Zak Brunt - Academy kid

[Wolfie]

8 minutes ago, RamNut said:

No we don't.

and as you will have already read - more often than not a club may waive compensation. 

P.s. Or agree something far more appropriate.

Just guessing that it's probably a lot more likely with Prem clubs, to whom £120k is something you find down the back of the sofa.

Also guessing the reason DCFC are keeping silent on this is because their position hasn't changed in that theres a contract in place - that most clubs use - and if they back down now it makes all the other youth contracts pretty much worthless because the precident will have been set.

[RamNut]

7 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Just guessing that it's probably a lot more likely with Prem clubs, to whom £120k is something you find down the back of the sofa.

Also guessing the reason DCFC are keeping silent on this is because their position hasn't changed in that theres a contract in place - that most clubs use - and if they back down now it makes all the other youth contracts pretty much worthless because the precident will have been set.

I'd agree with that.

my point is that for 9 -15 years old children who are under the age of 16 and who haven't signed a pro contract, they shouldn't be able to be traded, and a club shouldn't be able to withhold their registration after they have left;  all of which  is in accordance with fifa principles and bosman principles.

[G STAR RAM]

23 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I'd agree with that.

my point is that for 9 -15 years old children who are under the age of 16 and who haven't signed a pro contract, they shouldn't be able to be traded, and a club shouldn't be able to withhold their registration after they have left;  all of which  is in accordance with fifa principles and bosman principles.

Maybe they should scrap the contracts and make the children pay £40k per year for the use of the academy facilities.

 

[cheron85]

19 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Maybe they should scrap the contracts and make the children pay £40k per year for the use of the academy facilities.

Lots of very middle class footballers in our future then

 

I think this is interesting because it's a nice example of the club being run in a very professional manner - Typical sensationalism from the BBC who barely cover the EFL because they're not prepared to invest in anything outside the Premier League and then latch on to the u17s win and say "hey we need a story based on this - let's knock something together in 5 mins and call it an opinion piece so we don't have to have any balance to it" - If I was in charge of the club I would have sued them already

But that's why I think it's a great example of us being run well - Uncle Mel knows if you ignore it this will go away

[rynny]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

I'd agree with that.

my point is that for 9 -15 years old children who are under the age of 16 and who haven't signed a pro contract, they shouldn't be able to be traded, and a club shouldn't be able to withhold their registration after they have left;  all of which  is in accordance with fifa principles and bosman principles.

Are we refusing to release his registration though? To me it sounds as though we have said that he can go but due to EPPP rules this is how much a club has to pay in compensation. When they have spoken to the other clubs they have baulked at the price and do not want to pay it, so they have gone to the media to complain. We do not know if the club are refusing to lower the compensation, we do not know how much negotiating has gone on between his parents and the club, but I think the lack of any discussion about how we won't reduce it is telling.

[nottingram]

What happens if we get a player come through who is exceptional? Say we’ve already released this lad with no fuss and for no fee, then we get one come through who’s in the first team at 15, Man United tell him they’ll give him all the money he wants to join them. We’ve set a precedent by releasing this lad already, his parents kick off, bye bye member of first team for nothing.

[bristolram]

1 minute ago, nottingram said:

What happens if we get a player come through who is exceptional? Say we’ve already released this lad with no fuss and for no fee, then we get one come through who’s in the first team at 15, Man United tell him they’ll give him all the money he wants to join them. We’ve set a precedent by releasing this lad already, his parents kick off, bye bye member of first team for nothing.

Exactly, compensation has to be there to protect smaller clubs academies, otherwise there's no point in having one. All the talent will just swap for big prem clubs

[cannable]

The only way you protect clubs AND the kids’ rights is a draft system. 

[Mostyn6]

On 11/4/2017 at 11:14, RamNut said:

They really need to sort out whatever the issue is with him and his parents.

if he is determined to go, let him go.

don't faff about demanding 120k because whatever the contract says, it is morally wrong.

 

22 hours ago, RamNut said:

So we can't develop him, no club will pay £120k, and therefore his career is dead.

ridiculous.

 

21 hours ago, RamNut said:

The high compensation is clearly designed to stop clubs poaching each others players.

but if he goes to another club then let the fee be decided by a tribunal.

demanding 120k and with holding his registration would be very wrong.

 

sorry Ramnut, I cannot agree. If the parent had made a serious allegation of bullying or worse, fair enough, the people responsible should be removed, not the victim. As it is the reasons given are basically that father and son think they know better than academy, and not for the first time. As most academies run to a blueprint of development, he will not find a category A academy that will develop him any differently, not noticeably so anyhow.

Just cos parent and child are saying the club aren't developing the child, doesn't mean that this is the case. The boy may have learned loads and improved massively in the academy. It's not morally wrong. Ask millions of footballers who do not get the opportunity if they think it's morally wrong. Some would say school is morally wrong, but what do children now better than adults.

If he is as good as what he says he is, someone will come and buy him, if not, they won't. The club feel they have developed him, and in the same way my mate was sent on a health and safety course, meaning he cannot leave for 3 years (or would have to pay them back), this is standard.

If we let him go for nothing, then in 3 years Arsenal buy him for £30million, how would Derby and Derby fans feel.

His career is not dead, he just needs to knuckle down and concentrate on being a professional. The club is legally bound to either offer him a contract or release him, possibly with compensation in the next couple of years anyway. They haven't frozen him out or chucked him on the scrapheap. He wants out, Pierre Van Hoijdonk style.

[SecretDave]

If the lad's good enough, another team will happily pay the £120k compensation. If he's not good enough, then he should just knuckle down and get on with it at Derby. It seems he can't settle at any club without demanding a move somewhere else.

[Interestedparty]

I will start by saying I dont know the player or parent and I'm not an employee of the club.

I will be honest - I am not even a Derby fan but I'm very interested in Academy Football (hence how I came across this thread) and have a good knowledge of EPPP and experience of this kind of stuff as a parent of an academy player elsewhere.

Derby are Cat 1. They have invested a huge amount into their academy over the years to become Cat 1. And ongoing they will have to invest £1m plus every year just to maintain Cat 1 status.

Cat 1 is supposed to be the best level of academy your son can go to in order to develop his game. One of the advantages of becoming Cat 1 to Derby is the very fact it ensures they can claim higher levels of compensation for any players that leave them. If Derby were only Cat 3 then they wouldnt have invested a fraction of the money they have to date and the academy would cost them nearer £200k per annum to run.

In turn right now they would only be entitled to £12k per year x 3 (£36k) for this player. But this player has had an advantage over any cat 3 academy players as he has had the benefit of cat 1 development with more hours, more opportunities and better facilities etc.

The parent and player know all about compensation as they've gone through it before.

They've had 3 years of training at a Cat 1 academy 

They chose to join the academy and sign up to it having seen numerous other options and deciding Derby was the best for their son. Once you do that you have to commit and let the professionals do their job like they do with every other player. If you think you know better then dont sign for that club to start with.

When an academy signs a young player they are also committing to that player ahead of others they could commit to. 

At under 13 years of age they guarantee you 2 years of training - even if after one month of that if they think theyve made a mistake and you wont make the grade your contract means you can make them keep you til the end of the 2 years if you want to.

At 15 years of age they commit to another 2 years of training to the player.

When you are ready to leave school they either have to offer you a scholarship contract or release you FOC. The player only has another year to either be offered a deal or not. His career is not finished. 

You would always be able to get released for proven bullying, racism etc or anything untoward

When you simply decide you arent happy and want to go somewhere else (as it appears this parent does ongoing) then the clubs are entitled to be compensated and protected accordingly. If not the whole essence of investing millions into an academy is blown away and clubs would be forced to close their academies as there is no protection for them

Indeed the biggest argument I see is that even the £40k per year for Cat Ones is not enough compensation for losing a player that the academy has helped develop and that they hope could be worth millions to their club in the future

What does normally happen is a compromise is reached or some kind of negotiation when a club seriously wants to take a player with a high tariff from a club who doesnt want to release him

I suspect any clubs looking at this player are severely worried by his past lack of commitment to any club and so why would they risk £120k on him now. But its a good excuse to tell the parent if he was free we would take him etc.

If you want to play Futsal then dont sign for an academy. Play Futsal and play grass roots football. 

As others have said if he was worth £120k then clubs would pay it. No doubt hes not doing as well as he was in the past hence the parent and player are trying to blame it on Derby and want to go somewhere else etc.

Instead of getting his head down and working through it all

Ive every sympathy for your club and next to no sympathy for the parent. All parents of sporting kids do need to be pushy to a certain extent but reading the history of this player this one is way too extreme and if anyone is to blame for this kid failing to make it as a player it will be the parent and not your club. Fact is 99.9 per cent of players dont make the grade regardless. And kids who look brilliant at young ages often dont develop and get overtaken etc.

If this kid was flying right now and looking on track to be a pro player why would the parent and player want to move in the first place?

[VulcanRam]

29 minutes ago, Interestedparty said:

I will start by saying I dont know the player or parent and I'm not an employee of the club.

I will be honest - I am not even a Derby fan but I'm very interested in Academy Football (hence how I came across this thread) and have a good knowledge of EPPP and experience of this kind of stuff as a parent of an academy player elsewhere.

Derby are Cat 1. They have invested a huge amount into their academy over the years to become Cat 1. And ongoing they will have to invest £1m plus every year just to maintain Cat 1 status.

Cat 1 is supposed to be the best level of academy your son can go to in order to develop his game. One of the advantages of becoming Cat 1 to Derby is the very fact it ensures they can claim higher levels of compensation for any players that leave them. If Derby were only Cat 3 then they wouldnt have invested a fraction of the money they have to date and the academy would cost them nearer £200k per annum to run.

In turn right now they would only be entitled to £12k per year x 3 (£36k) for this player. But this player has had an advantage over any cat 3 academy players as he has had the benefit of cat 1 development with more hours, more opportunities and better facilities etc.

The parent and player know all about compensation as they've gone through it before.

They've had 3 years of training at a Cat 1 academy 

They chose to join the academy and sign up to it having seen numerous other options and deciding Derby was the best for their son. Once you do that you have to commit and let the professionals do their job like they do with every other player. If you think you know better then dont sign for that club to start with.

When an academy signs a young player they are also committing to that player ahead of others they could commit to. 

At under 13 years of age they guarantee you 2 years of training - even if after one month of that if they think theyve made a mistake and you wont make the grade your contract means you can make them keep you til the end of the 2 years if you want to.

At 15 years of age they commit to another 2 years of training to the player.

When you are ready to leave school they either have to offer you a scholarship contract or release you FOC. The player only has another year to either be offered a deal or not. His career is not finished. 

You would always be able to get released for proven bullying, racism etc or anything untoward

When you simply decide you arent happy and want to go somewhere else (as it appears this parent does ongoing) then the clubs are entitled to be compensated and protected accordingly. If not the whole essence of investing millions into an academy is blown away and clubs would be forced to close their academies as there is no protection for them

Indeed the biggest argument I see is that even the £40k per year for Cat Ones is not enough compensation for losing a player that the academy has helped develop and that they hope could be worth millions to their club in the future

What does normally happen is a compromise is reached or some kind of negotiation when a club seriously wants to take a player with a high tariff from a club who doesnt want to release him

I suspect any clubs looking at this player are severely worried by his past lack of commitment to any club and so why would they risk £120k on him now. But its a good excuse to tell the parent if he was free we would take him etc.

If you want to play Futsal then dont sign for an academy. Play Futsal and play grass roots football. 

As others have said if he was worth £120k then clubs would pay it. No doubt hes not doing as well as he was in the past hence the parent and player are trying to blame it on Derby and want to go somewhere else etc.

Instead of getting his head down and working through it all

Ive every sympathy for your club and next to no sympathy for the parent. All parents of sporting kids do need to be pushy to a certain extent but reading the history of this player this one is way too extreme and if anyone is to blame for this kid failing to make it as a player it will be the parent and not your club. Fact is 99.9 per cent of players dont make the grade regardless. And kids who look brilliant at young ages often dont develop and get overtaken etc.

If this kid was flying right now and looking on track to be a pro player why would the parent and player want to move in the first place?

A fine, objective and informative post, thanks.

[cheron85]

1 hour ago, Moist One said:

sorry Ramnut, I cannot agree. If the parent had made a serious allegation of bullying or worse, fair enough, the people responsible should be removed, not the victim. As it is the reasons given are basically that father and son think they know better than academy, and not for the first time. As most academies run to a blueprint of development, he will not find a category A academy that will develop him any differently, not noticeably so anyhow.

Just cos parent and child are saying the club aren't developing the child, doesn't mean that this is the case. The boy may have learned loads and improved massively in the academy. It's not morally wrong. Ask millions of footballers who do not get the opportunity if they think it's morally wrong. Some would say school is morally wrong, but what do children now better than adults.

Looking at the BBC article it seems some of their complaints were about him not being pushed enough? Surely he can push himself? The stories of the current greats like Messi and Ronaldo are of guys who put in extra training every day, push themselves, work on things themselves and knuckle down

I also though the Derby academy had a specific focus on schooling? The club are always really adamant that the kids have enough time to study properly for things like GCSEs to make sure they have some education should football not pan out - With the amount of jumping around this kid has done I doubt his dad is focused on his education alongside his football development

[Mostyn6]

37 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Looking at the BBC article it seems some of their complaints were about him not being pushed enough? Surely he can push himself? The stories of the current greats like Messi and Ronaldo are of guys who put in extra training every day, push themselves, work on things themselves and knuckle down

I also though the Derby academy had a specific focus on schooling? The club are always really adamant that the kids have enough time to study properly for things like GCSEs to make sure they have some education should football not pan out - With the amount of jumping around this kid has done I doubt his dad is focused on his education alongside his football development

that's the thing though, the whole emphasis has shifted massively from being pushy and burning them out with "win at all costs", "get it forward", "get rid" type mentality and replaced it with being good/comfortable on the ball, understanding your own body, and dealing with expectation. 

It smacks of absolute ignorance on the fathers part to not be "grounding" this kid by pointing out that the academy IS the knowledge, not the 15 year old.

For all the quality of Messis and Ronaldos of the world, they listened to the coaches and trusted them, and if you watch the documentaries, they jump through hoops to laud the people who helped develop them at an early age.

This father-son combination need a big wake-up slap in my opinion.

[cheron85]

12 minutes ago, Moist One said:

that's the thing though, the whole emphasis has shifted massively from being pushy and burning them out with "win at all costs", "get it forward", "get rid" type mentality and replaced it with being good/comfortable on the ball, understanding your own body, and dealing with expectation. 

It smacks of absolute ignorance on the fathers part to not be "grounding" this kid by pointing out that the academy IS the knowledge, not the 15 year old.

For all the quality of Messis and Ronaldos of the world, they listened to the coaches and trusted them, and if you watch the documentaries, they jump through hoops to laud the people who helped develop them at an early age.

This father-son combination need a big wake-up slap in my opinion.

Yeh but we live in a post-expert society these days don't we - No-one gives a flying monkey fart whether there are people who's entire career is focused on something (like player development) - They'd much rather pay attention to their own opinion as un-educated as it may be on a topic

[68 Guns]

If I knew someone who has coached him he might tell me that Derby paid just under tenfold of the reported £7k

[cheron85]

11 minutes ago, Charlie Dram said:

If I knew someone who has coached him he might tell me that Derby paid just under tenfold of the reported £7k

Man City are a Category 1 academy aren't they? If he spent 2 years there that would be £80k

Why would they waive all but £7k of the fee? Seems a bit odd...

[68 Guns]

14 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Man City are a Category 1 academy aren't they? If he spent 2 years there that would be £80k

Why would they waive all but £7k of the fee? Seems a bit odd...

Precisely. Just imagine for arguments sake that we pretend an obviously hypothetical figure of £65k was paid by Derby. That wouldn't be quite the same story I suppose if they were asking for their money back along with another £55k for 3 years Cat 1. 

Of course I'm just plucking numbers out of the sky and obviously I definitely don't have a contact who's coached him, but just imagine for a moment if they were the real figures!!!!!

Of course I would imagine that the reported figures are pretty accurate!!!!

 

[winktheram]

He was 6 and 7 at Man city hence the £3k a year.

[ramblur]

18 hours ago, RamNut said:

Rule 325 on page 63 which references rule 270 on page 59

Nowhere does it state that a YD7 allows termination without compensation and that a YD10 is termination with compensation. Nor does it state how the choice of termination agreement is determined.

 

Do you have a link to the full rules,as rule 270 looks pretty important to me.I noticed you gave one clause the heavy bold treatment,apart from 'unless rule 270 applies'.