Should we play the kids in first team football before they are under contract?

[terryr]

It's possible we will lose another one this year for little or no compensation.
Shouldn't we keep them away from the first team until they've signed a contract?
We're rapidly becoming mugs as the likes of Celtic and ManCity sell on the best of our academy for a packet while we get very little.
If they stay out of the first team we limit their exposure until we have safeguards in place.
We also get some return on investment on the pitch and hopefully get a full season out of tomorrow's stars before agents turn their heads and they forget they were nobodies before joining Fulham as kids.
I may be wrong but would like to hear why if I am.

[General]

I'm tempted to say that legal measures should be brought in that allow a club who've brought a player through their ranks, if a player is signed pre contract that the feeder club is entitled to a % of any sell on fee... Now whether this can also be said for players like Moussa who we were his first senior professional club is a different matter as he chose to wind down a contract we were given, although he is in essence an academy product.

So If Moussa did move from Celtic to a top club, we'd be entitled to a 10% finders fee. Especially as so much of the hard work is in bringing players up to a standard where they can play at the top/professionally.

I think a few clubs, especially the big ones would remonstrate against this as a policy, but I'm sure most other clubs would see value in it and would also see more money evenly distributed across the leagues. No doubt we're not the only club who loses top youth players and academy prospects.

I think there should be a cut off though, perhaps once a player is over 22 then this whole aspect is null and void... but considering it can take that long for a young player to be given their first chance it seems fair.

[love4ffc]

This is one of those tricky slippery slopes.  Don't play them and the wrong person whispers in their ear, there gone.  Play them and they are not ready, well we know how that ends.

For me it is totally up to the current manager to make that call and we need to trust that the manager knows best.  With that said there are some young guns I would like to see on the bench and used more if the manager thinks they might be ready. 

Marlon Fossey
de la Torre
George Williams
Stephen Humphrys

[cmg]

There are, in any case, very, very few pre-contract age players i.e 16 years old or younger, who are good enough to be playing in a Championship club's first team.
If you do happen to be fortunate to have such a player you would be disadvantaging yourself by not playing him.

It is over simplistic to think that by not playing such a player you would be preventing other clubs from knowing about him. Top clubs with their well developed scouting networks will have extensive data on all the youth talent in Europe and beyond.

To take the case of Ryan Sessegnon, he was starring in youth competitions from a very early age, sometimes playing two years above his age level. He was a regular in England youth teams from the youngest level. It would not be possible to deflect the attention of other clubs from such a player merely by not playing him in the first team.
It is only when he hits the first team that the newspapers begin to take notice and then it seems that everybody is in the know. But in fact the player will have been on the radar of any club of any standing long before that happens.

It's funny that, a few years back, some people were saying that we might have encouraged Pat Roberts to stay if he had had MORE time in the first team. In fact, of course, the situation was the same. All the top clubs knew all about Roberts well before he was anywhere near our first team. And the reason he didn't get more time in the first team was that he wasn't, at that time, good enough.

[b+w geezer]

Cmg has provided a perfect summary there.

[SouthfieldWhite]

We lost Pat, Emerson and Moussa because someone at the club( no longer here) didn't think any 3 of them would be good enough for the first team so they wasn't offered a contract good enough for a first team player.

Although it's not an easy job , we have to have faith in our better youngsters, we can afford to take a gamble and offer them a better contract than we have in the past.
You can't hide away our young prospects, scouts are out at all academy games so other clubs already know about them even before the majority of our own fans.

It's ok saying the big clubs come and take our better players, but that's football and life.
All academies take a majority of their boys from grassroots teams and the grassroots teams get did all( although they are non contract olayers)

I'd like to see academies give back to grassroots clubs more.
Grassroots clubs are run by volunteers who put a lot of their own money in, if academies gave some money to a club whose boy gets signed as a pro, it could help that grassroots club slot.

I think Fulham have learnt from the Moussa,Pat and Emersondebacle and I fully expect Ryan to be with us next season

Ryan is still learning and developing , he will get better, I've seen some fans say sell him he'd hardly be missed, maybe not on last season but the boy will get better and turn in to a great player.

There's no garuntee of this of course but we have to think positive and trust our academy staff  who have watched a player grow and have the experience of seeing how these talented kids develop.

[toshes mate]

There are, in any case, very, very few pre-contract age players i.e 16 years old or younger, who are good enough to be playing in a Championship club's first team.
If you do happen to be fortunate to have such a player you would be disadvantaging yourself by not playing him.

This is a sensible approach to a subject which is entirely composed of a lot of knowledgeable and talented scouts always looking out for talent among young players.  You cannot hide talent away and nor should you want to.   Yes, football has become more voracious and dangerous with big fish eating little fish but, a club level, there is little anyone can do about it other than to vote to change it when opportunity comes along. 

[Bradstow]

Any player who takes advantage of the training facilities of the club and then sods off to the biggest bidder is not worthy of wearing a FFC shirt. Nor is any player who is brought in from obscurity, transformed by our training and playing styles and then wants to desert the club for the Premier League. From Alan Mullery to Alan Clarke to Malcolm MacDonald to Mousa Dembele, we have too often been used as a feeder club for richer clubs. When will we have an owner who actually wants to bring stability and success and is not afraid to spend some of their obscene fortune.

[b+w geezer]

Any player who takes advantage of the training facilities of the club and then sods off to the biggest bidder is not worthy of wearing a FFC shirt. Nor is any player who is brought in from obscurity, transformed by our training and playing styles and then wants to desert the club for the Premier League.

Employees have multiple loyalties in life, not least to their families. Clubs will meanwhile discard a player they reckon no longer up to it. Yes to as much loyalty as possible, but exclusive devotion in either direction isn't on.

From Alan Mullery to Alan Clarke to Malcolm MacDonald to Mousa Dembele, we have too often been used as a feeder club for richer clubs.

The fate of all clubs below the Real Madrid level, ManU (Ronaldo) and Spurs (Modric, Bale) inclusive. You are only immune to the problem if you don't have covetable players. We were from approx '86-'96 but who wants that again?

When will we have an owner who actually wants to bring stability and success and is not afraid to spend some of their obscene fortune.

Let's hope that's our current position, but until the FFP rules are blown out the water, there will be limits not formerly in place. Therefore some wheeling and dealing is likely to be needed.

[Andy S]

Yes I agree if you didn't have ffp in place it would be possible to hang on to a player knowing that at any time you could sell and make back some cash

[grandad]

The big clubs generally buy up all the promising youngsters to stop other big clubs getting a gem. They then go out & buy players for £50 mil + who most of us have to Google them to find out who the hell they are. They then send the kids out on loan , most of whom we never hear of again.

[Scrumpy]

It's possible we will lose another one this year for little or no compensation.
Shouldn't we keep them away from the first team until they've signed a contract?
We're rapidly becoming mugs as the likes of Celtic and ManCity sell on the best of our academy for a packet while we get very little.

My understanding is that Ryan has a further year of his two year Academy Scholarship still to run. This was the longest contract we could offer at the time. So, although it's not a 'pro' contract, we should be looking to get quite a few million for the kid if we sell him over the next month or so (esp with 3 Clubs interested). The only time the Club deserves to be blamed, if is he starts the new season and he has not either signed a pro contract with us, or joined another Club. At that point, we could be looking at a Dembele situation whereby he plays for the season and then walks away for nothing next year. From what I hear about Tony Khan, and also the Sessignon family, this is NOT going to happen.

[cmg]

Any player who takes advantage of the training facilities of the club and then sods off to the biggest bidder is not worthy of wearing a FFC shirt. Nor is any player who is brought in from obscurity, transformed by our training and playing styles and then wants to desert the club for the Premier League.

Employees have multiple loyalties in life, not least to their families. Clubs will meanwhile discard a player they reckon no longer up to it. Yes to as much loyalty as possible, but exclusive devotion in either direction isn't on.

From Alan Mullery to Alan Clarke to Malcolm MacDonald to Mousa Dembele, we have too often been used as a feeder club for richer clubs.

The fate of all clubs below the Real Madrid level, ManU (Ronaldo) and Spurs (Modric, Bale) inclusive. You are only immune to the problem if you don't have covetable players. We were from approx '86-'96 but who wants that again?

When will we have an owner who actually wants to bring stability and success and is not afraid to spend some of their obscene fortune.

Let's hope that's our current position, but until the FFP rules are blown out the water, there will be limits not formerly in place. Therefore some wheeling and dealing is likely to be needed.

Yup...all very true. It's sometimes difficult for us fans to remember that players are not necessarily fans.
It might also be worth pointing out that neither Mullery nor Macdonald wanted to leave. Mullery was sold, possibly to pay for the Hammersmith End roof, by the directors. Not even the manager, who quit soon after, knew about it until after the event. Macdonald was sold...God knows why. I've been trying to come to terms with that one for fifty years.

[Bill2]

I believe that the FA needs to introduce rules to stop the larger clubs basically stealing good young players being for peanuts and there should be payments to clubs who develop them. As I have said on here before if you are constantly losing all your young stars to larger clubs for nothing why have an academy. This is not just about sell on fees but how the player develops at the new club, such as international appearances, goals etc as there is a chance that the youngster may never move on from the new club.

This is difficult if a player moves to another country or FA body such as Dembele did when he went to Celtic, but who said the whole process was easy. Unfortunately the money involved makes everyone greedy and while I don't know the rules I wonder how many young players run down their contract and then move to another club for a fat signing on fee plus good wages. Did this happen to Dembele I don't know.

What do I expect to change, nothing.

[SouthfieldWhite]

Being a Catergory 1 academy is massive, our academy staff deserve a lot of praise for getting us to be catergory 1 and keeping that status( -
( all clubs get re assesss to see if they jeep their status  for what ever category they are.

Being Catergory one, it's harder for other clubs to take our promising stars.

It's ok loaning about bigger clubs nicking our players,  but as I've said all clubs nick players from junior grassroots team,so we can't have it both ways.

It's now got silly where even an u12 player could be sold for a good few thousand.
Clubs are now getting kids in earlier and earlier,  most academies now have pre academies where kids from 5-7 year old become part of a pre academy although they can't sign for an academy until they are going into the u9. Age grouo

[b+w geezer]

For most people, a 50% fluctuation in your pay in either direction is the difference between struggling to keep a roof over your kids' heads versus sending them to a better school. For a footballer, even at championship level, it's the difference between a Ferrari or a Bugatti, or having to settle for penthouses in only two of their favourite foreign cities rather than 4. So I don't think they have available to them the excuses most of us have for not being totally loyal to our employer.

If that really is the reasoning, then as you say. A different complexion to it if the agent's line is as follows: 'injury can unexpectedly end your career at any time... take the chance to set your family up for life; you owe it to them.'

[grandad]

When an 18yo is being sold for £48 Mil it has all gone barking mad.

[b+w geezer]

how much to set one's family up for life? £1m? So someone like Sessegnon on £5-10k per week will probably achieve that by the age of 18 and still have 40 years ahead of him to earn more in a "normal" job like the rest of us if he needs to.

Yes, why should anyone be free to retire from earning anything aged 33? I'm not so much disagreeing as just tryting to get real....given what is on offer nowadays, any football agent is bound to set that as their client's ambition if he has Premier League potential? How could they not? As a player you'd be told that that outcome ought to be attainable, just leave it to me son.

As for 'family', much depends on situation. UK-type nuclear family is basically as you say.  Case differs if your culture is one where it's presented as your duty to benefit multiple siblings, cousins, aunties...if you are the rare member of the clan striking gold in life.

[b+w geezer]

Aunt likely to view her nephew as kind, however, not greedy.
5 yachts are at least 4 too many, agreed. Don't know how common that syndrome is among footballers, maybe not terribly.
Wanting the security of not requiring to earn a salary again, in a world where you've not trained for anything else, seems less outrageous (on reflection).  Doesn't mean you can't be of use to the world, just that you won't need to be paid for it. More conventional retirees, like me, are in that position, so I'd see no "dishonour" in harbouring that ambition as a 20-something. (Will leave it there).

[HatterDon]

We should play whoever we have to win the match, re-inforce team defense tactics, create squad interdependence, and increase individual and team confidence.

Simple, eh?

We need to win and to strengthen the squad at the same time -- provide minutes to as many players as possible, while making sure that the default starters keep their sharpness. Accomplishing this is incredibly difficult. The inability to do all of this at the same time is why a gaffer's life-span runs about 18 months.

It's damn rare to find someone who can do this over one season, let alone five or six. That's why we should salute people like MAF and Wenger. That's also why none of us who contribute to this site is currently managing a professional club.