Jump to content

The academy model


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

I think we are talking about different things here. You seem to be arguing for the quality in the academy, which I dont dispute. 

I am talking purely about the business model. I am scepticle of the long term sustainability of relying on the academy for both first team players and palyer sales. Even the best academies only produce a very small handful of players that are good enough for first team level, most with about 1/2 at a time. Chelsea and united have a particularly good crop at the moment which has skewed things slightly with 3/4 players. It may well be the case that the U23 league improves the amount of players coming through that are first team quality, but the current crop arent yet good enough (as this season has shown) and we are gambling heavily on them improving very quickly to avoid relegation. And if this new crop do succeed, then we will need 5/6 ready to take their place and so on as some will surely be sold whether the club want to sell or not.

For the model to work, we would need nearly everyone on that list from each year to be first team quality or higher. We might just disagree on how likely this is and how sustainable it is as a business model, which is fine.

I have watched an awful lot of our u18 and u23's, I used to work for ramstv! 

The quality in the academy indicates how sustainable it is for us to continue bringing through and then selling the academy players. As one is sold, another is ready to step up. Lowe -> Buchanan -> Archie -> Maloney for example.

As a Championship club with a top academy, we should be able to fill the first team with academy graduates, whereas the 'big 6' shouldn't as their bar should be higher than ours.

Bird, Knight and Sibley appeared to be ready in 19/20, but because the quality in the rest of the team deteriorated they no longer are?

"Nearly everyone on that list from each year"? How much turnover are you expecting? 9 was the smallest crop, with 12 the biggest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

That's U23 players, not academy though.

After 41 games, percentage of minutes to U21s:
1. Blackburn - 24.22
2. Derby - 24.06
3. Norwich - 20.61
4. Stoke - 19.42
5. Watford - 18.25

Others you listed: Barnsley (8th), Brentford (11th), Forest (14th), Millwall (21st)
 

Percentage of minutes to academy graduates:
1. Reading - 31.95
2. Derby 22.55
3. Blackburn - 20.51
4. Boro - 18.59
5. Norwich - 17.14

Others you listed: Barnsley (14th), Brentford (=21), Forest (10th), Millwall (17th)

 

Probably puts a completely different spin on the academy than that Twitter post you found.

Cheers - I will amend my end-of-term report accordingly !!

Norwich in top 5 in both your examples - they didn't do too bad ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The quality in the academy indicates how sustainable it is for us to continue bringing through and then selling the academy players. As one is sold, another is ready to step up. Lowe -> Buchanan -> Archie -> Maloney for example.

As a Championship club with a top academy, we should be able to fill the first team with academy graduates, whereas the 'big 6' shouldn't as their bar should be higher than ours.

Bird, Knight and Sibley appeared to be ready in 19/20, but because the quality in the rest of the team deteriorated they no longer are?

"Nearly everyone on that list from each year"? How much turnover are you expecting? 9 was the smallest crop, with 12 the biggest

In the U23 side you get more time and space to express yourself as a player. 

Stepping up to the first team can be daunting as seasoned pros snap at your heels as soon as you take possession. The temptation is to play a hurried pass because it's been drummed into you that losing the ball is a cardinal error. 

You need good players around youngsters to help lessen that pressure. Rooney, for all his many faults when he played for us, made sure he gave players space with his passes. He was also around for a return pass. 

Young players can gain confidence if they are helped. 

We need a few signings who can hold the ball under pressure and let the likes of Bird, Knight and Sibley show their talents. 

Bird's shooting is atrocious and needs work on the training ground but the other two are capable of scoring ten in a season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The quality in the academy indicates how sustainable it is for us to continue bringing through and then selling the academy players. As one is sold, another is ready to step up. Lowe -> Buchanan -> Archie -> Maloney for example.

As a Championship club with a top academy, we should be able to fill the first team with academy graduates, whereas the 'big 6' shouldn't as their bar should be higher than ours.

Bird, Knight and Sibley appeared to be ready in 19/20, but because the quality in the rest of the team deteriorated they no longer are?

"Nearly everyone on that list from each year"? How much turnover are you expecting? 9 was the smallest crop, with 12 the biggest

*unproven quality. 

I dont feel as though producing four left backs in a row that can play at championship level is realistic, considering its never been done before by any club really (If someone can find one then great). If we sold buchanan this summer or even next, do we think Archie is ready and of the same quality, if not better? And then again with Malone? 

It might be possible, but there isnt any evidence of it working elsewhere. The fact that so few players up until 2016 ever made a mark on the first team suggests this. If the squad was supplemented with smart signings as well to take the pressure off the young players or even allow them to go out on loan (which few of ours seem to do) then I think that might yield better results. 

As I have said before I am not discussing the quality of the current crop, but only knight and buchanan managed to nail down a regular spot this season despite the dire competition for places...

'Nearly all was' an exaggeration but even half seems to be very ambitious based on previous years, and yes U23 football has changed now but even if you doubled what we were getting before, its still probably not enough.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

In the U23 side you get more time and space to express yourself as a player. 

Stepping up to the first team can be daunting as seasoned pros snap at your heels as soon as you take possession. The temptation is to play a hurried pass because it's been drummed into you that losing the ball is a cardinal error. 

You need good players around youngsters to help lessen that pressure. Rooney, for all his many faults when he played for us, made sure he gave players space with his passes. He was also around for a return pass. 

Young players can gain confidence if they are helped. 

We need a few signings who can hold the ball under pressure and let the likes of Bird, Knight and Sibley show their talents. 

Bird's shooting is atrocious and needs work on the training ground but the other two are capable of scoring ten in a season. 

Yeah, we certainly saw that when Bird was first introduced to the team. Now he's settled, he's picked up Hudd's ability to create time for himself.

Rooney was great for us in possession but a complete liability when out of possession. 

I don't think there's a single sane person who doesn't think we need to make a few signings.

Bird's shooting is pretty bad (though unlucky not to have scored a couple), but he is a DM after all. Thorne's season best was just 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Close it down - Moor Farm, the lot.

The players can train on Pride Park pitch - a few star jumps and the like - and then we can get some caravans in on to the training pitches. £1000 per week for a berth, and daily use of palatial gym and catering facilities. Mel Morris to paint kids faces, and Owen Bradley to organise evening entertainment (inc. Gibbo playing the mouth organ, and McClaren doing long monologues mostly about himself). Much more sustainable business at this time.

The club is a circus as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jubbs said:

They are smart enough to recruit in accordance with the rules. They scout from the Eredivisie for example, fine. Brentford's model will be fine.

Brentford's model will be fine for them in the Prem where they have more money to spend. They are planning to spend big money this season. I have no doubt Brentford are smart enough.

What I mean is it will be much harder for a club at Champioship level to find a cheap (i.e. cheap for a Champ budget) foreign player using stats - if they are cheap it's because they are unknown and if they are unknown they won't have the visa points. It is harder for an imitator now to follow the Brentford model from the Championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

*unproven quality. 

I dont feel as though producing four left backs in a row that can play at championship level is realistic, considering its never been done before by any club really (If someone can find one then great). If we sold buchanan this summer or even next, do we think Archie is ready and of the same quality, if not better? And then again with Malone? 

4 LBs over 8 years isn't exactly extreme. 
MUFC - Fryers, Brady, Blackett, Borthwick-Jackson, Williams
Over 12 years they had Neville, Neville, Brown, Bardsley and Simpson at RB

Who thought Buchanan was ready to step up and replace Lowe?
This summer? No (we have Forsyth as backup anyway).
Next summer? Yes

6 minutes ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

It might be possible, but there isnt any evidence of it working elsewhere. The fact that so few players up until 2016 ever made a mark on the first team suggests this. If the squad was supplemented with smart signings as well to take the pressure off the young players or even allow them to go out on loan (which few of ours seem to do) then I think that might yield better results. 

That's evidence of a lack of spending yielding so few players making the grade. Of course we need to make signings too... otherwise it would be 100% academy graduates, which isn't what we're talking about

6 minutes ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

As I have said before I am not discussing the quality of the current crop, but only knight and buchanan managed to nail down a regular spot this season despite the dire competition for places...

Yet Bird nailed down a spot the previous season. He was playing so well he was a serious contender for PotS despite only playing in half the games.

6 minutes ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

'Nearly all was' an exaggeration but even half seems to be very ambitious based on previous years, and yes U23 football has changed now but even if you doubled what we were getting before, its still probably not enough.  

We'd be looking at 2 or 3 a year in reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Fryers, Brady, Blackett, Borthwick-Jackson, Williams

Good example, but I think only really Williams looks of the quality to play even for us, but fair one on the Nevilles and brown. Simpson and bardsley were never united quality though. I accept we dont need that level of player though.

22 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

That's evidence of a lack of spending yielding so few players making the grade. Of course we need to make signings too... otherwise it would be 100% academy graduates, which isn't what we're talking about

Spending on the academy doesnt always produce results, the same with signings too admittedly, but we are hoping that the talent pool is there rather than fishing from an already existing pool as a previous poster put it. 

27 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Yet Bird nailed down a spot the previous season. He was playing so well he was a serious contender for PotS despite only playing in half the games.

Yes I thought he did very well last season. Young players are inconsistent, thats how it goes and he may well come back strong next season, but if he doesnt or has a downturn in form and we dont have an other option then we may be in trouble again. 

29 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

We'd be looking at 2 or 3 a year in reality

This still seems ambitious to acheive consistently but thats just my opinion. 

I think we have started to show a little more nuance in the transfer market, e.g Jozwiak, young international player going into a big tournament, bielik would have been the same if not for an injury. 

Our problem is with recruitment but we are trying to solve it with the academy, where as I think fixing the recruitment is the answer rather than gambling on consistently producing great players in decent numbers consistently to pay the bills and get us promoted, it would be great to be wrong though. I guess it depends on where you want to make your gamble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

 

Our problem is with recruitment but we are trying to solve it with the academy, where as I think fixing the recruitment is the answer rather than gambling on consistently producing great players in decent numbers consistently to pay the bills and get us promoted, it would be great to be wrong though. I guess it depends on where you want to make your gamble. 

You keep saying this but as several people have already stated in this thread, it's not an either/or situation. We cannot spend the money we save on the academy without falling foul of FFP. 

We have had to rely on the Academy because our recruitment has been poor, injuries have hit us hard and at the same time covid arrived, deflating the value of our young players. It doesn't mean that having an academy is wrong. 

Ideal world we grow our own and recruit to complement them, selling only those who outgrow us. I have less confidence in that recruitment than in the academy continuing to produce good players for many years to come. 

I am not sure why you keep going back to the academy model being the problem when you state yourself it is really the recruitment that is at fault.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours 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. 

 

No-one is saying completely gut the academy and do it completely brentford's way though are they... but asking about the realistic output of the academy into the first team in the long run as opposed to do something different. Personally, I just want Derby county to be successful and for us to consistently use our resources in the likeliest way to make it happen. It's great if we can do that via the academy but if that can't be done then changes need to be made. Personally, i think we've overestimated just how good a lot of our recent graduates are from the academy. 

Brentford have gone from a small time 3rd division team to leapfrogging us into the premier league and consistently earning big returns on players they've recruited. The last thing I'd be doing is scoffing at them but trying to see what elements of their model can be integrated into our own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

No-one is saying completely gut the academy and do it completely brentford's way though are they... but asking about the realistic output of the academy into the first team in the long run as opposed to do something different. Personally, I just want Derby county to be successful and for us to consistently use our resources in the likeliest way to make it happen. It's great if we can do that via the academy but if that can't be done then changes need to be made. Personally, i think we've overestimated just how good a lot of our recent graduates are from the academy. 

Brentford have gone from a small time 3rd division team to leapfrogging us into the premier league and consistently earning big returns on players they've recruited. The last thing I'd be doing is scoffing at them but trying to see what elements of their model can be integrated into our own. 

A portion of our fans have scoffed at Brentford for a long time when others have said we should be doing everything we can to replicate what they were doing.

In the time Mel took over and ploughed 100 million, 200 million or a gazillion pounds (depending on day of the week) into the club, Brentford went from the brink of financial ruin and being a non-league team to being a well run premier league club.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

A portion of our fans have scoffed at Brentford for a long time when others have said we should be doing everything we can to replicate what they were doing.

In the time Mel took over and ploughed 100 million, 200 million or a gazillion pounds (depending on day of the week) into the club, Brentford went from the brink of financial ruin and being a non-league team to being a well run premier league club.

 

 

Brentford are not the brilliantly run club everyone says, if you look at losses without player sales (see below) they lost £34 million in year 19/20. (£9million loss after player sales), a team cannot rely on selling that amount of talent every season to survive or meet FFP. 

acknowledgement to Swissramble for the numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

image.thumb.png.f50c282fbdced13e7fddedc15cc3ae45.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

No-one is saying completely gut the academy and do it completely brentford's way though are they... but asking about the realistic output of the academy into the first team in the long run as opposed to do something different. Personally, I just want Derby county to be successful and for us to consistently use our resources in the likeliest way to make it happen. It's great if we can do that via the academy but if that can't be done then changes need to be made. Personally, i think we've overestimated just how good a lot of our recent graduates are from the academy. 

Brentford have gone from a small time 3rd division team to leapfrogging us into the premier league and consistently earning big returns on players they've recruited. The last thing I'd be doing is scoffing at them but trying to see what elements of their model can be integrated into our own. 

So the c£2m spend per season between 2008 and 2016 yielded: Hendrick, Hughes and Lowe of any real sell on value. Bennett, Ball, O'Brien, Hanson featured for the club but left for nothing or very little. Rawson, Vernam, Guy, Zanzala are having respectable careers in the lower leagues.
Total spend = £16m
Total sales = £16.5m upfront
£16m yielded 2 PL players (Hendrick, Hughes), 2 Championship players (Bennett, Lowe) and 5 L1/L2 players


2016 onwards we've spent £6m per season and sold Bogle, LThomas, Whittaker, Delap, Gordon, MUFC3. Bogle and Delap very likely to be playing PL football next season. Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Sibley have cemented a place in the first team, with several on the fringes.
Total spend = £24m
Total sales = £12m


If we sold those 4 currently in the first team, we'd get more than £12m. From a financial point of view, it's hard to argue against what we're currently spending, especially when you factor in P&S.

From a player ability point of view, we've gone from 4 top 2 division players from 8 age groups, to 8 top 2 division players in 4 age groups - and that's not even counting the ones who will step up over the next couple of years. 11 other players from the 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 intakes have been included in matchday squads too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

So the c£2m spend per season between 2008 and 2016 yielded: Hendrick, Hughes and Lowe of any real sell on value. Bennett, Ball, O'Brien, Hanson featured for the club but left for nothing or very little. Rawson, Vernam, Guy, Zanzala are having respectable careers in the lower leagues.
Total spend = £16m
Total sales = £16.5m upfront
£16m yielded 2 PL players (Hendrick, Hughes), 2 Championship players (Bennett, Lowe) and 5 L1/L2 players


2016 onwards we've spent £6m per season and sold Bogle, LThomas, Whittaker, Delap, Gordon, MUFC3. Bogle and Delap very likely to be playing PL football next season. Buchanan, Bird, Knight, Sibley have cemented a place in the first team, with several on the fringes.
Total spend = £24m
Total sales = £12m


If we sold those 4 currently in the first team, we'd get more than £12m. From a financial point of view, it's hard to argue against what we're currently spending, especially when you factor in P&S.

From a player ability point of view, we've gone from 4 top 2 division players from 8 age groups, to 8 top 2 division players in 4 age groups - and that's not even counting the ones who will step up over the next couple of years. 11 other players from the 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 intakes have been included in matchday squads too.

I'm not sure you'd get more than 12 million for those 4 upfront especially in this market. Sibley hasn't cemented his claim to first team football, Buchanan was also increasingly being left out as was bird and this was in a team that if everyone had started at 0 would have been relegated from the division...  Hughes, Hendrik, Bogle and Huddlestone (our best recent academy graduates) were consistently in the first team by 18/19 years of age and making a considerably bigger impact than these 4 in the division and producing much better performances. 

I think if we can be successful via the academy great but how many teams actually become successful by integrating numerous academy products into the first team at this level? Currently, our integration process is not producing results i.e., points on the board and that's something we've got to look at long and hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, angieram said:

You keep saying this but as several people have already stated in this thread, it's not an either/or situation. We cannot spend the money we save on the academy without falling foul of FFP. 

We have had to rely on the Academy because our recruitment has been poor, injuries have hit us hard and at the same time covid arrived, deflating the value of our young players. It doesn't mean that having an academy is wrong. 

Ideal world we grow our own and recruit to complement them, selling only those who outgrow us. I have less confidence in that recruitment than in the academy continuing to produce good players for many years to come. 

I am not sure why you keep going back to the academy model being the problem when you state yourself it is really the recruitment that is at fault.

 

Even the famous man utd "class of 92" was in reality only between a third and a half of the first team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Even the famous man utd "class of 92" was in reality only between a third and a half of the first team. 

And as has been stated before, it's almost impossible to create a Champions League side from a single academy (Ajax?) whereas producing 4 or 5 ex academy players who can compete at Championship level is a far less daunting task.

Folk (general observation, not yourself) also need to grasp that it's not necessarily an either / or scenario. Far from it. There's no reason at all we can't look to sharpen up our recruitment of senior pros at the same time as developing young talent in-house. In fact, I'd say that's precisely what we should be aiming for.  

Edited by 86 Hair Islands
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

We would be in a far worse position without the academy granted, but i ask the question whether leaning on the academy in this way was the plan all along and we are seeing the results of that? Asking too much too soon of many youngsters. 

I doubt it was planned this way.. I expect Mel expected us to be in the Prem by now and possibly expected the generation above Bird’s generation to be better than they were... when he made those infamous comments, I believe Guy, Rawson, Vernam etc were very highly thought of

In fairness to Guy, he’s going to be playing championship football next season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jram said:

I doubt it was planned this way.. I expect Mel expected us to be in the Prem by now and possibly expected the generation above Bird’s generation to be better than they were... when he made those infamous comments, I believe Guy, Rawson, Vernam etc were very highly thought of

In fairness to Guy, he’s going to be playing championship football next season 

He had the misfortune of being ready to break through when Gary Rowett was here - at least 10 years too young for his tastes! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TheAllestreeRam said:

Our problem is with recruitment but we are trying to solve it with the academy, where as I think fixing the recruitment is the answer rather than gambling on consistently producing great players in decent numbers consistently to pay the bills and get us promoted, it would be great to be wrong though. I guess it depends on where you want to make your gamble. 

Totally agree. The academy players have been pushed forwards over the last two seasons because of our failings in senior level recruitment. It's no coincidence that Mel said he wasn't putting any more money in, we started seeing loads of academy players in the team. We need to address the recruitment problem properly otherwise we will never get anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.