The mancityfans.net football forum

Rodgers, Palmer, Tosin, Lavia, Delap, Giddens, Sancho (Dortmund version).
McAtee might join the list.

Most of them had slim chances with us, but seem to do well at other clubs and have a market value together of almost 300 mil.
So, did we fuck up? Are we fucking up with our youths who seem they barely get chances in our squad?

PeterParker wrote:Rodgers, Palmer, Tosin, Lavia, Delap, Giddens, Sancho (Dortmund version).
McAtee might join the list.

Most of them had slim chances with us, but seem to do well at other clubs and have a market value together of almost 300 mil.
So, did we fuck up? Are we fucking up with our youths who seem they barely get chances in our squad?

No, not really. Of all those you mentioned, none of them were at the level required to oust established players in their respective positions when we let them go. Very few youngsters would ever be at that level, really. Obviously, some will develop later into top class players, but most will not. We also got decent money for the majority of them, many with sell-ons or buy-backs. All in all, the academy is doing its job producing excellently-trained football players, the odd one or two of which will show enough to be kept, and the remainder who we can sell to bring in cash to fund the world class players we need to stay on top.

Rogers has openly admitted he wasn't up to it whilst here. As above, we cannor keep them all and the ones who show the most promise get a chance and its up to them. Another on PPs list is Sancho and he has shown with a couple of moves that he doesn't have the right mental attitude to reach the very top. I'm good with trusting the system. Very occasionally we will get one wrong who leaves us and kicks on, yet to see it over a sustained period of time

I think the strategy behind the system is correct - given we need the best of the best to dislodge established players, our expectations should probably be along the lines of:

* Once a year, 1-2 players good enough to work with the main squad
* Every second year, one of those players becomes an established squad member
* Every third year we gain a member of the first team
* Every 5th year we might (if we're lucky) get a Foden quality player

For every first team member we create, we're like to end up with 1 or 2 squad players, and everyone else gets sold. In the current market wheremost of those who don't progress from the EDS, these players would as a minumum be good quality PL or top league in Europe, standard fee is going to be 5m+ as a bare minimum.

Many of those who leave will go on to do very well, primarily because they get an opportunity City can't give them - doesn't mean City were wrong to not give that opportunity, just that the timing/situation wasn't right for their stage of development and the team's needs.

Im_Spartacus wrote:I think the strategy behind the system is correct - given we need the best of the best to dislodge established players, our expectations should probably be along the lines of:

* Once a year, 1-2 players good enough to work with the main squad
* Every second year, one of those players becomes an established squad member
* Every third year we gain a member of the first team
* Every 5th year we might (if we're lucky) get a Foden quality player

For every first team member we create, we're like to end up with 1 or 2 squad players, and everyone else gets sold. In the current market wheremost of those who don't progress from the EDS, these players would as a minumum be good quality PL or top league in Europe, standard fee is going to be 5m+ as a bare minimum.

Many of those who leave will go on to do very well, primarily because they get an opportunity City can't give them - doesn't mean City were wrong to not give that opportunity, just that the timing/situation wasn't right for their stage of development and the team's needs.

Mostly agree, however, I think the only player who really made a mark was Foden. And that is not a good record.
I like Rico a lot, but I am starting to think he is not good enough. And Nico O, no idea what to say about him yet.

So one established top player in 10 years is not that great. However, except Palmer, I don't think any of those mentioned by me in the first post are good enough to be here.

Im_Spartacus wrote:I think the strategy behind the system is correct - given we need the best of the best to dislodge established players, our expectations should probably be along the lines of:

* Once a year, 1-2 players good enough to work with the main squad
* Every second year, one of those players becomes an established squad member
* Every third year we gain a member of the first team
* Every 5th year we might (if we're lucky) get a Foden quality player

For every first team member we create, we're like to end up with 1 or 2 squad players, and everyone else gets sold. In the current market wheremost of those who don't progress from the EDS, these players would as a minumum be good quality PL or top league in Europe, standard fee is going to be 5m+ as a bare minimum.

Many of those who leave will go on to do very well, primarily because they get an opportunity City can't give them - doesn't mean City were wrong to not give that opportunity, just that the timing/situation wasn't right for their stage of development and the team's needs.

At the end of the day, this is a business — and as long as we’re winning on the pitch, it’s hard to argue that the model isn’t working.On average, City bring in 40–70 million quid per season from player sales linked to:

Academy graduates (EDS / U18s)
Young players developed through the City Football Group (CFG)
Loaned-out players who are sold after development

What pisses fans off is when certain senior players keep under performing over long stretches — while talented youngsters (either sold or still on the books) could arguably have done a better job if given the chance.

Im_Spartacus wrote:I think the strategy behind the system is correct - given we need the best of the best to dislodge established players, our expectations should probably be along the lines of:

* Once a year, 1-2 players good enough to work with the main squad
* Every second year, one of those players becomes an established squad member
* Every third year we gain a member of the first team
* Every 5th year we might (if we're lucky) get a Foden quality player

For every first team member we create, we're like to end up with 1 or 2 squad players, and everyone else gets sold. In the current market wheremost of those who don't progress from the EDS, these players would as a minumum be good quality PL or top league in Europe, standard fee is going to be 5m+ as a bare minimum.

Many of those who leave will go on to do very well, primarily because they get an opportunity City can't give them - doesn't mean City were wrong to not give that opportunity, just that the timing/situation wasn't right for their stage of development and the team's needs.

Pretty much what I would have written Sparty.

The Academy is a big part of our business. Both as a conduit for home grown talent to progress to our first XI and the larger squad. Also as a fundraiser and as a statement for the area as somewhere young lads who may otherwise lose their way, can get something they can't at home/school, hope discipline and a sense of belonging

We can never get every decision right on who to sell and keep. Football and the general world just doesn't work like that. Players develop at different times and perhaps more pertinatly, established International players may be ahead of them in their position.

In the time frame PP mentions we won 6 PLs out of 7. That means we were the very best team the country has ever seen. And to get into our squad, let alone the team you had to be special.

And in the main, I think we've done well

I don't think we need to lie to academy players and tell them they'll have game time when they won't.

We need to get better at convincing the ones we think will make it to be patient. That's literally part of our academy coaching teams job

Mase wrote:I don't think we need to lie to academy players and tell them they'll have game time when they won't.

We need to get better at convincing the ones we think will make it to be patient. That's literally part of our academy coaching teams job

It is part of the job but you also need to factor in the 'agents' who are 'representing ' their clients and not giving the best advice. If the player is good enough, they will get the game time. The issue with some of these agents is they don't want to wait and will start hawking the player out to potential suitors and that creates an issue for the player. Any young talent should be looking at our setup and be thinking this is the place to be but we are challenging at the very top and they have to be right at it. Always a contentious issue but we've done well with our model

salford city wrote:

Mase wrote:I don't think we need to lie to academy players and tell them they'll have game time when they won't.

We need to get better at convincing the ones we think will make it to be patient. That's literally part of our academy coaching teams job

It is part of the job but you also need to factor in the 'agents' who are 'representing ' their clients and not giving the best advice. If the player is good enough, they will get the game time. The issue with some of these agents is they don't want to wait and will start hawking the player out to potential suitors and that creates an issue for the player. Any young talent should be looking at our setup and be thinking this is the place to be but we are challenging at the very top and they have to be right at it. Always a contentious issue but we've done well with our model

Agents get a quicker payday if they sell their young players on - they get % of everything the player gets.
I’d go as far as say they are more blame when we lose a player.

Leeches

carl_feedthegoat wrote:

salford city wrote:

Mase wrote:I don't think we need to lie to academy players and tell them they'll have game time when they won't.

We need to get better at convincing the ones we think will make it to be patient. That's literally part of our academy coaching teams job

It is part of the job but you also need to factor in the 'agents' who are 'representing ' their clients and not giving the best advice. If the player is good enough, they will get the game time. The issue with some of these agents is they don't want to wait and will start hawking the player out to potential suitors and that creates an issue for the player. Any young talent should be looking at our setup and be thinking this is the place to be but we are challenging at the very top and they have to be right at it. Always a contentious issue but we've done well with our model

Agents get a quicker payday if they sell their young players on - they get % of everything the player gets.
I’d go as far as say they are more blame when we lose a player.

Leeches

Agents are arguably the worst thing to ever happen to football. It baffles me why they are actually needed to be honest.

salford city wrote:

Mase wrote:I don't think we need to lie to academy players and tell them they'll have game time when they won't.

We need to get better at convincing the ones we think will make it to be patient. That's literally part of our academy coaching teams job

It is part of the job but you also need to factor in the 'agents' who are 'representing ' their clients and not giving the best advice. If the player is good enough, they will get the game time. The issue with some of these agents is they don't want to wait and will start hawking the player out to potential suitors and that creates an issue for the player. Any young talent should be looking at our setup and be thinking this is the place to be but we are challenging at the very top and they have to be right at it. Always a contentious issue but we've done well with our model

That part is on the player. However we do have a "yeah if you wanna go then you can" attitude and although it works a lot of the time, it needs to change for the players we think are special. We've kept Bernardo here against his will for 3 seasons so we have got it in us.

nottsblue wrote:

carl_feedthegoat wrote:

salford city wrote:

Mase wrote:I don't think we need to lie to academy players and tell them they'll have game time when they won't.

We need to get better at convincing the ones we think will make it to be patient. That's literally part of our academy coaching teams job

It is part of the job but you also need to factor in the 'agents' who are 'representing ' their clients and not giving the best advice. If the player is good enough, they will get the game time. The issue with some of these agents is they don't want to wait and will start hawking the player out to potential suitors and that creates an issue for the player. Any young talent should be looking at our setup and be thinking this is the place to be but we are challenging at the very top and they have to be right at it. Always a contentious issue but we've done well with our model

Agents get a quicker payday if they sell their young players on - they get % of everything the player gets.
I’d go as far as say they are more blame when we lose a player.

Leeches

Agents are arguably the worst thing to ever happen to football. It baffles me why they are actually needed to be honest.

I think people like Romano are worse. Can't stand the transfer windows these days.

Mase wrote:I don't think we need to lie to academy players and tell them they'll have game time when they won't.

We need to get better at convincing the ones we think will make it to be patient. That's literally part of our academy coaching teams job

I don't think any of the kids who join city are under any illusion that any other than the very very best will be playing in the first team in x years time - and thats the way football has always been. I think the big difference is that regardless of nationality/work permits , with upmpteen clubs in the network at a lot of different levels, there's a fantastic opportunity to progress to playing competetive first team football at the appropriate level if the player is good enough.

The approach may be more attactive for non-english players who tend to be more open to learning languages and playing overseas, but the opportunities are definitely there for those who have the talent

PeterParker wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:I think the strategy behind the system is correct - given we need the best of the best to dislodge established players, our expectations should probably be along the lines of:

* Once a year, 1-2 players good enough to work with the main squad
* Every second year, one of those players becomes an established squad member
* Every third year we gain a member of the first team
* Every 5th year we might (if we're lucky) get a Foden quality player

For every first team member we create, we're like to end up with 1 or 2 squad players, and everyone else gets sold. In the current market wheremost of those who don't progress from the EDS, these players would as a minumum be good quality PL or top league in Europe, standard fee is going to be 5m+ as a bare minimum.

Many of those who leave will go on to do very well, primarily because they get an opportunity City can't give them - doesn't mean City were wrong to not give that opportunity, just that the timing/situation wasn't right for their stage of development and the team's needs.

Mostly agree, however, I think the only player who really made a mark was Foden. And that is not a good record.
I like Rico a lot, but I am starting to think he is not good enough. And Nico O, no idea what to say about him yet. So one established top player in 10 years is not that great. However, except Palmer, I don't think any of those mentioned by me in the first post are good enough to be here.

But we're talking about generational players, being the standard required to get into the first team of a club who is established in the top teams in the world

If you look at the current top 10 clubs in UEFA , and players signed before the age of 16 who made 20+ league appearances last season, it highlights just how hard it is to do what you seem to think we should be doing better at - when from those top 10 clubs, only 8 players I'm aware of met that criteria.

1. Real Madrid - None
2. Manchester City - Phil Foden, Rico Lewis
3. Bayern Munich - None
4. Liverpool - Trent Alexander, Curtis Jones
5. Paris Saint‑Germain (PSG) - Zaïre-Emery
6. Inter - Bastoni
7. Chelsea - Reece James
8. Dortmund - None
9. Barcelona - Yamal, Gavi

And when you think of how many tens of thousands of kids are out there, how players develop at different paces, you can see it's beyond unlikely that clubs will produce a truly home-grown (signed before age 16) Foden, or Yamal more than once in a generation who develop at a rate that they can progress to being a genuine first team contender before 18, (vs having to be sold or repeatedly loaned).

The hit rate becomes a lot higher for most clubs if you factor in players signed at age 16, but that's not really indicative of the quality of youth system, as this is more about scouting players who are literally the best in the world at their age.