Zak Brunt - Academy kid

[ramblur]

2 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. 

Might be different if we were seeking to make a profit out of this,but when you take everything into consideration I can assure you that a unit cost of £40k/annum seems far from unreasonable to me.Many may just think of the wages of the coaching staff,but the very costly infrastructure itself serves both first team and academy and both would attract a share of the annual depreciation in terms of costing. Then you've a myriad of things that all add up such as kit/balls/laundry/meals/travel/ground staff/office expenses,to name a few.

[RamNut]

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 would be interesting to know what the real cost is. Which is the issue G Star has just raised. I saw a quote where the family agreed with the principle of compensation but argued that the amount was excessive.

13 minutes ago, G-Ram said:

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 

Its the principle of regarding 12 and 13 kids as having resale value that i find inappropriate. £40k for a 14 year is a huge ransom for the kid, but irrelevant to stoke city's wealthy owners; same as £120k is huge for a 15 year old but almost irrelevant in the economics of dcfc and our billionaire owner - especially if no-one will pay it.

these are kids. Why be surprised that their decisions are immature? They are just kids. 

[68 Guns]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

these are kids. Why be surprised that their decisions are immature? They are just kids. 

Thats why his Dad had to sign the contract. You know that thing that his Dad was happy to sign and now wants ripping up cos it doesn't suit anymore. Yeah. That's the one. That piece of paper that he put his name on to say he was happy with what it said. 

[RamNut]

9 hours ago, Interestedparty said:

Well all I can say is if you take the compensation away or reduce it then it would create a free for all

Because of the limitation on the max number allowed in any one academy year, it could not become that fluid.

what determines whether severence is on the basis of a YD7 or a YD10 form of agreement?

[RamNut]

10 hours ago, Interestedparty said:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/aston-villa-lodge-young-player-2033504

This talks about compensation from the point of views of clubs like Derby and even bigger clubs

Basically its not high enough to deter poaching of the best young players 

The article is quite old. Dan Crowley joined Arsenal and looked to be an amazing talent - and will be imo. But Arsenal haven't benefitted because he left them this summer and went to play in Holland. Clearly the compensation scheme was no deterrent. Villa could have signed him back.

its a pity that it is actually the behaviour of the clubs themselves that is a major factor.

[Interestedparty]

How is the behaviour of the clubs the major factor with Zak Brunt though?

Nobody is trying to pay compensation to take him

The dad/player is trying to engineer a move

Clubs haven't done anything wrong here

 

[G STAR RAM]

10 hours ago, RamNut said:

Its the principle of regarding 12 and 13 kids as having resale value that i find inappropriate. £40k for a 14 year is a huge ransom for the kid, but irrelevant to stoke city's wealthy owners; same as £120k is huge for a 15 year old but almost irrelevant in the economics of dcfc and our billionaire owner - especially if no-one will pay it.

This is not a resale value. This is compensation for money incurred by the club in developing and educating a player.

This is not an open market transaction where we raffle a kid off to the highest bidder. It is £40k for each year he has been with us, I am guessing this is a figure that has been carefully calculated with reference to actual costs as opposed to being a figure plucked out of the air and being placed on his head.

[Interestedparty]

Compensation does the job of creating more stability of football development and education for 99.9 per cent of players

The time it kicks in seriously is when kids are in at an important age for education as well as football

And it only gets paid when another club seriously wants a player to move to them and the player seriously wants the move

Compensation is proving a stumbling block for a dad who's looking for the seventh or eighth different club for his son who's only 15

Its obvious where the problem lies in this case

How often would you want your son to change schools during their education?

This parent is clearly an extreme case. Would a reasonable parent even want to feature in photos with their son plastered all over the media and to create this focus and pressure in a 15 year old?

Hes not a victim. He's the actual problem. There's plenty of academy parents like him. Just not as extreme. Compensation helps save them from flitting from club to club 

 

[Interestedparty]

10 hours ago, RamNut said:

It would be interesting to know what the real cost is. Which is the issue G Star has just raised. I saw a quote where the family agreed with the principle of compensation but argued that the amount was excessive.

Its the principle of regarding 12 and 13 kids as having resale value that i find inappropriate. £40k for a 14 year is a huge ransom for the kid, but irrelevant to stoke city's wealthy owners; same as £120k is huge for a 15 year old but almost irrelevant in the economics of dcfc and our billionaire owner - especially if no-one will pay it.

these are kids. Why be surprised that their decisions are immature? They are just kids. 

The fact cat one clubs pay 2m plus to run their academy each year is also a huge figure

[RamNut]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

This is not a resale value. This is compensation for money incurred by the club in developing and educating a player.

This is not an open market transaction where we raffle a kid off to the highest bidder. It is £40k for each year he has been with us, I am guessing this is a figure that has been carefully calculated with reference to actual costs as opposed to being a figure plucked out of the air and being placed on his head.

I understand that. It potentially applies to every single kid in a cat 1 academy whether they are any good or not.

personally i don't think that a kid who is not under a professional contract should be subject to a transfer fee / asset value / compensation figure esp of that magnitude, or that a club should be able to retain their registration after they have left. 

I agree that if a kid moves and then subsequently goes on to sign a pro contract with another club that the issue of compensation could be addressed, but that will only apply to the small number who make it after having switched academies.

Personally i think 12, 13 and 14 year olds freedom of choice, and freedom to move is more important than using clumsy contractual procedures to protect the clubs. Far better that a club attracts and retains players because the academy is good to be at. 

[RamNut]

3 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

The fact cat one clubs pay 2m plus to run their academy each year is also a huge figure

30 players per age group x 7 or 8 age groups =  min 200 players = £8-10k per annum per player.

Its the clubs choice to run a cat 1 academy.

[Interestedparty]

55 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Because of the limitation on the max number allowed in any one academy year, it could not become that fluid.

what determines whether severence is on the basis of a YD7 or a YD10 form of agreement?

What limitation on the max number allowed are you referring to ?

To your second question if the club wants the player to stay he normally only gets released  to play grassroots football with the no compensation form. If he wants to join another pro academy the agreement between all pro clubs is they have to pay the set compensation fee. It's a very simple process. Far simpler than having no rules and stuff going to tribunals with court costs etc. 

There is nothing to stop a kid to go and play grassroots football or futsal or anything he wants. Zero compensation. But if he wants to go and play for another pro club then the club he is at are entitled to the compensation that all the clubs are signed upto in order to be approved as an academy to start with.

Simple rules and like I say the biggest complaint ive seen in the past is that the compensation needs to be higher rather than lower

 

 

[Interestedparty]

2 minutes ago, RamNut said:

30 players per age group x 7 or 8 age groups =  min 200 players = £8-10k per annum per player.

Its the clubs choice to run a cat 1 academy.

Most clubs run with 16 to 18 players per agegroup signed up 

But they also run many development centres and fund many scouts with hundreds more kids involved and all working hard to get signed none of whom would be subject to compensation unless they did get signed

From 1000 kids maybe 2 or 3 will ever make the grade

Only the very best ever command a fee

You can't divide the cost of the academy equally amongst 1000 plus kids to pay for it as 997 of 1000 kids will never command a fee etc

 

 

 

[RamNut]

18 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

This parent is clearly an extreme case. Would a reasonable parent even want to feature in photos with their son plastered all over the media and to create this focus and pressure in a 15 year old?

Hes not a victim. He's the actual problem. There's plenty of academy parents like him. Just not as extreme. Compensation helps save them from flitting from club to club 

Whilst trying to avoid the specific issue of zak brunt......i think a couple of corrections have to be made. Specifically the number of academies. He hasn't fkitted through 7 academies as some suggest.

since he was 9 and eligible to join an academy he has been at Villa, man city, and derby. He was at derby because he couldn't go to atletico. 

When he was 6 years old he was invited to go to villa, man utd and sheff utd simultaneously. It doesn't seem unreasonable to take a look a few academies before finally signing with villa.

maybe the travelling to villa became too much , who knows? Maybe man city pursuaded him to join them and paid villa the £3k. 

I think he should be free to move. He was 10 and 12 years old when he switched. The compensation fees of £3k and £7k are pointless.

[RamNut]

9 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

You can't divide the cost of the academy equally amongst 1000 plus kids to pay for it as 997 of 1000 kids will never command a fee etc

I didn't. 

[Interestedparty]

You actually need one player worth 2.5m ish to come through every season just to break even let alone make a profit

Are you achieving that?

You certainly won't achieve it by letting players you have worked hard to develop walk out whenever their dad isn't happy with something

[RamNut]

16 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

What limitation on the max number allowed are you referring to ?

Rule 262

Quote

262  The maximum numbers of Academy players registrable by a Club at any one time are as follows:
Age groups Under 9 to Under 14 inclusive: ...................................................................................................... 30 in each age group Age groups Under 15 and Under 16 inclusive: ................................................................................................. 20 in each age group Age groups Under 17 to Under 18: ............................................................................................................ 30 across both age groups 

 

[RamNut]

7 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

You actually need one player worth 2.5m ish to come through every season just to break even 

Which is why many clubs think its too expensive 

For Derby Will hughes and jeff hendrick have produced a return.

forest are having some success. Oliver Burke has certainly paid for alot of category 2 academy time.

but its a gamble, and a gamble where the clubs choose how much they want to wager.

[Interestedparty]

19 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Whilst trying to avoid the specific issue of zak brunt......i think a couple of corrections have to be made. Specifically the number of academies. He hasn't fkitted through 7 academies as some suggest.

since he was 9 and eligible to join an academy he has been at Villa, man city, and derby. He was at derby because he couldn't go to atletico. 

When he was 6 years old he was invited to go to villa, man utd and sheff utd simultaneously. It doesn't seem unreasonable to take a look a few academies before finally signing with villa.

maybe the travelling to villa became too much , who knows? Maybe man city pursuaded him to join them and paid villa the £3k. 

I think he should be free to move. He was 10 and 12 years old when he switched. The compensation fees of £3k and £7k are pointless.

Agreed most players trial at numerous academies before choosing the one they like the best at under 9

Three years to contrast and compare BEFORE you decide the best place for your sons football development. Clubs aren't allowed to sign players before then to allow parents the chance to look at lots of options

Since the age of under 9 though he's now looking for his FIFTH club. 

And the reason he found it hard to sign for Atletico Madrid?

Its because FIFA realised kids needed safeguarding from being commodities at these ages and brought in stricter rules that prevented parents from doing the very thing this parent attempted to do with his son

If a player is to travel outside his country to play football they now have to prove its the result of a genuine family relocation for work rather than a parent looking for a move for football reasons

ie to protect a kid from being exploited for football reasons

In this case the parent is the one driving all the upheaval. He's trying to live a dream. That's pretty obvious.

 

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Which is why many clubs think its too expensive 

For Derby Will hughes and jeff hendrick have produced a return.

forest are having some success. Oliver Burke has certainly paid for alot of category 2 academy time.

but its a gamble, and a gamble where the clubs choose how much they want to wager.

I can't believe he was forced to sign for us, there must be alternatives or is he getting a Billy reputation and nobody wants him?  Maybe that's unfair but his dad wasn't forced to sign the contract.