Go fuck yourself you prickCould be worse, could be supporters direct doing the council's.
Why? Am I wrong?Go fuck yourself you prick
There are many valid argument against an academy. The percentage spend of budget alone is a solid argument.
I have seen no one that has yet proved this is a profit making enterprise.
Not with you in charge.....Could be worse, could be supporters direct doing the council's.
But Tony if he thinks that that is the way the manager feels how is that wumming? Mowbray is the manager isn't he, Mark Venus is in charge of development isn't he.
Instead of looking one eyed at Fisher et al all the time, perhaps Mowbray who insisted on control of such issues when he joined the club, might feel that way, or he might not. Surely that is the point of discussion not you and Grendel having another spat.
You believe Fisher now? It's been suggested that CCFC are doing a lot to suggest the academy is all important on the face of it. Who knows if it is.Wrong. The only valid argument against an academy is whether it fails to turn a profit. The percentage spend of budget is completely irrelevant.
Well TF has said that the Academy is essential to the club's business model, which implies that it must be profitable. Moreover, TF's comments are consistent with the economic analysis that I laid out in my previous post.
In addition, you have failed to provide any evidence at all that it is a loss-making enterprise. Keep digging. Your hole is getting deeper and deeper,
Wrong. The only valid argument against an academy is whether it fails to turn a profit. The percentage spend of budget is completely irrelevant.
Well TF has said that the Academy is essential to the club's business model, which implies that it must be profitable. Moreover, TF's comments are consistent with the economic analysis that I laid out in my previous post.
In addition, you have failed to provide any evidence at all that it is a loss-making enterprise. Keep digging. Your hole is getting deeper and deeper,
Sorry but you couldn't run the Academy on the transfer fees alone for 15 years because being an integrated model those transfer fees are expected to support the whole operation of the club not selected bits when it suits an argument. No first team no Academy, with no player sales there is no first team - simple fact of life.
In any case the vast majority of transfer value is not because of the value the Academy brings and therefore it is quite wrong to allocate the profit or fees entirely to the argument of Academy benefit or paying for itself.
If it takes a total of say £200k to cover the cost of one academy player over the years he is there then firstly you need to deduct that against individual sales to arrive at a profit on a sale. It might be more cost than that we don't know. but in any case it should be deducted from the market value of a player transferring out of the Academy (be it to first team or another club) to arrive at the Academy benefit.
The benefit of the Academy is the market value of the player when he leaves the Academy not the sales value when he leaves the club. You have to break it down in to cost/profit centres not just blindly take all the profit to one area to suit a loose justification and ignore the significant effect of other cost/profit areas. In addition those transfer profits are never retained they are used to fund current operations. The costs of Academies will increase over time. Funding the academy for next 15 years with transfer fees simply doesn't exist in reality.
For what it costs to bring a group of players through it might be more efficient to cherry pick from other clubs and develop their transfer value
TM. Has he always said what he means? I will treat his comments with a healthy and professional scepticism as I have with any other character involved or would do with any client - not just blindly accept things
Sorry don but we see things slightly differently on this one
No need to apologise. It seems we see things massively different.
Are you saying you can only value a player based on his valuation at the point he leaves the academy?
On that premis you would have to ignore the fact that if we had no academy we may never have had that player in the first place?
Aside that regarding Wilson, Bigi, Sambou Maddison
How many senior games have they got between them?
Going by the lowest reported transfer fees
3.5 for Wilson
2.5 for Maddison
1 million for Bigi
A suggested 500k for Sambou
(Never mind add ons and sell on clauses)
I know that the money generated from this does not only go back into solely funding the academy. The money goes into funding the whole club as does sponsorship and ticket sales.
I am making the point that these 4 players alone will have generated 7 million pound income for the club.
The academy costs the club 700k a year.
So in terms of costs 700k a year (less if you include the years of not category 2 status.)
In terms of income brought in from academy developed players 7-10 million.
How could you ever come to the conclusion that the academy isn't worth it.
At the moment you could say no academy no squad.
Players signing there first professional contracts are on cheaper wages.
We will know these players inside out and they have filled out first team and squad regularly for a long time saving us a lot of money.
Last question for you regarding TM, a man the likes of the OP would like sacked.
Would the manger (a role which has an average life span of a year life at our club) make such a big decision as to ditch the academy.
Or
Would it be Joy Seppalla, Tim Fisher and Chris Anderson
You are definitely more synical than me OSB. I take someone on face value until they lie to me.
So far TM for me tells it as it is.
The day he doesn't I will suspect of sound bites in the future
Wilson wasn't a Cat 2 academy player was he so why use the expense of that as a reason for him?
Maddison has not yet granted the club the money you quote - nowhere near
Where on earth has the Sambou figure come from?
Mowbray tells you how it is? How do you know that?
You believe Fisher now? It's been suggested that CCFC are doing a lot to suggest the academy is all important on the face of it. Who knows if it is.
Of course the percentage spend is relevant. It could be 95% of a clubs revenue and create an ROI of 101% you stupid clown
You are really embarrassing yourself now. If any company has an ROI of 101% then of course they should invest in the project. Typical estimates of the risk-adjusted cost of capital vary from about 5% to 20%. Therefore an ROI of 101% would be a no brainer at least to anyone with a modicum of business sense. Obviously that rules you out.
The percentage spend is irrelevant to capital investment decisions. The only factors that matter are the projected return and the projected cost. It's amazingly simple even for you. Check out any relevant finance textbook if you don't believe me.
Because he's basing it on sweet FA. Something he's admitted himself.
No need to apologise. It seems we see things massively different.
Are you saying you can only value a player based on his valuation at the point he leaves the academy?
On that premis you would have to ignore the fact that if we had no academy we may never have had that player in the first place?
Aside that regarding Wilson, Bigi, Sambou Maddison
How many senior games have they got between them?
Going by the lowest reported transfer fees
3.5 for Wilson
2.5 for Maddison
1 million for Bigi
A suggested 500k for Sambou
(Never mind add ons and sell on clauses)
I know that the money generated from this does not only go back into solely funding the academy. The money goes into funding the whole club as does sponsorship and ticket sales.
I am making the point that these 4 players alone will have generated 7 million pound income for the club.
The academy costs the club 700k a year.
So in terms of costs 700k a year (less if you include the years of not category 2 status.)
In terms of income brought in from academy developed players 7-10 million.
How could you ever come to the conclusion that the academy isn't worth it.
At the moment you could say no academy no squad.
Players signing there first professional contracts are on cheaper wages.
We will know these players inside out and they have filled out first team and squad regularly for a long time saving us a lot of money.
Last question for you regarding TM, a man the likes of the OP would like sacked.
Would the manager (a role which has an average life span of a year at our club) make such a big decision as to ditch the academy or not.
Or
Would it be Joy Seppalla, Tim Fisher and Chris Anderson?
You are definitely more cynical than me OSB. I take someone on face value until they lie to me.
So far TM for me tells it as it is.
The day he doesn't I will suspect of sound bites in the future
There is a lot of badly thought out nonsense coming from those who think the Academy should be closed.
A quick lesson in Econ 101:
The best way to make money from player trading is to exploit information asymmetry; i.e., to create a situation in which your own club knows more about a player's true value than other clubs know. The best way to create this informational advantage is to develop players yourself in an Academy. You offer the player a long term contract once you are satisfied that the player is very promising. You offer the long term contract to the youngster before other clubs have found out that you have a gem on your hands. Otherwise, that young player will leave out of contract (e.g., Sambou).
After signing the youngster on a long term contract, if the player turns out to be as good as you think he is, the youngster will break into the first team. After a few games word quickly goes around other clubs that you have a great player on your hands. That's the point at which the player's "market value" equates to the player's "true value"; i.e., when the information asymmetry between you as a selling club and the rest of the market has dissipated.
Thus, it makes no sense to talk (as OSB did) about a player's "market value" upon leaving the Academy. At that point the player's market value is very different from the player's true value because potential buyers are not well informed about the player's true value. A player's market value depends on the perceptions of (often badly informed) buyers in the market, whereas the true value is best understood by the seller who has worked for several years with the youngster.
Where have I said that we shouldn't have an Academy. Does it have to be Cat 2 ? that's a different question
My problem with what you and others are saying is that you are taking a cost of one area of the club and matching against the total sales of the whole club player wise. Basic accounting principle attributable income from attributable cost. Also we are talking the retention of CAT 2 status academy. The figures bandied around to justify an Academy at CAT 2 are to my mind excessive
The owners have to look at the options available to do otherwise would be negligent. Now personally I can see the non tangible, non financial element benefits of having an Academy - prestige, community, image etc - as well as the financial benefit of developing players. However the owners might for their own reasons see a much shorter timescale and the possibility of saving cash flow on a worthless investment. They may have very different objectives to the fans.
How do we know what is in the best interests of the club on any timescale if we do not search and test the alternatives. It may be that CAT 2 is the best option, it may not - I have a sneaking suspicion that the importance to the owners is the guaranteed cash flow the grant brings with the hope of finding a gem in the Academy every year or two.
As for keeping valuable players hidden (I know you didn't say this Don) and masking their value - nice theory but reality is the Academy system, with its matches played, coach meetings, scouting network is reasonably open about where the gems, are there are no great secrets. Players are tracked by bigger clubs for years, that's partly why to get real value kids get contracts. It is the Academy rules that stops players being poached formally, but please don't tell me there are quiet chats going on behind the scenes.
A few facts
- EPPP started 2012-13 season
- there are rules that calculate the compensation for young players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Player_Performance_Plan http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/...pensation-and-solidarity-payments-in-football
- the compensation could be said to be a valuation of a young player in an Academy
- In 2012-13 CCFC received £1m for Bigi in 2013-14 no academy sales 2014-15 2.717m was received for Wilson, Christie, J Clarke and Finch (its in the cashflow statement of the accounts)
- there are no figures as yet for Maddison (but I have a feeling folk will be disappointed - my opinion) Nor any figure for Sambou
- Bigi was sold before the EPPP came in to effect (06/07/12)
- Christie had a first team contract 2010, J Clarke 2008, Wilson 2009, Bigi 2011, & Daniels 2012 making 102, 125, 55, 26 & 24 appearances respectively
- Wilson, Clarke and Christie had been established in the first team squad for years - was their value all because of the academy ?
Yes the Academy provides talent for the first team, and to my mind is key for a club like ours, but there are other ways possible - keep an open mind and question things
More cynical perhaps - I would say I question things more, but that's what I have been trained to do. However any manager will only tell you what they can or want to - it is never telling it all as it is and there are very good and right reasons for that. That's not a criticism of TM its just the way it is.
Will TM have input in to keeping the Academy yes - will he make the decision probably not, it will be down to numbers being crunched I fear
A) a club like ours can't financially go that way the academy saves us a fortune. Also directly or indirectly generates more than it costs.
The thread that we are responding to is about 'saving' the academy. The OP is suggesting TM and MV would rather recruit youth ie Turnball's Jones's Stokes Thomas ect
Than develop our own.
I am pointing out how
A) a club like ours can't financially go that way the academy saves us a fortune. Also directly or indirectly generates more than it costs.
B) I think TM and MV think the opposite because that is what they publically stated
C) it's an irrelevant thread anyway because Joy, Tim and Chris will make the decision. Managers unfortunately have very short shelve lives. TM could make this decision be sacked tomorrow.
Plus it's a decision solely for the owners anyway.
They will look at what more it may cost with the potential future changes. How that fits in their "the club must be self sufficient model"
( one of only a select few in all the professional leagues, I may add)
Then decide
You have no proof of that. OSB's figures show about £3.7M received in transfer fees from 2013-14 to 2016, the corresponding investment was about £4M over the same period. I would contend it is approximately break even and actually a bit risky as the cashflow from academy product is uneven, if there was a drought then the club would be pushed further into debt.
The benefits are not clear either way but it undeniably helps the reputation of the club to have a top performing academy.
There is a lot of talk about saving the academy but I wonder if Mowbray values it.
I would say they probably think the money can best be deployed in youth recruitment. This probably is why we are looking at recruiting so much youth.
Its just a view but I suspect they think the whole thing is a vanity project and a waste of money and part of their long term plan is to show it's just not needed.
- you brought the Cat 2 figures and ex academy player sales in to this discussion
- not about saving the Academy but about whether TM & MV see its value or see other options (personally I think they want to do both which is why a proper scouting system was vital)
- only saves a fortune if you allocate all the sales of ex academy players in full to the assessment of academy worth
- only one person will make the decision
- I agree TM & MV have made statements in favour (see previous point)
- when did we get to be self sufficient? Can the club pay all its costs? Do we know? We certainly were not self sufficient up to 31/05/2015
we will have to beg to differ - I have work to do
For you OSB
This thread is debating if TM thinks we should get rid of the academy and recruit youth instead
No need to be a patronising dick don
You put the figures up first on the thread, not me. I put up some facts, thoughts and questions that countered your sweeping assumptions
Not restructuring anything. CAT 2 Academy for CCFC shouldn't even be at risk.
For you OSB
This thread is debating if TM thinks we should get rid of the academy and recruit youth instead
Or you could have thanked OSB for taking the time to provide a logical financial explanation.Not been patronising at all.
Genuinely thought you were not aware that the thread was about.....
whether we should keep an academy or choose to recruit youngsters in instead.
Also that not keeping it TM's view and he is trying in the long term to prove its not worth keeping.
As you were asking me where have you said we should ditch the academy.
You also started another reply saying that this is not about saving the academy or not, but whether TM sees value in it.
Hence me highlighting the parts of the OP's starting thread. I was getting the impression you hadn't read it and was debating whether the academy should be downgraded or not.
Not whether we should keep it.
No patronising intended.
Or you could have thanked OSB for taking the time to provide a logical financial explanation.
It's saving Cat 2 status - every club has some form of youth development
Oddly every other poster understood the context.
There is a lot of talk about saving the academy but I wonder if Mowbray values it.
I suspect he and Venus have little faith in what it is producing and believe they are better at identified young players from other clubs and developing them.
I would say they probably think the money can best be deployed in youth recruitment. This probably is why we are looking at recruiting so much youth.
Its just a view but I suspect they think the whole thing is a vanity project and a waste of money and part of their long term plan is to show it's just not needed.
Transfer fees for these players are received in instalments over time.
By the time we will have received all payments including clauses and add ons for Wilson, Maddison, Bigi, Sambou, Christie (even received a payment when he made his Ireland debut)
I take it in that 4 million costs you are not taking away the 1.5 million given to us as a grant towards the costs of the academy over the same time period.
Reputation is nice in this matter but not that important.
When you have the finances we have been able to fill your squad with kids. Who you know their strengths and weaknesses inside out. Who in theory should be already playing in your ethos, both mentally and playing style. On dirt cheap wages is far more valuable. Even if they never get sold on for a profit.
How do you put a value on those players. Who between them rack up hundreds of appearances on cheap wages.
In comparison to no academy and having to source those players elsewhere. On a gamble and a hope they do the job for dirt cheap wages. After they are rejected from other clubs with academies
Oddly that's not what you said, so you may as well do a nick clegg again
Afternoon GrendelOddly you were the only one who didn't "understand" and even odder all the comparisons you make are against Cat 2 costs structures.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?