If it makes more money than it costs its the opposite of expensive - are you thick? You want to get rid of another income stream?
Mowbray and the Acadamy (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Grendel had a point, the word Acadamy has replaced the words youth team, principles are the same really. Players young as 9 get spotted, offered to sign a contract and either get released at 10,11, 12 and so on or stay until a decision is made as to their future at 16, no different to years ago except they are on the treadmill earlier. We have some here RCC and Willis could be others who were released by Arsenal and Brum respectively taken on by us now first team regulars and worth money. My grandson is at the Acadamy only young but I see it no different to being let's say a better local young footballer than most in his age group, one thing hasn't changed though, never will, you have to be good enough and if one of my grandsons group make pro. that will be about it.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Whatever level the academy is set at
Wilson
Maddison
Sambou
Christie
Bigi
All have raised vital life blood money for the club. We are possibly talking
7-10 million ( 10-18 years funding of the academy)
Then think about the number of appearances from these lot on relatively low wages.
Burge
Willis
Clarke
Thomas
Thomas
DKE
Haynes
Harries
Clarke
Spence
Lawton
Finch
Phillips
They are not a expendible Brucey bonus on top of the normal running of the club. Like at somewhere like Chelsea. These days they are the club and other signings are now the Brucey bonus.
Luckily for us TM and MV know this only too well. As per TM's quote weeks ago that the academy is vital for a club like Coventry.
Key question now is do the club?
From everything I have read coming from the club so far and all their actions up to this point have suggested they know how vital it is.
Let's see them get this shared site arrangement arranged ASAP.
Wilson
Maddison
Sambou
Christie
Bigi
All have raised vital life blood money for the club. We are possibly talking
7-10 million ( 10-18 years funding of the academy)
Then think about the number of appearances from these lot on relatively low wages.
Burge
Willis
Clarke
Thomas
Thomas
DKE
Haynes
Harries
Clarke
Spence
Lawton
Finch
Phillips
They are not a expendible Brucey bonus on top of the normal running of the club. Like at somewhere like Chelsea. These days they are the club and other signings are now the Brucey bonus.
Luckily for us TM and MV know this only too well. As per TM's quote weeks ago that the academy is vital for a club like Coventry.
Key question now is do the club?
From everything I have read coming from the club so far and all their actions up to this point have suggested they know how vital it is.
Let's see them get this shared site arrangement arranged ASAP.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Most importantly the average mangers life span for CCFC is less than a year over the last 15 years.
So to make such a critical decision for the club, will rightly be nothing to do with the manager.
It will be down to the owners who have been here for 9 years and say the club is not for sale.
The manager will always say keep it if asked his opinion because it is a win win for him.
So to make such a critical decision for the club, will rightly be nothing to do with the manager.
It will be down to the owners who have been here for 9 years and say the club is not for sale.
The manager will always say keep it if asked his opinion because it is a win win for him.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Nothing is different to years gone by, just the fees are higher, I can quote Dennis Mortimer, Graham Paddon, Brian Alderson, Paul Dyson, Andy Blair, Danny Thomas, Chris Kirkland, Mark Hateley, Garry Thompson, there are many others all sold for at the time decent fees and played top level football, all came through our youth team system and the money raised kept us afloat or atleast in the top division for years.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Except Hateley, he certainly was not sold for a decent fee...Portsmouth offer was a joke and the tribunal decision also a joke.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Yes we were well conned with that episode, but we were sloppy too, Graham Hover again ??
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Question
At what point in this development does a player have value and adds to the financial structure of CCFC?
The Academy builds a player to a certain point and value (that value would be the compensation due at that point perhaps?). The current rules would seem to restrict value of Academy players as they qualify and step up because of the compensation rules. But surely the real value is accrued by being successful in the first team. Now you can argue that the Academy nurtured that ability and developed it to a point, but if we are talking real increments in sale value then I tend to think that happens by being in the first team not the Academy.
What I would think also happens is that the wage demands of the average Academy player moving from the clubs Academy in to a clubs first team are lower than buying in from another team. Always helpful when looking to reduce cost as a club. That step from Academy to first team is the vulnerable point for a club in terms of potential for sales values, and that is why the big teams often use their status to tempt the best prospects at that point.
Wilson & Maddison felt an allegiance to CCFC others have not. But at the change from Academy to First team squad their value was not great in the scheme of things and their proper development far from certain
I would be lying if I said it hadn't crossed my mind that perhaps the overall strategy of Mowbray/Venus wasn't as pro Academy as many think. Or is it that the reality is our Academy for whatever reason hasn't got the talent imagined and we got lucky with Wilson, Maddison etc - and that we have shifted to a more normal structure of also identifying other talent elsewhere because we have a scouting network now.
Wilson btw was not a product of the Cat 2 status
Bottom line is the Academy helped acquire (and lose talent) but to accredit the whole of a players sale value to the Academy just does not seem logical to me. The Academy makes how much for the club............?
At what point in this development does a player have value and adds to the financial structure of CCFC?
The Academy builds a player to a certain point and value (that value would be the compensation due at that point perhaps?). The current rules would seem to restrict value of Academy players as they qualify and step up because of the compensation rules. But surely the real value is accrued by being successful in the first team. Now you can argue that the Academy nurtured that ability and developed it to a point, but if we are talking real increments in sale value then I tend to think that happens by being in the first team not the Academy.
What I would think also happens is that the wage demands of the average Academy player moving from the clubs Academy in to a clubs first team are lower than buying in from another team. Always helpful when looking to reduce cost as a club. That step from Academy to first team is the vulnerable point for a club in terms of potential for sales values, and that is why the big teams often use their status to tempt the best prospects at that point.
Wilson & Maddison felt an allegiance to CCFC others have not. But at the change from Academy to First team squad their value was not great in the scheme of things and their proper development far from certain
I would be lying if I said it hadn't crossed my mind that perhaps the overall strategy of Mowbray/Venus wasn't as pro Academy as many think. Or is it that the reality is our Academy for whatever reason hasn't got the talent imagined and we got lucky with Wilson, Maddison etc - and that we have shifted to a more normal structure of also identifying other talent elsewhere because we have a scouting network now.
Wilson btw was not a product of the Cat 2 status
Bottom line is the Academy helped acquire (and lose talent) but to accredit the whole of a players sale value to the Academy just does not seem logical to me. The Academy makes how much for the club............?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It's also worth bearing in mind that with the short term view of club management, it'd probably be in a club manager's interest to dump the academy, and use the budget savings elsewhere (player recruitment). Any current academy prospect close to the first team would still be of benefit to them, after all, and those some way off are probably not the interest of the current management team...
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It's hardly a smear campaign is it?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Sensible post osb.
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
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.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
OSB has put an opinion on this which I fully agree with actually. Perhaps you could read it and come back and argue he is now also part of "the conspiracy"
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Wilson wasn't a Cat 2 product. I got bored after that.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Its amazing G, even if people agree or disagree, you got some vitriol for posting an opinion, which is why many of us come on this forum, for opinion,news etc.
OSB agrees with some of the sentiment of what you have said, which is also his opinion, and total respect for him and coming and doing that. Its ironic that some of those that shouted the loudest wont be doing that in this instance.
OSB agrees with some of the sentiment of what you have said, which is also his opinion, and total respect for him and coming and doing that. Its ironic that some of those that shouted the loudest wont be doing that in this instance.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
another question
The perceived wisdom is - The academy is all important and it is vital we retain Cat 2 status for the future of the club.
If it is so vital for our future and makes so much money for the club by player sales would CCFC still do it if there were no grant of £480k received? The profits sales of Wilson and Maddison, using the logic of some here (which I do not agree with btw), would still mean the Academy broke even at least since Cat 2 started
I am not 100% convinced they would have retained an Academy you know............ would have spent £1.2m pa on it, could they even afford to spend that.
The perceived wisdom is - The academy is all important and it is vital we retain Cat 2 status for the future of the club.
If it is so vital for our future and makes so much money for the club by player sales would CCFC still do it if there were no grant of £480k received? The profits sales of Wilson and Maddison, using the logic of some here (which I do not agree with btw), would still mean the Academy broke even at least since Cat 2 started
I am not 100% convinced they would have retained an Academy you know............ would have spent £1.2m pa on it, could they even afford to spend that.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Doubt they could and I have doubts it makes a profit even with the grant - we will never know as you don't see the value of fees.
To me though giving a long list of players who have no worth other than play for us as a league one club (e.g. Haynes) that's a sign of failure of it not success. If it's producing bog standard league one players there has to be a better method of recruitment.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
£1.2m is a significant cost when your turnover is £5m approx.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Sorry don but I do not share your analysis. So have played devils advocate a little above
Question - what is the basis of the assertion that we are the 4th (or whatever it is) best Cat 2 academy in the country?
Someone mentioned Brentford earlier I believe - currently in which division? - and not relying on Cat 2 Academy. Whereas we have placed reliance on Academy players coming through and achieved ? The goal posts have been moved by the Premiership clubs and the financing of Academies in the lower leagues has been detrimentally affected in my opinion and I think we will see more clubs question the logic of Cat 2. That doesn't mean questioning the logic of training and developing young players - but doing it differently
I think we have to keep an open mind. I have always supported the Academy but it doesn't make me blind to potential alternatives. I suspect for the CCFC owners it is only about crunching the immediate annual financial numbers and I think that makes the Academy future very uncertain
Last edited:
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
I think this is the way it will go even if ccfc unearth a gem at the age of 10/11 he won't be here at 16 remember Daniel Sturridge, The big boys have it virtually sewn up and if they want to poach a starlet will do what it takes to get him.
Ranjit Bhurpa
Well-Known Member
If we believe everything we have heard about the scouting network at CCFC - from the shambles it was under Pressley and the excel spreadsheet departing with him, to the total overhaul conducted by TM and MV - could its' successful and continuing development offset the need for a Category 2 Academy altogether? To me there is a conflict here, especially when identifying players close to the first team. Every Stokes, Jones and Turnbull identified and secured through this scouting network reduces the need for unearthing a Stevenson, Harries or DKE every once in a while.
Continued success for the revamped scouting network would surely reduce the requirement of a Cat 2 Academy, possibly reducing to Cat 3, Cat 4 or even none at all and the removal of all associated costs? Youth training and development for early age groups could then continue as it was before.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Now sensible views are being expressed I suspect the pitchfork mob will leave this thread well alone.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
This. Its no long term strategy, its about the now.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Not really as his whole post states there is plenty of logic to not maintain it as a long term strategy either does it not?
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
if we don't aspire to be a premiership club, yes
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
At the start I made reference to the academy at whatever level (category) it is at hence including the likes of Wilson. Of course his value grew from playing in the first team that is the whole concept of the model at our level.
Develop them into the first increase their value to the optimum point of selling them. We were unfortunate with Sambou that he didn't get into the first team
Read above for Christie and Bigi
You have to have an academy to get lucky in the first place so no it's not luck. It's about been there to capture the talent and nuture that talent.
The cost to run the academy is 1.2 million 500k of which we receive as a grant.
So it costs us 700k a year hence
The figures are based on the profit.
You could run the academy for 15 years on those transfer fees alone.
The academy more than self funds.
Those players when they broke into the squads would have been on dirt cheap wages less than trying to sign the equivalent 10-15 players.
Plus you have the advantage of knowing all about them when you give them their first pro contract.
Plus you get to pick from your own pool of players that you know inside out.
So far TM says what he means. Until he doesn't you should treat his comments that way.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There is no evidence at all that suggests the proceeds of sale pay for the project at all.
Of course OSB is correct with Bigi, who probably is one of the biggest successes in terms of fees. We got very lucky with that fee. I doubt the fees are anything like the cost covered at all. If you didn't consider Wilson a Cat 2 player - but is probably the biggest fee - that's hardly an endorsement is it?
The point he makes is that fees escalate with being in the first team. So, by signing jones (a non Academy player but the produce of a small clubs system of youth development) he will increase in value by being here. Christie and Sambou will increase in fees with zero benefit to our investment.
Other clubs have cheaper methods. Brentford have realised the folly and shut theirs. They are embarking on a totally different and cheaper model. To invest such a high percentage of our revenue on this venture is high risk if all it does is churn out players like Finch and Haynes who are of no commercial worth and entirely replaceable by a different scouting method.
When asked the question what answer do you expect "it's a waste of money and id shut it down?"
I would like to focus on the commercial benefits though. You can't count Wilson as then you'd have to count every player we've had. How much up front fees do you think we've had - I'd suggest £3 million tops.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No they don't have a Cat 2 academy lol.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
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
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
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
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
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
Last edited:
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
So why do the likes of Fisher, Herman et al keep banging on about how important it is to have the academy which has resulted in MPs asking questions, calls to arms from the Observer and Telegraph, the Trust? I'm not trying to be dumb or anything, but why are they (and a lot of us too) bleating so much over the Higgs/WASPs deal if it's not essential and there are workable alternatives? There must be something else, something that everyone's missing surely?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The deal is an affront to the club and shows the feelings of wasps and the council to the football club so that's not acceptable. Sisu may value it but they've hardly covered themselves in glory regarding sound decisions have they?