Zak Brunt - Academy kid

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, Interestedparty said:

Re the Stoke lad reason he can't join Liverpool is nothing to do with the compensation it's because Liverpool,are banned from signing players from rival clubs having been found guilty of offering inducements to families to move to them. Basically tapping up.

In the case of the Stoke lad -Stoke were happily paying for this lad to go to private school

Then the player and parents decided they now wanted to leave Stoke and join Liverpool. Liverpool promised to take over paying the kids private school fees. But the rules actually forbid clubs now from giving one academy player a benefit that they don't give to all players.

And this meant Liverpool weren't able to complete the deal

So Stoke have quite rightly stopped paying school fees imo as this was all agreed behind their backs and Liverpool aren't allowed to complete the deal

So another dad glory seeking etc and seeing what extras he can get rather than stability for their son

they reap what they sow imo

The school fees took the fee from £40k to £49k but i'm trying to make a general point.

£40k ransom for 1 years coacking of a 13 year old - whether he goes to Liverpool, Derby, Brighton, or whoever.

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, ramblur said:

How on earth could you expect a tribunal to come up with a compensation level for Crowley when he hadn't even played first team football?

£200k was the fee for Crowley, fixed according to a meaningless schedule that applies arbitrarily to every sprog of his age with five years coaching. It was no deterrent to Arsenal. Another poster suggested that the £200k compensation figure was not enough precisely because it wasn't a deterent. I am proposing that  all 16 year olds do not have the same value. Instead of having a system whereby a random 13 year old will cost £40k and a random 16 year old will cost £200k etc, it would be more appropriate to set a value specific to the individual.

Dan Crowley actually really is an outstanding talent. He will make it. Its just a matter of time. Plenty of players have been transferred before they ever made a first team appearance e.g. steve mackenzie would went for a record fee for a teenager without having debuted. More recently Real Madrid announced the signing of 16 year old Vinicius Junior from Flamengofor a reported £39 million fee. He has played just 17 minutes of professional football in Brazil’s Serie A.

And a tribunal fee could be set at a punitive level.

[RamNut]

6 hours ago, ramblur said:

Despite my pointing out that there's rather more to the development costs than just mere coaching,I see you've used just this factor to try and make a point.A multi million Academy spend doesn't just involve coaching and £40k seems reasonable to me.I'm sure that when these levels were set,the governing body would have worked out the spend for each category,based on a wide sample of different clubs' Academy spends.

Not quite sure what you're referring to tbh.

i took the cost of the academy from memory from the £2.5m figure that @Interestedparty suggested. Even if the whole of that cost was applied to the under 16s only, then the average cost per pupil was £10k - not £40k - if the academy recruits a full allocation.

you think £40k is a reasonable figure for one years academy input but if 99.9% don't make it, then the value of that input is nil in 99.9% of cases. Its for the 0.1% or less who do make it that the academy exists. So instead of every kid being universally worth £40k for every year they have been at an academy, 99.9% are worth nil, and 0.1% are potentially worth probably £1m per year. 

So what to do about that? How to protect the academy?

its widely acknowledged that for under 16s, it is extremely difficult to predict who will make it. The kids are total wild cards. Even for young pros aged 17,18,19 etc it is very difficult to tell who will make it. If you look at the young pros at Derby from Will Hughes and Jeff Hendricks era, even with these two successes > 90% failed to make the grade. Where are james severn, nathan doyle, greg mills, ryan Connolly etc etc now? This is why a universal value applied to every under 16 year old is daft. Under 16s  are rank outsiders. So stop worrying that every single one of them needs a ransom fee. Let the academy secure the over 16s, and let the under 16s go wherever they want. They are still rank outsiders. There won't be an exodus if the academy numbers are controlled in accordance with rule 262.

With reference to Zak Brunt, is he going to make it? He has been described on here as a "jumped up squirt", a kid with a bad attitude, a kid who over values futsal tricks, a kid who needs to knuckle down etc etc. If so he's likely to fall into the 99.9% with nil value and we can let him go with our best wishes for nothing.

On the other hand if he is a potential future star and we think we are about to lose the 0.1 %er, the best policy would be resolve the current  situation even if that involves indulging him. One of the fundamental principles of learning is that no one method fits all. As kids get older their physique changes and the game becomes more about physicality, athleticism and power. The flicks and tricks and all the lightweight skipping and show boating fades away. He will learn what the man's game is all about in due course. There is plenty of time to mould a 15 year old child into a young pro. Of course if he can still retain all that trickery he could be another Gazza. I dare say Gazza was pretty immature at 15. The academy should just deal with it.

concentrate on the over 16s - that is where the majority of the value lies. It seems perfectly fair to tie the over 16 fledglings to some sort of contract. They still need another 3 - 5 years of hothouse coaching before we can tell if they are really any good. 

Treat the u16 wild cards as we currently treat the under 9s. Invite them in, but keep them free from silly contracts and pointless ransoms. 

 

[Philmycock]

Yes let’s be a soft touch and just give away our prospects when they get a sniff of a bigger club for free, whilst every other club reaps the rewards and we have our kids poached, jeez

[RamNut]

41 minutes ago, philmycock said:

Yes let’s be a soft touch and just give away our prospects when they get a sniff of a bigger club for free, whilst every other club reaps the rewards and we have our kids poached, jeez

Our kids. We own your 9 year old.

[RoyMac5]

19 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Our kids. We own your 9 year old.

Blame the parents, they sell them!

[TommyPowell]

On 11/5/2017 at 13:22, RamNut said:

It is if the club won't release the players registration to another league club.

BUT THEN THE BOY IS STILL REGISTERED TO A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM AND IF HE IS HAS GOOD AS HE FATHER SAYS HE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CLUB PICK HIM

 

[ramblur]

On 11/4/2017 at 19:48, RamNut said:

So if you signed up your kid to our academy, and then found out it wasn't working, and wanted him to move to another academy, only to be told there was a £120k ransom on his head.......that eould be ok would it.

lol

Sure. 

So you think £120k  a 'ransom',yet would be quite happy to set up tribunals that might set far higher amounts,with the wording changing from ransom to 'deterrent'? Actually,in this case it's a pity that tribunals aren't in place,because other clubs might not run away from £120k if they thought they might have to pay more otherwise. 

[ramblur]

16 hours ago, RamNut said:

Not quite sure what you're referring to tbh.

i took the cost of the academy from memory from the £2.5m figure that @Interestedparty suggested. Even if the whole of that cost was applied to the under 16s only, then the average cost per pupil was £10k - not £40k - if the academy recruits a full allocation.

you think £40k is a reasonable figure for one years academy input but if 99.9% don't make it, then the value of that input is nil in 99.9% of cases. Its for the 0.1% or less who do make it that the academy exists. So instead of every kid being universally worth £40k for every year they have been at an academy, 99.9% are worth nil, and 0.1% are potentially worth probably £1m per year. 

 

 

A very large swathe of the lads you use in your calculation (u9 to u11) only attract fixed compensation of £3k/year,so it's obvious (and understandable) that the costs of developing these lads is far less than older groups. If anyone can come up with an actual Academy cost,then that person would need to have inside information,as the accounts don't provide it.Whilst looking at the FFP exemption situation doesn't rule out £2.5m,I think you'd need a very high spend on ladies' football and work in the community for it to be realistic.£3m+ looks a more realistic figure to me.I'm not saying that £40k/yr is an actual figure,as it would be quite remarkable if our actual coincided with what appears to be an average used for the fixed compensation levels. All I'm saying is that it doesn't (to me) look anything like ridiculous.

The value of the input would certainly be nil in 99.9% of cases if we let promising kids go free,and it could even be 100% if those allowed to leave were to represent the magic 0.1%. 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, ramblur said:

A very large swathe of the lads you use in your calculation (u9 to u11) only attract fixed compensation of £3k/year,so it's obvious (and understandable) that the costs of developing these lads is far less than older groups. If anyone can come up with an actual Academy cost,then that person would need to have inside information,as the accounts don't provide it.Whilst looking at the FFP exemption situation doesn't rule out £2.5m,I think you'd need a very high spend on ladies' football and work in the community for it to be realistic.£3m+ looks a more realistic figure to me.I'm not saying that £40k/yr is an actual figure,as it would be quite remarkable if our actual coincided with what appears to be an average used for the fixed compensation levels. All I'm saying is that it doesn't (to me) look anything like ridiculous.

The value of the input would certainly be nil in 99.9% of cases if we let promising kids go free,and it could even be 100% if those allowed to leave were to represent the magic 0.1%. 

When they brought in the current category setup, recommended minimum spend for a Cat 1 academy was said to be about 2.3m

[ramblur]

27 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

When they brought in the current category setup, recommended minimum spend for a Cat 1 academy was said to be about 2.3m

'Minimum' might be the operative word here.15/16 was the year (from memory) that Mel spent heavily on infrastructure (and I know both first team squad and Academy derive benefits),and I've no way of knowing if there's been additional spend since,but the answer is 'probably'. The big question is whether we spent purely to achieve the minimum,or if we went over and above the call of duty.

[RamNut]

8 hours ago, ramblur said:

So you think £120k  a 'ransom',yet would be quite happy to set up tribunals that might set far higher amounts,with the wording changing from ransom to 'deterrent'? Actually,in this case it's a pity that tribunals aren't in place,because other clubs might not run away from £120k if they thought they might have to pay more otherwise. 

The latter point is exactly what i have suggested for over 16s

but silly fees for 13, 14, 15 kids are just stupid.

 

[RamNut]

8 hours ago, ramblur said:

A very large swathe of the lads you use in your calculation (u9 to u11) only attract fixed compensation of £3k/year,so it's obvious (and understandable) that the costs of developing these lads is far less than older groups. If anyone can come up with an actual Academy cost,then that person would need to have inside information,as the accounts don't provide it.Whilst looking at the FFP exemption situation doesn't rule out £2.5m,I think you'd need a very high spend on ladies' football and work in the community for it to be realistic.£3m+ looks a more realistic figure to me.I'm not saying that £40k/yr is an actual figure,as it would be quite remarkable if our actual coincided with what appears to be an average used for the fixed compensation levels. All I'm saying is that it doesn't (to me) look anything like ridiculous.

The value of the input would certainly be nil in 99.9% of cases if we let promising kids go free,and it could even be 100% if those allowed to leave were to represent the magic 0.1%. 

There are currently 24 cat 1 academies and 20 cat 2 academies

currently £800m of tv money is distributed to premier league clubs 

there is already enough money swilling around to fund the cost of all of these academies 

Regarding your latter point.....academies already release 99 % of players for free. Its just a question of when.

 

[RoyMac5]

22 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Regarding your latter point.....academies already release 99 % of players for free. Its just a question of when.

This kid is the 1%

[ramblur]

8 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

This kid is the 1%

Every possibility and if,as seems likely, he has another club/clubs lined up (and it would be a bit silly to effectively burn the bridges otherwise),they too must think he has a good chance of making it. If that were the case,then they shouldn't baulk at paying the costs of his earlier development because,after all,they'd have been doing this anyway if they'd recruited him at an earlier age. 

[ramblur]

8 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

When they brought in the current category setup, recommended minimum spend for a Cat 1 academy was said to be about 2.3m

I'm wondering if that figure excludes depreciation of the infrastructure and relates merely to the actual annual running costs. If there were no players to use the facilities,then they wouldn't be needed and the capital costs wouldn't be incurred.The facilities are used and the capital outlay has been made,thus a share of depreciation is part of the total legitimate(true) annual cost of the operation.

[hintonsboots]

He needs to give his old man a P45.

Sorted.

[RamNut]

Quote

By the late 19th century, children's lives were beginning to be transformed. They were going to school instead of work, and being treated as children instead of 'little adults'. With the protection of the law, many could now avoid the exploitation of their childhood and gain an education.

Going backwards?

[TommyPowell]

2 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

He needs to give his old man a P45.

Sorted.

at last ! never has so much ben debated by so many with so litle knowledge of the ful facts

[ramblur]

40 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Going backwards?

Nah,gaining a football education and an acdemic one for free.     ,,