TheAllestreeRam

18 minutes ago, S8TY said:

What’s thick about it? It’s been suggested by quite a few on here I’m not the first to suggest it

Nice idea and everything but Id personally feel like im wasting my money. 

Atleast when I pay for a matchday ticket im getting to see some occassionally good, but often mediocre football and im okay with that. 

I cant be so highly critical of the ownership and how they have run the club and then pay yet more money to bail them out of the mess that had absolutely nothing to do with me as a fan. Thats a step too far in how much of a 'supporter' I am, not everyone gets blind faith under the onus of being a proper fan in my book. 

In any case the EFL are going to appeal the fine. 

5 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

The root of this is the stupid acceptance by the EFL that relegated clubs from the PL can rely on 4 years worth of parachute payments that ensure they have the unfair advantage of retaining or buying the best players thus disadvantaging others in the league who don't benefit from this unfair income. Mel has tried his hardest to circumnavigate his way around this grossly unfair system in an effort to make us competitive.

 

I appreciate that is what he has tried to do, but he has failed with that miserably. We used almost no acumen in the market and spent like crazy to try and compete. We have been leap frogged by most of the clubs in the league who dont have parachute payments despite spending more than them and they havent had to play with their accounting.  

Its sad to see because Mel does care... he and pearce are just not very good at running a football club unfortunately.

7 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Remember fans applauded MM for sticking up for Derby. Those same fans having a go now. 

 

But this has all been self induced.... just do the accounts properly, do it the same as everyone else, why give them the ammunition in the first place. 

When Mel bought the majority share of the club we we had finished third, had a manager proven at a higher level, a young hungry squad with some real talent. 

We finished last season and would have been relegated if everyone started on the same points, a talentless squad made up of over hyped academy players and far past it senior players. The club no longer owns its stadium and we have a manager with no experience and one of the worst records in recent history. 

To me that is terrible and we have the right to question that. 

I struggle to see where the EFL are to blame in that beyond a change in accounting policy.  

Most concerning for me is the mentality of the squad, there was so little fight and backbone to the performances, conceeding late goals, no bravery on the ball to try and make anything happen going forward. 

For all Lampards tactical flaws, he managed to create the best team spirit Ive seen at the club in ages. Rooney seems to have sapped any energy and fight from the players. I cant think of any player that really improved this season as a footballer. 

5 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

See this is the hill you're dying on buddy. Just because Mel aspired to having a fair chunk of the team 'home-bred' doesn't infer that that policy is at the expense of better recruitment. Based on what I've read, the premise is rooted in sustainability and not at the expense of recruitment of suitable senior pro's, an antidote to FFP restrictions if you like.

The fact that we've brought in fairly expensive players such as Waghorn, Jozwiak and especially Bilelik would seem to support that argument in spades. If Mel has stated otherwise, perhaps you quote provide a quote to support that belief?

As for knowing who is ready and who is not, of course we don't know for sure, but I'd wager the coaches who work with them every day have a better idea than any of us. Some may have been pitched in earlier last season than was ideal but that's not a sensible metric on which to judge the policies in place as our hand was forced at time due to our never-ending injury list and also the volume of games being crammed into a shortened season. I'd also point out that until they are given a chance to step up, nobody really knows for sure how these younger players will cope.

It is dying on a hill if i havent changed my opinion to yours? I have read and taken onboard everything you have said, but I just havent heard anything concrete enough to change my opinion. Very similar to yourself I imagine. 

I havent suggested at any point that we have stopped recruiting but we have wheeled it back significantly, its not either/or. No matter how good the recruitment, if half the playing squad are from the academy and are not up to scratch, the results wont be either. 

Buying expensive players is business as usual for us, not a change in recruitment strategy. Although Jozwiak and Bielik are younger, they were still bought when their stock was high. 

By not replacing senior pros e.g Bryson, Holmes, Huddlestone etc. we force the coaches hand to delve into the academy when injuries inevitably come, not replacing them was a decision and if Mels plan was as we have discussed, then it looks as though it was deliberate. 

True about giving the players the chance though, maybe thats where a loan out would be good as a trial run but that doesnt seem a big part of our player development either. 

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Hence why we didn't bother recruiting Marshall, Byrne, Ibe, Jozwiak and Kazim along with the loanees this season?

Explain how we're falling foul of P&S. I see we've been found guilty of filing non-compliant accounts, but nothing else.

You seem to be arguing against as point that no-one is making. @angieram quite clearly stated utilising the academy AND first team recruitment. That means recruiting to fill voids the academy products can't. For example, our U23 CBs aren't ready to be regulars in the first team, so we'll recruit 2, 3 or even 4 of them this summer. However, Ebosele and McDonald are ready to deputise for Byrne so we won't be after a RB

Marshall, Byrne and Jozwiak have been very good signings, with two of them proving exceptional value for money. Kazim was also recruited as a backup or even 3rd choice CF and also proven to be goof value. We took a punt on Ibe due to our financial position which so far hasn't worked out. Te Wierik seemed to be a victim of circumstance, both Covid and a change in manager.
Last season we signed Bielik who was one of the best players in the league before picking up another injury and Shinnie who again has been good value since signing on a free.

There's enough evidence there to suggest recruitment has improved, but we'll soon see how much of that was down to Cocu's influence.

Value for money on signings has definitely improved but it appears to me that there was no real strategy or ambition in these signings beyond picking up a bargain and plugging the gaps in a seriously weak team. It is an improvement but we are still a long way from recruiting players with a clear identity and strategy that fit the clubs style of play and have a longer term value. Only Jozwiak is likely to fetch a profit, which we desperately need right now. Not every signing has to be a uncovered gem but atleast giving it a go is worth a try, after Jozwiak the next youngest player from last summer who plays is Bryne and hes 29 now. We have improved but there is still quite a way to go for me.

I am simply disputing the balance between recruitment and the academy that you are suggesting. Mel is suggesting a core of the squad being made up of home grown talent from the academy, something no team has managed to be successful at this level with such high proportions of players from their academy over a long period of time. We might be able to do it but its a big gamble and we would be the first to do it. 

Also how do we know for sure that the U23 centre backs arent ready but Ebosele and Mcdonald are after less than 250 minutes first team football combined? For me, thats too early to tell let alone hold off making a signing because of them, even players who have looked good for a few games havent gone on to make it at this level. 

19 hours ago, Charlotte Ram said:

 

Brentford are not the brilliantly run club everyone says, if you look at losses without player sales (see below) they lost £34 million in year 19/20. (£9million loss after player sales), a team cannot rely on selling that amount of talent every season to survive or meet FFP. 

acknowledgement to Swissramble for the numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

I feel like this is cherry picking stats a bit. Brentford can afford to spend more off the pitch because they used their money very well on it. 

They also built a new stadium which I imagine contributed a big chuck of that spend. 

20 hours ago, angieram said:

I am not sure why you keep going back to the academy model being the problem when you state yourself it is really the recruitment that is at fault.

Because the academy model is Mels antidote to the issues with recruitment. If the problem is with recruitment and we are looking to the academy for a remedy, then we can call it into question, despite how well the academy is going? We still havent really sorted out our recruitment at all in the same 6 year period that the academy project has been running. 

I feel like it has been less 'thank god the academy has been there' and more 'recruitment hasnt worked, the academy is the way forward' I guess it depends on whether you see it this way or not. 

Had we got our recruitment right as Barnsley, Norwich, Brentford have in the last few seasons then we might not be falling foul of financial fair play now, of course getting recruitment right is easier said than done but if other clubs can do it why cant we? Academy player sales still havent produced enough funds to save us. 

20 hours ago, angieram said:

Ideal world we grow our own and recruit to complement them, selling only those who outgrow us. I have less confidence in that recruitment than in the academy continuing to produce good players for many years to come. 

I think this is where we differ, I am perhaps more sceptical of the academies ability to produce players consistently, but that is just my own view. 

I havent said at any point that having an academy is wrong, we need balance but i dont think that the way the club is being run is particularly balanced, but again you might disagree. 

I accept the view that it isnt either/or and that recruitment is part of it and this is my point. I havent seen any evidence (bar maybe Jozwiak) that we are trying to sharpen up our recruitment, instead we seem to be expecting that sibley, bird and co. can save us both financially and on the pitch. Does that mean the academy was a bad investment? No. Is this a bad plan by the execs and the owner? I would argue yes. 

You might also disgree that this was the plan but I am taking Mel for his word. 

15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Fryers, Brady, Blackett, Borthwick-Jackson, Williams

Good example, but I think only really Williams looks of the quality to play even for us, but fair one on the Nevilles and brown. Simpson and bardsley were never united quality though. I accept we dont need that level of player though.

22 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

That's evidence of a lack of spending yielding so few players making the grade. Of course we need to make signings too... otherwise it would be 100% academy graduates, which isn't what we're talking about

Spending on the academy doesnt always produce results, the same with signings too admittedly, but we are hoping that the talent pool is there rather than fishing from an already existing pool as a previous poster put it. 

27 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Yet Bird nailed down a spot the previous season. He was playing so well he was a serious contender for PotS despite only playing in half the games.

Yes I thought he did very well last season. Young players are inconsistent, thats how it goes and he may well come back strong next season, but if he doesnt or has a downturn in form and we dont have an other option then we may be in trouble again. 

29 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

We'd be looking at 2 or 3 a year in reality

This still seems ambitious to acheive consistently but thats just my opinion. 

I think we have started to show a little more nuance in the transfer market, e.g Jozwiak, young international player going into a big tournament, bielik would have been the same if not for an injury. 

Our problem is with recruitment but we are trying to solve it with the academy, where as I think fixing the recruitment is the answer rather than gambling on consistently producing great players in decent numbers consistently to pay the bills and get us promoted, it would be great to be wrong though. I guess it depends on where you want to make your gamble. 

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The quality in the academy indicates how sustainable it is for us to continue bringing through and then selling the academy players. As one is sold, another is ready to step up. Lowe -> Buchanan -> Archie -> Maloney for example.

As a Championship club with a top academy, we should be able to fill the first team with academy graduates, whereas the 'big 6' shouldn't as their bar should be higher than ours.

Bird, Knight and Sibley appeared to be ready in 19/20, but because the quality in the rest of the team deteriorated they no longer are?

"Nearly everyone on that list from each year"? How much turnover are you expecting? 9 was the smallest crop, with 12 the biggest

*unproven quality. 

I dont feel as though producing four left backs in a row that can play at championship level is realistic, considering its never been done before by any club really (If someone can find one then great). If we sold buchanan this summer or even next, do we think Archie is ready and of the same quality, if not better? And then again with Malone? 

It might be possible, but there isnt any evidence of it working elsewhere. The fact that so few players up until 2016 ever made a mark on the first team suggests this. If the squad was supplemented with smart signings as well to take the pressure off the young players or even allow them to go out on loan (which few of ours seem to do) then I think that might yield better results. 

As I have said before I am not discussing the quality of the current crop, but only knight and buchanan managed to nail down a regular spot this season despite the dire competition for places...

'Nearly all was' an exaggeration but even half seems to be very ambitious based on previous years, and yes U23 football has changed now but even if you doubled what we were getting before, its still probably not enough.  

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

And we can do that, hence Bielik for £8m, Jozwiak for £4m, etc...

FFS! That was 10 years ago. Completely different landscape in English football at the moment. They were the best side in the country and challenging for the Champions League. That's a different level to a Championship club.

Let me remind you our U23s finished above MUFC's this season, the league above since 2018, and above them in 17/18. Yet they'll still go into next season with 5 academy graduates as regular starters in a side pushing for the PL title.

We're a Championship club with one of the best academies in the country - if we can't produce a steady stream of Championship quality players then we may as well give up ASAP.

In other threads I've repeatedly shown how the consistency in quality has improved over time. Here's the list of academy players, grouped by year they were first year scholars.

2011: Etheridge, AWassall, Lelan, Sharpe, Berry, Dales, Hayes, Wixted, Dawkins
2012: Rawson, Hanson, KThomas, Spiriak, Nash, Revan, Carrigy, Johnson, Capitani, MBennett
2013: Behrens, Tuite, Lowe, Rigby, Moulton, Dryden, Adams, TBennett, Clennett, Guy, Vernam, Zanzala
2014: Barnes, EWassall, Cover, Stabana, MacDonald, Babos, JBird, Carvell, Gordon, Mellors
2015: Yates, Goode, Bateman, Magno, Davidson-Miller, Edwards
2016: Fryatt, Carter-Thompson, CThomas, Mbuti, Rashid, Mills, Bogle, Thorne, Haywood, Hitchman, Wise, Jibodu, JML, Cresswell, Davie
2017: French, JBrown, Minkley, Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Dixon, Whittaker
2018: Foster, Halwax, Cashin, Ebosele, McDonald, Archie, Charles, Sibley, LThompson, Wilson, Stretton
2019: Solomon, Jinkinson, Bardell, Grewal-Pollard, Matthews, Rogers, Aghatise, Perez de Gracia, SThompson, Nto, Cybulski
2020: Roberts, Randle, Brailsford, Rutt, Christie, Ibrahim, Bokovic, Williams, Kelly
2021: Evans, Maloney, Sebagabo, Moore, Fapetu, Robinson, Aideyan, Amaefule, Nicholas-Davies, Dixon, Brown

2011 to 2016 on the whole was dross. So, we can go back to pre-Mel spending and maybe get 1 player a year of any value if we're lucky. Other than those listed, I only recall Hendrick and Hughes, Bennett and Lowe making a meaningful impact on the team, with O'Brien, and Ball having a few run outs. Not exactly worthwhile spending just £2m...?

Back to what we have now... If you actually watched the U18s and U23s you may actually realise the quality we have coming through. It seems clear to me that you may have never watched a single game.
7 U16s were used throughout the U18 season, and we even had U15s playing towards the end. One of them got an assist and assisted the assister for 3 others vs Leeds. This was a season where we finished midtable so clearly held their own against older players.

I think we are talking about different things here. You seem to be arguing for the quality in the academy, which I dont dispute. 

I am talking purely about the business model. I am scepticle of the long term sustainability of relying on the academy for both first team players and player sales. Even the best academies only produce a very small handful of players that are good enough for first team level, most with about 1/2 at a time. Chelsea and united have a particularly good crop at the moment which has skewed things slightly with 3/4 players. It may well be the case that the U23 league improves the amount of players coming through that are first team quality, but the current crop arent yet good enough (as this season has shown) and we are gambling heavily on them improving very quickly to avoid relegation. And if this new crop do succeed, then we will need 5/6 ready to take their place and so on as some will surely be sold whether the club want to sell or not.

For the model to work, we would need nearly everyone on that list from each year to be first team quality or higher. We might just disagree on how likely this is and how sustainable it is as a business model, which is fine.

I have watched an awful lot of our u18 and u23's. 

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Their model won't be to "have half their team made up of academy players", but I'm absolutely certain it'll be to get as many in the first team as possible. The secondary function is to generate as much money as possible via loans or transfers. You don't think they invest as much as they do to get players into their first team?

I agree with you that they want to get players in the first team, but if the players arent good enough, then they buy in players. At the moment there are players that are good enough, but that might not be the case in the future and they wont be relying of the academy to constantly be producing players of that quality. 

13 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Still an academy graduate though. And he didn't leave because he wasn't good enough, it was because he wasn't getting the first team football he wanted. The same applied to Pique at the time.

Exactly. A lack of first team opportunities for an academy player? Their model cant have been matching ours then? 

14 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Hence me referring to the Guardiola years, not the present moment in time - Valdes, Pique, Puyol, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and Messi were the spine of that team, with Bojan, Pedro and Thiago squad players

And this is my point, with the model as it is, we would need to be producing players of this quality year after year after year while remaining competitive, something which not even Barca have managed. I am looking long term here beyond the current set of Bird, sibley and Co. can we really produce that quality consistently when no other academy have done it (bar Bilbao)? 

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Man United (class of 98) and Barcelona (Guardiola) are the two most notable examples in 'recent' times.

Man Utd appear to be going for at least 50% - Rashford, McTominay, Pogba, Greenwood and Henderson will all be expecting to be starters. 4 of those were in their most used 11 from last season (Henderson missing out). Then they have a massive list of fringe players hoping to get minutes such as Tuanzebe and Williams

It'll be interesting to see which direction Chelsea go in next season, with Mount, James, Christensen, Hudson-Odoi, Abraham and Gilmour in their squad.

Bilbao have around 70% players from their academy at all times due to their commitment to only play basque players. 

Chelsea and united are capatalising on those players being good enough, it isnt their club model to have half their team made up of academy players, just good fortune, look at their teams of 5 years ago, and united bought back pogba after he was deemed good enough. Barcelona have had to invest heavily in players due to the failure of La Masia to produce first team quality players in the last 5 years (although a few decent prospects coming through now). None of these clubs have sustained high proportions of academy players over the long term. 

5 minutes ago, Jram said:

The thing is though, promoting the academy lads is the only option we’ve got and I think people are saying “imagine how horrific it would be if we didn’t even have the academy”... I completely agree it isnt ideal to promote 4 or 5 at the same time (although I do think they will become really good players soon) but we’d be completely done if we didn’t have that option (if we’re not already completely done)

We would be in a far worse position without the academy granted, but i ask the question whether leaning on the academy in this way was the plan all along and we are seeing the results of that? Asking too much too soon of many youngsters. 

1 hour ago, angieram said:

And the answer is, it appears to be the one aspect of the club that is working. ?

How can it be the future of the club if it isn't working? You can't rip it up cos we're broke and reinstate it in a couple of years.

You could then make the argument that if the academy is working (which I agree with), and we are still in a very deep mess, that the model isnt sufficient? 

I think the academy development has gone about as well as it reasonably could, however where we are now is with a crop of players who have neither commanded enough transfer fees to sort out our financial situation, nor given us a playing squad that has enough quality. 

Of course this could change in the future, but if we are going to sell knight and bird for example, do we think we could replace them with a player of equal quality almost immediately? Or do we sit in a constant cycle of waiting for players to become good enough before shipping them on while results suffer? 

This wasnt intended to be depressing, I think its okay to question whether the plan is working looking at the current state of the club as a whole. Imagine how good it would be with the academy we have, and we also finally sorted our the dire recruitment... at the moment the academy seems like the answer to all of our problems. 

10 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

My reply wasn't really directed at you so much but my view is that it's a process and it takes time buddy. I may be the eternal optimist but I think this is the season where we will start to see really significant benefits. It may sound counter-intuitive, but the hard season some of the lads just endured will serve them well in the future.

I agree with you that it does take time, I was reviewing it now that we had come to the point that Mel has set his target which seemed like a decent point to take stock. 

12 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I don't think this speaks to the systems being flawed so much as the vast majority of clubs plumping for the right here, right now model, for better or worse. We've tried that too and look where it got us. Long term sustainability is the aim here in the fashion achieved by Southampton. To me the risk profile is significantly lower but that's just my opinion.

Thats true that alot of clubs are running thing massively in the short term and Southampton is a good example to prove me wrong. I just question whether we too can be producing Luke Shaws, Ward-prowses and gareth bales as consistently as they have. 

14 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Our best prospects walked buddy. You can't keep players who are not on pro contracts. The likes of Hughes and Hendrick were manager brainfarts but Mel can't win here as if he intercedes and insists we keep them, he gets accused of meddling. If he gives his managers autonomy, he gets blamed for that too.

And this is my point, if we were pinning alot of hope on Delap and Gordon and the rest serving us for years to come or bringing us alot of money, then we have no way of making them stay or even getting the money back that we put into them. I accept that this is an issue all around football though and not exclusive to this model. 

16 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Where have I said it is? I'm defending the academy set up or it this thread only for those who hold a opinion that it's not sustainable? I thought the point of the OP was to invite commentary ?‍♂️

It was the 'slinging poo at the owners' part, but clearly ive got the wrong end of the stick from what you said? And of course you are allowed to voice your opinion... as I am in response ? 

47 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

More wise heads after the event I see. Also slightly revisionist. Mel never bragged about having half the team being academy products. He discussed a plan for sustainability that involved up to half the matchday squad having come through the youth system. 

To be honest, I'm not really sure how the academy set up can be viewed as any kind of failure or let down.  The investment is already producing a steady stream of players quite capable of playing at Championship level or higher and a fair few already playing for their respective countries. If we really must continue slinging poo at our owner, I'd cite our recruitment of senior players as a key factor. The academy wouldn't even get a mention.

Frankly, I've no problem with us selling Bogle and Lowe when we have McDonald, Festy, Stretton, Brown, Bird, Watson, SIbley and Buchanan coming through. Our problem is poor recruitment of senior pros not the academy project.

Its not that the academy is a failure by any means, I am more asking the question of whether the model of producing academy players for the first team in the quantity that we are currently, is a sustainable one where we remain competitive. 

I would have argued at the time that we are asking to much of the academy to produce a steady stream of championship quality players year after year to compete for promotion, while also producing players who can be sold for revenue. As i said in the original post, there are very few if any successful clubs that operate in this way (there must be a reason no one else does this). 

Had we kept hold of many of our best prospects then this might have been a different story but we seem to want to 'have our cake and eat it' so to speak. 

This has hardly been a Mel bashing thread, relying on the academy means we can sell players who had no transfer fee. It is a logical and admirable plan but one that hasnt particularly worked thus far. 

The academy itself has been a success, what this success means for the club is another question. 

3 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

To be fair most youngsters get 5-10 mins at a go but the emphasis is on them showing that they are good enough on that pitch at that time to be selected again - not easy but it’s a ruthless sport for a youngster 

And I think that is the point. 

It used to be ruthless the message to youngsters was: 'You get a couple of chances to get an established championship player out the team' 

With the heavy reliance on the academy its now more: 'We need you, I hope you're ready?' 

I fear the step up has become too easy. 

17 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

 

I think this is the key difference for me - Morris was never supposed to be in an MD role - He's supposed to be the owner/chairman who sets the overall vision, talks in grand ambitions and sets the roadmap for others to try and deliver against - Not setting the specifics on deliverables

I don't think we can equate this to a commercial organisation - But if we do, you'd still need to compare it to quotes from chairmen of the organisations not the chief execs or the MDs

I would agree with this but if the owner sets a specific goal (50% academy players) with a measurable time frame (5 years) and then invests to achieve that, I think we can be forgiven for believing that is what he was going for. 

Mel pays far more attention to how things operate since the Sam Rush fiasco. 

4 minutes ago, Stuniverse said:

I’m not sure it’s that unreasonable with Buchanan, Bird, Knight and Sibley already established in the first-team squad. All four could easily nail down a regular starting spot and then you only need one of the next tranche of Watson, Ebosele, Stretton and McDonald (plus others) to establish themselves and that’s half the outfield players from the Academy.

Of course, that assumes none of them are sold because, if you then sell any of your prized Academy assets, it does make it even harder to achieve.

This is very optimistic and I hope you are right. 

But I just dont see all of the academy players mentioned there becoming championship quality, those players did okay in our worst league finish for about 30 years. Are they all going to become championship or better quality players? I doubt it sadly. 

We seem to want to both sell and keep our best academy players. 

10 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Brentford will get relegated next season .

Parachute payments will help them though 

Possibly but Brentford have made record profits, moved to a new stadium and got promoted to the premier league after two third place finishes... I take them for what they are right now, which is massively successful. 

6 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I think the biggest problem with investing so heavily in the academy is that it's so unpredictable. There's no guarantee that the next crop will be any good.

Contrast that with investing heavily in setting up a Brentford-style recruitment system; you know the talent is always going to be out there and it's just a case of making the right decision on who to sign. Obviously that's easier said than done, mind.

Both approaches have their pitfalls, but Brentfords approach when done right, clearly leads to success. 

Brentford also scrapped their academy a couple of years ago for further contrast. 

26 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

I don't personally think this should be taken so literally 

When you're in a leadership position - Especially one which is more 'political' than practical (football chairman being in that camp) - You tend to make statements which are indicative of ambition rather than being an actual goal

I don't think Mel was ever intending for half the team to be from the academy - I just think he meant to showcase how important the investment is, showcase the ambition to be a top academy and justify the amount of money we were throwing at it

Perhaps not... but I think even the current level of academy players in the first team is over what we can reasonably be competitive with. 

29 minutes ago, Malty said:

I was thinking of posting exactly the same thing. Our very best young academy prospects (delap and Gordon) get sold. Many of the rest don’t make the grade. You are left with the middling players that COULD become great. But mostly will end up in the championship or lower. Is it really a mode that is sustainable?

But, then you get the occasional player that we can sell for a few quid and pay the wages for another period of time. Whether that’s Bogle and Lowe (wages for a year or so??) or Whittaker (wages for a month??).

But you need basically one a year to help pay the wages, which isn’t realistic. 
 

in summary, I struggle to see this as a sustainable business model, and I don’t see it as a way to get into the prem. unless we get very very lucky.

I would add how many of our academy players right now our championship standard?

I would say two.

and how many could be in the next two years ...

I would say two maybe three.

This strategy just doesn’t work, which I find really quite sad.

Id forgotten about Delap, which is another great example. 

I think 2/3 in the first team of championship standard is good and the best most teams could ever really hope for. 

I feel for Mel as he has tried something, but it just hasnt really worked and maybe a bit of a knee jerk response to how much of his money he has put into the club without getting the desired result, but it wasnt really a well thought out idea in reality, which is a shame.