Zak Brunt - Academy kid

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, RamNut said:

if we don't can't hold onto zak brunt because he is a dick, as so many seem to immediately assume, then just let him go.

How do you know we don't want to keep him?

[RamNut]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

How do you know we don't want to keep him?

I'm sure we do.

i was trying to show the contradiction in the argument of the posters on here, who assert that the boy and his family are idiots.

[RoyMac5]

Just now, RamNut said:

I'm sure we do.

i was trying to contradiction in the argument of the posters on here, who assert that the boy and his family are idiots.

Their behaviour doesn't make them sound like the brightest buttons though.

[RamNut]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Their behaviour doesn't make them sound like the brightest buttons though.

Maybe, maybe not.

But they do have a point which deserves to be aired.

 

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

I would venture to say the law (especially contract law) has little to do with right and wrong, a lot more to do with power.

[RoyMac5]

Just now, RamNut said:

Maybe, maybe not.

But they do have a point which deserves to be aired.

As do the Club.

[ilkleyram]

I understand the points that you are trying to make Ramnut and I get the family antipathy towards Derby and the contracts young players have to sign but I don't get the logic of your position. You say in one post that Derby should accept the £7k we paid for him initially rather than the £120k or, in a different answer, you suggest that a tribunal should set a fee.

It seems to me that once you accept that money should change hands in return for releasing a player from his registration you're not arguing about the principle of what Derby appear to be doing but about quantum. Any contract can be 'broken' with the agreement of both parties, which quite often involves the exchange of money from one party to another after a negotiation. Perhaps £7k is a lot of money to the Brunts. Perhaps they're working in the knowledge that the next club he has lined up will pay the £7k or whatever they negotiate as a signing on fee.

Unless you believe that clubs shouldn't hold any registrations at all and should just let young players move in complete freedom whenever they like - which is a different argument - then perhaps Derby are doing the best for themselves, which is what they should do: if you want to leave the contract and change club Mr Brunt, this is what it will cost you, now let's negotiate around that. 

[G-Ram]

He’s got more chance of eventually making the first team at Derby than some of the other clubs named... needs knuckle down 

if he was that good there is no way he’d hace left city with their acadamy set up. Plus other ways of keeping youngsters, private education, parentnts s job at the club etc... he’d still be at city if he was that good 

[hintonsboots]

The feature on radio 5 this morning was very anti Derby and Zak's father was explaining that he preferred to play the Brazilian Ginga style rather than five a side games. Why put him in a professional academy in the first place ?

All Derby are doing is protecting a business asset, within the rules and have done nothing wrong.

[RamNut]

3 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

I understand the points that you are trying to make Ramnut and I get the family antipathy towards Derby and the contracts young players have to sign but I don't get the logic of your position. You say in one post that Derby should accept the £7k we paid for him initially rather than the £120k or, in a different answer, you suggest that a tribunal should set a fee.

It seems to me that once you accept that money should change hands in return for releasing a player from his registration you're not arguing about the principle of what Derby appear to be doing but about quantum. Any contract can be 'broken' with the agreement of both parties, which quite often involves the exchange of money from one party to another after a negotiation. Perhaps £7k is a lot of money to the Brunts. Perhaps they're working in the knowledge that the next club he has lined up will pay the £7k or whatever they negotiate as a signing on fee.

Unless you believe that clubs shouldn't hold any registrations at all and should just let young players move in complete freedom whenever they like - which is a different argument - then perhaps Derby are doing the best for themselves, which is what they should do: if you want to leave the contract and change club Mr Brunt, this is what it will cost you, now let's negotiate around that. 

There is no family antipathy. I'm a Derby fan. But i'm sure if we were debating players contracts pre-bosman i can pretty much guess where the majority of posters would stand.

however, it was an important principle of the bosman ruling that club cannot 'own' player registrations in perpetuity. The club only own the players registration for the duration of the contract. Thereafter the player is free to move. The bosman principle would have prevented derby county holding on to a players registration after the player had left back in the late 50s.

now it seems as though clubs still attempt to retain ownership of the players registration for academy players even after they have agreed to release the player. That cannot be right. furthermore i'm not sure that it should even be possible to 'own' the player registration of a 12, 13, 14 or 15 year old child.

This is exploitation in my opinion. So to conclude, i don't believe that money should change hands because i don't personally believe that a club should be able to own an interest in 13 year olds future, after the player has left. 

People keep on about the fact that zak brunt has already been to five or six academies. So what? This was between the ages of 6 and 12.

i don't know his personal circumstances but it is quite possible to envisage a scenario whereby a kid lives in sheffield  and joins the sheffield academy. Then his parents move to manchester so he joins an academy there. Maybe he doesn't like it or gets the chance to join another clubs academy in manchester where a friend plays. So what? Let him. Then the family move to birmingham so he joins the aston villa academy. Would you lot have him commuting back to sheffield because at 6 he played for them?

personally i believe that the contract that enables a club to retain a players registration after they have left is illegal on the basis that the contract would be deemed legally 'unfair'. 

As for zak brunt. I have no idea why he wants to leave. The reasons don't really matter if you believe that freedom of movement of a child is more important than the economic self-interests of football clubs. But it seems perverse to me to value every academy product universally at 40k, 80k, 120k or 160k depending on how many years they have attended the academy. Therefore in his case, my preferences would be - in order.

1 resolve the differences and encourage him to stay

2 release him for nil

3 release him for what we paid -  £7k 

4 release him and if he joins another academy then when he gets to 16 / 17 if he signs a contract, a tribunal would decide what compensation if any was due to Derby co.

5 the option for derby county to retain his registration after he has left so that he can't go to another academy without derby receiving 120k is totally indefensible legally and morally, but it is correct contractually, given the unfair nature of the contract. There is no way that the amount can even be justified. 

so, to reiterate your final point, yes i believe that clubs should not be able to regard a 12, 13 or 15 year old as their economic "asset" to be owned and traded.

This contract is a clumsy device to stop clubs poaching players from one another. This could easily be controlled in other ways by limiting the number of academy players in any one year. An academy is just a private school. Nothing more. Children can change schools if they so wish. 

If a player signs a contract at say 17 and then leaves and signs for another club at the end of that contract e.g. Solanko, then the situation is they are adults able to judge for themselves whether the contract terms are acceptible. Secondly, a tribunal will set the fee which is specific to the ability and value of the player. So once they are adults and have the legal competance to sign a contract then let the bosman rules apply. When they are kids they cannot be owned.

If i was offered an apprenticeship at 12 or 13 with derby county, that put me on the road to becoming a professional footballer, i'd sign it - probably wouldn't read it, and if i did i probably wouldn't understand a word of it. 

 

[MikeS]

Very surprised that the club haven't made any kind of statement (that I am aware of). The media including Radio 5 this morning seem to be taking the side of the player and for balance, the club's view should really be heard, especially in view of the youngster's history with other clubs.

[GboroRam]

3 minutes ago, MikeS said:

Very surprised that the club haven't made any kind of statement (that I am aware of). The media including Radio 5 this morning seem to be taking the side of the player and for balance, the club's view should really be heard, especially in view of the youngster's history with other clubs.

Hard for a big organisation to have its say without looking vindictive.

[Spanish]

6 hours ago, RamNut said:

The point is.......the contract is unfair.

eventually this will get challenged, and the challenger will probably win.

contracts are not meant to be written for the unfair advantage of one party, and the law won't support them if they are.

this needs a sort of bosman ruling for the apprentices

if we don't can't hold onto zak brunt because he is a dick, as so many seem to immediately assume, then just let him go.

 

Simple answer, don't sign a contract if you have no intention of being bound by it

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

Fortunately the law is there to protect people against this sort of stuff.

Why would they want to leave our Academy? And the others that they've left. Who is being protected from whom?!

[RamNut]

 

Began as a 5yr old pre academy player with Sheff Utd. Became the youngest player in history to reach The World Skills Final at age 6. Joined Man Utd pre academy age 6. Offered contracts by Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest, Derby County, Manchester United age 8. Signed for Aston Villa when aged 8. Purchased by Manchester City age 10. 

[Philmycock]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

 

Began as a 5yr old pre academy player with Sheff Utd. Became the youngest player in history to reach The World Skills Final at age 6. Joined Man Utd pre academy age 6. Offered contracts by Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest, Derby County, Manchester United age 8. Signed for Aston Villa when aged 8. Purchased by Manchester City age 10. 

Why are you so obsessed with him? It’s scary the amount of pro Zak posts on this thread, he’s just a kid who’s dad thinks he should be playing for Barcelona, get over him already

[RamNut]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Why would they want to leave our Academy? And the others that they've left. Who is being protected from whom?!

He trained simultaneously with sheff u, villa and man utd aged 6. The earliest age that a player can sign for a club is 9.

Joined villa aged 9. Was then 'signed' by man city from villa aged 10. Wanted to join an academy in spain. The move to atletico was quashed. Lives in Derbyshire. Signed by derby from man city aged 12.

Who is protected from whom?

children should be protected from being owned and traded as if they were adult professionals, and protected from clubs who unreasonably control their futures.

[Rev]

Can't sign for anybody before the age of 10. 

You can join a pre academy scheme before then, but not a club.

 

[bigbadbob]

9 minutes ago, RamNut said:

 

Began as a 5yr old pre academy player with Sheff Utd. Became the youngest player in history to reach The World Skills Final at age 6. Joined Man Utd pre academy age 6. Offered contracts by Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest, Derby County, Manchester United age 8. Signed for Aston Villa when aged 8. Purchased by Manchester City age 10. 

Do the family get a bit of a sweetner when signing with a new club ?

[ramblur]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

Lol really.

You probably would have said that jean-marc bosman was a t****.

And that fifa are t**** for insisting that.....

and that Lord Denning was a t**** when he said.....

Fortunately the law is there to protect people against this sort of stuff.

Lord Denning talked of an 'unreasonable clause'. Why is this clause unreasonable? Haven't we spent 3 years and a lot of loot developing a kid,with absolutely no benefit to the club at this point in time? If the clause is in fact unreasonable,then it's an issue for the governing body,not the club.

Staying on the LD theme,have you seen the type of contract that was signed,and do you know how prominent the compensation clause is? The red ink stuff's very dramatic,but only valid if you have to go over such contract with a fine tooth comb to find it (viz,the clause).