Elite Player Performance Plan

[postwhisperer]

FAO STAR !!

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Currently the premier league subsidises the football league youth development, so I can see why they want a change in the way things are run. I'm dead against it, but I think this is something the FA should be putting their money into, not the premier league.

[Friday's Legacy]

FAO STAR !!

what exactly do you think a supporters trust can do about this?

[Ian Royal]

Currently the premier league subsidises the football league youth development, so I can see why they want a change in the way things are run. I'm dead against it, but I think this is something the FA should be putting their money into, not the premier league.

Exactly right too. It's where plenty of their mega-bucks players cut their teeth.

Top supports bottom with finances, bottom supports top with tradeable commodity.

[Super_horns]

Seems like the Football league were forced to vote for the changes due to the threat of losing academy funding.

Not good news if you rely on youngsters coming through and being sold on...

[Simon's Church]

I think it's ridiculous, are there any ways that this could actually help any of the smaller clubs?

[Simon's Church]

We voted for it apparently. It'll be interesting to see what Hammond says about it.

[Svlad Cjelli]

It's an outrage AFAIC that this has gone through, but it was always going to because the PL blackmailed the league clubs by threatening to withdraw the money they currently get for youth development - which would probably have put many FL clubs into administration straight away.

It's basically a charter for the PL academies to cherry-pick whichever promising kids they like from from FL youth development centres - and to get them at cut-price rates as well. Horrible, horrible for the future of football league clubs.

For the record, Reading FC voted in favour of the new plans. I have no idea why, because they stand to lose out more than most.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I can only think that they're planning to be a Category One Academy - even though that'll cost £2.5M a year!

As an exmaple of how this changes things, if a PL club had tempted Gylfi away in 2006, they'd have had to pay reading a amximum of £100k in compensation. At such low cost to them, what's to stop them taking as many kids as they want to see how they develop?

[Ian Royal]

If Reading FC voted in favour of this, Hammond should be lynched at the nearest tree, what an absolute outrage this is!

How do you know the vote is his choice? He doesn't run the club, he's the DoF.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

So, they come along and sweep up all our Academy 16 year olds at £100k a time? Thats a LOT of money all added up. For every Sigurdsson there are dozens who will never reach the required standard of the club they are at. Its easy to forget just how long it took our academy to produce a gem like Gylfi and how many 'duds' passed through our ranks in the meantime at considerable cost. Big clubs simply sweeping up any 16 year old with potential at £100k a time would be pretty profitable to the selling club would it not?

Even so, I can't beieve RFC voted for this given that all they have stood for in the brick by brick approach. I have heard on the grapevine we did vote no, cant back that up though.

[Svlad Cjelli]

So, they come along and sweep up all our Academy 16 year olds at £100k a time? Thats a LOT of money all added up. For every Sigurdsson there are dozens who will never reach the required standard of the club they are at. Its easy to forget just how long it took our academy to produce a gem like Gylfi and how many 'duds' passed through our ranks in the meantime at considerable cost. Big clubs simply sweeping up any 16 year old with potential at £100k a time would be pretty profitable to the selling club would it not?

Even so, I can't beieve RFC voted for this given that all they have stood for in the brick by brick approach. I have heard on the grapevine we did vote no, cant back that up though.

All depends how "promising" the "promising" player is - I think everyone knew how good Gylfi would be so that's an easy win for any PL club.

The club confirmed on Twitter last nigh that they voted in favour of this. 5 Championship clubs voted against it - so far the only ones I definitely know who did this are Ipswich & Palace.

I just can#'t understand why RFC would support it - they either drastically needed the youth development money that the PL were about to withhold, or they plan to be a Category One Academy themselves - but that is estimated to cost £2.5M a year and has such conditions as needing residential accommodation and employing a minimum of 18 full-time staff.

[ZacNaloen]

I just can#'t understand why RFC would support it - they either drastically needed the youth development money that the PL were about to withhold, or they plan to be a Category One Academy themselves - but that is estimated to cost £2.5M a year and has such conditions as needing residential accommodation and employing a minimum of 18 full-time staff.

Perhaps this investment is what the club are saving up the left over transfer cash for.

[Vision]

So, they come along and sweep up all our Academy 16 year olds at £100k a time? Thats a LOT of money all added up. For every Sigurdsson there are dozens who will never reach the required standard of the club they are at. Its easy to forget just how long it took our academy to produce a gem like Gylfi and how many 'duds' passed through our ranks in the meantime at considerable cost. Big clubs simply sweeping up any 16 year old with potential at £100k a time would be pretty profitable to the selling club would it not?

Even so, I can't beieve RFC voted for this given that all they have stood for in the brick by brick approach. I have heard on the grapevine we did vote no, cant back that up though.

All depends how "promising" the "promising" player is - I think everyone knew how good Gylfi would be so that's an easy win for any PL club.

The club confirmed on Twitter last nigh that they voted in favour of this. 5 Championship clubs voted against it - so far the only ones I definitely know who did this are Ipswich & Palace.

I just can#'t understand why RFC would support it - they either drastically needed the youth development money that the PL were about to withhold, or they plan to be a Category One Academy themselves - but that is estimated to cost £2.5M a year and has such conditions as needing residential accommodation and employing a minimum of 18 full-time staff.

How much is the Youth Development money that the PL clubs were going to withold worth?

[Vision]

I can only think that they're planning to be a Category One Academy - even though that'll cost £2.5M a year!

As an exmaple of how this changes things, if a PL club had tempted Gylfi away in 2006, they'd have had to pay reading a amximum of £100k in compensation. At such low cost to them, what's to stop them taking as many kids as they want to see how they develop?

I know you're only using him as an example but it wouldn't really affect someone like Gylffi who didn't join us until he was 15 I think.

According to the club line (ha ha!) top clubs were sniffing around Obita at around 15/16 but he and/or his parents chose to remain here so regardless of financial matters just because a bigger club comes hunting doesn't necessarily mean the youngster will go.

I agree though it does seem a little strange for a club like ours whose future policy relies on developing youngsters into our first team to vote for something that seemingly makes it easier for the big fish to stop that from happening. It's bad enough that there's little we can do to keep our players once they establish themselves in the team from being turned by bigger clubs and finances but to relinquish control even before that stage seems very strange to me.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Agreed - but the point is that we may not get the young players in the first place, since this includes scrapping the "distance from home" criteria - so the big clubs can scout kids from anywhere across the country, and also only the biggest (Category One) academies can take on kinds under 12 (the "golden age" for youth development is 7-8)!

And if a PL club only has to pay a small sum for a kid, they have much more left in their budget for buying the parents houses, cars etc as an inducemnt ......

[Vision]

Agreed - but the point is that we may not get the young players in the first place, since this includes scrapping the "distance from home" criteria - so the big clubs can scout kids from anywhere across the country, and also only the biggest (Category One) academies can take on kinds under 12 (the "golden age" for youth development is 7-8)!

And if a PL club only has to pay a small sum for a kid, they have much more left in their budget for buying the parents houses, cars etc as an inducemnt ......

But to be honest we're fighting against that anyway.I agree that this makes things a little easier for the bigger fish but I just dont see them stockpiling a whole load of local talent for the sake of it.
We'll still have to emphasise the advantages to joining us (or staying with us) as we did wth someone like Obita and the more Academy players that breakthrough into the first team or go on to ply their trade elsewhere makes this a selling point. Perhaps the club think a yearly 2.5m investment in Grade One status would help this as well but it would signify a hell of an investmentt for a club of our size in our financial situation.

You're right though, it still seems odd that we'd support it, I'm just trying to think of reasons why.

Do FL clubs all get a set % of this PL development pot do you now or how is the money split.

[RG30]

I can only think that they're planning to be a Category One Academy - even though that'll cost £2.5M a year!

As an exmaple of how this changes things, if a PL club had tempted Gylfi away in 2006, they'd have had to pay reading a amximum of £100k in compensation. At such low cost to them, what's to stop them taking as many kids as they want to see how they develop?

According to the club line (ha ha!) top clubs were sniffing around Obita at around 15/16 but he and/or his parents chose to remain here so regardless of financial matters just because a bigger club comes hunting doesn't necessarily mean the youngster will go.

One high profile former PL manager personally visited his house in order to sign him

[ZacNaloen]

Redknapp

[Svlad Cjelli]

I suppose it all comes down to just how much you trust the ethics and integrity of PL clubs when it comes to recruiting promising youngsters.