Taking the pee or what!!!!

[Baston White]

Fulham and Liverpool a long way apart in valuation of Harvey Elliott.
Fulham want £7 million Liverpool offered £750,000!!!!!

[filham]

They will have a bargain at seven million, it is unbelievable what they are trying to get away with.

[grandad]

Do you have sources of our request & the Scousers offer.

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

It is widely reported in the guardian and Liverpool press.

[grandad]

It is widely reported in the guardian and Liverpool press.

Neither a reliable source.

[Baston White]

What I cannot understand why does it take so long to sort this out??
It's been nearly a year now!! :031: :010:

[AnotherVicHalomLoveChild]

Do you have sources of our request & the Scousers offer.

Apparently in the Times today

[Bassey the warrior]

It is widely reported in the guardian and Liverpool press.

Neither a reliable source.

The Guardian is the most reliable paper.

[The Rational Fan]

The English Football League wants £400 million of investment in youth over the next five years, but Brentford has achieved success by deciding that any money spent is better spent elsewhere than on youth. Unless clubs are rewarded for developing youth, then other clubs with follow Brentford.

If Fulham gets £750,000 for Harvey Elliott, then academies across the UK have to produce 110 Harvey Elliott's per year just to breakeven. Hence, if Fulham gets £10,0000,000 for Harvey Elliott, then academies across the UK have to produce 8 Harvey Elliott's per year just to breakeven.

I believe that is unrealistic for academies across the UK to produce more than 4 Harvey Elliott's per year. If we want youth academies like ours to stay open, then £20,0000,000 for players like Harvey Elliott is what is required.

Realistically, youth players don't deliver value to a club, unless the player signs with the club that developed him or they get decent fee. Once EFL decides to pay nothing for players that go elsewhere, Clubs that cannot keep their best youth must close their youth academies.

If Fulham only get £750,000 for Harvey Elliott, its bad for Fulham, but also potentially horrific for youth development outside the big premier league clubs. If the EFL is not careful they won't be able to produce the 8 homegrown players for each EPL 25 player squads that they desire to achieve.

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

It was reported that we paid less than a million for the promising new Scottish lad was has been playing regular first team football for an admittedly Scottish team.

[Sting of the North]

The English Football League wants £400 million of investment in youth over the next five years, but Brentford has achieved success by deciding that any money spent is better spent elsewhere than on youth. Unless clubs are rewarded for developing youth, then other clubs with follow Brentford.

If Fulham gets £750,000 for Harvey Elliott, then academies across the UK have to produce 110 Harvey Elliott's per year just to breakeven. Hence, if Fulham gets £10,0000,000 for Harvey Elliott, then academies across the UK have to produce 8 Harvey Elliott's per year just to breakeven.

I believe that is unrealistic for academies across the UK to produce more than 4 Harvey Elliott's per year. If we want youth academies like ours to stay open, then £20,0000,000 for players like Harvey Elliott is what is required.

Realistically, youth players don't deliver value to a club, unless the player signs with the club that developed him or they get decent fee. Once EFL decides to pay nothing for players that go elsewhere, Clubs that cannot keep their best youth must close their youth academies.

If Fulham only get £750,000 for Harvey Elliott, its bad for Fulham, but also potentially horrific for youth development outside the big premier league clubs. If the EFL is not careful they won't be able to produce the 8 homegrown players for each EPL 25 player squads that they desire to achieve.

What you completely fail to account for is all the other players that are maybe not as promising as Elliott but still gets a contracts and ultimately either save the club transfer fees (by taking up a squad place) or earns the club a transfer fee if he moves on. Ryan Sessegnon is one example. Your analysis is utterly broken without taking this into account.

[filham]

The English Football League wants £400 million of investment in youth over the next five years, but Brentford has achieved success by deciding that any money spent is better spent elsewhere than on youth. Unless clubs are rewarded for developing youth, then other clubs with follow Brentford.

If Fulham gets £750,000 for Harvey Elliott, then academies across the UK have to produce 110 Harvey Elliott's per year just to breakeven. Hence, if Fulham gets £10,0000,000 for Harvey Elliott, then academies across the UK have to produce 8 Harvey Elliott's per year just to breakeven.

I believe that is unrealistic for academies across the UK to produce more than 4 Harvey Elliott's per year. If we want youth academies like ours to stay open, then £20,0000,000 for players like Harvey Elliott is what is required.

Realistically, youth players don't deliver value to a club, unless the player signs with the club that developed him or they get decent fee. Once EFL decides to pay nothing for players that go elsewhere, Clubs that cannot keep their best youth must close their youth academies.

If Fulham only get £750,000 for Harvey Elliott, its bad for Fulham, but also potentially horrific for youth development outside the big premier league clubs. If the EFL is not careful they won't be able to produce the 8 homegrown players for each EPL 25 player squads that they desire to achieve.

What you completely fail to account for is all the other players that are maybe not as promising as Elliott but still gets a contracts and ultimately either save the club transfer fees (by taking up a squad place) or earns the club a transfer fee if he moves on. Ryan Sessegnon is one example. Your analysis is utterly broken without taking this into account.

[filham]

Patrick Roberts £12m, Sess £20m are academy players that we made money on, hard to think of others that have even made regular places in our first team in all the years the academy has been running. The last young player who really made it into our first team was Sean Davis and that was pre academy.

Brentford having abandoned their academy in favour of a good scouting network are on the edge of promotion to the Premier League and are about to move into a new stadium in the Brentford area.
Seems to me that Brentford have done their sums and got them rightand acted on the results.

[Sting of the North]

Patrick Roberts £12m, Sess £20m are academy players that we made money on, hard to think of others that have even made regular places in our first team in all the years the academy has been running. The last young player who really made it into our first team was Sean Davis and that was pre academy.

Brentford having abandoned their academy in favour of a good scouting network are on the edge of promotion to the Premier League and are about to move into a new stadium in the Brentford area.
Seems to me that Brentford have done their sums and got them rightand acted on the results.

So, what is the cost for our academy? Seems like the combined £32m would go quite a long way. And that also disregards that both of them contributed on the field as well, in Sessegnon's case that means that we saved on having to get another player in for 3 seasons. Also, his contributions definitely helped in getting us promotion and a ton of TV-money.

We have also had Lasse V-C, Woodrow, Steven Sessegnon, Bettinelli and Rodak who have all played quite a lot, and at the very least both Bettinelli and Rodak has to be considered as having made it into our first team. And a lot of players taking up a squad spot and making some appearances, examples such as Tankovic, Joronen, George Williams and probably many more. Even though some of them never really made it, they contributed to a degree, saved us from having to recruit other players for the squad, and I am sure that we received at least modest fees for some of them.

Maybe it is not so easy to dismiss the worth of our academy then?

[filham]

Ok I will go along with Rodak and Betts as being worthile investments, the rest mentioned never came up to championship standard and the academy must have been in operation for over twenty years. I think it must have cost the club more than it has earnt over that period, and remember the Brentford alternative scouting system is probably actually running at a profit.

[Bill2]

The English Football League wants £400 million of investment in youth over the next five years, but Brentford has achieved success by deciding that any money spent is better spent elsewhere than on youth. Unless clubs are rewarded for developing youth, then other clubs with follow Brentford.

If Fulham gets £750,000 for Harvey Elliott, then academies across the UK have to produce 110 Harvey Elliott's per year just to breakeven. Hence, if Fulham gets £10,0000,000 for Harvey Elliott, then academies across the UK have to produce 8 Harvey Elliott's per year just to breakeven.

I believe that is unrealistic for academies across the UK to produce more than 4 Harvey Elliott's per year. If we want youth academies like ours to stay open, then £20,0000,000 for players like Harvey Elliott is what is required.

Realistically, youth players don't deliver value to a club, unless the player signs with the club that developed him or they get decent fee. Once EFL decides to pay nothing for players that go elsewhere, Clubs that cannot keep their best youth must close their youth academies.

If Fulham only get £750,000 for Harvey Elliott, its bad for Fulham, but also potentially horrific for youth development outside the big premier league clubs. If the EFL is not careful they won't be able to produce the 8 homegrown players for each EPL 25 player squads that they desire to achieve.

Absolutely agree and said something of the same in the Friday info post.

[Bill2]

It was reported that we paid less than a million for the promising new Scottish lad was has been playing regular first team football for an admittedly Scottish team.

In the Scottish league that is a good fee, if you look at the fee being suggested Celtic will pay for Betts that is only £1 mill and he is an experienced first team keeper.

[bog]

Liverpool can b***** off and worse.   :031:

092.gif