The academy model

[angieram]

At what point did Southampton get promoted with their model?

Obviously you're a bit less likely to have your young starlets stolen before you have been able to make money on them when you're in the Prem. The lure of playing time in the Prem means they are less likely to desert at a very young age to a City or Liverpool. Later, they go for big money, of course.

[Angry Ram]

How do you measure success of an Academy?

First team players? Sales?

 

[angieram]

1 minute ago, Angry Ram said:

How do you measure success of an Academy?

First team players? Sales?

 

Good question. Maybe a bit of both? 

[Foreveram]

I would have thought the ultimate success is not having to sell your best young players 

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

Good question. Maybe a bit of both? 

It should be to produce players for us but that never works unless you are a top 5 academy.. Our role in the greater scheme of things is to do the work for someone else unfortunately. We won’t keep the best talent. 

[angieram]

50 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

It should be to produce players for us but that never works unless you are a top 5 academy.. Our role in the greater scheme of things is to do the work for someone else unfortunately. We won’t keep the best talent. 

We finished 6th, I think. It's the overall wealth of the club and where the first team finishes that matters. 

Hence my question about Southampton. Because they can offer their youngsters the potential of first team Premier League football, they can hang on to their youngsters for longer. Their academy finished bottom, btw.

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, Foreveram said:

I would have thought the ultimate success is not having to sell your best young players 

If that's the metric then by that measure, we can never have ultimate success. Save for very rare occasions, the cream of the crop will always gravitate to a select number of top clubs and there's nothing to be done about it. Realistically, to cement a place in the top flight is the very best we can hope for and for me, that would be more than good enough.

[LeedsCityRam]

4 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

How do you measure success of an Academy?

First team players? Sales?

 

Both in my opinion. We know running a Championship club inevitably leads to losses so if we sell one talented youth player a year (post a first team debut season), we're likely to break even given our circa 30m turnover gives us sway over every club in our division other than Prem relegated clubs & their parachute payments.

That said as @86 Hair Islands says, the Academy is categorically not the reason for our woes. Its a) poor signings with the big transfer funds we had 2015-20 & b) constant changes in manager & managerial style. Complaining about the Academy is just a massive sideshow. No-one made this argument last June/July because Sibley, Bird & Knight were all firing..the reason why they're not now is because of an incompetent manager, nothing more. Replace him with someone with a track record or discernible ability & they go back to being a 30m asset. 

[StantonRam]

A few thoughts on this.

I always enjoy seeing a new player from the Academy break into the first team, and in recent years some of them have been excellent - Bogle, Lowe, Sibley, the list goes on.

If we are headed for a short term future in which we are strapped for cash, it's the only way to survive in the Championship as far as I can see, because it seems that big money purchases are out of the question for now.

The other side of the coin is this however.  Running an Academy takes money, and most of the players we produce won't make the Rams first team.  To some extent we are developing players who then get sold before we have seen them at their best, and for less money than they will soon be worth (unless we insert valuation or sell on clauses in the contract when they are sold).  Therefore, in order to produce a Bogle or a Lowe we are spending probably more money than it would cost to sign an established 25-30 year old journeyman.

One more thing that I've noticed.  All the players that have emerged from the Academy in recent years seem to be the same type of player - skilful, quick, exciting going forward BUT also defensively fragile and liable to not be in position when we are under the cosh and about to concede from yet another set piece.  (To be fair, Max Bird has proved the exception to this rule I admit).

Where are the goalkeepers, centre backs, big #9s etc coming up from the Academy?  Or do we preselect, when they are young, boys who might become the next Will Hughes but not the next Curtis Davies or Scott Carson or CKR?  Or is it that only the quick, skilful players show up for trials?  If so, what are we doing to try to find other types of young players?   We need those kind of 'solid' players coming through as well as the skilful midfielders, of which we seem to have an abundance. 

For example, would we sign up a very young version of Akinfenwa to the Academy?  People may scoff at this example, but the fact is that the guy has had a 15 year professional career and scored a lot of goals, albeit at a lower level.  Would we sign a very young version of Peter Crouch either?  Or even Gazza?

The ability to spot talent that is housed within a non-standard individual (non-standard mentally &/or physically) was surely part of the genius of Peter Taylor.  Teams used to be full of characters, eccentrics and strange looking people - Nobby Stiles, anyone?  Archie Gemmill?  Would those types get signed now, or do we always go for the slim, athletic, average to tall height, skilful rather than solid or gutsy type of youngster, and thereby miss potential in other positions in the early stages?  Are we at risk of producing an assembly line of Hughes/Bogle type clones because they are easier to spot at a young age than a potentially great GK or CB or big #9?

I don't know the answer I admit, but I have worked in education and I do know enough to know that guts, character, resilience and a determination to improve often count for more in the end than natural talent.  How then does one judge guts, character, resilience and determination in an 11 year old?  If the next Jamie Vardy turned up at the Academy would we be able to spot him?  I hope so!

[Van der MoodHoover]

Just a couple of points on Southampton academy being as its my local one...

- had 30m invested in it 10 years ago

- Southampton regionally has a far larger catchment area. The nearest decent sized rivals are really the London clubs 80 miles away

- is set up with similar objectives and structures to Derby, so looks like Mel trying to emulate.

- most important..it hasn't produced anything of note recently. Ward prowse and Luke Shaw made their first team debuts 10 years ago! Most recent player coming through is Danny ings and Sam Gallagher. 

All of which shows how difficult it is to sustain structures like an academy and how good scouting analysis etc is still important.

[Spanish]

9 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

It should be to produce players for us but that never works unless you are a top 5 academy.. Our role in the greater scheme of things is to do the work for someone else unfortunately. We won’t keep the best talent. 

Exactly.  The point of an academy is to develop players to get into your first team.  If your first team is lower Div2 that’s what you will retain.  Those that are better will be taken from us.  If they are not up to standard the only hope is to sell them and if lucky use the funds to strengthen the first team.

[Angry Ram]

17 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Exactly.  The point of an academy is to develop players to get into your first team.  If your first team is lower Div2 that’s what you will retain.  Those that are better will be taken from us.  If they are not up to standard the only hope is to sell them and if lucky use the funds to strengthen the first team.

Catch 22. Lower Div 2 teams have a problem with academies or Centres of Excellence, they are shedding these as they can’t afford them and they can’t attract the best players. Championship teams are just developing for bigger clubs. 
The big 5 just sit there like vultures and wait for players to develop and then scoop them up and derisory amounts. We may get a couple through like this season and Sibley and Knight could well be sold. For how much, we will need to see. 
IMO with our financial position, we are better recruiting, rather than developing..

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Do academy running costs count towards FFP?

[Ghost of Clough]

17 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Waste of time and money. 

In terms of investment vs player sales, we've broken even during Mel's time as owner, but we still own a talented group of youngsters as well. So at the very least it's not a waste.

Then there is the undeniable fact that it's helped us avoid P&S punishments thanks to those player sales. 

And perhaps the most important one of all, academy player sales over the past 12 months have kept this club running - Bogle, Lowe, Whittaker, Gordon, the Man Utd 5...

[Spanish]

11 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Do academy running costs count towards FFP?

it is an allowable expense so does not add to the costs used in the calculation

[Ghost of Clough]

19 hours ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

Could be a little controversial but I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on the current academy model. 

Here are mine:

Back in ~2015 Mel made the statement that he wanted around half of the first team to be made up on academy players within 5 years. Here we are at that point and that hasnt seemed to materialise. I can understand the model given our continuous failure in the transfer market and heavy investment in the academy. Develop younger and sell on for profit makes sense, bringing through player with 'the Derby way' who can slot into the first team, offer the best prospects in the country an easy path into championship level football to attract the best. However I am sceptical whether this can happen in reality. 

Buchanan, Bird, Knight and Sibley would be starting in my team every week (until Bielik is fully fit) so we aren't too far off.
I'd expect Ebosele and Stretton to be pushing their way in as first choices in their positions before long. There's also Foster, McDonald and Watson on the fringes too. Half the team isn't just a pipe dream but a very real possibility.

19 hours ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

I cant think of another club in world football that has half their team made up of academy players and still remain competitive (maybe Athletic Bilbao?). 

Man United (class of 98) and Barcelona (Guardiola) are the two most notable examples in 'recent' times.

Man Utd appear to be going for at least 50% - Rashford, McTominay, Pogba, Greenwood and Henderson will all be expecting to be starters. 4 of those were in their most used 11 from last season (Henderson missing out). Then they have a massive list of fringe players hoping to get minutes such as Tuanzebe and Williams

It'll be interesting to see which direction Chelsea go in next season, with Mount, James, Christensen, Hudson-Odoi, Abraham and Gilmour in their squad.

19 hours ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

If the model is also to sell the academy players when they can command a fee, which is seems to be the case (bogle, lowe, whittaker) then how can we be competitive while also selling the best our academy produces? We would probably need to be churning out a Will Hughes or Bogle in half of the positions in the team every 3/4 years if promotion/the premier league is still the end goal. I dont think we can sell players and replace them at that rate. 

It sounds like you underestimate the quality of player in our academy then. There's a reason some of the biggest clubs in the world have been linked with our academy lads in recent times.

19 hours ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

I also dont think that we are able to bring in the best the country has to offer, and when we do have them, the bigger academies can still poach them for pennies (Kellan Gordon). 

So we aren't able to find the best in the country, but they also get poached from us? Make your mind up.

19 hours ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

This certainly isnt an academy bashing post either, I think the young lads have done really well under the circumstances this season, but I think too much has been asked of them before they are really ready. 

Do we need to have a bit of a rethink if there is a change in ownership? 

No

[angieram]

1 hour ago, LondonRam2 said:

A few thoughts on this.

I always enjoy seeing a new player from the Academy break into the first team, and in recent years some of them have been excellent - Bogle, Lowe, Sibley, the list goes on.

If we are headed for a short term future in which we are strapped for cash, it's the only way to survive in the Championship as far as I can see, because it seems that big money purchases are out of the question for now.

The other side of the coin is this however.  Running an Academy takes money, and most of the players we produce won't make the Rams first team.  To some extent we are developing players who then get sold before we have seen them at their best, and for less money than they will soon be worth (unless we insert valuation or sell on clauses in the contract when they are sold).  Therefore, in order to produce a Bogle or a Lowe we are spending probably more money than it would cost to sign an established 25-30 year old journeyman.

Not necessarily so as if we produce enough decent players who are being sold on for small fees they each recoup a portion of the running costs. Bogle and Lowe between them recouped teo years' running costs but we still sold other players for smaller fees during that time.

One more thing that I've noticed.  All the players that have emerged from the Academy in recent years seem to be the same type of player - skilful, quick, exciting going forward BUT also defensively fragile and liable to not be in position when we are under the cosh and about to concede from yet another set piece.  (To be fair, Max Bird has proved the exception to this rule I admit)

Ebosele and Cashin both good defenders so I think we are trying to address this. Bogle and Lowe considered good enough defensively to attract big money from a Prem side. I think Buchanan will also be a classy defender eventually. Young players don't turn into burly 28 year old journeymen overnight and even Will Hughes has learnt to stick a foot in when it matters. He committed some pretty cynical fouls against us.

Where are the goalkeepers, centre backs, big #9s etc coming up from the Academy?  Or do we preselect, when they are young, boys who might become the next Will Hughes but not the next Curtis Davies or Scott Carson or CKR?  Or is it that only the quick, skilful players show up for trials?  If so, what are we doing to try to find other types of young players?   We need those kind of 'solid' players coming through as well as the skilful midfielders, of which we seem to have an abundance. 

Gave some examples above but sometimes I think we let players go a bit too young OR they have to go to develop that type of solidity. Look at Callum Guy, still only 24 and he will have bigger clubs looking at him with those stats.

For example, would we sign up a very young version of Akinfenwa to the Academy?  People may scoff at

.this example, but the fact is that the guy has had a 15 year professional career and scored a lot of goals, albeit at a lower level.  Would we sign a very young version of Peter Crouch either?  Bartos Cybulski Or even Gazza? Liam Thompson

I do think when watching games that our Academy is a lot more varied physically than the big clubs, who tend to have almost a production line of 6 2 athletic and physically strong players. They don't always beat us though, we finished 6th for a reason - teamwork, desire, intensity. I see that in abundance amongst our youngsters.

The ability to spot talent that is housed within a non-standard individual (non-standard mentally &/or physically) was surely part of the genius of Peter Taylor.  Teams used to be full of characters, eccentrics and strange looking people - Nobby Stiles, anyone?  Archie Gemmill?  Would those types get signed now, or do we always go for the slim, athletic, average to tall height, skilful rather than solid or gutsy type of youngster, and thereby miss potential in other positions in the early stages?  Are we at risk of producing an assembly line of Hughes/Bogle type clones because they are easier to spot at a young age than a potentially great GK or CB or big #9?

I don't know the answer I admit, but I have worked in education and I do know enough to know that guts, character, resilience and a determination to improve often count for more in the end than natural talent.  How then does one judge guts, character, resilience and determination in an 11 year old?  If the next Jamie Vardy turned up at the Academy would we be able to spot him?  I hope so!

The whole point about Vardy is that it is not the academy experience that made him into the footballer he became. That will always be so, and no Academy can hoover up and nurture every talent on the off chance they will eventually turn into superstars. Chelsea try it, they usually have more Academy players out on loan each season than we have in there in total! 

 

[angieram]

I am finding this thread a bit depressing, tbh. 

One of the brightest, no the brightest, parts of our club under Mel's tenure has been the sustained development of our academy and younger players. I think credit goes to the entire team from Mel's investment through Darren Wassall's excellent stewardship and all the coaching and education teams behind our young players. They are almost without exception such rounded young sportsmen who know how to play the game in the right spirit.

I actually take a certain amount of pride in our academy concept and am pleased we have decided to nurture future talent rather than just leaving it to the "big" clubs.

At the very best not having an academy would have given us the money to buy one more Waghorn type player a year, who wouldn't be allowable against FFP, and would give no more guarantee of a return against investment than our current set up. 

But success is everything, so let's rip up all that investment in the future of the game, make several dozen staff redundant and use the money to employ analysts who will buy in a random assortment of strangers that aren’t allowable against FFP and who have no association with our club. What makes you think that would work better? 

Ah, yes, Brentford. Anyone would think they'd just got promoted ( at last.)

Just a final thought. Moor Farm provides some of the very best training facilities in the whole country, which benefits all our teams. We wouldn't be able to afford to keep that going for the first team squad only. No academy, no Moor Farm. 

 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

2 minutes ago, angieram said:

I am finding this thread a bit depressing, tbh. 

One of the brightest, no the brightest, parts of our club under Mel's tenure has been the sustained development of our academy and younger players. I think credit goes to the entire team from Mel's investment through Darren Wassall's excellent stewardship and all the coaching and education teams behind our young players. They are almost without exception such rounded young sportsmen who know how to play the game in the right spirit.

I actually take a certain amount of pride in our academy concept and am pleased we have decided to nurture future talent rather than just leaving it to the "big" clubs.

At the very best not having an academy would have given us the money to buy one more Waghorn type player a year, who wouldn't be allowable against FFP, and would give no more guarantee of a return against investment than our current set up. 

But success is everything, so let's rip up all that investment in the future of the game, make several dozen staff redundant and use the money to employ analysts who will buy in a random assortment of strangers that aren’t allowable against FFP and who have no association with our club. What makes you think that would work better? 

Ah, yes, Brentford. Anyone would think they'd just got promoted ( at last.)

Just a final thought. Moor Farm provides some of the very best training facilities in the whole country, which benefits all our teams. We wouldn't be able to afford to keep that going for the first team squad only. No academy, no Moor Farm. 

 

Depressing?

I'm finding it a really good read to be honest.

The questions being raised are very good and fair, given that we escaped relegation at the 11th hour, are a team in decline and are in a financial mess.

The academy is clearly the future of the club, but the question is fair, given the state of the club, is the current academy model working? 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

43 minutes ago, Spanish said:

it is an allowable expense so does not add to the costs used in the calculation

In which case, why would it be deemed a waste of money, out of interest? Not aimed at you, more at @Angry Ram.

Perhaps you could argue the ongoing costs are the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of Mel’s enthusiasm for funding the club. But if they’re irrelevant to FFP, are they not irrelevant to our current financial struggles, which are FFP-based? 

Unless it has a significant effect on our transfer budget? But even so, I’d rather us get our recruitment in order before spunking more money on established Championship players with a low ceiling and minimal resale value.

Edited June 9, 2021 by DarkFruitsRam7