El DerbyCo

[CornwallRam]

1 hour ago, nottingram said:

Our embargo and poor P&S position are the result of an utterly ridiculous recruitment policy of signing “experienced” (read: crap) Championship players for large transfer fees and on large wages, who all in theory were too good for the division and would guarantee us promotion - policy you seem to be advocating? An overly expensive academy has zero impact on this for as long as the owner is willing to fund it on a cash basis. I can’t see any indication this is not the case anymore?

I think you are right in saying Lowe wasn’t good enough to be first choice but equally I don’t think he was given much opportunity to be. In fact, Lampard was allowed to sign Malone (expensive up front, massive wages, long contract) and loan out Lowe. He was then allowed to sign Cole and keep Lowe out on loan - Cole was hugely uninspiring and very poor at Wembley. Lowe didn’t have to be sold but he had been usurped by the next one from the academy, Buchanan. Bogle was sold for P&S reasons, in my opinion. £Xm of pure profit to offset the losses generated by the transfer policy you advocate - a direct benefit of the academy is that players sold from it count as pure profit with negligible amortisation costs going into P&S calculations. As an aside, Bogle was much much better from Wisdom from the get go.

Bennett was a very decent and cheap back up that season. Won us some very important games with his input (Hull away, Reading away, WBA home) were all winning goals he contributed to. Compare that to David Nugent for example and the return on investment doesn’t even compare. Any experienced Championship player worth their salt are not going to be happy as backup to Marriott, Waghorn, Nugent et al. He was a perfectly serviceable player produced at negligible P&S cost. You simply cannot carry expensive back ups to back ups at this level. The decision to start him at Wembley was also not due to not having a big enough squad - Waghorn and Marriott were on the bench! He was selected on merit, rightly or wrongly.

The problem is that we haven't had an owner willing to fund the academy without it affecting the first team, so your argument is unsustainable. 

Mel has stated (paraphrasing) that he wanted managers to utilise the academy. That he needed half the team to be academy graduates because he needed a return on his investment into the academy. He's also said that he avoided signing players to stop the path to the first team being blocked for youngsters. 

It is this that makes the academy a problem. If Mel was happy for recruits to come through organically and be prepared to write off £5m per season if needed, then the academy wouldn't be a problem. However,  Mel's policy is to force young players through, which is why it weakens the first team.

[CornwallRam]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The problem with your argument is that it's the youngster who tend to put in the better performances. The problem lies with not having good enough players elsewhere in the team. Wisdom is a poor defender, Marshall is past his best, so too is Forsyth, Shinnie isn't good enough when a teammate is on the ball, Waghorn's erratic, and Kazim is nothing more than a lower end Championship forward.
We've gone from having Keogh to Wisdom at CB; Ince and Russell on the wing to Lawrence and Wilson to Jozwiak and A.N.Other. Martin/Bent/Vydra/Nugent at CF to Kazim and Gregory.

In 19/20, our most used 11 was: Hamer, Bogle, Davies, Clarke, Lowe, Bird, Holmes, Knight, Waghorn, Lawrence, Martin
In 20/21, at the moment it's: Marshall, Byrne, Wisdom, Clarke, Buchanan, Bird, Shinnie, Knight, Waghorn, Jozwiak, Kazim
4 of those players are the same in both seasons, so I find it hard to point the finger at them for our poor results this year. If you insist on blaming Mel's policy, then why didn't we do worse last year with Bogle and Lowe at FB, whereas we've replaced one of those with an experienced head? Let's take the easy option and blame having "too many" academy graduates in the team instead though.

The forum was pretty much split on who our best LB was between Forsyth and Lowe. He played as much as he did because he was a good LB, not because Mel insisted.

Bennett played upfront in the final because Waghorn, Marriott and Nugent were all injured. His impact on the wing was fantastic that season, with 1 goal contribution every 157 minutes - one of the highest in the league. No club in this league can afford to have 4 high earners fighting for 1 position as you suggested... 

That is a critique of recruitment policy, not evidence that the academy hasn't weakened the first team.

[Ghost of Clough]

34 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

I get the sentiment but unfortunately the reality is you need experience in this league.. The championship is just a drain on money for all clubs.. The secret is to get out quickly..
 

Barnsley, Brentford and Reading have 3 if the 4 youngest squads in the league, but are in the top 7. The rest of the top 7 in the league are Swansea (8th), Bournemouth (9th), Norwich (12th) and Watford (14th). Kind of suggests younger squads do better.

The 6 oldest squads are: Birmingham, Millwall, Wycombe, Sheff Weds, Forest, Cardiff

[Ghost of Clough]

4 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

The problem is that we haven't had an owner willing to fund the academy without it affecting the first team, so your argument is unsustainable. 

Regardless of academy spend, Mel has funded the club to the absolute limit he possibly could (and beyond) under P&S requirements. That funding was on the experienced players you're crying out for. In fact, the academy has helped increase the expenditure on experienced players.

4 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Mel has stated (paraphrasing) that he wanted managers to utilise the academy. That he needed half the team to be academy graduates because he needed a return on his investment into the academy. He's also said that he avoided signing players to stop the path to the first team being blocked for youngsters. 

2015: “My goal over the next five years is that at least 50 per cent of our first team will have academy players in it. That’s just one player each year and we are there.” This was just a month after breaking our transfer record 3 times

4 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

It is this that makes the academy a problem. If Mel was happy for recruits to come through organically and be prepared to write off £5m per season if needed, then the academy wouldn't be a problem. However,  Mel's policy is to force young players through, which is why it weakens the first team.

Again, he stated it as a target, not a mandatory requirement of the manager.

[nottingram]

12 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

The problem is that we haven't had an owner willing to fund the academy without it affecting the first team, so your argument is unsustainable. 

Mel has stated (paraphrasing) that he wanted managers to utilise the academy. That he needed half the team to be academy graduates because he needed a return on his investment into the academy. He's also said that he avoided signing players to stop the path to the first team being blocked for youngsters. 

It is this that makes the academy a problem. If Mel was happy for recruits to come through organically and be prepared to write off £5m per season if needed, then the academy wouldn't be a problem. However,  Mel's policy is to force young players through, which is why it weakens the first team.

Mel has funded the first team as far as he possibly can hence selling the stadium, embargoes and other such loopholes to get us through P&S rules. I’m not sure how it could have been funded anymore without us getting deductions. The academy provides a method of producing players at minimal P&S cost which can supplement spending on first team players. It can also provide pure profit which funds more first team players.

Really not sure of your point - the academy literally only effects P&S in a positive manner and we are at the very limit of this. With no academy and no sales of players coming from it we would have had massive points deductions.

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, Rammy03 said:

Mel's policy of having so many academy players in the team just said to me that he isn't going to be spending any more money. We have let too many experienced players leave and have replaced them with academy players who aren't good enough. Look at the bench at the weekend, it's bereft of any quality. 

I think the angry faces in response to your post are harsh. We’ve certainly got talent in Bird, Sibley, Knight, Buchanan, talent to be proud of. But ultimately they may all be championship not PL players. This is not Hughes or Huddlestone.  So fielding them as youngsters when they lack physicality and experience leaves us underweight. 

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The problem with your argument is that it's the youngster who tend to put in the better performances. 

I don’t see this. Clarke (ok he’s 24) is one of our best, Byrne (older) is the other. I think your judgement of Shinnie is harsh, he is a victim of lack of creativity elsewhere in midfield and of playing too close to Knight. I also think you’re tough on Andre but agree he has vulnerabilities. Your assessment of CKR is controversial but I know where you’re coming from. But where would we now be without him ?

[Van der MoodHoover]

People seem to be thinking that the plan was to suddenly promote the kids en mssse from the academy rather than the gradual introduction that @Ghost of Cloughquoted.

Bringing through 1 a season for a few years should have been relatively uncontroversial as an objective. 

Through adverse circumstances and the failure of other parts of the strategy tho, we find ourselves in the position of several relatively inexperienced players all at once.

Interestingly tho, we still have a spine of Marshall wisdom shinnie and CKR, with possibly Lawrence just behind him. That's experienced, if a bit poo....... 

[Rev]

4 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

But it was not disclosed that Sheikhy was fronting for an Emirati squillionaire. until we were told that by an itk UAE journalist. And apparently the reason that deal fell apart was simply that Mr Big changed his mind. 
 

the fascinating thing is: if MM had required the Sheikh - before EFl approval - to sign definitive docs and place a substantial deposit, Mr UAE Big would now be in the driving seat  
 

at the second attempt, MM knows how to sell a club 
 

 

Isn't this just guessing ballcocks?

[CornwallRam]

2 hours ago, nottingram said:

Mel has funded the first team as far as he possibly can hence selling the stadium, embargoes and other such loopholes to get us through P&S rules. I’m not sure how it could have been funded anymore without us getting deductions. The academy provides a method of producing players at minimal P&S cost which can supplement spending on first team players. It can also provide pure profit which funds more first team players.

Really not sure of your point - the academy literally only effects P&S in a positive manner and we are at the very limit of this. With no academy and no sales of players coming from it we would have had massive points deductions.

Because our recruitment policy, choice of managers and team selections would have been different. It is not about the effect on P&S, it is about the top level strategy. By definition, we have played sub-standard players - that's what player development is. It is only fine margins, not the difference between 1st and 24th. It has probably only cost us a few points a season and maybe a win at Wembley, but that's a pretty crucial difference.

[kevinhectoring]

51 minutes ago, Rev said:

Isn't this just guessing ballcocks?

Which bit?  We were told by a lady journalist there were problems with the ‘consortium’. We were then told by a UAE journo (SBW podcast) that there was a big backer who had withdrawn. A very big backer. There were no other plausible reasons given for the deal collapsing albeit some wittering about EFl and secured loans. Just the usual chorus on here that the Fake Sheikh had no money and was kicking tyres 
 

we were also told the Oct heads of terms had no end date - ie MM had basically given the Sheikh an option and the ability to walk away if he (or the backer) changed their minds,  say for Covid reasons

so: if MM in Oct had said, sign here and deposit 30m and then we’ll speak to the EFL,  what happens  ? Answer: EITHER no deal. OR ... Mr Big is committed - and then so far as he is concerned he owns the club  And off we go  ...    

The stuff about the fake sheikh and tyre kicking is just silly. Henry was never going to sell Liverpool and got his investment bank (Allen &co) to reject the Sheikh’s proposal to avoid insult. Apparently. And my guess (just a guess) from what Ashley put on the record is that he tried to up the price at the 11th hour which was an insult to the Arabs  

MM’s October contracts were ducked up as was his contractual process. This allowed BZI to back out. MM was furious but it’s his lawyers and advisers he should be mad at. He got it right this time and we proceed with the Spanish pugilist  

what’s your version? One possibility is the Sheikh wanted to take MM’s ‘option to buy’ and shop it around, hoping he could raise the dosh from a yet-to-be-formed consortium.  More likely he had backers lined up. But he didn’t need to bind them contractually because he himself was not bound.

 I’m just reading the tea leaves and may be wrong. Certainly not itk except on the Liverpool bit 

 

[Angry Ram]

8 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Barnsley, Brentford and Reading have 3 if the 4 youngest squads in the league, but are in the top 7. The rest of the top 7 in the league are Swansea (8th), Bournemouth (9th), Norwich (12th) and Watford (14th). Kind of suggests younger squads do better.

The 6 oldest squads are: Birmingham, Millwall, Wycombe, Sheff Weds, Forest, Cardiff

It’s about blend and a model. Brentford for example don’t have an academy but can still bring in the right youth to fit a style. 
We seem to throw people in almost as a shop window. That does not help the manager or the team. Morris got just about everything wrong during his tenure and the academy cost about 6 milll a year didn’t it? So I guess he had no choice but to try and generate some revenue just to keep it going. So everyone gets a hard on for the academy but we are not developing our future, we are developing someone else’s. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

45 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

It’s about blend and a model. Brentford for example don’t have an academy but can still bring in the right youth to fit a style. 
We seem to throw people in almost as a shop window. That does not help the manager or the team. Morris got just about everything wrong during his tenure and the academy cost about 6 milll a year didn’t it? So I guess he had no choice but to try and generate some revenue just to keep it going. So everyone gets a hard on for the academy but we are not developing our future, we are developing someone else’s. 

To be fair, you could say that about any Championship club.

You mention Brentford. They don’t just sign players like Watkins, Benrahma and Maupay because they’ll help them get out of the Championship. Obviously they hope they’ll contribute, but they also know that if they do well then they can sell them for a massive profit.

In fact, it’s the smartest clubs like Brentford and Barnsley that seem to take resale value into account more than anything.

Edited April 14, 2021 by DarkFruitsRam7

[Angry Ram]

4 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

To be fair, you could say that about any Championship club.

You mention Brentford. They don’t just sign players like Watkins, Benrahma and Maupay because they’ll help them get out of the Championship. Obviously they hope they’ll contribute, but they also know that if they do well then they can sell them for a massive profit.

In fact, it’s the smartest clubs like Brentford and Barnsley that seem to take resale value into account more than anything.

Yes of course, any player is an investment and any club would hope to get a return on a player that will inevitably move on. Circle of life. The Brentford scenario could have its own thread and their model is unique ish. Yes they have to have a certain amount of sell to survive but they know where they sit in the general order of things and are well aware that if a big club comes calling, they will struggle. Although they do but young, these purchases are well researched and you could say oven ready. Ours are not even defrosted. 
However Morris has created the situation we are in now through poor financial management during his tenure. I am sure he was thinking about a balance between academy and experience but those scales have tipped way too far into dependency on the academy. Now we are seeing the results. 

[nottingram]

7 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

Because our recruitment policy, choice of managers and team selections would have been different. It is not about the effect on P&S, it is about the top level strategy. By definition, we have played sub-standard players - that's what player development is. It is only fine margins, not the difference between 1st and 24th. It has probably only cost us a few points a season and maybe a win at Wembley, but that's a pretty crucial difference.

But the only manager who you could even argue has prioritised academy players over better experienced players is Cocu (and I don’t even think he did, really) by which point first team investment had been scaled back because of P&S issues that arose as a result of overspending on first team players.

I just don’t understand the line of thinking - Mel has funded the academy from a cash perspective. He has also funded the first team from a cash perspective and a profit perspective. The academy helps to fund the first team from both a cash perspective and a profit perspective. So then the issue is that too many academy players have been promoted - please give specific examples of this happening before it became a necessity to do so because we could no longer afford to carry expensive first team players? Bennett at Wembley is literally the only one you could possibly argue and for reasons I gave originally I don’t think that’s the case.

Bogle was, is and will continue to be much better than Wisdom so that wasn’t an issue. Knight and Bird transformed the team when becoming first team players last season, in part due to necessity because Bielik did his knee. Lowe playing instead of Malone in Cocu’s season maybe, but Malone was no world beater. Other than that, I can’t see many examples of managers picking youth players in direct place of more experienced first team players.

The fact is, the academy has given the first team the budget to sign better players. The fact that money has been wasted is nothing to do with the academy. 

[Mckram]

Raja Oktohari (the supposed Indonesian backer) put on his Instagram story a few hours ago that the Derby link is a ‘hoax’.

Well I’m assuming that’s what it says as there’s a Derby badge on a news story and he’s wrote hoax. 

[Ghost of Clough]

8 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

Because our recruitment policy, choice of managers and team selections would have been different. It is not about the effect on P&S, it is about the top level strategy. By definition, we have played sub-standard players - that's what player development is. It is only fine margins, not the difference between 1st and 24th. It has probably only cost us a few points a season and maybe a win at Wembley, but that's a pretty crucial difference.

Going back to my post yesterday regarding minutes to academy graduates, this is the list of players (and season) where they got anything meaningful...

Hanson (15/16) - Behind Hendrick, Hughes, Butterfield, Johnson, Bryson, Thorne and Baird. Got in due to injuries and even played at LB and RB.
Lowe (16/17) - Injuries to Olsson and Forsyth gave him a chance
Bogle (18/19) - Started the season as Wisdom's backup because we couldn't find a suitable loan. Once in the team he was too good to be dropped.
Bennett (18/19) - A squad player who had a massive impact off the bench. A vital member of that squad.
Bogle (19/20) - Deservedly in the squad due to 18/19
Lowe (19/20) - Started the season as 3rd choice behind Malone and Forsyth. His first 8 games were all at RB because Bogle was injured. He impressed Cocu so much in those games he earned a starting spot over Malone when Bogle returned from injury. Pretty much remained that what until he picked up the red card, which coincided with Forsyth returning from injury - back down to 2nd choice.
Bird (19/20) - Behind Bielik, Holmes, Dowell, Shinnie, Evans and Huddlestone as one of the two CMs. Came in to the side due to an injury crisis but deservedly retained his spot due to form once they were all fit.
Knight (19/20) - Used as a utility player based on where we had a gap on any particular day - CM, AM, RW, LW. His performances merited staying in the team though.
Sibley (19/20) - Head and shoulders the best player at U23 level out of all teams. Deservedly got a chance in the league and scored 5 in 11 games.
Knight (20/21) - Deservedly in the squad due to 19/20
Buchanan (20/21) - Felt like he was given a shot a bit too soon. However, the fact his performances merited an U21 callup, he's clearly good enough for this level.
Bird (20/21) - Deservedly in the squad due to 19/20
Sibley (20/21) - Deservedly in the squad due to 19/20

So who affected recruitment?
Bogle I guess, because we couldn't loan him out and we would have got someone cheap in as cover for Wisdom - thank duck for that.
Knight in 19/20 at a push, but P&S restricted how much we could spend on wages and I'm guessing the budget was empty
Buchanan in 20/21, but the fact  our transfer business was was it was in the summer (and then in January) also indicates the P&S budget was again empty.

1 hour ago, Angry Ram said:

It’s about blend and a model. Brentford for example don’t have an academy but can still bring in the right youth to fit a style. 
We seem to throw people in almost as a shop window. That does not help the manager or the team. Morris got just about everything wrong during his tenure and the academy cost about 6 milll a year didn’t it? So I guess he had no choice but to try and generate some revenue just to keep it going. So everyone gets a hard on for the academy but we are not developing our future, we are developing someone else’s. 

Once working as it should, the team grows as the academy graduates grow. Yes, some players will outgrow the team and be snatched by a bigger club. Either the next academy graduate steps up or you buy a new player in of a similar ability straight away. That specific position may be weaker, but the rest of the young team continues to improve with a net positive result.

I bet Leicester are kicking themselves for spending all that money on their academy just to produce and England quality LB for Chelsea... Idiots

[Angry Ram]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Once working as it should, the team grows as the academy graduates grow. Yes, some players will outgrow the team and be snatched by a bigger club. Either the next academy graduate steps up or you buy a new player in of a similar ability straight away. That specific position may be weaker, but the rest of the young team continues to improve with a net positive result.

I bet Leicester are kicking themselves for spending all that money on their academy just to produce and England quality LB for Chelsea... Idiots

Agreed but does it ever work like this? I suppose the exception could be the top of the tree but then different pressures come into play and it's easier to buy an international instead of develop.

The whole academy system is flawed really. Take a championship club, anyone really. They develop a lad from say U8s. Good player but not quite that special. He may go through the system till 16 and then clubs start making decisions on U18 youth contracts. The bigger clubs then cull and those players are picked up by the smaller teams, they then cull and those players might go to semi pro clubs etc. So really, most of the time the academy has a player, someone else might have developed him. 

Chelsea are just scooping up anything that might be a threat. I don't believe it's about player development but more protectionism with them.  

[RadioactiveWaste]

Some posts on this thread seem to be going the wrong way around it regarding the academy.

We're not poor this season because we've put in loads of academy players, we're poor this season because senior pros haven't been good enough. If we'd not had youth players of the caliber to actually put in some reasonable performances we'd be dead and buried already.

It's taken nearly ten years to build a quality academy set up, started back in the nigel clough days, accelerated by Mel's investment and some people are trying to now say it's been a wasted endevour because of this season - and the plight this season is the least responsibility of the academy and the most on failures of expensive, experienced senior professionals (this season and previous seasons).

 

[Kernow]

1 hour ago, Mckram said:

Raja Oktohari (the supposed Indonesian backer) put on his Instagram story a few hours ago that the Derby link is a ‘hoax’.

Well I’m assuming that’s what it says as there’s a Derby badge on a news story and he’s wrote hoax. 

This is the translated version of the story Oktohari posted on his Instagram story. He’s denying any involvement, there’s also mention of a club in Bali who have denied any involvement with Alonso despite his claims...