Mowbray and the Acadamy (1 Viewer)

[singers_pore]

Indeed. I remember a handful of posters on GMK who were constantly sticking up for Richardson and Robinson. The "rob87" poster was particularly noisy in his defense of the club's then owners along with a mad "Vicky" who used to post on the old LAST forum. It seems we will always have a minority of fans who think that supporting the owners is equivalent to supporting the club.

 

---

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

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

Go fuck yourself you prick

 

[Nick]

Go fuck yourself you prick

Why? Am I wrong?

Relax

Ps, I.don't agree with the thread either

 

[singers_pore]

There are many valid argument against an academy. The percentage spend of budget alone is a solid argument.

Wrong. The only valid argument against an academy is whether it fails to turn a profit. The percentage spend of budget is completely irrelevant.

I have seen no one that has yet proved this is a profit making enterprise.

Well TF has said that the Academy is essential to the club's business model, which implies that it must be profitable. Moreover, TF's comments are consistent with the economic analysis that I laid out in my previous post.

In addition, you have failed to provide any evidence at all that it is a loss-making enterprise. Keep digging. Your hole is getting deeper and deeper,

 

[letsallsingtogether]

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

Not with you in charge.....

 

[skybluetony176]

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.

Because he's basing it on sweet FA. Something he's admitted himself.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Wrong. The only valid argument against an academy is whether it fails to turn a profit. The percentage spend of budget is completely irrelevant.



Well TF has said that the Academy is essential to the club's business model, which implies that it must be profitable. Moreover, TF's comments are consistent with the economic analysis that I laid out in my previous post.

In addition, you have failed to provide any evidence at all that it is a loss-making enterprise. Keep digging. Your hole is getting deeper and deeper,

You believe Fisher now? It's been suggested that CCFC are doing a lot to suggest the academy is all important on the face of it. Who knows if it is.

 

[Grendel]

Wrong. The only valid argument against an academy is whether it fails to turn a profit. The percentage spend of budget is completely irrelevant.



Well TF has said that the Academy is essential to the club's business model, which implies that it must be profitable. Moreover, TF's comments are consistent with the economic analysis that I laid out in my previous post.

In addition, you have failed to provide any evidence at all that it is a loss-making enterprise. Keep digging. Your hole is getting deeper and deeper,

So your witness for the defence is Timothy Fisher

Pure comedy gold. Who next - Orange Ken

Of course the percentage spend is relevant. It could be 95% of a clubs revenue and create an ROI of 101% you stupid clown

 

[dongonzalos]

Sorry but you couldn't run the Academy on the transfer fees alone for 15 years because being an integrated model those transfer fees are expected to support the whole operation of the club not selected bits when it suits an argument. No first team no Academy, with no player sales there is no first team - simple fact of life.

In any case the vast majority of transfer value is not because of the value the Academy brings and therefore it is quite wrong to allocate the profit or fees entirely to the argument of Academy benefit or paying for itself.

If it takes a total of say £200k to cover the cost of one academy player over the years he is there then firstly you need to deduct that against individual sales to arrive at a profit on a sale. It might be more cost than that we don't know. but in any case it should be deducted from the market value of a player transferring out of the Academy (be it to first team or another club) to arrive at the Academy benefit.

The benefit of the Academy is the market value of the player when he leaves the Academy not the sales value when he leaves the club. You have to break it down in to cost/profit centres not just blindly take all the profit to one area to suit a loose justification and ignore the significant effect of other cost/profit areas. In addition those transfer profits are never retained they are used to fund current operations. The costs of Academies will increase over time. Funding the academy for next 15 years with transfer fees simply doesn't exist in reality.

For what it costs to bring a group of players through it might be more efficient to cherry pick from other clubs and develop their transfer value

TM. Has he always said what he means? I will treat his comments with a healthy and professional scepticism as I have with any other character involved or would do with any client - not just blindly accept things

Sorry don but we see things slightly differently on this one

No need to apologise. It seems we see things massively different.
Are you saying you can only value a player based on his valuation at the point he leaves the academy?

On that premis you would have to ignore the fact that if we had no academy we may never have had that player in the first place?

Aside that regarding Wilson, Bigi, Sambou Maddison
How many senior games have they got between them?

Going by the lowest reported transfer fees

3.5 for Wilson
2.5 for Maddison
1 million for Bigi
A suggested 500k for Sambou
(Never mind add ons and sell on clauses)

I know that the money generated from this does not only go back into solely funding the academy. The money goes into funding the whole club as does sponsorship and ticket sales.

I am making the point that these 4 players alone will have generated 7 million pound income for the club.

The academy costs the club 700k a year.

So in terms of costs 700k a year (less if you include the years of not category 2 status.)

In terms of income brought in from academy developed players 7-10 million.

How could you ever come to the conclusion that the academy isn't worth it.

At the moment you could say no academy no squad.

Players signing there first professional contracts are on cheaper wages.

We will know these players inside out and they have filled out first team and squad regularly for a long time saving us a lot of money.

Last question for you regarding TM, a man the likes of the OP would like sacked.

Would the manager (a role which has an average life span of a year at our club) make such a big decision as to ditch the academy or not.

Or

Would it be Joy Seppalla, Tim Fisher and Chris Anderson?

You are definitely more cynical than me OSB. I take someone on face value until they lie to me.
So far TM for me tells it as it is.
The day he doesn't I will suspect of sound bites in the future

 

[Grendel]

No need to apologise. It seems we see things massively different.
Are you saying you can only value a player based on his valuation at the point he leaves the academy?

On that premis you would have to ignore the fact that if we had no academy we may never have had that player in the first place?

Aside that regarding Wilson, Bigi, Sambou Maddison
How many senior games have they got between them?

Going by the lowest reported transfer fees

3.5 for Wilson
2.5 for Maddison
1 million for Bigi
A suggested 500k for Sambou
(Never mind add ons and sell on clauses)

I know that the money generated from this does not only go back into solely funding the academy. The money goes into funding the whole club as does sponsorship and ticket sales.

I am making the point that these 4 players alone will have generated 7 million pound income for the club.

The academy costs the club 700k a year.

So in terms of costs 700k a year (less if you include the years of not category 2 status.)

In terms of income brought in from academy developed players 7-10 million.

How could you ever come to the conclusion that the academy isn't worth it.

At the moment you could say no academy no squad.

Players signing there first professional contracts are on cheaper wages.

We will know these players inside out and they have filled out first team and squad regularly for a long time saving us a lot of money.

Last question for you regarding TM, a man the likes of the OP would like sacked.

Would the manger (a role which has an average life span of a year life at our club) make such a big decision as to ditch the academy.

Or

Would it be Joy Seppalla, Tim Fisher and Chris Anderson

You are definitely more synical than me OSB. I take someone on face value until they lie to me.
So far TM for me tells it as it is.
The day he doesn't I will suspect of sound bites in the future

Wilson wasn't a Cat 2 academy player was he so why use the expense of that as a reason for him?

Maddison has not yet granted the club the money you quote - nowhere near

Where on earth has the Sambou figure come from?

Mowbray tells you how it is? How do you know that?

 

[dongonzalos]

Wilson wasn't a Cat 2 academy player was he so why use the expense of that as a reason for him?

Maddison has not yet granted the club the money you quote - nowhere near

Where on earth has the Sambou figure come from?

Mowbray tells you how it is? How do you know that?

I have always said I am talking about the academy at any status.
It was even cheaper for Wilson compared to the money he earnt us.

So would Tony Mowbray make the decision about the academy or the owners?
I will help you out, It's the owners which makes the thread a waste of time

 

[singers_pore]

You believe Fisher now? It's been suggested that CCFC are doing a lot to suggest the academy is all important on the face of it. Who knows if it is.

I believe Fisher when what he says makes good economic sense. So when he says "the Academy is an essential part of the club's business model" then yes I believe him.

I do not believe Fisher when what he says makes no economic sense. So when he says "we are building a new stadium" then no I do not believe him.

It really is incredibly simple. Do try and keep up.

 

[singers_pore]

Of course the percentage spend is relevant. It could be 95% of a clubs revenue and create an ROI of 101% you stupid clown

You are really embarrassing yourself now. If any company has an ROI of 101% then of course they should invest in the project. Typical estimates of the risk-adjusted cost of capital vary from about 5% to 20%. Therefore an ROI of 101% would be a no brainer at least to anyone with a modicum of business sense. Obviously that rules you out.

The percentage spend is irrelevant to capital investment decisions. The only factors that matter are the projected return and the projected cost. It's amazingly simple even for you. Check out any relevant finance textbook if you don't believe me.

 

[Grendel]

You are really embarrassing yourself now. If any company has an ROI of 101% then of course they should invest in the project. Typical estimates of the risk-adjusted cost of capital vary from about 5% to 20%. Therefore an ROI of 101% would be a no brainer at least to anyone with a modicum of business sense. Obviously that rules you out.

The percentage spend is irrelevant to capital investment decisions. The only factors that matter are the projected return and the projected cost. It's amazingly simple even for you. Check out any relevant finance textbook if you don't believe me.

The percentage spend isn't wholly irrelevant to a league one football club that is attempting self sustainability. If a club spends a large percentage of its income on future projected returns it limits it's competitiveness regarding it's own budget. It creates a funding issue which adversely effects it's ability to perform here and now.

That's why most league one clubs look at cheaper ways to source youth players.

 

[Moff]

Because he's basing it on sweet FA. Something he's admitted himself.

If there was a 'sweet FA' filter on this site, about 90% of the posts would disappear.

 

[oldskyblue58]

No need to apologise. It seems we see things massively different.
Are you saying you can only value a player based on his valuation at the point he leaves the academy?

On that premis you would have to ignore the fact that if we had no academy we may never have had that player in the first place?

Aside that regarding Wilson, Bigi, Sambou Maddison
How many senior games have they got between them?

Going by the lowest reported transfer fees

3.5 for Wilson
2.5 for Maddison
1 million for Bigi
A suggested 500k for Sambou
(Never mind add ons and sell on clauses)

I know that the money generated from this does not only go back into solely funding the academy. The money goes into funding the whole club as does sponsorship and ticket sales.

I am making the point that these 4 players alone will have generated 7 million pound income for the club.

The academy costs the club 700k a year.

So in terms of costs 700k a year (less if you include the years of not category 2 status.)

In terms of income brought in from academy developed players 7-10 million.

How could you ever come to the conclusion that the academy isn't worth it.

At the moment you could say no academy no squad.

Players signing there first professional contracts are on cheaper wages.

We will know these players inside out and they have filled out first team and squad regularly for a long time saving us a lot of money.

Last question for you regarding TM, a man the likes of the OP would like sacked.

Would the manager (a role which has an average life span of a year at our club) make such a big decision as to ditch the academy or not.

Or

Would it be Joy Seppalla, Tim Fisher and Chris Anderson?

You are definitely more cynical than me OSB. I take someone on face value until they lie to me.
So far TM for me tells it as it is.
The day he doesn't I will suspect of sound bites in the future

Where have I said that we shouldn't have an Academy. Does it have to be Cat 2 ? that's a different question

My problem with what you and others are saying is that you are taking a cost of one area of the club and matching against the total sales of the whole club player wise. Basic accounting principle attributable income from attributable cost. Also we are talking the retention of CAT 2 status academy. The figures bandied around to justify an Academy at CAT 2 are to my mind excessive

The owners have to look at the options available to do otherwise would be negligent. Now personally I can see the non tangible, non financial element benefits of having an Academy - prestige, community, image etc - as well as the financial benefit of developing players. However the owners might for their own reasons see a much shorter timescale and the possibility of saving cash flow on a worthless investment. They may have very different objectives to the fans.

How do we know what is in the best interests of the club on any timescale if we do not search and test the alternatives. It may be that CAT 2 is the best option, it may not - I have a sneaking suspicion that the importance to the owners is the guaranteed cash flow the grant brings with the hope of finding a gem in the Academy every year or two.

As for keeping valuable players hidden (I know you didn't say this Don) and masking their value - nice theory but reality is the Academy system, with its matches played, coach meetings, scouting network is reasonably open about where the gems are, there are no great secrets. Players are tracked by bigger clubs for years, that's partly why real value kids get contracts as early as possible. It is the Academy rules that stops players being poached formally, but please don't tell me there are not quiet chats going on behind the scenes.

A few facts
- EPPP started 2012-13 season
- there are rules that calculate the compensation for young players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Player_Performance_Plan http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/...pensation-and-solidarity-payments-in-football
- the compensation could be said to be a valuation of a young player in an Academy
- In 2012-13 CCFC received £1m for Bigi in 2013-14 no academy sales 2014-15 2.717m was received for Wilson, Christie, J Clarke and Finch (its in the cashflow statement of the accounts)
- So stretching it, since EPPP started we have spent 2.1m to 31/05/2015 and received 3.7m which using your argument is down to the Academy? Surely some of the sales value is to do with being a first team player and doing well for the first team?
- there are no figures as yet for Maddison (but I have a feeling folk will be disappointed - my opinion) Nor any figure for Sambou
- Bigi was actually sold before the EPPP came in to effect (06/07/12)
- Christie had a first team contract 2010, J Clarke 2008, Wilson 2009, Bigi 2011, & Daniels 2012 making 102, 125, 55, 26 & 24 appearances respectively. Surely that affects their value in addition to the time they had in the Academy?


- Wilson, Clarke and Christie had been established in the first team squad for years - was their value all because of the academy or only partly ? If those players were all pre EPPP then the need for CAT 2 is not so clear perhaps? (note I haven't questioned the need for an academy)

Wages saved - most first contracts are 1 or maybe 2 years so some saving but after that agents are involved (if not sooner) and market wage values comes into play and precious little saving (plus agents fees)

Yes the Academy provides talent for the first team, and to my mind is key for a club like ours, but there are other ways possible - keep an open mind and question things

More cynical perhaps - I would say I question things more, but that's what I have been trained to do. However any manager will only tell you what they can or want to - it is never telling it all as it is and there are very good and right reasons for that. That's not a criticism of TM its just the way it is.

Will TM have input in to keeping the Academy yes - will he make the decision probably not, it will be down to numbers being crunched I fear

Just a thought but perhaps the statements about the Academy are not just aimed at fans, CCC, CSF etc ........ perhaps also the owners?

Just to be clear - once more- I remain in favour of retaining our Academy

 

[SkyBlueScottie]

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.

Offering a long term contract to youngsters is very costly, especially based on potential. For every McSheffrey / Wilson there is an Andy Ducros / Iyesden Christie. I also think you are sorely mistaken if word gets around after a few 1st team games that a player is a gem. The way Academies are now set up basically means that every Cat 1 academy will have a rep at all of our games, same as we would. Market Value upon leaving the academy is a set structure based on Elite Player Performance Plan

 

[dongonzalos]

Where have I said that we shouldn't have an Academy. Does it have to be Cat 2 ? that's a different question

My problem with what you and others are saying is that you are taking a cost of one area of the club and matching against the total sales of the whole club player wise. Basic accounting principle attributable income from attributable cost. Also we are talking the retention of CAT 2 status academy. The figures bandied around to justify an Academy at CAT 2 are to my mind excessive

The owners have to look at the options available to do otherwise would be negligent. Now personally I can see the non tangible, non financial element benefits of having an Academy - prestige, community, image etc - as well as the financial benefit of developing players. However the owners might for their own reasons see a much shorter timescale and the possibility of saving cash flow on a worthless investment. They may have very different objectives to the fans.

How do we know what is in the best interests of the club on any timescale if we do not search and test the alternatives. It may be that CAT 2 is the best option, it may not - I have a sneaking suspicion that the importance to the owners is the guaranteed cash flow the grant brings with the hope of finding a gem in the Academy every year or two.

As for keeping valuable players hidden (I know you didn't say this Don) and masking their value - nice theory but reality is the Academy system, with its matches played, coach meetings, scouting network is reasonably open about where the gems, are there are no great secrets. Players are tracked by bigger clubs for years, that's partly why to get real value kids get contracts. It is the Academy rules that stops players being poached formally, but please don't tell me there are quiet chats going on behind the scenes.

A few facts
- EPPP started 2012-13 season
- there are rules that calculate the compensation for young players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Player_Performance_Plan http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/...pensation-and-solidarity-payments-in-football
- the compensation could be said to be a valuation of a young player in an Academy
- In 2012-13 CCFC received £1m for Bigi in 2013-14 no academy sales 2014-15 2.717m was received for Wilson, Christie, J Clarke and Finch (its in the cashflow statement of the accounts)
- there are no figures as yet for Maddison (but I have a feeling folk will be disappointed - my opinion) Nor any figure for Sambou
- Bigi was sold before the EPPP came in to effect (06/07/12)
- Christie had a first team contract 2010, J Clarke 2008, Wilson 2009, Bigi 2011, & Daniels 2012 making 102, 125, 55, 26 & 24 appearances respectively


- Wilson, Clarke and Christie had been established in the first team squad for years - was their value all because of the academy ?

Yes the Academy provides talent for the first team, and to my mind is key for a club like ours, but there are other ways possible - keep an open mind and question things

More cynical perhaps - I would say I question things more, but that's what I have been trained to do. However any manager will only tell you what they can or want to - it is never telling it all as it is and there are very good and right reasons for that. That's not a criticism of TM its just the way it is.

Will TM have input in to keeping the Academy yes - will he make the decision probably not, it will be down to numbers being crunched I fear

The thread that we are responding to is about 'saving' the academy. The OP is suggesting TM and MV would rather recruit youth ie Turnball's Jones's Stokes Thomas ect
Than develop our own.
I am pointing out how

A) a club like ours can't financially go that way the academy saves us a fortune. Also directly or indirectly generates more than it costs.

B) I think TM and MV think the opposite because that is what they publically stated

C) it's an irrelevant thread anyway because Joy, Tim and Chris will make the decision. Managers unfortunately have very short shelve lives. TM could make this decision be sacked tomorrow.
Plus it's a decision solely for the owners anyway.
They will look at what more it may cost with the potential future changes. How that fits in their "the club must be self sufficient model"
( one of only a select few in all the professional leagues, I may add)
Then decide

 

[Captain Dart]

A) a club like ours can't financially go that way the academy saves us a fortune. Also directly or indirectly generates more than it costs.

You have no proof of that. OSB's figures show about £3.7M received in transfer fees from 2013-14 to 2016, the corresponding investment was about £4M over the same period. I would contend it is approximately break even and actually a bit risky as the cashflow from academy product is uneven, if there was a 'talent drought' then the club would be pushed further into debt.

The benefits are not clear either way but it undeniably helps the reputation of the club to have a top performing academy.

 

[oldskyblue58]

The thread that we are responding to is about 'saving' the academy. The OP is suggesting TM and MV would rather recruit youth ie Turnball's Jones's Stokes Thomas ect
Than develop our own.
I am pointing out how

A) a club like ours can't financially go that way the academy saves us a fortune. Also directly or indirectly generates more than it costs.

B) I think TM and MV think the opposite because that is what they publically stated

C) it's an irrelevant thread anyway because Joy, Tim and Chris will make the decision. Managers unfortunately have very short shelve lives. TM could make this decision be sacked tomorrow.
Plus it's a decision solely for the owners anyway.
They will look at what more it may cost with the potential future changes. How that fits in their "the club must be self sufficient model"
( one of only a select few in all the professional leagues, I may add)
Then decide

- you brought the Cat 2 figures and ex academy player sales in to this discussion
- not about saving the Academy but about whether TM & MV see its value or see other options (personally I think they want to do both which is why a proper scouting system was vital)
- only saves a fortune if you allocate all the sales of ex academy players in full to the assessment of academy worth
- only one person will make the decision
- I agree TM & MV have made statements in favour (see previous point)
- when did we get to be self sufficient? Can the club pay all its costs? Do we know? We certainly were not self sufficient up to 31/05/2015

we will have to beg to differ - I have work to do

 

[dongonzalos]

You have no proof of that. OSB's figures show about £3.7M received in transfer fees from 2013-14 to 2016, the corresponding investment was about £4M over the same period. I would contend it is approximately break even and actually a bit risky as the cashflow from academy product is uneven, if there was a drought then the club would be pushed further into debt.

The benefits are not clear either way but it undeniably helps the reputation of the club to have a top performing academy.

Transfer fees for these players are received in instalments over time.

By the time we will have received all payments including clauses and add ons for Wilson, Maddison, Bigi, Sambou, Christie (even received a payment when he made his Ireland debut)
I take it in that 4 million costs you are not taking away the 1.5 million given to us as a grant towards the costs of the academy over the same time period.

Reputation is nice in this matter but not that important.
When you have the finances we have been able to fill your squad with kids. Who you know their strengths and weaknesses inside out. Who in theory should be already playing in your ethos, both mentally and playing style. On dirt cheap wages is far more valuable. Even if they never get sold on for a profit.
How do you put a value on those players. Who between them rack up hundreds of appearances on cheap wages.
In comparison to no academy and having to source those players elsewhere. On a gamble and a hope they do the job for dirt cheap wages. After they are rejected from other clubs with academies

 

[dongonzalos]

There is a lot of talk about saving the academy but I wonder if Mowbray values it.

I would say they probably think the money can best be deployed in youth recruitment. This probably is why we are looking at recruiting so much youth.

Its just a view but I suspect they think the whole thing is a vanity project and a waste of money and part of their long term plan is to show it's just not needed.

For you OSB

This thread is debating if TM thinks we should get rid of the academy and recruit youth instead

 

[dongonzalos]

- you brought the Cat 2 figures and ex academy player sales in to this discussion
- not about saving the Academy but about whether TM & MV see its value or see other options (personally I think they want to do both which is why a proper scouting system was vital)
- only saves a fortune if you allocate all the sales of ex academy players in full to the assessment of academy worth
- only one person will make the decision
- I agree TM & MV have made statements in favour (see previous point)
- when did we get to be self sufficient? Can the club pay all its costs? Do we know? We certainly were not self sufficient up to 31/05/2015

we will have to beg to differ - I have work to do

See post above

You seem to be debating about restructuring it.

I am debating that TM would not want to completely get rid of it.

 

[oldskyblue58]

For you OSB

This thread is debating if TM thinks we should get rid of the academy and recruit youth instead

No need to be a patronising dick don

You put the figures up first on the thread, not me. I put up some facts, thoughts and questions that countered your sweeping assumptions

Not restructuring anything. CAT 2 Academy for CCFC shouldn't even be at risk.

 

[dongonzalos]

No need to be a patronising dick don

You put the figures up first on the thread, not me. I put up some facts, thoughts and questions that countered your sweeping assumptions

Not restructuring anything. CAT 2 Academy for CCFC shouldn't even be at risk.

Not been patronising at all.

Genuinely thought you were not aware that the thread was about.....

whether we should keep an academy or choose to recruit youngsters in instead.
Also that not keeping it TM's view and he is trying in the long term to prove its not worth keeping.

As you were asking me where have you said we should ditch the academy.
You also started another reply saying that this is not about saving the academy or not, but whether TM sees value in it.

Hence me highlighting the parts of the OP's starting thread. I was getting the impression you hadn't read it and was debating whether the academy should be downgraded or not.
Not whether we should keep it.
No patronising intended.

 

[Grendel]

For you OSB

This thread is debating if TM thinks we should get rid of the academy and recruit youth instead

It's saving Cat 2 status - every club has some form of youth development

Oddly every other poster understood the context.

 

[MusicDating]

Not been patronising at all.

Genuinely thought you were not aware that the thread was about.....

whether we should keep an academy or choose to recruit youngsters in instead.
Also that not keeping it TM's view and he is trying in the long term to prove its not worth keeping.

As you were asking me where have you said we should ditch the academy.
You also started another reply saying that this is not about saving the academy or not, but whether TM sees value in it.

Hence me highlighting the parts of the OP's starting thread. I was getting the impression you hadn't read it and was debating whether the academy should be downgraded or not.
Not whether we should keep it.
No patronising intended.

Or you could have thanked OSB for taking the time to provide a logical financial explanation.

 

[dongonzalos]

Or you could have thanked OSB for taking the time to provide a logical financial explanation.

It's great but not really that helpful to the point of the OP.
Does TM want to get rid of the academy as part of a long term plan

 

[dongonzalos]

It's saving Cat 2 status - every club has some form of youth development

Oddly every other poster understood the context.

Oddly that's not what you said, so you may as well do a nick clegg again

 

[dongonzalos]

There is a lot of talk about saving the academy but I wonder if Mowbray values it.

I suspect he and Venus have little faith in what it is producing and believe they are better at identified young players from other clubs and developing them.

I would say they probably think the money can best be deployed in youth recruitment. This probably is why we are looking at recruiting so much youth.

Its just a view but I suspect they think the whole thing is a vanity project and a waste of money and part of their long term plan is to show it's just not needed.

Your post in case you have forgotten

 

[SkyBlueScottie]

Another consideration the club have to make, I believe the age group has risen to U 23 ( see yesterdays fixture against Charlton) most of our under 23's are in and around our first team, will it offer any benefit to the club. Could the club feel that being a Cat 2 academy hamstring them on transferr fees they have recieved for players, if we play too much hardball the buying club can easily let it go to tribunal. Automatically weakening our bargaining position.

 

[fernandopartridge]

One very basic thought don is where a player appreciates in value. All things being equal an academy would struggle. Players don't appreciate in value until they play regularly, so on that basis it's an argument between (1) the costs of developing your own players with limited assurance that they'll prosper. Or, (2) effective scouting of young players who you're more assured will develop and appreciate in value. Paying fees where necessary.
I think the ideal is probably a mix of both but it's then a question of whether the grade 2 cost associated with option 1 is realistic if you are also pursuing option 2.

 

[Captain Dart]

Transfer fees for these players are received in instalments over time.

By the time we will have received all payments including clauses and add ons for Wilson, Maddison, Bigi, Sambou, Christie (even received a payment when he made his Ireland debut)
I take it in that 4 million costs you are not taking away the 1.5 million given to us as a grant towards the costs of the academy over the same time period.

Reputation is nice in this matter but not that important.
When you have the finances we have been able to fill your squad with kids. Who you know their strengths and weaknesses inside out. Who in theory should be already playing in your ethos, both mentally and playing style. On dirt cheap wages is far more valuable. Even if they never get sold on for a profit.
How do you put a value on those players. Who between them rack up hundreds of appearances on cheap wages.
In comparison to no academy and having to source those players elsewhere. On a gamble and a hope they do the job for dirt cheap wages. After they are rejected from other clubs with academies

But similar benefits would accrue if sold players with potential were bought and sold on the open market (e.g. Jones) rather than developed internally, you have not understood the way the transfer market works for some reason you are assuming that an academy is greatly superior to any alternative means of developing transfer income, that isn't necessarily the case.

By removing an academy don't you see that the risk and costs of bringing players through to a minimum level of development where the likelihood of them being worth something on the market is externalised and mitigated, the overhead of spending on players in the academy that did not develop and had to be released would be slashed.

Swings & roundabouts.

 

[Grendel]

Oddly that's not what you said, so you may as well do a nick clegg again

Oddly you were the only one who didn't "understand" and even odder all the comparisons you make are against Cat 2 costs structures.

 

[Bruce the Boot]

Oddly you were the only one who didn't "understand" and even odder all the comparisons you make are against Cat 2 costs structures.

Afternoon Grendel