What do we do with our young talents ? - Sell them, of course.

[david in sweden]

What do Prem. clubs do with young talent? - they sell them, of course... or in the worse case scenario -- they let them go for next to / nothing.

 

Of course a few young players do survive. Milner started playing at Leeds ? ..when he was 16 or 17 and has moved around a bit since.

If Ross Barkley hadn't had David Moyes support at Evertoon - who knows where he'd be today?

 

The thought came to mind when reading that Theo Walcott (27 in March) has been at Arsenal for 10 years. (350 games and 42 England caps after he left SMS).

Had Saints been still in the Prem. in 2006 and not desperately short of cash, he might have been with Saints a bit longer....and we'd have banked a lot more on that deal had he moved on later. A similar situation with the later Gareth Bale deal ....(I do hope we learned the lesson about having a sell-on %).

 

But rich or not, some Prem. sides have lost / given away players who have developed enormously afterwards. I pondered some names I recalled as U21's.

 

Chelsea had the young Kevin de Bruyne, but sold him on after only 3 outings for a "measly" £18 million, but it cost Man City 3 times as much to sign him later.

 

Man.City had 16 y.o. Daniel Sturridge on their staff (after he'd been rejected by Villa and Coventry), but let his contract run out before he went to Chelsea, but in turn - didn't find favour with manager(s) there, and was sold on to Liverpool for a mere £12 million.

 

Man.Utd must be rueing the sale of Paul Pogba (who it seems upset Alex Ferguson) who sold him to Italy for £17 million ....Just lately I read any suggested move for Pogba now ....would cost the buyer nearer £50 million.

 

Chelsea thought they made a killing when selling Romelu Lukaku (£28 million to Everton) but their present form suggests they really do need a striker.

 

There are surely other examples, too, but it seems that those Saints' critics who complain about us selling our best youngsters - don't see that it's a commonplace occurance with many Prem.sides ...and especially those who think any player isn't up to standard - if he costs less then £25 million....

 

It's easy to say that in hindsight, but the question really is ...Should we hold on to our best young talent(s) and let them develop....or cash in for a quick deal?

[Saint Charlie]

Have read this a couple of times and still not sure what the point it is. Sorry Davie.

[eddie]

Have read this a couple of times and still not sure what the point it is. Sorry Davie.

 

I think he's saying that saints tendancy to sell young talent over past five years isn't so uncommon, as lots of other clubs have done it too..?

[Doctoroncall]

Apart from when we were up shìt creek financially as a club, I think we've held onto younger players as long as we could. The only exception recently would be Chambers.

 

The Shaw deal was a good bit of business but as your title states... We sell. At least we get a good price and no disgruntled player.

 

It would have been nice to have held on to Shearer for another couple of seasons too!

 

As your examples show, there will always be the occasional talent that slips through for one reason or another. However you also need to know how many other academy graduates there were at the time that didn't make it to give you a sense of perspective of how difficult it is to make it to the first team.

 

Unfortunately It's not a precise science to know which player will make it and when. Otherwise we would be challenging for a top four spot!!!!

 

I think we have been generous in the length of time given to develop the youngsters.

[Saint Charlie]

I think he's saying that saints tendancy to sell young talent over past five years isn't so uncommon, as lots of other clubs have done it too..?

Ah ok, yeah I guess the key difference with the names he mentioned is that the clubs weren't playing those players, they were not key members of the team and also in most of those cases weren't homegrown.

 

They also were in positions to buy in what they (perhaps questionably) felt at the time were superior players.

[Saint86]

What do Prem. clubs do with young talent? - they sell them, of course... or in the worse case scenario -- they let them go for next to / nothing.

 

Of course a few young players do survive. Milner started playing at Leeds ? ..when he was 16 or 17 and has moved around a bit since.

If Ross Barkley hadn't had David Moyes support at Evertoon - who knows where he'd be today?

 

The thought came to mind when reading that Theo Walcott (27 in March) has been at Arsenal for 10 years. (350 games and 42 England caps after he left SMS).

Had Saints been still in the Prem. in 2006 and not desperately short of cash, he might have been with Saints a bit longer....and we'd have banked a lot more on that deal had he moved on later. A similar situation with the later Gareth Bale deal ....(I do hope we learned the lesson about having a sell-on %).

 

But rich or not, some Prem. sides have lost / given away players who have developed enormously afterwards. I pondered some names I recalled as U21's.

 

Chelsea had the young Kevin de Bruyne, but sold him on after only 3 outings for a "measly" £18 million, but it cost Man City 3 times as much to sign him later.

 

Man.City had 16 y.o. Daniel Sturridge on their staff (after he'd been rejected by Villa and Coventry), but let his contract run out before he went to Chelsea, but in turn - didn't find favour with manager(s) there, and was sold on to Liverpool for a mere £12 million.

 

Man.Utd must be rueing the sale of Paul Pogba (who it seems upset Alex Ferguson) who sold him to Italy for £17 million ....Just lately I read any suggested move for Pogba now ....would cost the buyer nearer £50 million.

 

Chelsea thought they made a killing when selling Romelu Lukaku (£28 million to Everton) but their present form suggests they really do need a striker.

 

There are surely other examples, too, but it seems that those Saints' critics who complain about us selling our best youngsters - don't see that it's a commonplace occurance with many Prem.sides ...and especially those who think any player isn't up to standard - if he costs less then £25 million....

 

It's easy to say that in hindsight, but the question really is ...Should we hold on to our best young talent(s) and let them develop....or cash in for a quick deal?

 

Can't you just start a blog somewhere!?!?!

[shurlock]

Davo - you're comparing apples and swedish meatballs.

[Chez]

maybe we should (as has been suggested might happen to supplement the U21 squad) be going out there and buying young players ourselves?

 

Most of the players we are signing are 23/24, which is no bad thing, but maybe we could `gamble' a little more on even young talent from the lower leagues? Very difficult to get right. Arsenal certainly got it spot on with Walcott and Chamberlain, but they didn't come cheap. A more recent signing that caught my eye was that of Matt Grimes (19) to Swansea from Exeter. He was a stand out player, but as yet hasn't made his mark at Swansea. I like that kind of signing, but until he makes the first team on a regular basis the £1.85m looks an expensive gamble. Make the first team and its a brilliant signing.

 

Oliver Burke (18) at Forest is a player that looks very exciting. I doubt £1.85m would prise him from Forest, but we should certainly be looking at him.

 

I see James Maddison (19) from Coventry is linked with us (and a host of other teams) today, so maybe we are looking at this age of player.

[sadoldgit]

The problem is how long to keep hold of a young player if he isn't showing signs of development. As we know, some develop quicker than others and some don't really develop at all. I remember Mick Channon saying that Peter Osgood was the best player he saw when a youngster but as his body developed he lost it a bit. Either you have to be a really good judge of players and their development or really lucky to get it right every time.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

There is a difference between signing young players and selling them without an intention of developing them for your first team and developing young players for your first team and losing them against your desire.

 

It's not comparable and the issue Saints have is that as we're good at developing players (either good recruitment at youth level or good scouting at senior level) then we tend to lose lots. No-one has ever thought we could keep these players. The issue has always been replenishing stocks whilst at the same time using the excess money we generate to better the club / team. It's hard to do but it can be done. Eventually you'd like to think we'll have so much money we can start to invest even more in our team. Or we spend the money on bad signings. You never know.

[VectisSaint]

maybe we should (as has been suggested might happen to supplement the U21 squad) be going out there and buying young players ourselves?

I think we do and have for a long time. Dexter Blackstock, Leon Best, David McGoldrick and Kenwyne Jones, even Chris Baird we picked up from Ballymena. Jack Stephens from Plymouth. More recently the young keeper from Shrewsbury, but we seem to have slowed down with this intake from elsewhere over the last couple of seasons or so, and this aligns with the downturn in the overall standard of our academy teams. Seems like we are finally addressing this again.

[david in sweden]

I think we do and have for a long time. Dexter Blackstock, Leon Best, David McGoldrick and Kenwyne Jones, even Chris Baird we picked up from Ballymena. Jack Stephens from Plymouth. More recently the young keeper from Shrewsbury, but we seem to have slowed down with this intake from elsewhere over the last couple of seasons or so, and this aligns with the downturn in the overall standard of our academy teams. Seems like we are finally addressing this again.

 

Right Vectis. Picking a winner is the really difficult thing, but I agree we should be looking at slightly older players, too.

You don't always get them at 8 years old - as the group that Shaw and JWP came up in - or even later on....Walcott was 13 or 14 (?) when we signed him, I think?

 

...I recall that watching the U21 game at Chelsea, the commentator remarked that Chelsea had 33 players -out on loan this season. But they can't keep 'em all!

[VectisSaint]

Right Vectis. Picking a winner is the really difficult thing, but I agree we should be looking at slightly older players, too.

You don't always get them at 8 years old - as the group that Shaw and JWP came up in - or even later on....Walcott was 13 or 14 (?) when we signed him, I think?

 

...I recall that watching the U21 game at Chelsea, the commentator remarked that Chelsea had 33 players -out on loan this season. But they can't keep 'em all!

I should have added Walcott as well cos we got him from Swindon (though he was only 11 at the time, I recall Rupert paying Swindon about £9k when we sold him to Arsenal, Swindon didn't even realise they were entitled to it).

[Chez]

I think we do and have for a long time. Dexter Blackstock, Leon Best, David McGoldrick and Kenwyne Jones, even Chris Baird we picked up from Ballymena. Jack Stephens from Plymouth. More recently the young keeper from Shrewsbury, but we seem to have slowed down with this intake from elsewhere over the last couple of seasons or so, and this aligns with the downturn in the overall standard of our academy teams. Seems like we are finally addressing this again.

 

Yeah, I was surprised find when I looked that Stephens was signed almost five years ago now. Is Harry Lewis the only one since? Compare this with what Chelsea have spent in recent times on bringing talent into their youth system and its peanuts. It will be interesting to see how many (of those Chelsea players) develop into decent pros, all be it perhaps away from Chelsea.

 

The key is having the right guys scouting and persuading to get them, as well as the right funds of course.