Mowbray and the Acadamy (2 Viewers)

Captain Dart said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not at all I fully understand the concept.
The point I am making is the academy is not just about comparing the Jones' verses the wilsons.
We bring through a lot of other players who have amassed a great amount of appearances between them on very little wages.
If you snap the academy and just recruit players in.
What will you get for the 700k a year we currently invest into the academy ?
Is it worth put that money into player recruitment and forgetting about developing our own?
I would say no as you know what you are getting with your own and you get to pick the best 6 or 7 from a bunch of 20 that you have developed yourself. So you know them inside out.
Bring in talent that are rejected from other clubs comes with a risk.
Those that are just very good and not rejected come with a cost.
I don't think Jones will be that cheap when we have paid for everything.

We should be doing both unearthing the Jones' and bring through the Wilsons and Maddison's and Sambou's

skybluetony176 said:

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.

Click to expand...

but surely it's lead to a debate?
I actually disagree with the sentiment of Grendels original post but there's been some though provoking contributions to be honest.
Interesting to read what's happened at Brentford.

Grendel said:

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

Click to expand...

Have you had time to read your post yet.
You know the one where your talk about...

Saving the ACADEMY.
Taking players from OTHER CLUBS.
Spending money in RECRUITING youth
The WHOLE thing is a waste of money. Their long term plan
Is to show its NOT needed.

Yes not sure how I got the wrong end of the stick. When you never once mentioned down grading its status or anything about categories.
You talked about saving the academy.
Getting rid of the whole thing.
Recruiting from other clubs instead.
Showing that the academy is not needed.

At least have the balls to see through your original post.

Oh and whilst you are here, I take you agree it will be the owners who make the decisions about the academy not TM?

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:

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.

Click to expand...

how is debating the validity of the academy doing the owners work for them, especially when the general consensus seems to be we need to maintain a cat 2 academy?

fernandopartridge said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mix of both is my view as well

clint van damme said:

how is debating the validity of the academy doing the owners work for them, especially when the general consensus seems to be we need to maintain a cat 2 academy?

Click to expand...

clint van damme said:

how is debating the validity of the academy doing the owners work for them, especially when the general consensus seems to be we need to maintain a cat 2 academy?

Click to expand...

I was inferring that my long held view that the owners don't want the academy and certain posters virtually agreeing with them

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:

I was inferring that my long held view that the owners don't want the academy and certain posters virtually agreeing with them

Click to expand...

but if someone holds that opinion that the money would be better spent directly on the first then surely that's a valid opinion that they're entitled to? Doesn't mean they're doing the owners work as you say.

For what it's worth, I don't personally agree with that stance.

dongonzalos said:

What will you get for the 700k a year we currently invest into the academy ?

Click to expand...

7 strong squad players and a more extensive scouting network with approximately equal transfer income and an enhanced league position and therefore bigger crowds and ticket income.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:

I was inferring that my long held view that the owners don't want the academy and certain posters virtually agreeing with them

Click to expand...

I think that is the case too but I do not see it as a disaster.

clint van damme said:

but if someone holds that opinion that the money would be better spent directly on the first then surely that's a valid opinion that they're entitled to? Doesn't mean they're doing the owners work as you say.

For what it's worth, I don't personally agree with that stance.

Click to expand...

Funny how the same people were fully supportive of the academy and staying at the Higgs and have now changed their minds. I said I thought this was going to happen ages ago and was ignored. Now I don't know if the owners do want rid of the academy but the effort that they've put into trying to keep it is frankly non existant. We should be as one in trying to keep it f only for its one of the only things we've got left.

I think that TM & MV have to maximise all their options to create adequate cash flow to put a first team on the pitch. The short term fix to quality needed is probably to buy in. TM quite likely knows he doesn't have much time to turn it around so the current emphasis on buying in. Managers do not stay at clubs long and a successful Academy is probably the domain of the directors/owners to fund and promote as it is more long term. That is not to say that the manager and his team do not have input into the Academy but it is not their decision to keep it or not. Take TM at his word and he backs the Academy. He is trying to balance both Academy & buy in and the emphasis will change to suit the timing. That to me is what is going on, but it is naiive to think there are not viable alternatives (even if they are not so "productive")

That like it or not, is where the number crunching then comes in - from London (JS has her right hand person on the SBS&L board). Not many would say the owners have a passion for the Sky Blues - it is a bad investment that SISU are trying scramble some return from or even just a face saving way out of. This is where the concern is for me - the number crunching. If you look at the costs of the Academy (net of grant) since SISU got here in 2008 until 31/05/15 it would be in the region of £4m cash spent. Against that there are the sales of ex academy players Belford, Grandison, Turner, Bigiramana, Wilson, Christie, J Clarke, & Daniels - the actual cash flow disclosed in the financials for them is in the region of £4.6m as far as I can work out.

Now I would not allocate all of the sales value cash received to the Academy, others seem to. I doubt the owner number crunchers do. There may have been some cash saved on lower wages - but you could argue you get what you pay for and it has helped put us where we are. Wage savings disappear once the first contract is renewed and who are we comparing it against to define this saving. Yes the sale of Maddison/Sambou is yet to be included - will be interesting to see how that turns out. The cash flows in are not even and the cash flows out are in large part set - that is where part of the problem as to retain or not is, there are potential for gaps in the cashflows. There is also pressure to begin paying debts down so any cash surplus on the sale of an academy player is not retained to fund future operations but covers current costs and repayments. So sell a player one year and you are probably back to square one in terms of funding the Academy the next year

Now if the owners in London are looking short term then the future of the Academy could be under real pressure because it costs an annual net £700k which could be used for other purposes. It doesn't matter what TM says, it wont affect his ability to buy in because he has a playing budget to work with (unless that is squeezed), the players he already has in U18, U21 etc can be retained and by time they need replacing TM could be long gone.

Should the academy fold because of the AHC situation that breaks a tie with the City, adds to grounds for claims of being forced out, provides potential evidence of lost finance. But none of that has anything to do with TM. Is there a good reason for it to fold at all in any case? Mentioned it earlier but are the statements of TM/MV/CA/TF for our benefit or to the owners?

TM like most managers wants the biggest pool of talent he can have - so he will back both methods of gaining value & players for a team. Doesn't mean he will get them and he may have put up with something not quite what he expected if the number crunching goes against the academy Cat 2. Its all about cash flow not profit

I still back having a Cat 2 academy having said all that - but then I don't have to work the cash flows to fund it. More to it than the numbers but perhaps not to hedge fund managers and that's the worry

clint van damme said:

but surely it's lead to a debate?
I actually disagree with the sentiment of Grendels original post but there's been some though provoking contributions to be honest.
Interesting to read what's happened at Brentford.

Click to expand...

Maybe have a look at Watford too. Been operating at Cat 3 for the last three years and are now applying to move to Cat 2.

Captain Dart said:

7 strong squad players and a more extensive scouting network with approximately equal transfer income and an enhanced league position and therefore bigger crowds and ticket income.

.

Click to expand...

Possibly, do you think we picked up 7 strong squad players this season for 700k?

Also do you think TM is engaged in a long term plan to get rid of the academy?

oldskyblue58 said:

I think that TM & MV have to maximise all their options to create adequate cash flow to put a first team on the pitch. The short term fix to quality needed is probably to buy in. TM quite likely knows he doesn't have much time to turn it around so the current emphasis on buying in. Managers do not stay at clubs long and a successful Academy is probably the domain of the directors/owners to fund and promote as it is more long term. That is not to say that the manager and his team do not have input into the Academy but it is not their decision to keep it or not. Take TM at his word and he backs the Academy. He is trying to balance both Academy & buy in and the emphasis will change to suit the timing. That to me is what is going on, but it is naiive to think there are not alternatives (even if they are not so "productive")

That like it or not, is where the number crunching then comes in - from London (JS has her right hand person on the SBS&L board). Not many would say the owners have a passion for the Sky Blues - it is a bad investment that SISU are trying scramble some return from or even just a face saving way out of. This is where the concern is for me - the number crunching. If you look at the costs of the Academy (net of grant) since SISU got here in 2008 until 31/05/15 it would be in the region of £4m cash spent. Against that there are the sales of ex academy players Belford, Grandison, Turner, Bigiramana, Wilson, Christie, J Clarke, & Daniels - the actual cash flow disclosed in the financials for them is in the region of £4.6m as far as I can work out.

Now I would not allocate all of the sales value cash received to the Academy, others seem to. I doubt the owner number crunchers do. There may have been some cash saved on lower wages - but you could argue you get what you pay for and it has helped put us where we are. Wage savings disappear once the first contract is renewed and who are we comparing it against to define this saving. Yes the sale of Maddison/Sambou is yet to be included - will be interesting to see how that turns out. The cash flows in are not even and the cash flows out are in large part set - that is where part of the problem as to retain or not is, there are potential for gaps in the cashflows. There is also pressure to begin paying debts down so any cash surplus on the sale of an academy player is not retained to fund future operations but covers current costs and repayments. So sell a player one year and you are probably back to square one in terms of funding the Academy the next year

Now if the owners in London are looking short term then the future of the Academy could be under real pressure because it costs an annual net £700k which could be used for other purposes. It doesn't matter what TM says, it wont affect his ability to buy in because he has a playing budget to work with (unless that is squeezed), the players he already has in U18, U21 etc can be retained and by time they need replacing TM could be long gone.

Should the academy fold because of the AHC situation that breaks a tie with the City, adds to grounds for claims of being forced out, provides potential evidence of lost finance. But none of that has anything to do with TM. Is there a good reason for it to fold at all in any case? Mentioned it earlier but are the statements of TM/MV/CA/TF for our benefit or to the owners?

TM like most managers wants the biggest pool of talent he can have - so he will back both methods of gaining value & players for a team. Doesn't mean he will get them and he may have put up with something not quite what he expected if the number crunching goes against the academy Cat 2. Its all about cash flow not profit

I still back having a Cat 2 academy having said all that

Click to expand...

Now all of the above I agree with.

One question though when you state costs of the academy are you including the grants in the costs?

My concern is also a decision to keep an academy is what is best long term for the future of CCFC for many years to come.

We do not know if that priority matches that of the owners. Do they worry about what's best for CCFC in the long term future.

Or is their priority a break even figure, or what makes the club more of s saleable item.

I would hope the academy would be one of only two things at the moment that would tempt someone to takeover the club. That and the golden share.

For the first time in a very very long time. I feel we are finally returning to the only model that a club like this, without sugar daddy owners can survive on.

Sign the most promising talent from the divisions below. With a view of selling them on.
Develop your own talent with a view of filling the squad with them. When you unearth a gem try to maximise their sale value after they have given you a season or two of their skills.
Also pick up promising talent like Bigi, RCC and Turnbull who don't make it at the level above.

Unfortunately for TM football fans and owners are not known for their patience, even when things are starting to move in the right direction.

For me you won't see the fruits of this plan for another 2-3 years.

The status of the academy for me personally isn't a massive deal as long as we have one.

dongonzalos said:

Now all of the above I agree with.

One question though when you state costs of the academy are you including the grants in the costs?

My concern is also a decision to keep an academy is what is best long term for the future of CCFC for many years to come.

We do not know if that priority matches that of the owners. Do they worry about what's best for CCFC in the long term future.

Or is their priority a break even figure, or what makes the club more of s saleable item.

I would hope the academy would be one of only two things at the moment that would tempt someone to takeover the club. That and the golden share.

For the first time in a very very long time. I feel we are finally returning to the only model that a club like this, without sugar daddy owners can survive on.

Sign the most promising talent from the divisions below. With a view of selling them on.
Develop your own talent with a view of filling the squad with them. When you unearth a gem try to maximise their sale value after they have given you a season or two of their skills.
Also pick up promising talent like Bigi, RCC and Turnbull who don't make it at the level above.

Unfortunately for TM football fans and owners are not known for their patience, even when things are starting to move in the right direction.

For me you won't see the fruits of this plan for another 2-3 years.

The status of the academy for me personally isn't a massive deal as long as we have one.

Click to expand...

He said net of the grant.

dongonzalos said:

Possibly, do you think we picked up 7 strong squad players this season for 700k?

Also do you think TM is engaged in a long term plan to get rid of the academy?

Click to expand...

I believe the average Div 3 salary is still around 70K, so with a bit for signing on fees etc I think my estimate isn't unrealistic. Though there would still be an U23 team to run in the budget.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...14-15-season-1-7million-rest-creep-along.html

dongonzalos said:

Have you had time to read your post yet.
You know the one where your talk about...

Saving the ACADEMY.
Taking players from OTHER CLUBS.
Spending money in RECRUITING youth
The WHOLE thing is a waste of money. Their long term plan
Is to show its NOT needed.

Yes not sure how I got the wrong end of the stick. When you never once mentioned down grading its status or anything about categories.
You talked about saving the academy.
Getting rid of the whole thing.
Recruiting from other clubs instead.
Showing that the academy is not needed.

At least have the balls to see through your original post.

Oh and whilst you are here, I take you agree it will be the owners who make the decisions about the academy not TM?

Click to expand...

Don Grendell actually asked our opinion on whether TM and MV had the acadamy in their long term plans, if you read his post he didn't say it was his opinion he merely courted our veiws on whether our manager held it in his plans

Sent from my Versus TouchPad 9 using Tapatalk

sbadey said:

Don Grendell actually asked our opinion on whether TM and MV had the acadamy in their long term plans, if you read his post he didn't say it was his opinion he merely courted our veiws on whether our manager held it in his plans

Sent from my Versus TouchPad 9 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yep he gave the opinion that TM and MV have a long term plan to get rid of the academy
And later he said he wasn't against TM's views if he felt this way

fernandopartridge said:

He said net of the grant.

Click to expand...

yep re read the post. Sorry I think earlier in the thread there was a figure mentioned of it costing around 4 million since 2013.

Not as above over 7 years.

Saw the 4 million figure again and assumed it was that one mentioned earlier which I presume didn't include the grants.

So probably it's cost around 5 million to SISU in real terms since they have been here.

I think players who have come through the academy and gone on to be sold will surpass that figure in redeemed transfer fees. What those fees received are used on for me is not hugely the point.

It's the strong possibility that they will be probably be more than the cost of the academy. Obviously it's very hard to say with undisclosed fees and future add ons.

Sweeping statements I know but ones I am more than comfortable to make.

Then you have all the players that have featured in the squad that have saved us going elsewhere. Very hard to quantify but again I am comfortable in suggesting they have saved us a bit overall.

So for me

1) TM won't make a decision about the academy. The owners will
2) TM is not engaged in a plan to prove the academy isn't worth having
3) The academy is worth having both for the number crunchers or the average fan.
4) the only reason we may lose the academy is a short term thinking ideology about the club paying for itself. (So it may happen)

Grendel said:

No they don't have a Cat 2 academy lol.

Click to expand...

Grendel I was supporting you against ccfcway response to your comment

Ranjit Bhurpa said:

Maybe have a look at Watford too. Been operating at Cat 3 for the last three years and are now applying to move to Cat 2.

Click to expand...

not quite, they are cat 2.....

http://www.wdsport.co.uk/2015/10/why-being-in-the-premier-league-opens-doors-for-watfords-academy/

Being awarded Category 2 status is no mean feat as acceptance for an upgrade is by no means a foregone conclusion; Ipswich Town were denied Category 1 status last year while Colchester United saw their application for Category 2 rejected.

ceetee said:

Grendel I was supporting you against ccfcway response to your comment

Click to expand...

That will teach you

ccfcway said:

not quite, they are cat 2.....

http://www.wdsport.co.uk/2015/10/why-being-in-the-premier-league-opens-doors-for-watfords-academy/

Being awarded Category 2 status is no mean feat as acceptance for an upgrade is by no means a foregone conclusion; Ipswich Town were denied Category 1 status last year while Colchester United saw their application for Category 2 rejected.

Click to expand...

Whoops,my bad...thought they were still Cat 3.

Grendel said:

Yes I know - it was a comment that mocked ccfcway as he asserted cat 2 is integral to ambition.

Click to expand...

It's not integral to ambition but I would argue that with everything at the club being dismantled, farmed out etc it is integral to identity

Ranjit Bhurpa said:

Maybe have a look at Watford too. Been operating at Cat 3 for the last three years and are now applying to move to Cat 2.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, been a cat 2 for 3 seasons now. Went into cat 3 5 years ago and then realised quickly it couldn't compete with what's around them. Sorry

Just one question. If Cat 2 status isn't worth the hassle and investment why are other clubs trying to upgrade to Cat 2 from Cat 3 or indeed to Cat 1 from Cat 2? Surely if there was no benefit then no one would be doing it, yet they seem to be. Odd.

Grendel said:

How many league 1 clubs are Cat 2? I don't know actually. I doubt - but could be wrong - that burton were

The issue has to be cost to revenue.

If I was the manager and given a choice of reduction in first team budget to invest in an academy I know what I would say.

Were Bournemouth that status in this league? Were Rotherham? I don't know. The point is it requires expenditure and with is being forced away additional expenditure.

Is that cost beneficial to the club where it is now?

Click to expand...

Expenditure? Oh, you mean investment. You still haven't answered the question though. Why are clubs trying to gain it if it's not worth it? My guess is that unlike you they have access to actual facts and figures so can make an informed decision rather than the half baked assumption that you've came to.

skybluetony176 said:

Just one question. If Cat 2 status isn't worth the hassle and investment why are other clubs trying to upgrade to Cat 2 from Cat 3 or indeed to Cat 1 from Cat 2? Surely if there was no benefit then no one would be doing it, yet they seem to be. Odd.

Click to expand...

Because they've all got it wrong and Fisher's got it right

Grendel said:

Funny that isn't it? Tony and Timmy have the same argument.

Click to expand...

You're not going to answer the question then. I can simplify it for you then.

Why do all clubs that have Cat 2 status maintain that status if the "cost to revenue" isn't worth it? Why don't they just actively lose this status? Surely it would be easy enough to do?

I think i will have to lie down and take stock as for the first time I am on the same side as Grendel and not Tony in this argument Not sure it will last though . Think the club want the money for the first team. . The academy could be considered as a Jam tomorrow project. Have posted consistently that the academy even when classed as a cat 3 produced most of the talent we sold and it was down to the quality of the staff not the number of classrooms or pitches, it was what they did. As soon as watford were relegated from the prem they downgraded from pending cat 1 to Cat 3 ... look at them now. I for one never bought a match or season ticket based on the status of the academy. Do think SISU are trying to leverage PR value with the potential loss of Cat 2 but if TM has more first team budget and it leads to tangible results then supporters will returns and the kids will come through. Few consider that it takes a massive commitment on families to go to Leicester , WBA or Villa academy over CCFC plus not many kids come out the other side.

Grendel said:

Brentford haven't Tony. I can post a link if you wish.

Regarding avoiding questions - it is you not giving answers

You said this "you still haven't answered the question though. Why are clubs trying to gain it if it's not worth it?"

I asked very reasonably which clubs as I am not aware of them. So please which clubs do you mean Tony?

You also said;

"My guess is that unlike you they have access to actual facts and figures so can make an informed decision rather than the half baked assumption that you've came to"

So if all League One clubs have access to facts and figures - how many spend the money on this form of Academy? If it is the minority then it seems the half aked assumption is surely yours is it not?

Anyway lets debate like adults

Brentford have cancelled the academy - which clubs are trying to gain it and are they in a similar position to us?

Click to expand...

I would imagine that most league one clubs that don't have Cat 2 academies don't have the spare cash or backing to invest in the required facilities or as in our case a local charity who is willing to develop a site with the facilities to accommodate a Cat 2 academy. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't like one though.

Which brings us back to my second question. Why do all clubs that have Cat 2 status maintain that status if the "cost to revenue" isn't worth it? Why don't they just actively lose this status? Surely it would be easy enough to do? All they'd have to do is withdraw enough requirements to fail the audit.