Zak Brunt - Academy kid

[RamNut]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

FIFY

I'm happy with that. Don't see the problem.

[ramblur]

16 minutes ago, RamNut said:

The debate isn't over players that the academy are happy to release. if they want to release them they won't be demanding 120k or whatever else, in compensation. This is about players that the club want to keep.

Therefore the issue is the economic interests of football clubs v the freedom of individuals. Bosman revisited.

If 99.9 % of players fail to make the grade as you having stated - which is indeed a figure i have seen mentioned elsewhere then each player has a 1000-1 chance of making it. who would put £120k on a horse at 1000-1? Or even 100-1. I did suggest that if an academy player moved and subsequently joined another academy and went on to sign a pro-contract then a tribunal should decide the compensation due. 

if 99.9% don't make it, then it is unreasonable to value every academy player equally at these high values from 40k for a 13 year old to 80k for a 14 year old etc etc.

It would be very interesting to observe the howls of protest on here if a 13 year old from say Brightons academy  wanted to leave Brighton and join Derby due the players family moving to Derby. say Derby were happy to take him but brighton demanded £40k in compensation.  Oh what a furore there would be. Especially if Forest were keen to take him too and Brighton said the fee to them would be £25k (because they are cat 2). Lets say neither club were willing to pay the fee and brighton refused to negotiate. The 13 year old then cannot join either academy and is trapped by having spent one year at brighton. Do people really think that is ok??

that is indeed what is happening. E.g. The 13 year old from stoke city who can't sign for anyone until stoke get £40k.

 If he was no good then Derby wouldn't be making him an offer and holding out for compensation if he moves. 

And if his chances of success are so slim then why would anyone be expected to pay £120k.

 

Why would they ask £25k from Forest,just because they're cat 2,or am I misunderstanding something here? Surely the compo depends on the level of the 'transferring' club,not the recipient one?

[RamNut]

8 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

The dad of the Stoke player you mention brought all that on the kid as well

Glory seeker etc

 

Forget the parents. Think about the kid. One year at stoke city to be worth £40k???

[Comrade 86]

5 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Why don't you just read the earlier posts explaining all of this, which is a view shared by the sports lawyer quoted in the newspaper article.

Because I've a strong sense that like you, the BBC wanted to run an 'explosive article' exposing the 'ruthlessness' of Derby's Academy set up on a slow news day. What I find really strange is that in all the years the academy has been in place, not one other complaint of a contractual nature has been made public. Strange given we're selling all these kids into slavery, dontcha think?

You carry on bashing the club in any case mate, using your third hand info and hearsay from the wholly unbiased 'plaintiffs' as the basis for your 'argument'. After all. it's not as if they have 'previous' is it?

As for me, I'll give the club I love the benefit of the doubt until it is proven that there's some wrongdoing for the likes of you to crow about.

That ok with you?

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I'm happy with that. Don't see the problem.

Just one lawyers opinion, they're ten a penny, there'll be plenty who disagree with the one you quote.

[RamNut]

2 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Why would they ask £25k from Forest,just because they're cat 2,or am I misunderstanding something here? Surely the compo depends on the level of the 'transferring' club,not the recipient one?

You might be right tbh.

[RamNut]

 

2 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Because I've a strong sense that like you, the BBC wanted to run an 'explosive article' exposing the 'ruthlessness' of Derby's Academy set up on a slow news day. What I find really strange is that in all the years the academy has been in place, not one other complaint of a contractual nature has been made public. Strange given we're selling all these kids into slavery, dontcha think?

You carry on bashing the club in any case mate, using your third hand info and hearsay from the wholly unbiased 'plaintiffs' as the basis for your 'argument'. After all. it's not as if they have 'previous' is it?

As for me, I'll give the club I love the benefit of the doubt until it is proven that there's some wrongdoing for the likes of you to crow about.

That ok with you?

this is in tne news because of Michael Calvin's book. Nothing to do with any agenda about dcfc. 

I'm not sure you can follow the argument but carry on screaming.

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

270 An Academy player in age group Under 16 who has not received an offer to enter into a scholarship Agreement by 1 March shall thereafter be at liberty to seek registration as an Academy player at the Academy of any other Club (or club) and, in such circumstances (save where the Academy player concerned remains in Full Time Education beyond his Under 16 year), the Club that holds his registration shall not be entitled to receive compensation from any Club (or club) that subsequently registers the Academy player for its training and development of that Academy player in accordance with Rule 325. 

 

In order words if the club didn't want the player and weren't going to make him an offer to stay he could join another academy without compensation being due.

if the club do want the player, but the player wants to leave then the club can ask for the silly money for the subsequent release of the players registration.

 

Should the club stop paying 'silly money' to run their academy,because if you want to call the compensation (and it's compensation,not a fee) 'silly money',then by extension you would have to call the actual expenses of running same 'silly'. Don't forget that without compo,this is money down the drain for us- we'd have had no tangible reward for the money expended.Indeed you could argue that it's cost us a 'slot' for someone else over this period.

[Interestedparty]

Why was nobody complaining about compensation when Derby paid 7k for him?

They took a calculated risk and made an investment. Put a big smile on the dads face etc. 

He wasn't complaining then was he.

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, ramblur said:

...this is money down the drain for us- we'd have had no tangible reward for the money expended.Indeed you could argue that it's cost us a 'slot' for someone else over this period.

Exactly so.

[Comrade 86]

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

 

this is in tne news because of Michael Calvin's book. Nothing to do with any agenda about dcfc. 

I'm not sure you can follow the argument but carry on screaming.

You have no argument kiddo. They signed a contract and whether you think it's right or not they can be forced to honour it. Don't pretend you have any more understanding of the situation than any of us because we've all read the same articles and are allowed to form our own opinions whether you like it or not. Instead of making wild suppositions about slave labour you might want to consider why Villa, City et al got shot of this pair and why the club is taking this stance, but of course, that doesn't suit your agenda, does it?

 

[ramblur]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Exactly so.

...and the thing I forgot to add was that the recipient club would benefit from our 3 years of work without paying a bean,if there were no compensation.

[RamNut]

3 minutes ago, ramblur said:

Should the club stop paying 'silly money' to run their academy,because if you want to call the compensation (and it's compensation,not a fee) 'silly money',then by extension you would have to call the actual expenses of running same 'silly'. Don't forget that without compo,this is money down the drain for us- we'd have had no tangible reward for the money expended.Indeed you could argue that it's cost us a 'slot' for someone else over this period.

Thats a whole other issue. Brentford scrapped their academy because they didn't think it was worth it. Huddersfield found that the youngsters who had done well for them had joined at 16 and concluded that it was almost impossible to tell whether a 12,or 13 year old would make it. Swansea concluded that they need to rethink things too. Watford were thinking of downgrading their academy. So too are ipswich.

Whether its worth it is a matter for the club to decide but i doubt whether the viability of the academy is determined by the rare cases of potential compensation.

[G-Ram]

How much does the academy cost to run? £4.5m a year ? Or something (based on a few cat A costs of similar clubs) i dont mean the under 23s but under 9s all the way to 23s, trips away for all the squads, kits, the coaches wages, scouting etc

whilst £120k sounds a lot its money that can go towards running the academy.

Whilst the aim is to get lads in the first team. For everyone that doesnt make it they have a resale value and that goes towards running the acadamy 

im glad derby are stading their ground. Pointless having an acadamy if players can move freely & going down the divisions the some clubs rely on acadamy players comming through & selling on for the survival if the club 

[Interestedparty]

11 minutes ago, RamNut said:

You might be right tbh.

One of the selling points of EPPP and motivators to invest in Cat one academy is the very fact it forces clubs to pay you more compensation to take your players from you

Cat 3 clubs get 12k per year

Cat 2 clubs get 25k per year

Cat 1 clubs get 40k per year

After the age of 12 

You can't make clubs spend millions to get cat one status and give players the best facilities and coaching etc and then say but those compensation rules don't count

And players can't take advantage of everything a Cat one gives them then just throw their toys out of the pram and expect to be released for free

One last thing

There is nothing to stop another club offering 10k or 20k etc to take the player

I kind of imagine this is as much about principle to the club as it is cash tbh

And not allowing a precedent to be set for other players to rock the boat to get what they want

 

[Comrade 86]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

Whether its worth it is a matter for the club to decide but i doubt whether the viability of the academy is determined by the rare cases of potential compensation.

Do you suppose though that the viability of any academy might be impacted by pouring several years of resources into kids whose folks then decide they want to nick off elsewhere without paying anywhere near the contractually binding and pre-agreed severance fees? The costs for releasing want-aways in the manner you suggest merely passes the costs on to others so pray tell me, how is that fair on the other trainees, the staff, the club, it's fans of its owners, all of whom will then pick up the tab in some form or other You've gone from slating the club for taking a hard line (because we happen to have a wealthy owner} to questioning the whole validity of academies in general and all because you're unable to entertain an alternative view on Brunt and his old boy who apparently didn't know that our Academy isn't a futsal club. Risible.

[RamNut]

10 minutes ago, 86 points said:

 They signed a contract and whether you think it's right or not they can be forced to honour it. Don't pretend you have any more understanding of the situation than any of us because we've all read the same articles and are allowed to form our own opinions whether you like it or not. Instead of making wild suppositions about slave labour you might want to consider why Villa, City et al got shot of this pair and why the club is taking this stance, but of course, that doesn't suit your agenda, does it?

No matter how paranoid you want to be, there is no agenda.

because you have got the whole issue wrapped up in your head with derby county, it seems that you've got a bit excited.

i'm sure pre-bosman you would be squawking on about the clubs absolute right to own players for life.

if demanding £40k for a 13 year old kids playing registration or £120k for a 15 year old is ok with you then so be it. I'm not really interested in your view tbh. 

[ramblur]

4 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Thats a whole other issue. Brentford scrapped their academy because they didn't think it was worth it. Huddersfield found that the youngsters who had done well for them had joined at 16 and concluded that it was almost impossible to tell whether a 12,or 13 year old would make it. Swansea concluded that they need to rethink things too. Watford were thinking of downgrading their academy. So too are ipswich.

Whether its worth it is a matter for the club to decide but i doubt whether the viability of the academy is determined by the rare cases of potential compensation.

But if we capitulate on this issue,then other parents may feel it'd be a good idea to move their kids,say, to a high profile Prem club,and it may not be a 'rare' case. Seems to me that the whole point of this is to protect clubs that have invested heavily in the development of a young player to the point where you may be able to form a better judgement as to whether he's likely to 'make it',as your second paragraph indicates.

[Comrade 86]

14 minutes ago, ramblur said:

...and the thing I forgot to add was that the recipient club would benefit from our 3 years of work without paying a bean,if there were no compensation.

It appears that the benefit to the receiving club matters more than the costs incurred by Derby fella. This is apparently what none of us are capable of understanding.

[Interestedparty]

6 minutes ago, RamNut said:

No matter how paranoid you want to be, there is no agenda.

because you have got the whole issue wrapped up in your head with derby county, it seems that you've got a bit excited.

i'm sure pre-bosman you would be squawking on about the clubs absolute right to own players for life.

if demanding £40k for a 13 year old kids playing registration or £120k for a 15 year old is ok with you then so be it. I'm not really interested in your view tbh. 

Well all I can say is if you take the compensation away or reduce it then it would create a free for all and become entirely out of control as every parent who wants their son to play striker instead of midfield or who gets pissed off if their kid starts as sub or gets subbed or doesn't play as many minutes as someone else, or doesn't take free kicks or corners etc will just demand to be allowed to leave

Would be a complete merry go round 

I'm just grateful it's like it is now and it's only the real OTT parents who cause problems 

Parents like this guy can put owners off even having an academy by their actions and then the majority lose out because of the actions and attitude of the minority