Why Are We Losing Our Kids?

[The Rational Fan]

Leeds have made a substantial bid for Cody Drameh.

If Drameh is good enough for Leeds, why cannot he get a game for us.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Leeds have made a substantial bid for Cody Drameh.

If Drameh is good enough for Leeds, why cannot he get a game for us.

Beats me.

[toshes mate]

Leeds have made a substantial bid for Cody Drameh.

If Drameh is good enough for Leeds, why cannot he get a game for us.

Beats me.

The reports suggest he is seen, by Leeds, as someone 'for the future'.

[The Rational Fan]

Leeds have made a substantial bid for Cody Drameh.

If Drameh is good enough for Leeds, why cannot he get a game for us.

Beats me.

The reports suggest he is seen, by Leeds, as someone 'for the future'.

We have Denis Odoi as the someone 'for the future'.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Leeds have made a substantial bid for Cody Drameh.

If Drameh is good enough for Leeds, why cannot he get a game for us.

Beats me.

The reports suggest he is seen, by Leeds, as someone 'for the future'.

We have Denis Odoi as the someone 'for the future'.

Dennis is 32 NB, should have 2/3 decent years left in him injuries permitting, as a squad player. 
But would not fall into the category of someone "for the future" any more than I am.

[Dr Quinzel]

Would it be fair to say Leeds have a better record with taking players from their academy/u23's into the first team (in recent years at least)?

With Drameh to Leeds, would it be set at a tribunal cost as it is within the country? Or would we need to accept an offer for him? Not sure of his contract situation.

I'm specifically bothered about losing one particular player, Drameh or Harvey, but the pattern emerging (we've also lost one of the GK brothers to Liverpool recently amongst others) is negative so needs addressing.

[The Rational Fan]

Fulham need to update their training factilities, we are well behind the big six and rumours Motspur Park is crowded.

[Texas White]

You would think Fulham could protect themselves better. You can't have a contract but maybe a way around to specify set agents. Just a thought, there's always a back door. Rules are made to be bent, not broken.
If they expect zero loyalty (which is sad but true) they won't go far wrong.

[The Rational Fan]

You would think Fulham could protect themselves better. You can't have a contract but maybe a way around to specify set agents. Just a thought, there's always a back door. Rules are made to be bent, not broken.
If they expect zero loyalty (which is sad but true) they won't go far wrong.

Didn't Chelsea get a two transfer ban for trying to lock teenagers into signing with them, such as sending one teenager to a top private school?

[toshes mate]

Fulham need to update their training factilities, we are well behind the big six and rumours Motspur Park is crowded.

Hence the planning permission and approval to develop the ex-BBC ground, but even with this we are not going to challenge the wealthier, and less inhibited by circumstance, clubs.  It isn't what SK is worth that matters it is FFC's health and sustainability that matters.  Could the Khans open another academy or centre of excellence, perhaps at one of those 'lovely and suitable sites to evolve with' that were investigated (?) before the BBC ground came through?  Such a move wouldn't preclude the kind of moves these teenagers go for, but it may provide a wider catchment area for talent.  Alternatively, are there potential sites in the US that the Khans could utilise to capture American soccer talent?

[toshes mate]

You would think Fulham could protect themselves better. You can't have a contract but maybe a way around to specify set agents. Just a thought, there's always a back door. Rules are made to be bent, not broken.
If they expect zero loyalty (which is sad but true) they won't go far wrong.

Didn't Chelsea get a two transfer ban for trying to lock teenagers into signing with them, such as sending one teenager to a top private school?

Mmm, that is the difference between breaking the rules and finding a way of bending them isn't it?

[Nero]

Leeds have made a substantial bid for Cody Drameh.

If Drameh is good enough for Leeds, why cannot he get a game for us.

Beats me.

The reports suggest he is seen, by Leeds, as someone 'for the future'.

Future means he isnt going to get game time this season, think there right back is there capt at the moment and they have another couple young lad as well.

[Sting of the North]

You would think Fulham could protect themselves better. You can't have a contract but maybe a way around to specify set agents. Just a thought, there's always a back door. Rules are made to be bent, not broken.
If they expect zero loyalty (which is sad but true) they won't go far wrong.

Didn't Chelsea get a two transfer ban for trying to lock teenagers into signing with them, such as sending one teenager to a top private school?

Mmm, that is the difference between breaking the rules and finding a way of bending them isn't it?

Well, seeing how even the really big clubs seem to be loosing teenagers it is probably not a system that is very easily bent. I also think that mostly when someone is bending the rules in these cases they are actually breaking them, just without getting caught. I also disagree, rules are made to be followed (obviously within reason, just like everything else). Unfortunately, rules meant to protect youngsters are also royally screwing over clubs all the time. Like FFC just now seem to be screwing that Irish club for the young left back.

[Montague]

Didn't Chelsea get a two transfer ban for trying to lock teenagers into signing with them, such as sending one teenager to a top private school?
[/quote]
Mmm, that is the difference between breaking the rules and finding a way of bending them isn't it?
[/quote]

I think Everton were also subject to a transfer ban and a £500k fine for inducements to a youth player – something to do with private education and relocating the family.

People go on about loyalty but the whole EPPP and Academy system does not breed loyalty on either side.
Until the youth player signs a professional contract the club has all the power. The player is under constant scrutiny and can be released by the club at any time (six week reviews) but the in the event that the youth player wants to leave or join another club they can be restricted due to the compensation rules (YD10) to the extent where their only outlet would be to return to grass roots football.

Causes lots of issues http://fullcontactlaw.co.uk/2015/03/eppp-curious-yd-forms/

Not so bad at Fulham but in other clubs the youth players see a constant churn of Talent ID games and trialists challenging for their position and the pressure to perform is constant (Clubs like Chelsea and Arsenal have these every few weeks). These are kids that may have been at the club since 8 or 9 years of age – four times a week – three hours a session plus day release. With travelling time it is not uncommon for some 12-13yr old leave school at 3pm and not get home until 10pm at night. The system does not just affect the youth player but the whole family who has to commit time and money to chase the dream – very few clubs offer travel assistance or expenses. Every 'senior' youth player will know someone who has been with the club for years then released age 15 / 16 without much if any support to find a future.

It's not surprising that by the time the 0.01% of these kids, who finally get to sign a scholarship or professional contract, begin to think of themselves and what they can get out of the game / profession.
The end of a 'professional' contract is the only time when the graduating player has any of the power and wants a payback for all the time and sacrifice they have previously given the club.

The Fulham Academy is Cat 1 and has a great reputation. Bur it has massive competition from the bright lights of the 'big' London clubs with their extravagant facilities and large budgets.

The best thing the club can do to keep the pull on youth is return to the premiership asap.

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

Football can be so cruel with youngsters but so can many other sports. Ask the parent of any  talented young gymnast swimmer athlete or dancer how much time and sacrifice the family have to put in just to get their youngsters to the next level . The difference with football is the potential income and there are plenty of clubs who can find ways of making life easier for the parents.. Fulham have an arrangement with Coombe School but there is nothing special in this as it merely ensures that the boys receive a good rather than luxurious education..
Youngsters will always want to leave for different reasons but this year threatens to be far worse than in living memory. Yes the glamour attracts them but this year is beyond making that excuse and in my opinion it can only point to a bad smell spreading within the club which they don5 like.

[Texas White]

You would think Fulham could protect themselves better. You can't have a contract but maybe a way around to specify set agents. Just a thought, there's always a back door. Rules are made to be bent, not broken.
If they expect zero loyalty (which is sad but true) they won't go far wrong.

Didn't Chelsea get a two transfer ban for trying to lock teenagers into signing with them, such as sending one teenager to a top private school?

Mmm, that is the difference between breaking the rules and finding a way of bending them isn't it?

Exactly

[The Rational Fan]

You would think Fulham could protect themselves better. You can't have a contract but maybe a way around to specify set agents. Just a thought, there's always a back door. Rules are made to be bent, not broken.
If they expect zero loyalty (which is sad but true) they won't go far wrong.

Didn't Chelsea get a two transfer ban for trying to lock teenagers into signing with them, such as sending one teenager to a top private school?

Mmm, that is the difference between breaking the rules and finding a way of bending them isn't it?

Exactly

Chelsea obviously didn't find a good way of "bending the rules", if they did they wouldn't have needed to "break the rules".

Agents know how to get out a player under 17 out of any contract, they know how to bend the rules. FFC is only a stepping stone for these kids.

Maybe Fulham's youth is too young, we need players that can commit for at least two to three seasons.

[toshes mate]

You would think Fulham could protect themselves better. You can't have a contract but maybe a way around to specify set agents. Just a thought, there's always a back door. Rules are made to be bent, not broken.
If they expect zero loyalty (which is sad but true) they won't go far wrong.

Didn't Chelsea get a two transfer ban for trying to lock teenagers into signing with them, such as sending one teenager to a top private school?

Mmm, that is the difference between breaking the rules and finding a way of bending them isn't it?

I also think that mostly when someone is bending the rules in these cases they are actually breaking them, just without getting caught. I also disagree, rules are made to be followed (obviously within reason, just like everything else). 

Hasn't most professional sport become a matter of bending rules before, during and after the event in as many ways as you can possibly find before the 'law' catches up with you?  I'd like all sport to be based on a level playing field but before you can even begin to realise that you have to understand how a sport has managed to become so unable to stick with that in the first place.   It is a social problem just as much as it is a sporting problem.