Academy or not?

[Whitesideup]

Part of the debate around Carvalho is the merit of having or not having an academy. Brentford have for example scrapped theirs. So should we do the same?

The first bit of info we need for an informed view is simple: how much does it cost to run the academy?

I believe academies receive some funding from the EFL. Do we know how much? Then we need to consider how much we have made from selling players from our academy. Can we consider fees from Sessegnon and Roberts and indeed Elliot, as "income" that we can off-set against the costs? Any others?

Clearly some clubs are good at this, and perhaps Chelsea are right up there, having one of the most successful academies, having sold many while a good number of academy products are in the first team squad, and indeed many are starters.

But what about us? Does the financial dynamic work, or should we scrap it and invest any money saved (if indeed there is a net cost) in purchasing players?

Anyone have any insight or views on the above?

[cookieg]

As frustrating as it is to lose good youngsters, if we get good fees for them (if) then the academy funds itself. Until we are a stable prem side we will always have talented youngsters being lured away.

[SG]

I was informed a little while ago that the Academy costs some £3m a year to run. That means the costs have comfortably been covered for a number of years by one decent sale. If you add the fees received for Sess, Roberts, Elliot, Drameh, Adniram (sp) plus say Woodrow and I'm sure there are a few others the club are quids in

[PaulJ123]

It'll wash its face in terms of money with fees as you just need one good fee (Sess) and it's paid for probably 5 years by that alone.

It's just the frustration of someone like Fab coming through the age groups to leave at the first hint of something better - I'd get rid of it personally.

[blingo]

All we seem to do is bring players through for other teams to steal.

[Count Flapula]

If we got the reported £30m for Sess and £12m for Roberts alone - let alone the multiple other fees for other youngsters - that alone has made the academy worthwhile, frustrations about certain young stars leaving early aside.e

Some of the money brought in by Roberts sale went on buying a certain Tom Cairney.

Sess played a vital role in us getting promoted in 17/18, before we got £25-£30m for him.

All huge upsides to balance it the frustrations of losing players we'd love to keep too early and next to nothing - let's not lose sight of these because of annoyance at a youngster going for much less than they should, doesn't mean the entire academy setup is a waste of time or should be scrapped as so long as SOME of the starts stay long enough for us to get a good return on the pitch/financially, it's certainly a worthwhile system.

[Craven_Chris]

An important consideration here is the Financial Fair Play rules. These rules limit the amount of losses clubs can make but expenditure on 'Youth Development' is excluded. The expenditure on Youth development is defined as 'expenditure by a Club directly attributable to activities to train, educate and develop Academy Players net of any youth development grant income received by the Club from any of the football governing bodies.'

So if you are trying to run a profitable business, then the question of whether the academy is making profit is very important. But Fulham's main financial constraint is not their current interest in turning a profit, but staying fair of the FFP rules.

So as far as Fulham's financial constraints are concerned, the income generated by the academy is beneficial (£25m for Sess, £10mish for Elliot) while the costs are exempt.

Last time in the Championship, Fulham made an operating loss of about £70m (against an FFP limit of £13m). But they sold Sess which brought that down to £45m. This is the value of the academy.

Plus it clear looking at the wage structure that the academy players are on quite low wages (maybe why we lose them), if you have academy players building out the squad, even if only as bench fodder, it is still much much cheaper than recruiting mediocre players externally.

So in my opinion, for a club who have huge financial packing but are constrained by FFP like Fulham, an academy just gives a bit of extra investment headroom for the owners, and is a really important asset for the club!

[Sting of the North]

All we seem to do is bring players through for other teams to steal.

Betts, Rodak, the Sessegnon twins, Roberts, Woodrow, Burn and more seem to disagree . Dembele was also instrumental in us even staying in the Championship. How do you put a number on that? Or Sessegnon's and Bettinelli's contribution to our promotion? That was worth so many millions for the club, and I am fairly sure it wouldn't have happened without Sess at least.

Sessegnon and Robert's both brought in very good transfer fees, and as mentioned those alone runs the academy for several years.

Contrary to what it sometimes sounds like on here, I don't think we are good at integrating youth and giving them an actual chance. Part of that is of course us alternating between fighting for promotion and against relegation.

[Twig]

An important consideration here is the Financial Fair Play rules. These rules limit the amount of losses clubs can make but expenditure on 'Youth Development' is excluded. The expenditure on Youth development is defined as 'expenditure by a Club directly attributable to activities to train, educate and develop Academy Players net of any youth development grant income received by the Club from any of the football governing bodies.'

So if you are trying to run a profitable business, then the question of whether the academy is making profit is very important. But Fulham's main financial constraint is not their current interest in turning a profit, but staying fair of the FFP rules.

So as far as Fulham's financial constraints are concerned, the income generated by the academy is beneficial (£25m for Sess, £10mish for Elliot) while the costs are exempt.

Last time in the Championship, Fulham made an operating loss of about £70m (against an FFP limit of £13m). But they sold Sess which brought that down to £45m. This is the value of the academy.

Plus it clear looking at the wage structure that the academy players are on quite low wages (maybe why we lose them), if you have academy players building out the squad, even if only as bench fodder, it is still much much cheaper than recruiting mediocre players externally.

So in my opinion, for a club who have huge financial packing but are constrained by FFP like Fulham, an academy just gives a bit of extra investment headroom for the owners, and is a really important asset for the club!

Terrific summary and I fully agree. Keep the academy, it's a no brainer.

[Somerset Fulham]

The longer we have an academy that produces these top end players, the more chance we have of producing a Le Tissier who will stick about.

In the meantime, we just keep making money from those who don't.

[bog]

Southampton have an excellent youth set up but the difference there is when their players are sold they go for millions. 

[Twig]

Southampton have an excellent youth set up but the difference there is when their players are sold they go for millions. 

So have some of ours.

[mrmicawbers]

An important consideration here is the Financial Fair Play rules. These rules limit the amount of losses clubs can make but expenditure on 'Youth Development' is excluded. The expenditure on Youth development is defined as 'expenditure by a Club directly attributable to activities to train, educate and develop Academy Players net of any youth development grant income received by the Club from any of the football governing bodies.'

So if you are trying to run a profitable business, then the question of whether the academy is making profit is very important. But Fulham's main financial constraint is not their current interest in turning a profit, but staying fair of the FFP rules.

So as far as Fulham's financial constraints are concerned, the income generated by the academy is beneficial (£25m for Sess, £10mish for Elliot) while the costs are exempt.

Last time in the Championship, Fulham made an operating loss of about £70m (against an FFP limit of £13m). But they sold Sess which brought that down to £45m. This is the value of the academy.

Plus it clear looking at the wage structure that the academy players are on quite low wages (maybe why we lose them), if you have academy players building out the squad, even if only as bench fodder, it is still much much cheaper than recruiting mediocre players externally.

So in my opinion, for a club who have huge financial packing but are constrained by FFP like Fulham, an academy just gives a bit of extra investment headroom for the owners, and is a really important asset for the club!

Terrific summary and I fully agree. Keep the academy, it's a no brainer.

Yep Chris has hit the nail on the head.Got a feeling Carvaliho may still sign a new contract.

[filham]

Most of us like to see a home grown young player settled in our first team but it seems a long while since this has happened, Sess. came close but a couple of good seasons and he was whisked away by a bigger club. The last young player who came up through the ranks and we were able to enjoy for a long while was Shaun Davis who played in all four divisions for us. 
Davis was pre academy and discovered when we were no where near Premier league quality .I am waiting for the Academy to produce a player as useful to us as Davis.

[Montague]

I was informed a little while ago that the Academy costs some £3m a year to run. That means the costs have comfortably been covered for a number of years by one decent sale. If you add the fees received for Sess, Roberts, Elliot, Drameh, Adniram (sp) plus say Woodrow and I'm sure there are a few others the club are quids in

As a CAT 1 Academy Fulham receive around £4.75M from the EFL / PL each year to fund the running of the Academy.

The Academy is there to develop players for the future of the game (not just for Fulham) hence the funding by the EFL/PL.
Players of all ages in the Academy are aware of this as it's stated many times throughout their football journey - the goal is to develop them into professional players and if Fulham release them before scholarship / professional contracts for whatever reason then the club usually try to open doors with other clubs  (the academy circuit is a very close knit community).


if you think about Fulham the Academy is run out of MP so in theory the training premises are already paid for - the leasing of the LSE for the Sunday games will be an external cost though as will travel to away games for the U16s to U18's - Many of the Academy coaches / physios / analysts / education dept are part time and coach in the evenings whilst doing other day jobs (external or within the club) or studying degrees. Kit & training kit will be covered by the sponsors.

Only major salaries to cover will be the 'Heads of' who run each Academy section.

[Whitesideup]

I was informed a little while ago that the Academy costs some £3m a year to run. That means the costs have comfortably been covered for a number of years by one decent sale. If you add the fees received for Sess, Roberts, Elliot, Drameh, Adniram (sp) plus say Woodrow and I'm sure there are a few others the club are quids in

As a CAT 1 Academy Fulham receive around £4.75M from the EFL / PL each year to fund the running of the Academy.

The Academy is there to develop players for the future of the game (not just for Fulham) hence the funding by the EFL/PL.
Players of all ages in the Academy are aware of this as it's stated many times throughout their football journey - the goal is to develop them into professional players and if Fulham release them before scholarship / professional contracts for whatever reason then the club usually try to open doors with other clubs  (the academy circuit is a very close knit community).


if you think about Fulham the Academy is run out of MP so in theory the training premises are already paid for - the leasing of the LSE for the Sunday games will be an external cost though as will travel to away games for the U16s to U18's - Many of the Academy coaches / physios / analysts / education dept are part time and coach in the evenings whilst doing other day jobs (external or within the club) or studying degrees. Kit & training kit will be covered by the sponsors.

Only major salaries to cover will be the 'Heads of' who run each Academy section.

Montague - that's interesting and is a huge amount of money. No doubt some of the overhead of Mostspur Park can be allocated to the Academy even if most of those costs would not change were the Academy to be disbanded. Training facilities are used at LSE in the evenings as well, so there is probably a reasonable fee involved. There may be other locations that we, or I at least, are unaware of.

It suggests therefore that the Academy is overwhelmingly a good thing as Craven Chris articulated so clearly. Yes, we get frustrated if top youngsters move on, especially if we don't get appropriate transfer fees, but a club our size cannot have the same appeal as the major clubs, and the system appears to make it very difficult for clubs to keep young players who appear to be free to walk away with compensation being agreed by arbitration. But apart from that frustration, if there is a financial benefit to the academy, why would you not have it? And some of the academy do make valuable contributions to our first-team squad, which in itself is making an indirect financial contribution to the overall finances of the club.

[filham]

We are obviously failing to indoctrinate these young talents with Fulham loyalty during their years at the Academy.
George Cohen is still employed by the club has anyone consulted him and asked what made him so loyal to Fulham for his whole career . A little bit of Cohen rubbed off onto these players should solve our problem.