Have I missed an academy update? (22 Viewers)

[Brylowes]

Well yeah, most important thing I would say is how Coventry City FC feel about the academy and how much THEY wish to keep it going.

Some worrying comments on here that suggest THEY DONT HAVE The BEST INTERESTS OF THE FANS AT HEART the matter.

And this surprise's you !

 

---

[Moff]

I wonder why so many people are anti the board and the owners? People still feel the need to defend them though. :banghead:

People keep repeating this tired old line, but seriously who the fuck defends them?

 

[Otis]

And this surprise's you !

Nope. Worries me though greatly.

 

[Otis]

And I would just add, surely if this is proves to be true that they are not interested, then NONE of us can possibly believe in ANY new stadium at all and this includes the Butts groundshare thing.

Seemingly, the club just hope Mowbray can bring money to the club through promotion.

 

[stupot07]

Forgive my cynicism, but why is that important? The FL have agreed it will be sufficient for the purposes of a Category 2 Academy. If the club needs more pitch time than can be provided, other pitches are available.

If the important thing is to 'save the academy' - you know the one where you wanted everyone to sign the petition. If it is saved, great news, yes?

Of course its important, I'd like to know.

I read "better facilities for less money". So what's that then? Just the kicking barn? Or use of all the pitches too? Or thr office's, classrooms and medical rooms etc that are at the higgs? Will they still exist when the swimming pools built? If not where does that get based?/How does playing across multiple site work? What are the cost implications?
Does that require employing more staff (e.g medical staff/physio's to be on hand?), how does the academy director and others get to oversee/check progress it when they will need to travel from higgs, to ryton to Warwick uni for example? Will those pitches be kept up to the standard required? What happens when there a bad weather and thr academy can't train outside? Do they get access to the barn then? If the u18's are using the first team training pitch, will that pitch hold up to the extra use? If not what impact will that have on TMs training? What happens to thr SBiTC work Saturday and holiday clubs, who deliver some of the grass roots academy and development work?

That's why its important to know, its not as easy to say " yes, we can use the barn up to 3 hours a day, thr FL are OK with this" as there are more to consider than just the kicking barn.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[oldskyblue58]

I had a conversation with someone from the FL who deals with the Academies. He was aware of the CCFC Academy situation. This was an informal chat so any proposal would still need proper assessment and approval by FL. No emails etc to post up so up to you if you take my word for it or not. The gist of what came out of that conversation was as follows.

- ideally the Academy should be on one site owned/controlled by the club. However there are a number of Academies where two or more sites are used so it is not set in stone. (CCFC have neither ownership or control and never have had even before the new rules. To say it must all be on one site is not accurate it seems. To go on about the Academy lease is also misleading because it is nothing more than an user agreement to book 3 months in advance)

- any second site or third site must be long term and for a particular group of academy trainees. That is it could not change from week to week or month to month the location or the group using it. Obviously the second site facilities would need to be up to scratch. You could for instance use Ryton for the U21's and U18's site, or use the new Warwick Uni facilities when built for a set of age groups, that should meet the criteria. The Academy itself would/could still be based at AHC and the minimum number of pitches met across two or more sites. It is just a matter of organisation and making it work

- The rules for rooms to be available are actually tighter than for the pitches. They form part of the core tick box requirements in the audit. They can not per the rules have dual usage (ie a meeting room is also a classroom). One requirement is that there must be a classroom with 20 computers ( - where is that currently?) Another is dedicated showers (but again is that provided now or is it acceptable to the FL etc because of the community usage element of the AHC set up?)

- The indoor pitch should be available at any time for the club. So that if lads training and weather becomes adverse they can go use it. The agreement CCFC has had for the last 3 years is a user agreement to block book facilities 3 months in advance, so did they passed the audit without that requirement it would seem so. There is no lease, there is no rights over occupancy other than what is pre booked 3 months in advance. (How often do they actually use it? and when?)

- The audit is a process but there are tick box items - facilities are a core element. To gain Cat 2 is not about getting 100% it is about getting a pass mark that is set around 65%

- The FL are looking to work with clubs to create or maintain Academies. They look for clubs to come to them with proposals then mould that proposal to best make it work. Yes the rules are the rules but this isn't a "jobs worth situation" there is room to apply some discretion to best benefit the trainees for an area. (that implies CCFC/CSF have to formulate a proposal to put forward)

Facilities required Cat 2
Grass pitches sufficient to provide for all age groups. (What do they have now and when at the Higgs? So proposal would need to show the same at least)
I x artificial floodlit pitch
1 x indoor pitch 60yds x 40yds (but could be smaller 30 x 20) (What times do they have use of this now? How big is the kicking barn?)
Changing rooms/toilet facilities for players
Changing rooms/toilet facilities for medics and coaches
Team meeting room for 20 people
Guest Lounge
Matchanalysis Suite
Medical facilities
Admin office
Private meeting room
Classrooms x 2 for 20 people (inc 20 computers )

Been trying to think where some of the above are with exclusive use by the club (eg the classrooms with computers)?. Also do we have exclusive use all the time or just for the times pre booked? What is actually pre booked? What times of the day and what days are pre booked? Match what we currently have to the demands of the rules - not sure it adds up yet we are a top Cat 2 Academy

Final thoughts do you think that CSF were involved in the original Cat 2 proposal in 2013 so might actually have past experience of how to make this work? so are the requirement new to them or known?.

I do not take the above as FL approval only that things are not so clear cut, and that some things that have been put out there are not actually quite how the CCFC Academy reality is

So can a Cat 2 Academy be retained in Coventry it would seem so

Now I would suggest that the sides involved sit down face to face and get this sorted. If they all want an Academy that is

 

[stupot07]

Thanks for that OSB, thats exactly why i asked what facilities are available, as it seems to me everyone is focusing on the indoor pitch /kicking barn and not the wider requirements and the logistics and extra costs to meet those from multiple sites.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

I had a conversation with someone from the FL who deals with the Academies. He was aware of the CCFC Academy situation. This was an informal chat so any proposal would still need proper assessment and approval by FL. No emails etc to post up so up to you if you take my word for it or not. The gist of what came out of that conversation was as follows.

- ideally the Academy should be on one site owned/controlled by the club. However there are a number of Academies where two or more sites are used so it is not set in stone. (CCFC have neither ownership or control and never have had even before the new rules. To say it must all be on one site is not accurate it seems)

- any second site or third site must be long term and for a particular group of academy trainees. That is it could not change from week to week or month to month the location or the group using it. Obviously the second site facilities would need to be up to scratch. You could for instance use Ryton for the U21's and U18's site, or use the new Warwick Uni facilities when built for a set of age groups, that should meet the criteria. The Academy itself would/could still be based at AHC and the minimum number of pitches met. It is just a matter of organisation and making it work

- The rules for rooms to be available are actually tighter than for the pitches. They form part of the core tick box requirements in the audit. They can not per the rules have dual usage (ie a meeting room is also a classroom). One requirement is that there must be a classroom with 20 computers - where is that currently? Another is dedicated showers (but again is that provided now or is it acceptable to the FL etc because of the community usage element of the AHC set up?)

- The indoor pitch should be available at any time for the club. So that if lads training and weather becomes adverse they can go use it. The agreement CCFC has had for the last 3 years is a user agreement to block book facilities 3 months in advance, so did they passed the audit without that requirement it would seem so. There is no lease, there is no rights over occupancy other than what is pre booked 3 months in advance. (How often do they actually use it? and when?)

- The audit is a process but there are tick box items - facilities are a core element. To gain Cat 2 is not about getting 100% it is about getting a pass mark that is set around 65%

- The FL are looking to work with clubs to create or maintain Academies. They look for clubs to come to them with proposals then mould that proposal to best make it work. Yes the rules are the rules but this isn't a "jobs worth situation" there is room to apply some discretion to best benefit the trainees for an area. (that implies CCFC/CSF have to formulate a proposal to put forward)

Facilities required Cat 2
Grass pitches sufficient to provide for all age groups. What do they have now and when at the Higgs? So proposal would need to show the same at least
I x artificial floodlit pitch
1 x indoor pitch 60yds x 40yds (but could be smaller 30 x 20) What times do they have use of this now?
Changing rooms/toilet facilities for players
Changing rooms/toilet facilities for medics and coaches
Team meeting room for 20 people
Guest Lounge
Matchanalysis Suite
Medical facilities
Admin office
Private meeting room
Classrooms x 2 for 20 people (inc 20 computers )

Been trying to think where some of the above are with exclusive use by the club?. Also do we have exclusive use all the time or just for the times pre booked? What is actually pre booked? What times of the day and what days are pre booked? Match what we currently have to the demands of the rules - not sure it adds up

Final thoughts do you think that CSF were involved in the original Cat 2 proposal in 2013 so might actually have past experience of how to make this work? so are the requirement new to them or known?.

I do not take the above as FL approval only that things are not so clear cut, and that some things that have been put out there are not actually quite how the CCFC Academy reality is

So can a Cat 2 Academy be retained in Coventry it would seem so

Now I would suggest that the sides involved sit down face to face and get this sorted. If they all want an Academy that is

Well done, OSB. Good stuff.

Sit down and talk about it?

Hmmm.....I think some of us made that suggestion a while back.

 

[Orca]

People keep repeating this tired old line, but seriously who the fuck defends them?

There are 'journalists' such as Les Reid, who constantly defends them as the injured party in a mess that is all of their own making.
How about Jonathan Strange, the former Chair of the CCLSC who quit his post over a disagreement with fellow members. He thought fans should go to Sixfields. He has made several announcements since that are pro-SISU.

Those are two relatively prominent public figures. There are also many on here who would rather blame the Council, Wasps, CSF, Higgs Trust and Uncle Tom Cobley rather than see that the whole mess we are in began with poor Due Diligence from SISU over the rent and then a strike on rent payments that was a massive factor in SISU not being able to buy the Stadium.

 

[Moff]

Now I would suggest that the sides involved sit down face to face and get this sorted. If they all want an Academy that is

The million dollar question. As it currently appears the club aren't showing a great deal of willing, which is a disgrace.

I just wonder what Mowbray's position is. Surely he wants to retain a Cat2 academy, so what is he saying to the club? and are they listening?

 

[Orca]

Of course its important, I'd like to know.

I read "better facilities for less money". So what's that then? Just the kicking barn? Or use of all the pitches too? Or thr office's, classrooms and medical rooms etc that are at the higgs? Will they still exist when the swimming pools built? If not where does that get based?/How does playing across multiple site work? What are the cost implications?
Does that require employing more staff (e.g medical staff/physio's to be on hand?), how does the academy director and others get to oversee/check progress it when they will need to travel from higgs, to ryton to Warwick uni for example? Will those pitches be kept up to the standard required? What happens when there a bad weather and thr academy can't train outside? Do they get access to the barn then? If the u18's are using the first team training pitch, will that pitch hold up to the extra use? If not what impact will that have on TMs training? What happens to thr SBiTC work Saturday and holiday clubs, who deliver some of the grass roots academy and development work?

That's why its important to know, its not as easy to say " yes, we can use the barn up to 3 hours a day, thr FL are OK with this" as there are more to consider than just the kicking barn.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I would suggest you apply for a job on the board. You've just done more work on understanding the Academy requirements than the rest of CCFC put together.

 

[Moff]

There are also 'journalists' such as Les Reid, who constantly defends them as the injured party in a mess that is all of their own making.
How about Jonathan Strange, the former Chair of the CCLSC who quit his post over a disagreement with fellow members. He thought fans should go to Sixfields. He has made several announcements since that are pro-SISU.

Those are two relatively prominent public figures. There are also many on here who would rather blame the Council, Wasps, CSF, Higgs Trust and Uncle Tom Cobley rather than see that the whole mess we are in began with poor Due Diligence from SISU over the rent and then a strike on rent payments that was a massive factor in SISU not being able to buy the Stadium.

Is it a prerequisite on the site to mention the thoughts of Les Reid and Jonathan Strange? Who gives a damn what they think. You can argue a point without having to post about two people who have a differing view.

Regarding people on this site, its pretty much 99% that blame SISU, its just some people feel that other people hold some degree of blame as well, be it Richardson, Robinson, Elliott, CCC, or Wasps.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Thanks for that OSB, thats exactly why i asked what facilities are available, as it seems to me everyone is focusing on the indoor pitch /kicking barn and not the wider requirements and the logistics and extra costs to meet those from multiple sites.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I know what you are saying stupot.

In the scheme of things are the extra costs of multiple sites that much? People have to travel to the AHC in any case would it be so hard to travel to say the Warwick Uni site? Would it be possible to rent a room or two at another site?

We don't know what the barn rent would be but if getting less other facilities at AHC then you would assume there are perhaps some savings too. How often is the indoor pitch used now for the Academy and what times/days? They have to book it three months in advance so are able organise and plan ahead..... cant plan the weather though.

CSF pretty much dominate site provision across the city so it would seem to be a good idea to work with and not against. What we are saying is it is possible to retain Cat 2 even if elements are situated elsewhere.

Perhaps it is not such a bad thing to look at costs and best value and make the £500k grant we get go further for the Academy.

The picture provided is that the Academy has to be on one site at the AHC or not at all ................. given the above that's a situation I find hard to accept if the Academy is vital to the future of CCFC

 

[Orca]

Is it a prerequisite on the site to mention the thoughts of Les Reid and Jonathan Strange? Who gives a damn what they think. You can argue a point without having to post about two people who have a differing view.

Regarding people on this site, its pretty much 99% that blame SISU, its just some people feel that other people hold some degree of blame as well, be it Richardson, Robinson, Elliott, CCC, or Wasps.

So you already knew the answer to the question you asked and then you criticise me for answering it?

 

[Moff]

So you already knew the answer to the question you asked and then you criticise me for answering it?

No I asked why people like you keep repeating the same old tired line, and you said its because of two people, who don't post on this site. Without asking the question I hadn't a clue who you were on about.

Well done. I asked a question, you replied and I got my answer. I didn't already know the answer.

To point out you can argue a point without mentioning the thoughts of Jonathan Strange or Les Reid is hardly criticism is it.

 

[dongonzalos]

I had a conversation with someone from the FL who deals with the Academies. He was aware of the CCFC Academy situation. This was an informal chat so any proposal would still need proper assessment and approval by FL. No emails etc to post up so up to you if you take my word for it or not. The gist of what came out of that conversation was as follows.

- ideally the Academy should be on one site owned/controlled by the club. However there are a number of Academies where two or more sites are used so it is not set in stone. (CCFC have neither ownership or control and never have had even before the new rules. To say it must all be on one site is not accurate it seems)

- any second site or third site must be long term and for a particular group of academy trainees. That is it could not change from week to week or month to month the location or the group using it. Obviously the second site facilities would need to be up to scratch. You could for instance use Ryton for the U21's and U18's site, or use the new Warwick Uni facilities when built for a set of age groups, that should meet the criteria. The Academy itself would/could still be based at AHC and the minimum number of pitches met. It is just a matter of organisation and making it work

- The rules for rooms to be available are actually tighter than for the pitches. They form part of the core tick box requirements in the audit. They can not per the rules have dual usage (ie a meeting room is also a classroom). One requirement is that there must be a classroom with 20 computers - where is that currently? Another is dedicated showers (but again is that provided now or is it acceptable to the FL etc because of the community usage element of the AHC set up?)

- The indoor pitch should be available at any time for the club. So that if lads training and weather becomes adverse they can go use it. The agreement CCFC has had for the last 3 years is a user agreement to block book facilities 3 months in advance, so did they passed the audit without that requirement it would seem so. There is no lease, there is no rights over occupancy other than what is pre booked 3 months in advance. (How often do they actually use it? and when?)

- The audit is a process but there are tick box items - facilities are a core element. To gain Cat 2 is not about getting 100% it is about getting a pass mark that is set around 65%

- The FL are looking to work with clubs to create or maintain Academies. They look for clubs to come to them with proposals then mould that proposal to best make it work. Yes the rules are the rules but this isn't a "jobs worth situation" there is room to apply some discretion to best benefit the trainees for an area. (that implies CCFC/CSF have to formulate a proposal to put forward)

Facilities required Cat 2
Grass pitches sufficient to provide for all age groups. (What do they have now and when at the Higgs? So proposal would need to show the same at least)
I x artificial floodlit pitch
1 x indoor pitch 60yds x 40yds (but could be smaller 30 x 20) (What times do they have use of this now? How big is the kicking barn?)
Changing rooms/toilet facilities for players
Changing rooms/toilet facilities for medics and coaches
Team meeting room for 20 people
Guest Lounge
Matchanalysis Suite
Medical facilities
Admin office
Private meeting room
Classrooms x 2 for 20 people (inc 20 computers )

Been trying to think where some of the above are with exclusive use by the club (eg the classrooms with computers)?. Also do we have exclusive use all the time or just for the times pre booked? What is actually pre booked? What times of the day and what days are pre booked? Match what we currently have to the demands of the rules - not sure it adds up yet we are a top Cat 2 Academy

Final thoughts do you think that CSF were involved in the original Cat 2 proposal in 2013 so might actually have past experience of how to make this work? so are the requirement new to them or known?.

I do not take the above as FL approval only that things are not so clear cut, and that some things that have been put out there are not actually quite how the CCFC Academy reality is

So can a Cat 2 Academy be retained in Coventry it would seem so

Now I would suggest that the sides involved sit down face to face and get this sorted. If they all want an Academy that is

All good information OSB.

The only area I slightly disagree with is your last paragraph.

The council and the Sports Foundation I am sure would like us to have an academy. However it is far from their responsibility to provide this.
Whether Wasps want us to have an academy or not should be completely irrelevant.

We have to stop continuously drawing other people into our problems. It continuously gives us a place to hide.

We have to put around 500k a year investment into the academy.

Over the last 5 years we have recouped around £5.5 to £6 million for 2 players.

Transfer fees are rising dramatically which will have a knock effect right down to our level.
So the returns on such players in the future will be even higher.

So far those two players alone have covered 12 years worth of academy fees. Also it is likely Wilson will move on at some stage leading to another windfall.
Christie also brought in some money in compensation as will Sambalu.

We have also had playing time out of these players imagine what it would have cost to sign a Wilson or a Maddison.

There are plenty others who also played a role of squad players in the past and will do in this season and the future. They play an important role in the squad in cheap wages even if they don't develop into a star.

The owners have said the club will self fund and their aim is not to put in a penny. Their actions both past and present has created this situation. The club themselves have to provide the solution. Not bleat and whinge and hope others bend over backwards.
The academy is the cornerstone of allowing the club to be self funding.
However because of repeatedly peeing people off and antagonising them. The club will need to invest.
Either commit long term and invest into the wasps project to secure the facilities. Or build our own a similar project to Wasps at Warwick University. How about doing something in conjunction with Coventry University?
It's an investment where the returns are tangible and clear.
Stop hiding behind and putting the blame on others. Take responsibility for the club you own and run it yourself!!!!

 

[oldskyblue58]

not the primary responsibility of CCC, CSF, Wasps at all don I agree. Responsibility for CCFC's current & future welfare primarily lays with the current owners/directors as custodians of the club. That doesn't mean that the others are absolved of all responsibility though.

Bottom line is that the CCFC directors & owners need to work with, engage positively with the other parties to make it work there is no choice if we are to safeguard the Cat 2 status or any academy at all. CSF/Wasps have said publically they want to engage to make it work, the club has to match that and test the resolve if the Academy really is a vital cog in the plan forward.

Doing it by email or refusing to meet or always giving reasons why not or looking for excuses for it not to happen does not cut it. It is possible from what I have found out - so why isn't it happening?

 

[Moff]

The owners have said the club will self fund and their aim is not to put in a penny. Their actions both past and present has created this situation. The club themselves have to provide the solution. Not bleat and whinge and hope others bend over backwards.
The academy is the cornerstone of allowing the club to be self funding.
However because of repeatedly peeing people off and antagonising them. The club will need to invest.
Either commit long term and invest into the wasps project to secure the facilities. Or build our own a similar project to Wasps at Warwick University. How about doing something in conjunction with Coventry University?
It's an investment where the returns are tangible and clear.
Stop hiding behind and putting the blame on others. Take responsibility for the club you own and run it yourself!!!!

Good post, and certainly agree with the above Dongo.

I just don't get their attitude, if they want the club to self fund the Academy is imperative. Lose it and I just cant understand where they think they will ever get back anything for the club, as surely further investment will be needed to stop us sliding further, and they don't seem willing to do that.

 

[Orca]

No I asked why people like you keep repeating the same old tired line, and you said its because of two people, who don't post on this site. Without asking the question I hadn't a clue who you were on about.

Well done. I asked a question, you replied and I got my answer. I didn't already know the answer.

To point out you can argue a point without mentioning the thoughts of Jonathan Strange or Les Reid is hardly criticism is it.

Seriously? I wasn't thinking of anyone specific when I said 'people', I was making a general comment about the fact that these 'people' exist. You then said.....

People keep repeating this tired old line, but seriously who the fuck defends them?

Why would you even ask that as you appear to know what answer is coming or that I was specifically thinking about those two people when I mentioned that people need to defend them. There are also people who post on this site who would have rather chew their own arm off than admit that it's SISU's fault. I'm sure you know who those people are too.

We still sit in a vacuum of inaction from the club and its board on this issue, but people still want to not blame the club. Those people are on here and are in the press.

 

[Captain Dart]

Over the last 5 years we have recouped around £5.5 to £6 million for 2 players.

I doubt it, all headline figures in transfer deals are dependant on clauses like number of appearances for buying club, England caps etc. some of which are unlikely to be achieved or even avoided by the buying club by selling on or releasing the player before they're triggered.

You'll never know the true figures, they will be hidden in the accounts.

If the Academy is a net money pit or profit centre why won't the club present the figures, because that isn't the SISU way.

 

[ashbyjan]

Of course its important, I'd like to know.

I read "better facilities for less money". So what's that then? Just the kicking barn? Or use of all the pitches too? Or thr office's, classrooms and medical rooms etc that are at the higgs? Will they still exist when the swimming pools built? If not where does that get based?/How does playing across multiple site work? What are the cost implications?
Does that require employing more staff (e.g medical staff/physio's to be on hand?), how does the academy director and others get to oversee/check progress it when they will need to travel from higgs, to ryton to Warwick uni for example? Will those pitches be kept up to the standard required? What happens when there a bad weather and thr academy can't train outside? Do they get access to the barn then? If the u18's are using the first team training pitch, will that pitch hold up to the extra use? If not what impact will that have on TMs training? What happens to thr SBiTC work Saturday and holiday clubs, who deliver some of the grass roots academy and development work?

That's why its important to know, its not as easy to say " yes, we can use the barn up to 3 hours a day, thr FL are OK with this" as there are more to consider than just the kicking barn.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Stu - one important point to note - there has not been any offer of cut price facilities or reduced costs - the Trust has got involved in the discussion of the provision of facilities not in costs, I think there has been some misunderstanding over cut price offers etc. However the second part of your point is spot on, there are a lot of issues that need resolving - the FL provide a blueprint for Academies and as we know the FL operates in a very discretionary way and the only way to get something agreed with them is by a bit of negotiating, bit of barter if you like. But to do this the parties that have it within their remit to find potential solutions -CCFC, CSF and Wasps need to talk and jointly come up with a proposal that can be put to the FL. The key point is that they need to co-operate and work together for the good of the academy with the onus surely being on the club being the driving force of this as it is they who stand to lose a key asset. However it seems that the ones trying to find a solution to the problem are not the ones with the problem and the ones with the problem are simply playing the victim rather than sorting the issue. The Trust has done a lot of behind the scenes work trying to establish the facts of what is needed, what could be offered, how it could be solved but to actually get this to reality it needs all the parties to come together and get it sorted and the Trust will be doing all it can to get that to happen.

 

[oldskyblue58]

"Over the last 5 years we have recouped around £5.5 to £6 million for 2 players."

Did it? Was that down to the academy Cat 2 status
I assume you mean Wilson & Maddison?

A deal worth x is not always the same as the amount ultimately received.
The true cost of the Academy should be the club spend plus the grant shouldn't it. The grant is in addition not a net off amount. That puts annual costs at £1m
Wilson & Christie are they products of the Cat 2? - think they had gone through the system before 2013
Is the value of a player increased most by the Academy or by playing in the first team
The big clubs will hoover up the top and good players from an academy for compensation so does the sale of academy players actually work for L1? Is it vital to get those players on professional contracts and in the first team? Does that add cost, is that a risk?

The prime objective of an Academy should be to feed the success of the first team shouldn't it ? no real evidence of that working currently

There is another side to the academy argument that questions its value

However I cant help thinking sometimes this is an exercise in short term cost cutting with someone else to blame

 

[dongonzalos]

not the primary responsibility of CCC, CSF, Wasps at all don I agree. Responsibility for CCFC's current & future welfare primarily lays with the current owners/directors as custodians of the club. That doesn't mean that the others are absolved of all responsibility though.

Bottom line is that the CCFC directors & owners need to work with, engage positively with the other parties to make it work there is no choice if we are to safeguard the Cat 2 status or any academy at all. CSF/Wasps have said publically they want to engage to make it work, the club has to match that and test the resolve if the Academy really is a vital cog in the plan forward.

Doing it by email or refusing to meet or always giving reasons why not or looking for excuses for it not to happen does not cut it. It is possible from what I have found out - so why isn't it happening?

In fact I texted Chris Anderson (managing director of CCFC) three times over the weekend and yesterday asking if he would meet to discuss options but he declined.”
David Armstrong Wasps.

Mr Anderson, who is currently heading to the Football League’s annual conference in Portugal, told the Telegraph: “Mr Armstrong contacted me after the publication of our statement.

“Given the technical nature of the discussion we would need to have, I asked him to put his ideas to me in writing, which he has declined to do.”

When we we learn!!!!!!

 

[Orca]

"Over the last 5 years we have recouped around £5.5 to £6 million for 2 players."

Did it? Was that down to the academy Cat 2 status
I assume you mean Wilson & Maddison?

A deal worth x is not always the same as the amount ultimately received.
The true cost of the Academy should be the club spend plus the grant shouldn't it. The grant is in addition not a net off amount. That puts annual costs at £1m
Wilson & Christie are they products of the Cat 2? - think they had gone through the system before 2013
Is the value of a player increased most by the Academy or by playing in the first team
The big clubs will hoover up the top and good players from an academy for compensation so does the sale of academy players actually work for L1? Is it vital to get those players on professional contracts and in the first team? Does that add cost, is that a risk?

The prime objective of an Academy should be to feed the success of the first team shouldn't it ?

There is another side to the academy argument that questions its value

However I cant help thinking sometimes this is an exercise in short term cost cutting with someone else to blame

Completely agree OSB and exactly in line with the thinking of the Championship Board member I spoke to. He didn't want to give it up for his club because he knew it's importance for the fans and the community. Our owners however.......

 

[dongonzalos]

Stu - one important point to note - there has not been any offer of cut price facilities or reduced costs - the Trust has got involved in the discussion of the provision of facilities not in costs, I think there has been some misunderstanding over cut price offers etc. However the second part of your point is spot on, there are a lot of issues that need resolving - the FL provide a blueprint for Academies and as we know the FL operates in a very discretionary way and the only way to get something agreed with them is by a bit of negotiating, bit of barter if you like. But to do this the parties that have it within their remit to find potential solutions -CCFC, CSF and Wasps need to talk and jointly come up with a proposal that can be put to the FL. The key point is that they need to co-operate and work together for the good of the academy with the onus surely being on the club being the driving force of this as it is they who stand to lose a key asset. However it seems that the ones trying to find a solution to the problem are not the ones with the problem and the ones with the problem are simply playing the victim rather than sorting the issue. The Trust has done a lot of behind the scenes work trying to establish the facts of what is needed, what could be offered, how it could be solved but to actually get this to reality it needs all the parties to come together and get it sorted and the Trust will be doing all it can to get that to happen.

It's riddiculous that a bunch of fans voluntarily doing stuff in their own time have to establish what is required and and what facilities can be provided.
It's outrageous the club's owner should be doing all this and proactively doing everything they can to come up for a solution.
The academy despite some of your comments above Jan is the only realistic option to club had to be self funding and compete.

 

[georgehudson]

mr anderson currently heading to the football league annual conference in portugal ?
something wrong there ?
why can't the FL hold their conf in, say, Coventry,
a whole lot easier to get to, & cheaper, etc.,

 

[italiahorse]

Of course its important, I'd like to know.

I read "better facilities for less money". So what's that then? Just the kicking barn? Or use of all the pitches too? Or thr office's, classrooms and medical rooms etc that are at the higgs? Will they still exist when the swimming pools built? If not where does that get based?/How does playing across multiple site work? What are the cost implications?
Does that require employing more staff (e.g medical staff/physio's to be on hand?), how does the academy director and others get to oversee/check progress it when they will need to travel from higgs, to ryton to Warwick uni for example? Will those pitches be kept up to the standard required? What happens when there a bad weather and thr academy can't train outside? Do they get access to the barn then? If the u18's are using the first team training pitch, will that pitch hold up to the extra use? If not what impact will that have on TMs training? What happens to thr SBiTC work Saturday and holiday clubs, who deliver some of the grass roots academy and development work?

That's why its important to know, its not as easy to say " yes, we can use the barn up to 3 hours a day, thr FL are OK with this" as there are more to consider than just the kicking barn.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

We will never know if Sisu don't pursue it.

 

[stupot07]

We will never know if Sisu don't pursue it.

You mean ccfc? Sisu don't run the club day-to-day.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Orca]

You mean ccfc? Sisu don't run the club day-to-day.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Except that Anderson has already admitted that any serious decision gets referred to the owners. I'd say continuing a 600k p.a. investment with no guaranteed return might need SISU's approval

 

[stupot07]

Except that Anderson has already admitted that any serious decision gets referred to the owners. I'd say continuing a 600k p.a. investment with no guaranteed return might need SISU's approval

Did he say owners or did he say the board?

Edit, he said the board. Given that it would be a deal between the club and a third party it would be the clubs board that would sign it off, of which there is a sisu rep on it.

Do you have the authority to sign off on any deal with Wasps or would the ultimate decision be Sisu’s?

"As in any deal of such importance, the board of the company would sign off on any such deal."

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[oldskyblue58]

In fact I texted Chris Anderson (managing director of CCFC) three times over the weekend and yesterday asking if he would meet to discuss options but he declined.”
David Armstrong Wasps.

Mr Anderson, who is currently heading to the Football League’s annual conference in Portugal, told the Telegraph: “Mr Armstrong contacted me after the publication of our statement.

“Given the technical nature of the discussion we would need to have, I asked him to put his ideas to me in writing, which he has declined to do.”

When we we learn!!!!!!

We all have the facilities details required by the rules (see above)

CCFC & CSF have the current facility details at the AHC under the current user agreement

As facilities provider CSF would be able to say what they can provide at AHC going forward after development, Wasps could indicate what they could free up, leaving the elements that don't match the rules (and I hate to say it a way out for CCFC.) But do we currently match the rules 100%? So is it a matter of matching current facilities in some new way that is the key?

Of course having been given the availability at AHC then CCFC could turn to CSF or Warwick Uni asking what else is available elsewhere to make it work. Will CSF have input in to the Warwick Uni site? I would guess there is some relationship even if it is not formal. CCFC could even make greater use of assets it already owns to make it work (cost savings?)

The rest is about price and user agreement terms. We already have a template for that

Hardly technically difficult or rocket science. I would suggest easiest and quickest done by face to face meeting (s)

 

[oldskyblue58]

"As in any deal of such importance, the board of the company would sign off on any such deal."

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I know what he said stupot but not sure it is anything more than word play. I very much doubt any major deal/contract is signed off by the directors without first getting the owners say so. Would need to be a directors signature to bind the company to an agreement but the real power is with one person

 

[fernandopartridge]

I know what you are saying stupot.

In the scheme of things are the extra costs of multiple sites that much? People have to travel to the AHC in any case would it be so hard to travel to say the Warwick Uni site? Would it be possible to rent a room or two at another site?

We don't know what the barn rent would be but if getting less other facilities at AHC then you would assume there are perhaps some savings too. How often is the indoor pitch used now for the Academy and what times/days? They have to book it three months in advance so are able organise and plan ahead..... cant plan the weather though.

CSF pretty much dominate site provision across the city so it would seem to be a good idea to work with and not against. What we are saying is it is possible to retain Cat 2 even if elements are situated elsewhere.

Perhaps it is not such a bad thing to look at costs and best value and make the £500k grant we get go further for the Academy.

The picture provided is that the Academy has to be on one site at the AHC or not at all ................. given the above that's a situation I find hard to accept if the Academy is vital to the future of CCFC

It might actually suit some young players for sites to be on more than one site. The AHC has dreadful access, I don't even think there is a bus that goes down Allard Way (the 13 used to go down Langbank Ave years ago iirc).
Without some form of investment from CCFC, it's going to mean compromise.

 

[dongonzalos]

Except that Anderson has already admitted that any serious decision gets referred to the owners. I'd say continuing a 600k p.a. investment with no guaranteed return might need SISU's approval

Thing is you do get a guaranteed return
Without selling a star you still get half your squad on cheap wages.
Never mind the fact we still seem to produce stars.

 

[italiahorse]

You mean ccfc? Sisu don't run the club day-to-day.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Don't be so protective, of course they do.
The lack of information and attendance from the club indicates that they need to check back before they say anything.