up to 14% increase in next season’s ticket prices (despite the promise of rises being restricted to 5%). Their transfer outlay has been restricted (by their pre-buyout standards) and it is only because they have been challenging on three fronts this season - but with a team very much in place without Glazer - that the fallout has not been greater.

Aston Villa :- Haven’t brought in any one of note as far as playing staff is concerned and have achieved nothing to speak of this season.

West ham :- Nuff said

Portsmouth :- By their standards a good season but have done so with players either on frees or transferred in their career twilight.

Hearts :- Would we want the merry-go-round they had ? And without a single trophy or Champions League football.

The list goes on, so let’s face facts, a rich American sounds good but what connection does he have with the club ? None, so he’s not doing it for the love of Arsenal.

If he puts money in he’ll therefore want it back with a return, and if he’s such a good businessman he’ll try to get someone else to pay for it (i.e. us) like Glazier is doing with the Mancs - by passing the debt on to the club so that it takes both the risk and the costs.

Why would he risk his own money if he can get someone else to take that risk?

Everyone wants the big names to be associated with their club, but in the hard-headed world that is football today the foreign investors know that they can get a slice of the available action and money by buying into a club in a country where the sport is doing well financially with a solid base both nationally & internationally and where they stand a good chance of making a profit on their investment simply by virtue of a TV deal whilst the debt is carried elsewhere.

Are we to be bought off with the inference of a promise of big name purchased players? Christ, we have had that every season with the board and Arsene stating there is money but never buying anyone. In future we may be told the truth that there is no money, but the end result will be the same with the exception that our club’s heritage and tradition are now in the ''safekeeping'' of a new board, and whilst the current board have not been able to come up with the goods as far as players are concerned whilst the new stadium was being built and financed they are not so driven by profits that they take dividends – i.e. money out of the club, because as I understand it no dividends are paid, and a board that was prepared to sanction , Dennis, Thierry and Reyes over the last ten years certainly wasn’t opposed to spending on players when it felt it could.

Let’s face it, if we had won the Champs League last year and won a trophy this, the dissatisfaction would not be anywhere near the level it is, and we have actually improved in all competitions this year compared to last, with the exception of the Champs League (and yes I know I that it’s still not good enough). This was done without most of our experienced players - Campbell, Cole, Pires, Bergkamp and Henry - for either all or part of the season and therefore speaks well of the teams potential. And that is the real issue here:- is the potential this team undoubtedly has going to be fulfilled? We all know that for many games the one point should have been three and the 1 - 0 defeats could have been won if just one or two chances had been taken - that comes down to concentration and experience.

A sell-out of the club to someone with questionable motives at best (and predatory instincts at worst) will not resolve this. Let’s hear what Stan has got to say - if he does address the concerns that both the club and the supporters have - and then decide, but until then I remain very sceptical that a buyout will solve our problems, and may in the mid to longer term make them worse if we were to lose our manager and a large part of the team as a result.

We are at a crossroads now and dependent on which way we go will dictate our future for a good many years to come. We should all think a lot more carefully before making knee jerk reactions as the grass is always greener until we get there.