Jump to content

El DerbyCo


roboto

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Academy spend is exempt from P&S, but sales are not. So even if you spend £40m on the academy but only receive £1m in sales, you'd still be £1m better off for P&S than if you didn't have an academy at all.

Since the start of the 11/12 season, I believe we have spent the best part of £40m on the academy. We have have sold players for about £32m (based on transfermarkt and newspaper figures). But, we also have a number of players in the first team who will have a non-paper value. Assign values to the likes of Buchanan, Bird, Knight and Sibley, and I think it's fair to say we've got more out of the academy than we've put in

 

14 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The conveyor belt is well under way. Shonibare, Bateman, JML, Cresswell, McDonald , Foster, Stretton, JBrown, Ebosele, Wilson, Solomon and Ibrahim all having been included in the matchday squad this season (not including the Chorley game).

Is it not a bit simplistic to measure what we’ve spent vs what we’ve generated from sales?

Surely some of the players we’ve sold (e.g. Hughes, Hendrick, etc) would have come through and developed anyway?

I’m not really sure how you measure academy ROI. I imagine the more you spend, the more attractive it is for young played with plenty of offers, and I imagine better facilities has some affect on rate of player development. But it’s impossible to assign figures to those sort of things.

Edit: The second quote was supposed to be @Bald Eagle's Barmy Army’s post.

Edited by DarkFruitsRam7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carnero said:

Oh yes, not sure we got much for him though, I was wondering how @Ghost of Clough got to the £32m, thought I might be missing another decent outgoing.

According to Transfermarkt:
Hendrick = £10.6m
Hughes = £8.2m
Bogle = £3.5m
Lowe = £3.5m
Whittaker = £0.7m

Then there are the others:
Delap = £1.2m
Gordon = £3m
1x U15 and 2xU14 = £2m

Total = £32.7m

That's not including fees for the likes of Hanson, Bennett, Vernam, etc who would have moved on for relatively small amounts. Luke Thomas also not included as I imagine his signing wouldn't have gone against the academy budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Academy spend is exempt from P&S, but sales are not. So even if you spend £40m on the academy but only receive £1m in sales, you'd still be £1m better off for P&S than if you didn't have an academy at all.

Since the start of the 11/12 season, I believe we have spent the best part of £40m on the academy. We have have sold players for about £32m (based on transfermarkt and newspaper figures). But, we also have a number of players in the first team who will have a non-paper value. Assign values to the likes of Buchanan, Bird, Knight and Sibley, and I think it's fair to say we've got more out of the academy than we've put in

Good, I was thinking about the economic value not the contrived P&S accounting value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

According to Transfermarkt:
Hendrick = £10.6m
Hughes = £8.2m
Bogle = £3.5m
Lowe = £3.5m
Whittaker = £0.7m

Then there are the others:
Delap = £1.2m
Gordon = £3m
1x U15 and 2xU14 = £2m

Total = £32.7m

That's not including fees for the likes of Hanson, Bennett, Vernam, etc who would have moved on for relatively small amounts. Luke Thomas also not included as I imagine his signing wouldn't have gone against the academy budget.

You've also got to bear in mind the value each of there provided to the first team in their time here, which is pretty significant from Hendrick, Hughes and Bogle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

 

Is it not a bit simplistic to measure what we’ve spent vs what we’ve generated from sales?

Surely some of the players we’ve sold (e.g. Hughes, Hendrick, etc) would have come through and developed anyway?

I’m not really sure how you measure academy ROI. I imagine the more you spend, the more attractive it is for young played with plenty of offers, and I imagine better facilities has some affect on rate of player development. But it’s impossible to assign figures to those sort of things.

Edit: The second quote was supposed to be @Bald Eagle's Barmy Army’s post.

I picked 2011 as a starting point for the academy spend without checking when the players joined. I estimated our total academy spend since then to be £40m.

Hendrick joined in 2008 and Hughes joined in 2011. Take 2008 as a starting point instead if you wish and add c£6m to the investment. No idea what the actual spend around that time was though so it could even be an overestimation.

I get your point about receiving the fees we did even if Mel didn't ramp up the academy spend, but using a snapshot of 10 years evens out any irregular years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I picked 2011 as a starting point for the academy spend without checking when the players joined. I estimated our total academy spend since then to be £40m.

Hendrick joined in 2008 and Hughes joined in 2011. Take 2008 as a starting point instead if you wish and add c£6m to the investment. No idea what the actual spend around that time was though so it could even be an overestimation.

I get your point about receiving the fees we did even if Mel didn't ramp up the academy spend, but using a snapshot of 10 years evens out any irregular years.

Aye.

I just think it must be very difficult to measure the value, especially when it’s so dependent on the crop of players you get. 

For example, you could invest nothing and be blessed with a world-class intake on your doorstep, or you could invest millions and have a poor intake (simply because a lot of it is down to chance).

I’d be interested to know what the goal of academy investment is. Is it to reap the benefits of Cat 1 status? Is it to attract talent? Is it to accelerate player development? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Aye.

I just think it must be very difficult to measure the value, especially when it’s so dependent on the crop of players you get. 

For example, you could invest nothing and be blessed with a world-class intake on your doorstep, or you could invest millions and have a poor intake (simply because a lot of it is down to chance).

I’d be interested to know what the goal of academy investment is. Is it to reap the benefits of Cat 1 status? Is it to attract talent? Is it to accelerate player development? 

I guess it's mis-match of how much each of the aspects of having a good academy is helping at any given point. Overall the goal has got to be "we either use or sell the academy players to the extent it's a net plus to the club" but that is going to have all sorts of nuance to it. You can't reap any Cat1 benefits without attracting talent, you can't attract talent without having good facilities and preferably a Cat1 status, you can't put academy players in the first team if they're not talented etc etc....it's more of an eco-system than anything where all sorts of things will be in constant flux but hopfully finding a healthy overall balance and outcome.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

 

Is it not a bit simplistic to measure what we’ve spent vs what we’ve generated from sales?

Surely some of the players we’ve sold (e.g. Hughes, Hendrick, etc) would have come through and developed anyway?

I’m not really sure how you measure academy ROI. I imagine the more you spend, the more attractive it is for young played with plenty of offers, and I imagine better facilities has some affect on rate of player development. But it’s impossible to assign figures to those sort of things.

Edit: The second quote was supposed to be @Bald Eagle's Barmy Army’s post.

Definitely yes. At another club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ShoreRam said:

Definitely yes. At another club.

You don’t know that though, do you?

Obviously, if we didn’t have an academy, Will Hughes wouldn’t have come through with us. But my point was that it’s impossible to measure the point at which the additional investment is the difference between Will Hughes making it with us and making it at another club (or not making it at all).

Edited by DarkFruitsRam7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Aye.

I just think it must be very difficult to measure the value, especially when it’s so dependent on the crop of players you get. 

For example, you could invest nothing and be blessed with a world-class intake on your doorstep, or you could invest millions and have a poor intake (simply because a lot of it is down to chance).

I’d be interested to know what the goal of academy investment is. Is it to reap the benefits of Cat 1 status? Is it to attract talent? Is it to accelerate player development? 

Of course. But you'll find the consistency in quality is greater with higher spend. Birmingham a classic example of low spend but the occasional wonderkid - Bellingham, Gray and Redmond just to name a few. But, The I think the sale of Bellingham helped them breakeven on their return over the past 20 years - hence the cutting back their spend.

That consistency seems apparent when looking back at the new scholar intakes:

2020: Roberts, Randle, Brailsford, Rutt, Christie, Ibrahim, Bokovic, Williams, Kelly
2019: Solomon, Jinkinson, Bardell, Grewal-Pollard, Matthews, Rogers, Aghatise, Perez de Gracia, SThompson, Nto, Cybulski, 
2018: Foster, Halwax, Cashin, Ebosele, McDonald, Archie, Charles, Sibley, LThompson, Wilson, Stretton
2017: French, JBrown, Minkley, Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Dixon, Whittaker
2016: Fryatt, Carter-Thompson, CThomas, Mbuti, Rashid, Mills, Bogle, Thorne, Haywood, Hitchman, Wise, Jibosu, JML, Cresswell, Davie
2015: Yates, Goode, Bateman, Magno, Davidson-Miller, Edwards
2014: Barnes, EWassall, Cover, Stabana, MacDonald, Babos, JBird, Carvell, Gordon, Mellors
2013: Behrens, Tuite, Lowe, Rigby, Moulton, Dryden, Adams, TBennett, Clennett, Guy, Vernam, Zanzala
2012: Rawson, Hanson, KThomas, Spiriak, Nash, Revan, Carrigy, Johnson, Capitani
2011: Etheridge, AWassall, Lelan, Sharpe, Berry, Dales, Hayes, Wixted, Dawkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Of course. But you'll find the consistency in quality is greater with higher spend. Birmingham a classic example of low spend but the occasional wonderkid - Bellingham, Gray and Redmond just to name a few. But, The I think the sale of Bellingham helped them breakeven on their return over the past 20 years - hence the cutting back their spend.

That consistency seems apparent when looking back at the new scholar intakes:

2020: Roberts, Randle, Brailsford, Rutt, Christie, Ibrahim, Bokovic, Williams, Kelly
2019: Solomon, Jinkinson, Bardell, Grewal-Pollard, Matthews, Rogers, Aghatise, Perez de Gracia, SThompson, Nto, Cybulski, 
2018: Foster, Halwax, Cashin, Ebosele, McDonald, Archie, Charles, Sibley, LThompson, Wilson, Stretton
2017: French, JBrown, Minkley, Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Dixon, Whittaker
2016: Fryatt, Carter-Thompson, CThomas, Mbuti, Rashid, Mills, Bogle, Thorne, Haywood, Hitchman, Wise, Jibosu, JML, Cresswell, Davie
2015: Yates, Goode, Bateman, Magno, Davidson-Miller, Edwards
2014: Barnes, EWassall, Cover, Stabana, MacDonald, Babos, JBird, Carvell, Gordon, Mellors
2013: Behrens, Tuite, Lowe, Rigby, Moulton, Dryden, Adams, TBennett, Clennett, Guy, Vernam, Zanzala
2012: Rawson, Hanson, KThomas, Spiriak, Nash, Revan, Carrigy, Johnson, Capitani
2011: Etheridge, AWassall, Lelan, Sharpe, Berry, Dales, Hayes, Wixted, Dawkins

Is EWassall in his 30's yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Of course. But you'll find the consistency in quality is greater with higher spend. Birmingham a classic example of low spend but the occasional wonderkid - Bellingham, Gray and Redmond just to name a few. But, The I think the sale of Bellingham helped them breakeven on their return over the past 20 years - hence the cutting back their spend.

That consistency seems apparent when looking back at the new scholar intakes:

2020: Roberts, Randle, Brailsford, Rutt, Christie, Ibrahim, Bokovic, Williams, Kelly
2019: Solomon, Jinkinson, Bardell, Grewal-Pollard, Matthews, Rogers, Aghatise, Perez de Gracia, SThompson, Nto, Cybulski, 
2018: Foster, Halwax, Cashin, Ebosele, McDonald, Archie, Charles, Sibley, LThompson, Wilson, Stretton
2017: French, JBrown, Minkley, Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Dixon, Whittaker
2016: Fryatt, Carter-Thompson, CThomas, Mbuti, Rashid, Mills, Bogle, Thorne, Haywood, Hitchman, Wise, Jibosu, JML, Cresswell, Davie
2015: Yates, Goode, Bateman, Magno, Davidson-Miller, Edwards
2014: Barnes, EWassall, Cover, Stabana, MacDonald, Babos, JBird, Carvell, Gordon, Mellors
2013: Behrens, Tuite, Lowe, Rigby, Moulton, Dryden, Adams, TBennett, Clennett, Guy, Vernam, Zanzala
2012: Rawson, Hanson, KThomas, Spiriak, Nash, Revan, Carrigy, Johnson, Capitani
2011: Etheridge, AWassall, Lelan, Sharpe, Berry, Dales, Hayes, Wixted, Dawkins

Quiet day at work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Academy spend is exempt from P&S, but sales are not. So even if you spend £40m on the academy but only receive £1m in sales, you'd still be £1m better off for P&S than if you didn't have an academy at all.

Since the start of the 11/12 season, I believe we have spent the best part of £40m on the academy. We have have sold players for about £32m (based on transfermarkt and newspaper figures). But, we also have a number of players in the first team who will have a non-paper value. Assign values to the likes of Buchanan, Bird, Knight and Sibley, and I think it's fair to say we've got more out of the academy than we've put in

I think the academy has been a large part of the reason that we've failed to get promoted and has, consequently, cost us far more than it has contributed.

You correctly point out that the spending is exempt from FFP, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. £5m from a £30m turnover is an enormous amount. It is unthinkable that any owner putting that in wouldn't want to see the first team used to develop the academy players. That means that players are selected for the first team for development purposes, rather than because they are ready. That, in turn, means that our first team always has sub-standard players in it. The margin between success and failure is small at this level, so a couple of sub standard players is enough to turn automatics to play-offs, play-offs to md table or mid table into a relegation battle. Mel has also stated that he has hesitated to bring in experienced players in order not to block the route for the academy players - so the academy has had a tangible influence on recruitment.

Then as soon as a player becomes a real asset, the cost of the academy is so great that we have to sell them just to fund the academy. OK, it also helps with FFP, but FFP is only such an issue because we have been hanging around in this division for such a long time. At our level, a Cat 1 academy is an albatross around our necks. It is the tail that wags the dog. The equation becomes different for a Premier League club with a £150m turnover, £5m on an academy is sensible, but for us it is, in my opinion, the primary reason that Mel's term as owner is ending in ignominy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I think the academy has been a large part of the reason that we've failed to get promoted and has, consequently, cost us far more than it has contributed.

You correctly point out that the spending is exempt from FFP, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. £5m from a £30m turnover is an enormous amount. It is unthinkable that any owner putting that in wouldn't want to see the first team used to develop the academy players. That means that players are selected for the first team for development purposes, rather than because they are ready. That, in turn, means that our first team always has sub-standard players in it. The margin between success and failure is small at this level, so a couple of sub standard players is enough to turn automatics to play-offs, play-offs to md table or mid table into a relegation battle. Mel has also stated that he has hesitated to bring in experienced players in order not to block the route for the academy players - so the academy has had a tangible influence on recruitment.

Then as soon as a player becomes a real asset, the cost of the academy is so great that we have to sell them just to fund the academy. OK, it also helps with FFP, but FFP is only such an issue because we have been hanging around in this division for such a long time. At our level, a Cat 1 academy is an albatross around our necks. It is the tail that wags the dog. The equation becomes different for a Premier League club with a £150m turnover, £5m on an academy is sensible, but for us it is, in my opinion, the primary reason that Mel's term as owner is ending in ignominy. 

Very interesting perspective. I understand your thinking. But it’s rather see young talent given a chance than journeymen. 
maybe we’d be better off just buying younger players from lower divisions and Scotland rather than developing our own

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...