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 wumming and not to be taken seriously.
Exactly. Now sensible views are being expressed I suspect the pitchfork mob will leave this thread well alone.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Grendull gets called out and changes the subject. Same old same old. If nothing else you're consistent.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 playersWhat 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
When he s not playing with his action men , Grendel is the biggest wum on hereHi ya Grendel
God loves a trier
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.
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?
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.
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.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
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?
You see Benno down the Sphinx ground now & again. He is Coventry Sphinx FC club president.I believe Dave Bennett and Brian Borrows still live locally.
GMK went the same way.....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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?