What,s the point

[Im_Spartacus]

There was this very debate on fivelive a few weeks ago. I was surprised to learn that many managers also say "what's the point" and are not remotely interested in academies. There were some interesting debates to what would happen without any and why the FA didn't invest more in Lilleshall.

Debate was had on whose responsibility it is to invest in youth. Is it the clubs, the FA or Schools? In the past everything came through schools, they trained kids to play footy and the schools league was super competitive. Scouts from the big clubs came down and watched the school matches and developed relationships with the best ones.

But since education went commercial PE lost all its budgets and cut down to the extent that hardly anyone bothers. Football Clubs picked up the gaunlet and now run academies. Many football clubs treat their own academies poorly and don't bother much.

The chat finished with a debate on why foreigners seem to be better than us at an earlier age, citing the appauling U-20's world cup performances over the last decade.

The conclusion was that kids in England have too many distractions to get in the way of playing with a ball and it was no coincidence that the best players to make it from south amercia et al are the poorest ones who don't have any else in life other than to play with a beat up old piece of leather for 10 hours straight all day every day.

The debate got off to a bad start then.

Clubs have their own interests that don't really tie with the needs of young men and boys. One of the reasons for our success is that we're not as ruthless and short sighted as some of the other academies. Some of the biggest success stories were players who a risk was taken on, like SWP and Agbonlahor. Narrowing the supply of players early risks missing more of these guys.

With a couple of notable exceptions it should be said that club controlled academies are fundamentally the wrong approach, but they're the guys with the money. They want to retain 100% control and any change will see a fight. It's only where there's tenure and consistency do the academy coaches even start trying to do the right thing in the long term.

When the star of your academy leaves to go to Chelsea after about a dozen games and you stand to make the same at tribunal as you did for a player sold into the Championship then it's easy to wonder what the point is. Even the players we've had to keep have required big early (and lengthy) contracts to fend off interest. You start to question the money savings when you're paying millions a year to guys like Johnson, and they're your success stories.

The regulations protecting clubs with academies are incredibly weak and only generate a return under certain circumstances. The whole thing is getting worse.

While clubs are fighting each other over players there's no real chance for the FA or for schools. The best places for these kids would be schools and non-professional clubs with coaching support provided by the clubs and/or the FA. But how do you resolve the issue of clubs wanting their players younger and younger?

One of the best posts I have seen on here in a very long time......well in mate......

It all highlights that there is very little benefit to the (little)local club bringing a player through for themselves, the most likely thing is that they give/sell a player to a top team for very little. The top youth team end up playing a youth team who are mainly built of the top players from around the area, and the school coaches get no credit, but it is from the school system the players are built. So forget about the poor city academy missing out, what about the original clubs/schools?

apart from micah richards recently, there is nothing at all to make you think that youth football is anything other than a waste of time and the likes of oldham might as well not bohther

[Ted Hughes]

There was this very debate on fivelive a few weeks ago. I was surprised to learn that many managers also say "what's the point" and are not remotely interested in academies. There were some interesting debates to what would happen without any and why the FA didn't invest more in Lilleshall.

Debate was had on whose responsibility it is to invest in youth. Is it the clubs, the FA or Schools? In the past everything came through schools, they trained kids to play footy and the schools league was super competitive. Scouts from the big clubs came down and watched the school matches and developed relationships with the best ones.

But since education went commercial PE lost all its budgets and cut down to the extent that hardly anyone bothers. Football Clubs picked up the gaunlet and now run academies. Many football clubs treat their own academies poorly and don't bother much.

The chat finished with a debate on why foreigners seem to be better than us at an earlier age, citing the appauling U-20's world cup performances over the last decade.

The conclusion was that kids in England have too many distractions to get in the way of playing with a ball and it was no coincidence that the best players to make it from south amercia et al are the poorest ones who don't have any else in life other than to play with a beat up old piece of leather for 10 hours straight all day every day.

The debate got off to a bad start then.

Clubs have their own interests that don't really tie with the needs of young men and boys. One of the reasons for our success is that we're not as ruthless and short sighted as some of the other academies. Some of the biggest success stories were players who a risk was taken on, like SWP and Agbonlahor. Narrowing the supply of players early risks missing more of these guys.

With a couple of notable exceptions it should be said that club controlled academies are fundamentally the wrong approach, but they're the guys with the money. They want to retain 100% control and any change will see a fight. It's only where there's tenure and consistency do the academy coaches even start trying to do the right thing in the long term.

When the star of your academy leaves to go to Chelsea after about a dozen games and you stand to make the same at tribunal as you did for a player sold into the Championship then it's easy to wonder what the point is. Even the players we've had to keep have required big early (and lengthy) contracts to fend off interest. You start to question the money savings when you're paying millions a year to guys like Johnson, and they're your success stories.

The regulations protecting clubs with academies are incredibly weak and only generate a return under certain circumstances. The whole thing is getting worse.

While clubs are fighting each other over players there's no real chance for the FA or for schools. The best places for these kids would be schools and non-professional clubs with coaching support provided by the clubs and/or the FA. But how do you resolve the issue of clubs wanting their players younger and younger?

One of the best posts I have seen on here in a very long time......well in mate......

It all highlights that there is very little benefit to the (little)local club bringing a player through for themselves, the most likely thing is that they give/sell a player to a top team for very little. The top youth team end up playing a youth team who are mainly built of the top players from around the area, and the school coaches get no credit, but it is from the school system the players are built. So forget about the poor city academy missing out, what about the original clubs/schools?

apart from micah richards recently, there is nothing at all to make you think that youth football is anything other than a waste of time and the likes of oldham might as well not bohther

Well it's cheaper than buying players. They could easily sort that out though by making clubs pay for players they pinch off smaller clubs throughout their career or a hefty slice of the transfer fee if they're sold on unless they buy the player for a decent fee in the 1st place. If a player becomes rated at £10 Mill after say 3 years or so, why shouldn't the club that pinched him pay at least 25% of that to the club they nicked him from? Then another 25% say 3 years later or when he's transferred. That would make it well worthwhile for the lower clubs to produce players.

[dazby]

If I was a League 1 or 2 club, I'd be forming an alliance with a local club and pooling resources. You'd get better staff but split the profits. You could make it work.