Batman Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 seems to be a bit of a waste of time they are set to lose their best prospect to chelsea for £209k what does this say about the need to plough millions of ££££ to keep a CAT 1 status. imagine last summer, Luke Shaw going to chelsea for £209k *MLG, please dont ruin this by picking holes. if not shaw, another top prospect, which is my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 I think any transfers settled like this one should automatically include a 50% sell on fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 EPPP is designed to get the best talent to the best clubs as soon as possible. It hides behind a banner which claims getting the best talent to the best clubs is for the benefit of the national team, but in reality that is absolute ********. The big boys benefit and no-one else. That said, Saints also benefit by having Cat 1 and that pathway to the first team so it makes it easier for us to bring talent here but I haven't seen us raid clubs for talent too much, maybe Plymouth for Jack Stephens and Sam Gallacher in the last few years and Blackburn for Niall Mason this season gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 I'm not sure what your point is? I get it can be frustrating, you'll lose some, but surely the investment overall is always worthwhile and the only real way for clubs like us and WBA to progress? I think the point is that the compensation structure within the new Academy system is inherently low. While it is in PL club's interests to maintain an academy for bringing players through, it's a revenue stream for lower level clubs which has been massively capped and allows bigger clubs to snap up young players for a pittance of a fee. Which is why some lower league clubs are no longer bothering running an academy, which IMO hurts the game overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 The compensation is pathetic, that's the issue. The example of John Bostock (don't know where he is now)...Palace rejected near £5m bid incl various add ons, he went to Spurs and fee was decided at tribunal to be £500k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint86 Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 I think the point is that the compensation structure within the new Academy system is inherently low. While it is in PL club's interests to maintain an academy for bringing players through, it's a revenue stream for lower level clubs which has been massively capped and allows bigger clubs to snap up young players for a pittance of a fee. Which is why some lower league clubs are no longer bothering running an academy, which IMO hurts the game overall. Exactly, EPPP is a sham, we were against it during the vote I believe anyway? Wasn't there a big hooha at the time over the premier league blackmailing the football league clubs with less income if they didn't vote it through... Makes it even more important that we got promoted. If we hadn't then we wouldn't have been able to offer shaw and warde prowse first team football in the premier league and would have been forced to sell players of their caliber for a pittance of what we could now demand. We were lucky in that we manged to force our way up the divisions with consecutive promotions, we also caught the new tv deal... now imagine a club like crewe alexandria, where they can't get to the prem quickly, and who have a great reputation for bringing through players that then funds the club and the first team. A rule which damages the football league's abilty to produce and give first team football to youngsters is not in the national teams best interests! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 Exactly, EPPP is a sham, we were against it during the vote I believe anyway? Wasn't there a big hooha at the time over the premier league blackmailing the football league clubs with less income if they didn't vote it through... Makes it even more important that we got promoted. If we hadn't then we wouldn't have been able to offer shaw and warde prowse first team football in the premier league and would have been forced to sell players of their caliber for a pittance of what we could now demand. We were lucky in that we manged to force our way up the divisions with consecutive promotions, we also caught the new tv deal... now imagine a club like crewe alexandria, where they can't get to the prem quickly, and who have a great reputation for bringing through players that then funds the club and the first team. A rule which damages the football league's abilty to produce and give first team football to youngsters is not in the national teams best interests! The way it was railroaded through was indeed complete bully tactics; essentially a "take this deal or we'll do it anyway and leave you with nothing". Its led to clubs who aren't exactly minnows like Wycombe deciding that its no longer financially viable to run their own youth academy scheme. And you're right, Crewe are a great example of a club with a fantastic youth setup down the years who will now be much more vulnerable to the advances of the big clubs and will receive relatively little in compensation. The end goal is commendable; to get more top PL clubs with a brilliant blueprint of coaching. I just didn't see the need to sh*t on the smaller clubs by insisting upon a vastly reduced compensation structure to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 The compensation is pathetic, that's the issue. The example of John Bostock (don't know where he is now)...Palace rejected near £5m bid incl various add ons, he went to Spurs and fee was decided at tribunal to be £500k. He was released on a free by spurs after never playing for them. ANother career ruined by getting a big move too early. But yes, compensation is rubbish, particularly when a lot of smaller clubs like Crewe rely on their home grown players for income to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 The end goal is commendable; to get more top PL clubs with a brilliant blueprint of coaching. I just didn't see the need to sh*t on the smaller clubs by insisting upon a vastly reduced compensation structure to get there. Good summary. I never had much time for Lowe but I recall when Walcott had made n appearances for us Swindon were due an amount which arrived before they'd even remembered it was due. I think sell on percentages should definitely be part of the deal. Even a small percentage could be worth a bit to a nursery club down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 The way it was railroaded through was indeed complete bully tactics; essentially a "take this deal or we'll do it anyway and leave you with nothing". Its led to clubs who aren't exactly minnows like Wycombe deciding that its no longer financially viable to run their own youth academy scheme. And you're right, Crewe are a great example of a club with a fantastic youth setup down the years who will now be much more vulnerable to the advances of the big clubs and will receive relatively little in compensation. The end goal is commendable; to get more top PL clubs with a brilliant blueprint of coaching. I just didn't see the need to sh*t on the smaller clubs by insisting upon a vastly reduced compensation structure to get there. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 Good summary. I never had much time for Lowe but I recall when Walcott had made n appearances for us Swindon were due an amount which arrived before they'd even remembered it was due. I think sell on percentages should definitely be part of the deal. Even a small percentage could be worth a bit to a nursery club down the line. I think the new compensation factors in additional payments for appearances and sell-ons. The lower league clubs need to adapt and I can see the movement of players being the other way round where the league sides will be picking up the graduates that don't make it at the bigger clubs but hopefully have gone through a decent coaching system so will be better for it. The biggest issue in this country is the lack of decent coaches, thanks to the FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 2 July, 2013 Share Posted 2 July, 2013 He was released on a free by spurs after never playing for them. ANother career ruined by getting a big move too early. But yes, compensation is rubbish, particularly when a lot of smaller clubs like Crewe rely on their home grown players for income to survive. Your right but the compensation via tribunal works by a valuation of the players worth, then you will get further payments dependant on internationals and first team games etc. Considering Bostock flopped ensured they got next to nothing Anyway, sorry for doing an MLG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now