Looks like...

[Mike the White]

... another of our kids fleeing the nest. Harvey Elliott has apparently refused to sign on the dotted

[Fernhurst]

O'Reilly appears to be doing the same ........ what changed days.
16 year old kids desperate to cash in and turn their backs on the clubs who brought them through.

It does beg the question, why have an academy if it can not be used as a supply chain for the first team?

[Art Vandelay]

Shame but I think it's the agents that are to blame putting ideas of grandeur and big pay days into the players head and then taking their 25% without the first regard for their long term career.

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

I told you that this was general knowledge several months ago and people chose not to believe what people in the know obviously knew.
Who was it that it was a load of hot air?

[Lighthouse]

How many kids actually make the step up? Some are lucky and get a big pay day but end up out on loan or playing as a sub in some Micky Mouse Competition for a big club then they are never seen again. Good luck to them and hopefully Fulham may get some money. But the time and expense bringing these kids to where they are will probably not be recouped. Plus Kids can shine for a season or two and then fade anyway. I never think it is such a disaster as long as we cash in. But when they walk out for nothing it is annoying.

[ealex40]

Well, he did get a 2 minute taste of Premier League football, so who can blame him for wanting to leave? Seems to be the same old story with the Fulham kids. Roberts, Dembele, Hyndeman and a few others that probably feel all grown up and after all they have all probably been in their story land world since they were about 8 years old and think all the big clubs are standing in line to offer them a fortune to jump ship. Sad thing is that these kids believe they are invincible. One day, when things don't turn out the way their handlers have predicted, some of them will find themselves in the real world......by themselves.   

[hovewhite]

Well brentford binned there academy and you can understand it with our situation with the youngsters at Fulham .

[Mike the White]

Truth is that clubs are not compelled to adequately compensate academies for the time and money we put into these kids

[Buffalo76]

Greedy little t#$t

[Fernhurst]

Greedy little t#$t

Agreed, how can we put a stop to it???

[KJS]

If the little knob wants to leave then good riddance he comes across as an arrogant little dick that cares for nobody but him hopefully he will rot in the kids somewhere else for the next few years rather than getting the match time he would have at FFC

[gang]

Remember they are employees and thus can move jobs. How many of us are working with the same company we started with?
That said greedy t#$t seems to fit the bill.

[BigbadBillyMcKinley]

It should be a law that no youth player can leave before their 18th birthday. Worldwide as well. Big club poach players from South America etc but they should play where they're bought up and when they're old enough, decide where they want to play.

[Sting of the North]

So we are berating our own players now based on rumors? Maybe at least wait until something is official before the character assassination begins? Even after the fact a bit more class than many posts on here shows would of course be nice, but maybe too much to hope for.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Remember they are employees and thus can move jobs. How many of us are working with the same company we started with?
That said greedy t#$t seems to fit the bill.

That's fair enough but it is a matter of clubs receiving fair compensation for spotting and bringing through young players and protecting young players from themselves in some sense. For example, how many young players are languishing in top team's u23s or out on loan at a time when, for their careers, they should be gaining first team experience.

[AnOldBrownie]

Remember they are employees and thus can move jobs. How many of us are working with the same company we started with?
That said greedy t#$t seems to fit the bill.

That's fair enough but it is a matter of clubs receiving fair compensation for spotting and bringing through young players and protecting young players from themselves in some sense. For example, how many young players are languishing in top team's u23s or out on loan at a time when, for their careers, they should be gaining first team experience.

Fair compensation?   Isn't football job an investment in a player?  If so, it's a gamble.   It may pay off in the player being good and staying with the team, or it may pay of in the ability of the club to transfer said player...

...but at what point does the PLAYER take control of what happens to him?    At what point is the investment considered PAID IN FULL and the player given the option to do what he thinks is good for his own career?   Only when the club says so?

I'm old school...but I also have an athlete for a child.    As a parent...my child's future is more important to myself and my child than the return on investment the club might get.

[Lyle from Hangeland]

Remember they are employees and thus can move jobs. How many of us are working with the same company we started with?
That said greedy t#$t seems to fit the bill.

That's fair enough but it is a matter of clubs receiving fair compensation for spotting and bringing through young players and protecting young players from themselves in some sense. For example, how many young players are languishing in top team's u23s or out on loan at a time when, for their careers, they should be gaining first team experience.

Fair compensation?   Isn't football job an investment in a player?  If so, it's a gamble.   It may pay off in the player being good and staying with the team, or it may pay of in the ability of the club to transfer said player...

...but at what point does the PLAYER take control of what happens to him?    At what point is the investment considered PAID IN FULL and the player given the option to do what he thinks is good for his own career?   Only when the club says so?

I'm old school...but I also have an athlete for a child.    As a parent...my child's future is more important to myself and my child than the return on investment the club might get.

These guys aren't your children, however you are a FFC supporter. There is only one side any supporter can really be on.

Both the players and the club should try and do what is in their best interest or what they think is their best interest. FFC's best interest is selling Ryan, if Ryan doesn't want to re-sign with Fulham. It's like you say, Ryan is like an investment or an appreciating asset. And since Ryan is an investment/appreciating asset, you sell him when someone is willing to pay you more than he's worth or at the point in time you'll get the most for him. That time might be this summer.  Fulham can make do without him and still get promoted.

I wish Ryan all the best and hope he has a wonderful life wherever he goes. If he stays with Fulham, gets us promoted, and then leaves on a free, so be it. FFC just won't have gotten the most value from him, which will be disappointing.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Remember they are employees and thus can move jobs. How many of us are working with the same company we started with?
That said greedy t#$t seems to fit the bill.

That's fair enough but it is a matter of clubs receiving fair compensation for spotting and bringing through young players and protecting young players from themselves in some sense. For example, how many young players are languishing in top team's u23s or out on loan at a time when, for their careers, they should be gaining first team experience.

Fair compensation?   Isn't football job an investment in a player?  If so, it's a gamble.   It may pay off in the player being good and staying with the team, or it may pay of in the ability of the club to transfer said player...

...but at what point does the PLAYER take control of what happens to him?    At what point is the investment considered PAID IN FULL and the player given the option to do what he thinks is good for his own career?   Only when the club says so?

I'm old school...but I also have an athlete for a child.    As a parent...my child's future is more important to myself and my child than the return on investment the club might get.

At the moment, Harvey Elliot has received coaching at Fulham from "a very young age" and has played just minutes. If he leaves at 16 years old, as he can, Fulham will get some compensation but probably little in comparison to the benefit or profit his new club will get should he be successful.

What is fair does not have to be down to to "when the club says so". It could be down to some agreement at FA level to a share of future contracts and/or sell on values, for example.

If clubs lose their most valuable young players before they benefit from them on the pitch or from a sell on fee then they are going to stop coaching young players as Brentford have done with all the consequences that will bring.

If young players through their own attitude or that of their agents or parents freeload off clubs taking the free coaching and moving on before giving a return then the system will break and only the big clubs will be left offering youth places.

[Nero]

Remember they are employees and thus can move jobs. How many of us are working with the same company we started with?
That said greedy t#$t seems to fit the bill.

That's fair enough but it is a matter of clubs receiving fair compensation for spotting and bringing through young players and protecting young players from themselves in some sense. For example, how many young players are languishing in top team's u23s or out on loan at a time when, for their careers, they should be gaining first team experience.

Fair compensation?   Isn't football job an investment in a player?  If so, it's a gamble.   It may pay off in the player being good and staying with the team, or it may pay of in the ability of the club to transfer said player...

...but at what point does the PLAYER take control of what happens to him?    At what point is the investment considered PAID IN FULL and the player given the option to do what he thinks is good for his own career?   Only when the club says so?

I'm old school...but I also have an athlete for a child.    As a parent...my child's future is more important to myself and my child than the return on investment the club might get.

At the moment, Harvey Elliot has received coaching at Fulham from "a very young age" and has played just minutes. If he leaves at 16 years old, as he can, Fulham will get some compensation but probably little in comparison to the benefit or profit his new club will get should he be successful.

What is fair does not have to be down to to "when the club says so". It could be down to some agreement at FA level to a share of future contracts and/or sell on values, for example.

If clubs lose their most valuable young players before they benefit from them on the pitch or from a sell on fee then they are going to stop coaching young players as Brentford have done with all the consequences that will bring.

If young players through their own attitude or that of their agents or parents freeload off clubs taking the free coaching and moving on before giving a return then the system will break and only the big clubs will be left offering youth places.

I think it was a shroud business move playing Elliott last season, as when it comes to the level of compensation to say that he has played 1st team football shoul dincrease the money or future % we get

[ffc73]

I have recently trained 2x apprentices over a 3 year period. In the last 6 months they have both flown the nest, I hope for them, to bigger & better things.

I get no compensation. Why do we expect FFC to receive anything for nurturing & developing young talent?