Scrapping Tribunal System

[Britttherainking]

Apologies if this has been posted already - but I saw this:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/19/football-league-academies

 

How can this be a good thing? Surely it just means lower league teams getting less compensation for players, therefore less likely to spend as much time and money developing youngsters if they only lose them for a desultory amount if they actually end up being good / reaching the first team (although this could be debateable whether many would even be allowed to get that far). So would it, if my interpretation is correct - just mean that lots of youngsters end up at top clubs with no-hope of ever reaching / getting first team experience for those clubs - surely not a good thing for them or football in this contry.... In particular what would it mean for us and our academy setup - particularly in light of the investment put into it and the importance of it within Nicola / Marcus' vision of where the club is heading (In particular our long term future)

 

What particularly annoys me about this is the way that it appears to have been forced through - particularly with the withholding of money from the football league clubs (only to recieve it back for a positive vote) Seems like Cartel practices.... something I watch on Boardwalk Empire / The Sopranos. Rotten, I reckon. All setup for the Premier League Clubs' benefit. Not content with unfairly distributing TV money and strangling real competition in this country.... they now wanna do this...

[Jimmy_D]

That's disgusting if it goes through.

[Ewell]

Another example of the big clubs getting richer and then there is the cast off and disillusionment of many young players with decent potential. It stinks but what can you do.

[Matthew Le God]

As I said earlier this year in June about these proposals, Southampton due to the Liebherr investment will be getting category one academy status which means these changes should benefit the club compared to others.

 

Thread I made about it 4 months ago...

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?30588-Premier-League-Academy-Elite-Player-Performance-Plan-Category-One-Status

 

It will screw many teams, but it should be good for Southampton.

Edited 19 October, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[Britttherainking]

Even still.... despite it being a positive impact for us potentially - I'm still not sure that I like the implications for the wider game. I mean, if you look outside just our club... how is this a good thing. Plus the way its been forced into being... It's stuff like this, for me, that's killing football... at least my passion for it. Large wages for overhyped players, virtual monopoly of the premier league in terms of domestic football coverage in the media (and then only about 5 teams get the focus), unequal distribution of wealth amongst clubs...

[Doctoroncall]

It's a shame for the lower league clubs especially those with a good set up. They will get more in the way of solidarity payments but less in what a youngster is worth. More youngsters will be going to the top clubs to learn, however, there is still the same restriction on squad size so those that do not make it will find themselves a lower league club and who is to say they will not benefit from learning at a good academy and then getting the league experience. I can see some positives if the lower league clubs can adapt and the solidarity payments are large enough.

[stevegrant]

While the new Academy proposals would appear to be an advantage to us, as we've already got most (if not all) of the infrastructure and funding in place, one of the reasons we are in such a strong position right now is that there is very little competition locally. The 90-minute rule means that the likes of Man United, Liverpool, etc can't touch the talent that's in our area. There's a slight overlap with Chelsea, but their academy has produced only one player who's even close to the current first team in the last decade or so (Josh McEachren).

 

As long as the 90-minute radius rule applies, we have a massive competitive advantage. As soon as that rule disappears, we'll have Man United, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, etc encroaching on our "turf", and they can (and will) offer incentives far greater than we would be willing to, and they'd be able to poach players directly out of the academy once it became clear that particular player was likely to be a special talent, and they'd be able to do so for absolute peanuts, as the tribunal system would be scrapped with fixed fees payable depending on the age of the player.

[Matthew Le God]

While the new Academy proposals would appear to be an advantage to us, as we've already got most (if not all) of the infrastructure and funding in place, one of the reasons we are in such a strong position right now is that there is very little competition locally. The 90-minute rule means that the likes of Man United, Liverpool, etc can't touch the talent that's in our area. There's a slight overlap with Chelsea, but their academy has produced only one player who's even close to the current first team in the last decade or so (Josh McEachren).

 

As long as the 90-minute radius rule applies, we have a massive competitive advantage. As soon as that rule disappears, we'll have Man United, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, etc encroaching on our "turf", and they can (and will) offer incentives far greater than we would be willing to, and they'd be able to poach players directly out of the academy once it became clear that particular player was likely to be a special talent, and they'd be able to do so for absolute peanuts, as the tribunal system would be scrapped with fixed fees payable depending on the age of the player.

 

As a category one, Saints will be able to train players under 12, those in the lower two categories won't anymore. Chelsea and Arsenal aren't currently taking players from Saints aged 8 to 16, I don't see why this will change matters.

Edited 20 October, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[Jimmy_D]

As a category one, Saints will be able to train players under 12, those in the lower two categories won't anymore. Chelsea and Arsenal aren't currently taking players from Saints, I don't see why this will change matters.

 

What'll happen to under age players already at academies without the higher status?

[Matthew Le God]

I don't know for sure, but seems likely they'll have to leave. If they then aren't good enough for a category one or two academy they will have to find a normal club side. Which is why this whole idea seems stupid.

[Colinjb]

I don't know for sure, but seems likely they'll have to leave. If they then aren't good enough for a category one or two academy they will have to find a normal club side. Which is why this whole idea seems stupid.

 

Quite, it seems to me that it's trying to force any nipper with a modicum of talent into these new 'category' academies. Therefore it can surely only create a bigger log-jam of talent at the higher levels and result in many more kids being ruined by not having the chance of first team football at the clubs there are members of.

 

The only way out of this would be loaning the players out (thus defeating the object of an academy managing their progress) or setting smaller clubs up as a reserve or feeder club in a lower league. (Real Madrid Castilla for example.)

 

Either way, it will decimate youth development in the lower leagues. I couldn't care less that it works in our favour, it will help to destroy grass roots football in this country.

[StrangelyBrown]

Although this is good for us, I hate the notion that we will get ahead because the rules have become less fair.

 

What happens to the likes of Crewe who have developed countless top players and rely on the proceeds to survive?

 

It seems to me to be just another step which shifts the balance of power further towards the big rich clubs.

[Matthew Le God]

Although this is good for us, I hate the notion that we will get ahead because the rules have become less fair.

 

What happens to the likes of Crewe who have developed countless top players and rely on the proceeds to survive?

 

It seems to me to be just another step which shifts the balance of power further towards the big rich clubs.

 

It is not quite as bad for the lower league clubs as some media sources are making out. As the BBC's Paul Fletcher states...

 

The Premier League has proposed a framework that involves lower up-front payments but significant add-on fees if a player goes on to fulfil his potential. This could involve a youngster progressing to become a first-team player or an international, with each new achievement triggering another payment. The idea is that it will help facilitate a situation where the best young players end up at the finest facilities at an early age, thus improving their chances of succeeding, but the smaller selling club also wins because it will end up handsomely recompensed if a player becomes a success.

[Chez]

it looks like is sucks, but the league chairman don't have to sign it. They can weigh up whether the Sky handout being held back exceeds what they might possibly earn from the old tribunal system.

 

That said, I'm not sure I understand the figures. It says clubs would get £120,000 max if they don't sign, but it also says there is £5.4m ring fenced for youth development - £7500 per club if divided by 72, so what is the total figure clubs would get if they signed up to this change? It suggests a lot more, but how much more?

[stevegrant]

That said, I'm not sure I understand the figures. It says clubs would get £120,000 max if they don't sign, but it also says there is £5.4m ring fenced for youth development - £7500 per club if divided by 72, so what is the total figure clubs would get if they signed up to this change? It suggests a lot more, but how much more?

As far as I'm aware, the money isn't distributed evenly, it's all put into a central pool and is given as a grant on a case-by-case basis. Some clubs don't apply for any, some apply for much more than the £120k stated - obviously each one has to justify the spending.

[St_Tel49]

As I said earlier this year in June about these proposals, Southampton due to the Liebherr investment will be getting category one academy status which means these changes should benefit the club compared to others.

 

Thread I made about it 4 months ago...

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?30588-Premier-League-Academy-Elite-Player-Performance-Plan-Category-One-Status

 

It will screw many teams, but it should be good for Southampton.

For the greater good of the game I don't think that this is anything to be pleased about. As ever, it is about the rich grabbing more and more for themselves and let the rest go to the wall. It stinks.

[The9]

As I said earlier this year in June about these proposals, Southampton due to the Liebherr investment will be getting category one academy status which means these changes should benefit the club compared to others.

 

Thread I made about it 4 months ago...

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?30588-Premier-League-Academy-Elite-Player-Performance-Plan-Category-One-Status

 

It will screw many teams, but it should be good for Southampton.

 

Personally I'd rather it was fair and equitable for all clubs. But then I'd rather than the profits from league-related activity were re-invested across the Premier League and Football League evenly to maintain a level of fair competition rather than perpetuating the hegemony of massively over-funded Champions League qualifiers.

[The9]

It is not quite as bad for the lower league clubs as some media sources are making out. As the BBC's Paul Fletcher states...

 

The Premier League has proposed a framework that involves lower up-front payments but significant add-on fees if a player goes on to fulfil his potential. This could involve a youngster progressing to become a first-team player or an international, with each new achievement triggering another payment. The idea is that it will help facilitate a situation where the best young players end up at the finest facilities at an early age, thus improving their chances of succeeding, but the smaller selling club also wins because it will end up handsomely recompensed if a player becomes a success.

 

..and Turkish and CB Fry take the rise out of you, thinking computer games aren't how football works. You've been ahead of reality all along.

[StrangelyBrown]

It is not quite as bad for the lower league clubs as some media sources are making out. As the BBC's Paul Fletcher states...

 

The Premier League has proposed a framework that involves lower up-front payments but significant add-on fees if a player goes on to fulfil his potential. This could involve a youngster progressing to become a first-team player or an international, with each new achievement triggering another payment. The idea is that it will help facilitate a situation where the best young players end up at the finest facilities at an early age, thus improving their chances of succeeding, but the smaller selling club also wins because it will end up handsomely recompensed if a player becomes a success.

 

I'm not sure its that simple. It strikes me that the big clubs are very wasteful when it comes to talent and a lot of potentially good players at big clubs end up on the scrapheap because there is too much competition for competitive football. I'm not sure a footballer's development is simply down to training at an academy with the finest facilities. I personally think there comes a time when a young player needs first team competitive matches to develop and playing youth football with a handful of league cup games isn't much of a substitute.

[The9]

It is not quite as bad for the lower league clubs as some media sources are making out. As the BBC's Paul Fletcher states...

 

The Premier League has proposed a framework that involves lower up-front payments but significant add-on fees if a player goes on to fulfil his potential. This could involve a youngster progressing to become a first-team player or an international, with each new achievement triggering another payment. The idea is that it will help facilitate a situation where the best young players end up at the finest facilities at an early age, thus improving their chances of succeeding, but the smaller selling club also wins because it will end up handsomely recompensed if a player becomes a success.

 

What it also does is encourages the top clubs to stockpile anything resembling talent from basically any aged player up to 18(ish) and any location on the offchance they might be decent, whilst also knowing that they probably won't have to pay much the clubs they're acquiring from because the players are unlikely to wade through the treacle of stockpiled colleagues, and only very few will achieve any kind of success.

 

The regional restriction lifting and the ability for top clubs to grab players from anywhere with a tiny downpayment moves the focus from lower league clubs developing players onto elite clubs, meaning the lower clubs will essentially ONLY get the top clubs' cast-offs (and cast-offs with less experience than they would have now due to more limited opportunities), rather than getting some cast offs and some home-produced talent as they do now. It basically just removes the short period that the developing club benefits from a talented young player being in its team and any significant compensation fee which could be used to replace them immediately, in favour of only potential income in the future.

 

Saints wouldn't have got half a season and about £10m for Walcott and/or Chamberlain for a start... and is Bale worth less because Wales will never win a World Cup ?

Edited 20 October, 2011 by The9

[stinhk]

I think football fans in general are increasingly disillusioned with what is going on at the top of our game. Those in power need to be mindful of that. It's not all about having 'the best league in the world' as they like to bang on about, being competitive in the champions league or even a successful national side. There is more to it than the "big 4", or whatever it is these days.

[The9]

I think football fans in general are increasingly disillusioned with what is going on at the top of our game. Those in power need to be mindful of that. It's not all about having 'the best league in the world' as they like to bang on about, being competitive in the champions league or even a successful national side. There is more to it than the "big 4", or whatever it is these days.

 

Unfortunately "those in power" in England are now "those running the biggest clubs in the Premier League" as the FA has abdicated all responsibility to them since 1992.

[Doctoroncall]

Unfortunately "those in power" in England are now "those running the biggest clubs in the Premier League" as the FA has abdicated all responsibility to them since 1992.

 

That is part of the problem. If the FA wanted to raise standards (coaching and Team England) surely the centre of excellence at Burton would have been build now instead of having new Wembley.

[Matthew Le God]

It passed 46 votes to 22, with 1 abstentions and three no-shows.

[Matthew Le God]

So Saints, Chelsea and Man City will have the pick of the nations youth.

 

Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal will soon join them, as will probably Spurs.

[stevegrant]

Except Saints won't, because Man United, Man City, etc will bribe players (and, probably more importantly, their parents) into joining them, which we won't be able to afford to do.

 

It's all well and good having a reputable academy, but that's been based on having the pick of a fairly large geographical area. That won't be the case anymore because the bigger clubs will now be able to scout in those areas as well.

[Matthew Le God]

Except Saints won't, because Man United, Man City, etc will bribe players (and, probably more importantly, their parents) into joining them, which we won't be able to afford to do.

 

It's all well and good having a reputable academy, but that's been based on having the pick of a fairly large geographical area. That won't be the case anymore because the bigger clubs will now be able to scout in those areas as well.

 

And Saints can do the same to other teams all over the country. Only category one academies can have players under 12, and every child will also get far more coaching time at Saints compared to other academies that aren't category one thus making it even more attractive to send your kid to Saints.

 

There won't be many category one academies and even if Saints were bottom of a list of 7 category one academies, that still puts them ahead of 85 other English league clubs. That still allows Saints to pick from a lot of players.

 

In any case, not every parent of an 8 year old from Hampshire/Dorset etc wants to relocate their family to Manchester so that their child can goto Man City's academy. When there is an academy as good as Saints' on your doorstep you may as well stay.

Edited 20 October, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[The Kraken]

Except Saints won't, because Man United, Man City, etc will bribe players (and, probably more importantly, their parents) into joining them, which we won't be able to afford to do.

 

It's all well and good having a reputable academy, but that's been based on having the pick of a fairly large geographical area. That won't be the case anymore because the bigger clubs will now be able to scout in those areas as well.

 

To be fair, that kind of goes on already, albeit at a reduced scale. The big clubs all have a history of employing parents of upcoming youngsters, or providing houses in the local area to bypass the 90 minute rule.

 

That said, it's still a throughly distasteful move by the Premier League.

[stevegrant]

And Saints can do the same to other teams all over the country. Only category one academies can have players under 12, and every child will also get far more coaching time at Saints compared to other academies that aren't category one thus making it even more attractive to send your kid to Saints. There won't be many category one academies. Even if Saints were bottom of a list of 7 category one academies, that still puts them ahead of 85 other English league clubs.

Most of whom won't have youth systems anymore, so those who would have signed YTS equivalent at the likes of Rochdale and Oldham will either get hoovered up by Man City and then just drift away from the game wasting any talent they had because there's a saturation of players of the same age at the club, or they just won't get picked up at all. Late developers (look at Rickie Lambert as a prime example) wouldn't stand a chance. He'd have been dismissed as not being good enough to even get into an academy at 12 years old.

 

There are two purposes of our academy - one is to produce players good enough for our first team, the other is to produce players who we can sell to make the club self-sufficient. Even if we are a Cat 1 academy, there's nothing that will stop Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man United, etc coming in and hand-picking whichever of our prospects look half-decent at 14, 15 or 16 and taking them away for less than £200k. Therefore, the academy no longer serves its second purpose as the money generated from sales of £200k per player will not keep any ambitious football club on an even keel. Of course the knock-on effect there is that, if we are an ambitious Premier League club and we're losing our youth prospects to the top clubs, we're no longer in a position to produce players good enough for our first team, so the academy ceases to serve its primary purpose.

 

You're looking down at the "have nots" when you should really be looking up at the much more important danger.

[doddisalegend]

So Saints, Chelsea and Man City will have the pick of the nations youth.

 

Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal will soon join them, as will probably Spurs.

 

yep that will be a tricky one for prospective players and their parents......So what your saying is saints will have the pick of the nations youth that don't want to go to one of the top 6 PL clubs........ great

[Matthew Le God]

Most of whom won't have youth systems anymore, so those who would have signed YTS equivalent at the likes of Rochdale and Oldham will either get hoovered up by Man City and then just drift away from the game wasting any talent they had because there's a saturation of players of the same age at the club, or they just won't get picked up at all. Late developers (look at Rickie Lambert as a prime example) wouldn't stand a chance. He'd have been dismissed as not being good enough to even get into an academy at 12 years old.

 

There are two purposes of our academy - one is to produce players good enough for our first team, the other is to produce players who we can sell to make the club self-sufficient. Even if we are a Cat 1 academy, there's nothing that will stop Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man United, etc coming in and hand-picking whichever of our prospects look half-decent at 14, 15 or 16 and taking them away for less than £200k. Therefore, the academy no longer serves its second purpose as the money generated from sales of £200k per player will not keep any ambitious football club on an even keel. Of course the knock-on effect there is that, if we are an ambitious Premier League club and we're losing our youth prospects to the top clubs, we're no longer in a position to produce players good enough for our first team, so the academy ceases to serve its primary purpose.

 

You're looking down at the "have nots" when you should really be looking up at the much more important danger.

 

Are Arsenal or Chelsea currently stealing players from Saints aged 8 to 16? No

 

Is there anything really stopping them in most cases? No

 

What makes you think this will change?

 

What is stopping it happening at the moment is that the kids/parents know they will get just as good tuition staying closer to home with Saints and more likely chance of breaking into the 1st team.

 

In the past the Saints academy has been used to sustain the club, but that was only due to poor management leading to financial problems and relegation. Meaning players like Walcott, Bale and Chamberlain leaving "early". You can also add the numerous other academy products playing for other Premier League and Championship clubs to that. I'm not saying Saints could have kept them indefinitely (of course they couldn't), but had the club not left the Premier League in 2005, all I think would have stayed longer than they did.

 

Should Saints return to the Premier League in the near future it will be a lot easier to keep hold of youth products for at least a few years longer than in the 2nd or 3rd tier.

Edited 20 October, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[stevegrant]

You're seriously suggesting that if we were in the PL, Theo Walcott, Gareth Bale and Alex Chamberlain wouldn't have still ****ed off at the first opportunity to join a big club on much more money with the prospect/promise of European football? :lol: :lol:

[Matthew Le God]

You're seriously suggesting that if we were in the PL, Theo Walcott, Gareth Bale and Alex Chamberlain wouldn't have still ****ed off at the first opportunity to join a big club on much more money with the prospect/promise of European football? :lol: :lol:

 

I actually said...

 

I'm not saying Saints could have kept them indefinitely (of course they couldn't), but had the club not left the Premier League in 2005, all I think would have stayed longer than they did.

 

Especially if the club had a backer investing in the club like it now has.

Edited 20 October, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[stevegrant]

Especially if the club had a backer investing in the club like it now has.

Had. We have no idea if there is any investment still being put into the club by the Liebherr estate. With the £12m received from the sale of Chamberlain, it's entirely possible that they won't have to put another penny in to balance the books, especially if we continue to get crowds of 25k+.

[Matthew Le God]

Had. We have no idea if there is any investment still being put into the club by the Liebherr estate. With the £12m received from the sale of Chamberlain, it's entirely possible that they won't have to put another penny in to balance the books, especially if we continue to get crowds of 25k+.

 

So you think Cortese is lying then when he says nothing has changed? Is this view based on anything in particular?

 

If the investment had dried up, why would they bother submitting new plans for Staplewood after Liebherr's death at three times the cost of the original development.

Edited 20 October, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[stevegrant]

So you think Cortese is lying then when he says nothing has changed? Is this view based on anything in particular?

No, "nothing has changed" to me means that the club is still expected to run itself and not be reliant on the handouts which were obviously necessary in the first year after administration.

 

If the investment had dried up, why would they bother submitting new plans for Staplewood after Liebherr's death at twice the cost of the original development.

Has building work started yet?

[Appy]

I can't see either of these 2 backing down here!

[Matthew Le God]

No, "nothing has changed" to me means that the club is still expected to run itself and not be reliant on the handouts which were obviously necessary in the first year after administration.

 

In the supporter dinners and in press interviews Cortese has spoken of his/Markus' desire to see Saints competing towards the top of the Premier League. That will require a degree of financial support even with the new UEFA regulations coming in.

 

Has building work started yet?

 

No, but there are a lot of temporary buildings currently on site. Why do you think that might be? Are you suggesting they went to the trouble and expense of getting AFL Architects to design the development with no intention of seeing it through? That is an elaborate bluff!

[stevegrant]

In the supporter dinners and in press interviews Cortese has spoken of his/Markus' desire to see Saints competing towards the top of the Premier League. That will require a degree of financial support even with the new UEFA regulations coming in.

Cortese has also spoken of a 5-year plan, which we are now nearly halfway through. It was always an investment with a view to a medium-term return (hence Liebherr calling the deal "Schnäppchen" [German for "bargain"]), and if we were to get promoted this season (the bookies now have us odds-on to go up ) it wouldn't be completely mental to suggest that the value of the club would be worth at least double the money that has been put in to date.

 

No, but there are a lot of temporary buildings currently on site. Why do you think that might be? Are you suggesting they went to the trouble and expense of getting AFL Architects to design the development with no intention of seeing it through? That is an elaborate bluff!

Many building developments get sent to architects without actually having a brick laid, it's not an odd situation at all. A company that has already planned for such a development (and received planning permission from the local authority) will be more valuable. It demonstrates to potential buyers that the company has been run by people with a bit of foresight and they went to the trouble of putting the foresight onto paper.

[Jimmy_D]

It's swings and roundabouts. We lose the protection of the 90 minute rule for local talent, but that also means we can try and recruit the best talent from the whole country before all but three other teams.

 

Not to mention that for youngsters at twelve years old, a catergory one status academy here, with a history of producing youngsters that 'make it' is pretty attractive for the parents not wanting to rip their family up and move away from the area.

 

Out of the four that will get catergory one status, we're probably the one with the best reputation for bringing through talent at the moment.

 

There's a tiny window of opportunity here, if we manage to get promoted this season, and strengthen enough that we're stable in the Prem, and build the academy, then the combination of the reputation of our academy, our position in the league, the pick of some of the most promising talent in the country, as well as being able to train that talent far more than we currently can, along with the new financial fair play rules, could see us becoming a real footballing force over the next few years.

[Saint Fen]

This rule will ruin football league clubs even more, the premier league "bullying" Football league clubs to accepting.

 

Football is being ruined by money and this is another poor example.

We will probably be ok but how are smaller clubs going to survive in the future?

[L1Minus10]

Even if Saints ultimately benefit from the new rule, it's still a ****e rule as it really ****s over the teams who have little or no Premier League potential. Imagine what we'd think of it if it had come in last year and in January, as a League 1 club, we'd lost Chamberlain for about £200k. Just a £14.8 million deficit then.

 

I'd be interested to know what we voted and would like to head Nicola's take on it. The blackmail aspect of the way it's been forced through is somewhat disgusting and it's just wrong. First we had the 'sell your own tv rights thing', then the no relegation from the Prem thing and now this one which has been made public and voted through in about 2 days. "For the benefit of the national team" - my big fat hairy arse.... this from the same organization that allowde Cesc Fabregas to be classed as 'Homegrown'. ****ing b o l l o x...

 

Permier League is evil.

[L1Minus10]

... and my spelling is ****e...

[Matthew Le God]

An interesting interview with the academy director at Nottingham Forest. Use your Saints player login if you have one to watch...

 

http://www.nottinghamforest.co.uk/articles/20111020/nick-marshall-talks-eppp_2264248_2488530/0,,10308~2488530~1,00.html

[Sour Mash]

Even if Saints ultimately benefit from the new rule, it's still a ****e rule as it really ****s over the teams who have little or no Premier League potential. Imagine what we'd think of it if it had come in last year and in January, as a League 1 club, we'd lost Chamberlain for about £200k. Just a £14.8 million deficit then.

 

I'd be interested to know what we voted and would like to head Nicola's take on it. The blackmail aspect of the way it's been forced through is somewhat disgusting and it's just wrong. First we had the 'sell your own tv rights thing', then the no relegation from the Prem thing and now this one which has been made public and voted through in about 2 days. "For the benefit of the national team" - my big fat hairy arse.... this from the same organization that allowde Cesc Fabregas to be classed as 'Homegrown'. ****ing b o l l o x...

 

Permier League is evil.

Spot on. Hate modern football and can only see it getting worse.

[Doctoroncall]

If the investment had dried up, why would they bother submitting new plans for Staplewood after Liebherr's death at three times the cost of the original development.

 

Surely it's coaching rather than facilities that matters most:

 

Three years ago an official report concluded that coaching is the "golden thread" leading to international success, but new Uefa data shows that there are only 2,769 English coaches holding Uefa's B, A and Pro badges, its top qualifications. Spain has produced 23,995, Italy 29,420, Germany 34,970 and France 17,588.

[rooney]

Despite all the peripheral debate on the state of the Training ground, I would support Matthew Le God's thoughts that when we are in the Premiership, we shall be less likely to loose players at such early age as with Walcott, OXO and Bale. It depends how successful we are, which may determine how long they stay ie Wayne Bridge

[Leslie Charteris]

As is the way of the world, this is just another example of the rich and powerful flexing their muscles to get what they want, ensuring a short term benefit for themselves with little thought to the long-term consequences.

 

I imagine the negotiations between the Premier League and the Football League went something like this:

 

"I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day."

Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said, "I don't want you to hire ME - and I don't care for jam."

"It's very good jam," said the Queen.

"Well, I don't want any TO-DAY, at any rate."

"You couldn't have it if you DID want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday - but never jam to-day."

"It MUST come sometimes to "jam to-day,"" Alice objected.

"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every OTHER day: to-day isn't any OTHER day, you know."

"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"

 

[up and away]

As I said earlier this year in June about these proposals, Southampton due to the Liebherr investment will be getting category one academy status which means these changes should benefit the club compared to others. Thread I made about it 4 months ago... http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?30588-Premier-League-Academy-Elite-Player-Performance-Plan-Category-One-Status It will screw many teams, but it should be good for Southampton.

What this does is to give a major advantage to the very top clubs. One of the very reasons given is that it gets the very best talent to the best facilities (or richest more likely). Saints will gain on one hand because they have a far bigger pool to draw upon, but that pool will consistently have the cream skimmed off by the richest clubs. What that means is an absence of the Walcotts and the Oxo's, leaving us with far less chance of getting hold of the very best, confined to mediocrity and late developers. However much a blow the loss of Oxo was, the Academy still shone in the glow of the fee forced from Arsenal. Take that away and wait for dribs and drabs way into the future and the whole Academy set up outside of the Premier will suffer. Even with inside the Premier there is going to be some serious adjustment for any but the very top clubs.

[The Kraken]

To give some perspective, this is a decent article about it all.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2011/10/football_league_votes_in_favou.html#299200

 

The fees paid for youngsters up front is not just the end of the payments; should that player go on to establish himself in the first team there will be follow on payments. Quite what these payments are is uncertain, but one would hope that they get close to providing a "fair value" that the Premier League claim them to do.

 

It's hard to make an informed decision about this without all of the facts to hand; but it certainly doesn't seem like a great deal for the clubs outside the Premier League elite on first analysis. One can only hope that with 44 teams voting in favour of it that there is indeed a good deal to be had and all off the negative theories that are abound will just be scare stories and not the reality of the new system.

Edited 21 October, 2011 by The Kraken