Mowbray and the Acadamy (2 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

Exactly. Now sensible views are being expressed I suspect the pitchfork mob will leave this thread well alone.

This could have been a sensible debate but the OP for no obvious reasons decided to put a TM and MV slant on it. You can only assume because he wanted a reaction from the "pitchfork mob" so he could then complain about the "pitchfork mob".

Shame, because the OP has actually raised some valid points but because of his OP he's just come off as a twat who's wumming and not to be taken seriously.

 

---

[Grendel]

This could have been a sensible debate but the OP for no obvious reasons decided to put a TM and MV slant on it. You can only assume because he wanted a reaction from the "pitchfork mob" so he could then complain about the "pitchfork mob".

Shame, because the OP has actually raised some valid points but because of his OP he's just come off as a twat wumming and not to be taken seriously.

What's not serious? I don't think they are that bothered and I don't disagree with that if that is the view.

I fail to see that as wumming. What is interesting though is when Put The Boot In, Knob Latchford or acretin4life create a post declaring a wish to be relegated or some other tripe about money trousering you either like the posts or omit to comment on then at all.

 

[Hobo]

Exactly. Now sensible views are being expressed I suspect the pitchfork mob will leave this thread well alone.

Yes sensible views have been expressed and other people have put the flesh on your argument for you. Something I am sure you were capable of, I am sure but deliberately chose not to.

My argument is the club needs to produce its own players alongside good recruitment, players with some longevity 18-28 year olds.

I was not fully aware of some of the cost implications being put forward so there might be scope for another approach. However I see no signs of that coming out of the club

One thing a youth team can do is give the club community identity and a sense of belonging. The club somehow has to make players proud of Coventry City. There has to be a desire to succeed. The fans have a role to play in that also.

 

[skybluetony176]

What's not serious? I don't think they are that bothered and I don't disagree with that if that is the view.

I fail to see that as wumming. What is interesting though is when Put The Boot In, Knob Latchford or acretin4life create a post declaring a wish to be relegated or some other tripe about money trousering you either like the posts or omit to comment on then at all.

Your OP was done deliberately for a reaction and not debate. You admit as much in this thread. It's the very definition of wumming and now you're playing the victim.

 

[Grendel]

Your OP was done deliberately for a reaction and not debate. You admit as much in this thread. It's the very definition of wumming and now you're playing the victim.

I'm no victim. Your bilge and rhetoric is I assume aimed at all who share the view and now you feel rather ridiculous (a common trait I'm sure) and have nowhere to go.

Oh and I repeat when acretin4life and his merry clan post you are nowhere to be seen. So I assume he and put the boot in are not wums in your view?

How about Tim07 brain cells what's your view on Dim Tim?

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm no victim. Your bilge and rhetoric is I assume aimed at all who share the view and now you feel rather ridiculous (a common trait I'm sure) and have nowhere to go.

Oh and I repeat when acretin4life and his merry clan post you are nowhere to be seen. So I assume he and put the boot in are not wums in your view?

How about Tim07 brain cells what's your view on Dim Tim?

Grendull gets called out and changes the subject. Same old same old. If nothing else you're consistent.

 

[bawtryneal]

I have responded to these comments. It's just you ignore the answers.

Who should replace Mowbray with respect is absurd. It basically says name a manager or we stick with what we've got. That's a senseless argument. I would not be part of the recruitment process but do know that there would be many applicants - I could ask you if we did replace him can you say with certainty a replacement could be no better?

Fans in general don't pick good managers. Many on here rejoiced when the worst manager in history was appointed.

Management selection often is down to luck. Id argue the club tried to recruit a name manager and have failed in the last two occasions to get one with low league experience. The only one we did recruit with that type of experience did well. So the blueprint should be a manager with league one on his cv and there will be plenty who apply.

The Wilson money helped in the main to fund losses in the year prior to sixfields and the sixfields year.

Anderson has stated publicly where the Maddison money has and will go. I have little reason to not believe that statement.

But you are the one calling for Mowbreys head, not me. So, if you cannot be sure that his replacement is better, then why replace him.
If the Wilson money has been used to "fund losses" as you suggest ( which I also believe to be the case) then the funds received from the academy have still contributed to the overall budget. Without the income from selling academy players it will reduce the money available for First team players.

 

[Hobo]

I believe the club will only move forward with continuity of the management and coaching staff.

Development of players at the club

Retention of a nucleus of players

Good sourcing of potential from outside the club

A good youth development scheme.

A philosophy of positive attacking football

Pride in Coventry and the Sky Blue shirt (Why is this year's wishy washy white?).

 

[Walsgrave]

This has struck me as odd too. The publishing of all CCFC correspondence on the academy seems to be just to get people thinking 'well they did everything they could', rather than actually thinking it will work (particularly the (as ever I guess) condescending tone of Fisher's last letter).

Brentford recently closed their Cat 2 and reckoned it was costing them £1.5m a year (interesting article by Matt Dickinson quoted here - http://www.footballforums.net/threads/brentford-close-academy.262096/).

So maybe the approach of picking up the Cat 1 cast-offs or from the Strachan Football Foundation (like Ponticelli) is what we're going to go with.

Maybe SISU are using the academy to try and get a better deal at the Ricoh? As ever, who actually knows.

I'm not too sure the latter option is sustainable tbh. How often is it that we find non-league youth team players capable of stepping up into under 18s academy football and then into league one football in general? Ponticelli was an exception and there are some other decent players at the Strachan academy but it is a bit of a risk recruiting from post-16 football education academies rather than building up your own from the lower age groups.

 

[Grendel]

Grendull gets called out and changes the subject. Same old same old. If nothing else you're consistent.

I haven't changed the subject. You are just somewhat reticent to criticise the content anymore. Can't think why. Also avoiding questions regarding obvious trolls. We all know why that is.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Question

Does anyone ever question why some of our Academy stars were taken on as first team squad members? Was it because they could see potential to reach L1 standard or was it because the gaps in the squad couldn't be filled and this was the only solution? We seem to be ready with the excuse that they are still young, lack experience etc then bring in players who are just as young and lack experience from other clubs? Just a thought nothing more

Again I will say I have always supported the idea of retaining the Academy - but that doesn't stop me questioning or being open to being shown a better alternative

I would say however that Pressley was hired as much because of his reputation of bringing on young players, and he always stated his aim was to better integrate academy and first team. In that respect you build a club - you offer good habits to the youngsters that make them less of a risk when they hit the first team as they end up well grounded, and rooted in a club system and ethos. In much the same way as managers often go for known quantities from their former clubs, an academy offers known quantities as to players coming through. It also buffers and offers continuity if the first team manager changes, meaning a club doesn't chop and change systems seemingly at a whim.

Our issue has seemingly been that firstly we went for physically string players who could dominate at youth level, but were found technically wanting when everyone grew up and caught them up physically. Now? The likes of Burge and Haynes seem weak mentally.

So I'm not saying that an academy isn't financially and ulturally viable to a club, I think it is.

I do think there's a noted shift in Mowbray's thinking towards it however. Sacking Pressley probably did for the academy as much as anything.

 

[rupert_bear]

Back to the Acadamy we are told it is vital to us basically because we can sell starlets to survive in a nutshell, I remember us selling Dennis Mortimer a scouser, Jimmy Holmes to Spurs an Irishman, Les Sealey, Steve Witton, Steve Sedgeley, all cockneys there are others you will notice non locals obviously scouted. The Acadamy as I see it are mainly local about 30 mile radius. A lot been said about making big money on Callum Wilson and James Maddison they were Cov kids would they have gone elsewhere had we not been an Acadamy ? I doubt it.

 

[Bruce the Boot]

Your OP was done deliberately for a reaction and not debate. You admit as much in this thread. It's the very definition of wumming and now you're playing the victim.

When he s not playing with his action men , Grendel is the biggest wum on here Hi ya Grendel

 

[Tom's Dad]

An interesting thread but a key question for me doesn't seem to have been considered. That being, 'Is there an evidence base that demonstrates a Cat 2 Acadamy produces better players than a Cat 3? If there is then a case can be built to justify a fight to maintain that status. If not, then what's wrong with having a Cat 3 Acadamy?

Is it not the quality of the coaching that develops the players? Maybe more than having an indoor 4G pitch? Would playing on a less than perfect pitch help development of ball control etc? Not quite street football but not playing on a carpet.

Personally, I feel it is vital for the club to have an Acadamy, not just to have a production line of new talent but so that kids in the City can aspire to be part of, their mates will love them for it and it creates a bond between club & community.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

What we do have (or did have?) is a pretty decent USP atm - a high level academy, and a relatively easy progression to the first team compared to higher level clubs.

It's why we absolutely *need* Maddison to succeed, in much the same way Wilson has, and arguably is why we need Willis to go on to great things away from us too.

That, then, shows other talented youngsters with a choice of club that, long term, we're the best option for them as it showcases talents otherwise restricted. That, then, spins up the cycle of success for club, and value in transfer fees from academy.

 

[Hobo]

Back to the Acadamy we are told it is vital to us basically because we can sell starlets to survive in a nutshell, I remember us selling Dennis Mortimer a scouser, Jimmy Holmes to Spurs an Irishman, Les Sealey, Steve Witton, Steve Sedgeley, all cockneys there are others you will notice non locals obviously scouted. The Acadamy as I see it are mainly local about 30 mile radius. A lot been said about making big money on Callum Wilson and James Maddison they were Cov kids would they have gone elsewhere had we not been an Acadamy ? I doubt it.

Jimmy Holmes came back to Coventry and served with the local police. Lots of other players have settled locally. Mickey Gynn and Dean Emmerson, not through our youth scheme but picked up early in their careers. I believe Dave Bennett and Brian Borrows still live locally.

But the right atmosphere/leadership needs to be around the club.

 

[chiefdave]

If closing the academy was a valid business & football decision why would the club be going to all this trouble to make it look like they're being forced out. Its not like they've ever been bothered what the fans think of their actions.

Also if we're looking at cost against benefit at the moment we are putting in £600K a year (more than the minimum required). Academy graduates in the first team squad this season are: Burge, Addai, Willis, Haynes, Harries, Dion Kelly-Evans, Finch, Lawton, Devon Kelly-Evans, Stevenson, Spence, Thomas and another four first year pros.

That's 12 players who have a good chance of playing games this year. How many players last more than a couple of seasons after they've made the first team? They're either good and sold or crap and let go.

I appreciate its a very rough and ready calculation, you'd have to make an additional 6 signings a year. If we're saying the way forward is to sign a greater number of players like Jones we're going to be spending a lot more every year in fees than we are for the academy at present.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

If closing the academy was a valid business & football decision why would the club be going to all this trouble to make it look like they're being forced out.

Makes it a lot easier for us to be 'forced' elsewhere as a club as a whole.

Offers a negotiating hand for the main issue of stadium (take here, we'll roll over if you give us a better deal than you otherwise would)

More ammunition to build a case against the club's trade being restricted.

And so on.

 

[Tom's Dad]

What we do have (or did have?) is a pretty decent USP atm - a high level academy, and a relatively easy progression to the first team compared to higher level clubs.

It's why we absolutely *need* Maddison to succeed, in much the same way Wilson has, and arguably is why we need Willis to go on to great things away from us too.

That, then, shows other talented youngsters with a choice of club that, long term, we're the best option for them as it showcases talents otherwise restricted. That, then, spins up the cycle of success for club, and value in transfer fees from academy.

I agree we have a USP that currently is a combination of the Cat 2 status and likely progression to the first team, but would the access to the first team opportunity be enough with only a Cat 3 Acadamy? I still can't see any evidence a Cat 2 produces better players; just an assumption better quality facilities equates to better players

 

[NorthernWisdom]

I agree we have a USP that currently is a combination of the Cat 2 status and likely progression to the first team, but would the access to the first team opportunity be enough with only a Cat 3 Acadamy? I still can't see any evidence a Cat 2 produces better players; just an assumption better quality facilities equates to better players

You'd also have to take into account what would sell the club to the best youngsters in the first place.

Arguably what we have to improve is the coaching and selection to maximise what we have, rather than chop it back.

 

[Grendel]

When he s not playing with his action men , Grendel is the biggest wum on here Hi ya Grendel

To people who despise CCFC I am sure I am.

 

[Bruce the Boot]

To people who despise CCFC I am sure I am.

God loves a trier

 

[Grendel]

God loves a trier

Trier at what?

 

[singers_pore]

There is a lot of badly thought out nonsense coming from those who think the Academy should be closed.

A quick lesson in Econ 101:

The best way to make money from player trading is to exploit information asymmetry; i.e., to create a situation in which your own club knows more about a player's true value than other clubs know. The best way to create this informational advantage is to develop players yourself in an Academy. You offer the player a long term contract once you are satisfied that the player is very promising. You offer the long term contract to the youngster before other clubs have found out that you have a gem on your hands. Otherwise, that young player will leave out of contract (e.g., Sambou).

After signing the youngster on a long term contract, if the player turns out to be as good as you think he is, the youngster will break into the first team. After a few games word quickly goes around other clubs that you have a great player on your hands. That's the point at which the player's "market value" equates to the player's "true value"; i.e., when the information asymmetry between you as a selling club and the rest of the market has dissipated.

Thus, it makes no sense to talk (as OSB did) about a player's "market value" upon leaving the Academy. At that point the player's market value is very different from the player's true value because potential buyers are not well informed about the player's true value. A player's market value depends on the perceptions of (often badly informed) buyers in the market, whereas the true value is best understood by the seller who has worked for several years with the youngster.

There is also the theory of the "winner's curse" from auction theory. This theory implies that - when buyers are imperfectly informed and a player is sold in a bidding war - the player's ultimate price will tend to be overvalued. Again, that is a very good reason to have an Academy. In other words, you exploit the buyers' informational disadvantage by putting the player up for sale when buyers have different beliefs about the player's true value. A very good example of the winners curse in operation is when we sold Bigi to Newcastle. The buyer paid too much because they were less well informed than the seller and were more optimistic about the player's value compared with other potential bidders. Hence Newcastle suffered from the winner's curse of paying too much for the player.

If you are not going to have an Academy the alternative strategy is to buy young players from other clubs. The key disadvantage with that strategy is that you are now on the buying side of the transaction instead of the selling side. In that case you know less about the player than the selling club. That is the buyer is less well informed about the player's quality than the seller. In that case, the buyer is likely to do worse out of the player transfer deal than is the seller due to the aforementioned theories of information asymnmetry and the winner's curse.

In short, standard economic models predict that poorly informed buyers tend to do worse than well informed sellers when players are transferred. The key reason is that the buyer (seller) is penalized (rewarded) for knowing more (less) about the player's true quality.

Conclusion: The best way to earn profits from player trading is to generate young players that nobody else yet knows about. The best way to achieve that is through having an Academy.

 

[Moff]

This could have been a sensible debate but the OP for no obvious reasons decided to put a TM and MV slant on it. You can only assume because he wanted a reaction from the "pitchfork mob" so he could then complain about the "pitchfork mob".

Shame, because the OP has actually raised some valid points but because of his OP he's just come off as a twat who's wumming and not to be taken seriously.

But Tony if he thinks that that is the way the manager feels how is that wumming? Mowbray is the manager isn't he, Mark Venus is in charge of development isn't he.

Instead of looking one eyed at Fisher et al all the time, perhaps Mowbray who insisted on control of such issues when he joined the club, might feel that way, or he might not. Surely that is the point of discussion not you and Grendel having another spat.

 

[Grendel]

There is a lot of badly thought out nonsense coming from those who think the Academy should be closed.

A quick lesson in Econ 101:

The best way to make money from player trading is to exploit information asymmetry; i.e., to create a situation in which your own club knows more about a player's true value than other clubs know. The best way to create this informational advantage is to develop players yourself in an Academy. You offer the player a long term contract once you are satisfied that the player is very promising. You offer the long term contract to the youngster before other clubs have found out that you have a gem on your hands. Otherwise, that young player will leave out of contract (e.g., Sambou).

After signing the youngster on a long term contract, if the player turns out to be as good as you think he is, the youngster will break into the first team. After a few games word quickly goes around other clubs that you have a great player on your hands. That's the point at which the player's "market value" equates to the player's "true value"; i.e., when the information asymmetry between you as a selling club and the rest of the market has dissipated.

Thus, it makes no sense to talk (as OSB did) about a player's "market value" upon leaving the Academy. At that point the player's market value is very different from the player's true value because potential buyers are not well informed about the player's true value. A player's market value depends on the perceptions of (often badly informed) buyers in the market, whereas the true value is best understood by the seller who has worked for several years with the youngster.

There is also the theory of the "winner's curse" from auction theory. This theory implies that - when buyers are imperfectly informed and a player is sold in a bidding war - the player's ultimate price will tend to be overvalued. Again, that is a very good reason to have an Academy. In other words, you exploit the buyers' informational disadvantage by putting the player up for sale when buyers have different beliefs about the player's true value. A very good example of the winners curse in operation is when we sold Bigi to Newcastle. The buyer paid too much because they were less well informed than the seller and were more optimistic about the player's value compared with other potential bidders. Hence Newcastle suffered from the winner's curse of paying too much for the player.

If you are not going to have an Academy the alternative strategy is to buy young players from other clubs. The key disadvantage with that strategy is that you are now on the buying side of the transaction instead of the selling side. In that case you know less about the player than the selling club. That is the buyer is less well informed about the player's quality than the seller. In that case, the buyer is likely to do worse out of the player transfer deal than is the seller due to the aforementioned theories of information asymnmetry and the winner's curse.

In short, standard economic models predict that poorly informed buyers tend to do worse than well informed sellers when players are transferred. The key reason is that the buyer (seller) is penalized (rewarded) for knowing more (less) about the player's true quality.

Conclusion: The best way to earn profits from player trading is to generate young players that nobody else yet knows about. The best way to achieve that is through having an Academy.

So do you think Brentford are doomed for failure?

 

[singers_pore]

So do you think Brentford are doomed for failure?

No, I didn't say that did I. A club's success and failure depends on a lot more than the profits made from player trading. An Academy is not a guarantee of success and the absence of an Academy is not a guarantee of failure.

I was simply pointing out the economic case for having an Academy as opposed to buying players from other clubs. Of course, there are other factors that also have to be considered such as whether your Academy is well run, are you in a big catchment area that can spot the most talented kids, does the Academy have a good reputation with excellent coaches, etc. etc.

As usual, Grendel, you don't have the intelligence to engage in a thoughtful debate. And you lack the wit to make other people look foolish.

 

[Martin180]

Can someone please change the thread title , if we are going to argue with Grendel at least spell academy right ffs

 

[Grendel]

No, I didn't say that did I. A club's success and failure depends on a lot more than the profits made from player trading. An Academy is not a guarantee of success and the absence of an Academy is not a guarantee of failure.

I was simply pointing out the economic case for having an Academy as opposed to buying players from other clubs. Of course, there are other factors that also have to be considered such as whether your Academy is well run, are you in a big catchment area that can spot the most talented kids, does the Academy have a good reputation with excellent coaches, etc. etc.

As usual, Grendel, you don't have the intelligence to engage in a thoughtful debate. And you lack the wit to make other people look foolish.[/Qs aUOTE]

There are many valid argument against an academy. The percentage spend of budget alone is a solid argument. I have seen no one that has yet proved this is a profit making enterprise. It ends up in all likelihood being a free pass for big Premier League clubs to poach any of the handful of talented players it may create., A lower level status may well yield as much talent as an expensive Cat Two status academy. There is still an opportunity to develop youth players without the need to have a huge and expensive infrastructure in place

I doubt any new owner would at this stage see any financial benefit at all.

As for thoughtful debate - I will give the observers the opportunity to browse your tub thumping posting history and let them be the judge of that one.

 

[stupot07]

I agree we have a USP that currently is a combination of the Cat 2 status and likely progression to the first team, but would the access to the first team opportunity be enough with only a Cat 3 Acadamy? I still can't see any evidence a Cat 2 produces better players; just an assumption better quality facilities equates to better players

Its not just facilities, it's contact time/coaching time that produces better players more consistently. A cat 2 academy player gets around twice the amount of coaching hours than a cat 3 academy player. Cat 2 allows you to sign players earlier, it also means you're playing against cat 2 teams. You do however, need the facility's in order to be able to deliver that enhanced coaching g time.

There is plenty of research that shows that coaching / contact time is key, hence why the EPPP aand grading system was put in place, and translates across all sports - there's no coincidence that for example British cycling is so successful, with the amount of money, coaches, coaching time, etc. I think we can confidently say that a cat 2 academy will consistently produce better players than a cat 3, that's not to say a cat 3 can't produce good players. Otherwise what is the point in the 4 tier system?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Ranjit Bhurpa]

In short, standard economic models predict that poorly informed buyers tend to do worse than well informed sellers when players are transferred. The key reason is that the buyer (seller) is penalized (rewarded) for knowing more (less) about the player's true quality.

I'm sure poorly informed buyers do exist, however if you were in business and locked your buyers in a room with your own sales team and asked them to negotiate away, who do you think would succeed? My money would be on the buyers.

Also, I don't doubt the economic theory generally, but doesn't the football market tend to skew the perception of value, particularly as you move further up the food chain?

 

[Captain Dart]

I believe Dave Bennett and Brian Borrows still live locally.

You see Benno down the Sphinx ground now & again. He is Coventry Sphinx FC club president.
http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/coventrysphinx/news/sky-blue-legend-on-board-1445046.html

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

This site has now become a joke. I wondered how long it take before the owners work was being done for them. I think we are now seeing it being done.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

This site has now become a joke. I wondered how long it take before the owners work was being done for them. I think we are now seeing it being done.

GMK went the same way.....
Funny they migrated to here when it went pop.
They now make up half of the one percenters

 

[Nick]

This site has now become a joke. I wondered how long it take before the owners work was being done for them. I think we are now seeing it being done.

Could be worse, could be supporters direct doing the council's.