Under 23s v Newcastle

[bog]

"Hey, Scousers....leave our kids alone"

definitely a song there somewhere

Lovl!  :54:

[Cookie6262]

I heard he had rejected our offer and has a lot of bigger clubs interested him 🤷‍♂️ Could be wrong but that's what I read

[cmg]

The best, perhaps the only, way to ensure we retain the bulk of the talent we produce is to get ourselves into the PL and establish ourselves as a top club that knows how to develop young talent and has a top-level wage structure.. The youngsters won't want to move on to 'better things' if we are one of the 'better things'.

There really isn't much else that can be done. You can't give contracts to 16 year olds, and 17 year olds can only get 3 year contracts or renegotiate at 18. You can't force a player to sign a contract however old he may be.

[davew]

1 defeat in 20 games, very impressive!!

[Twig]

The best, perhaps the only, way to ensure we retain the bulk of the talent we produce is to get ourselves into the PL and establish ourselves as a top club that knows how to develop young talent and has a top-level wage structure.. The youngsters won't want to move on to 'better things' if we are one of the 'better things'.

There really isn't much else that can be done. You can't give contracts to 16 year olds, and 17 year olds can only get 3 year contracts or renegotiate at 18. You can't force a player to sign a contract however old he may be.

Exactly and until then we just have to feed off the relatively modest (but definitely worthwhile)  transfer and compensation fees we can garner.

One blessing is that our academy has a great reputation and that helps attract young talent and their parents to sign up with us. It maintains a funnel of high quality young players working up the age groups and when we do re-establish ourselves as a Premier League football club that emerging talent will be much more likely to stay with us.

[Bill2]

The best, perhaps the only, way to ensure we retain the bulk of the talent we produce is to get ourselves into the PL and establish ourselves as a top club that knows how to develop young talent and has a top-level wage structure.. The youngsters won't want to move on to 'better things' if we are one of the 'better things'.

There really isn't much else that can be done. You can't give contracts to 16 year olds, and 17 year olds can only get 3 year contracts or renegotiate at 18. You can't force a player to sign a contract however old he may be.

Exactly and until then we just have to feed off the relatively modest (but definitely worthwhile)  transfer and compensation fees we can garner.

One blessing is that our academy has a great reputation and that helps attract young talent and their parents to sign up with us. It maintains a funnel of high quality young players working up the age groups and when we do re-establish ourselves as a Premier League football club that emerging talent will be much more likely to stay with us.

Sorry but I get really frustrated with the way our talent which is some cases has been nurtured over years of development get swiped from under our noses for what is for these clubs a pittance. Someone on here has said get them on long term contracts but until the age of 18 you can only offer short contracts (2 to 3 yers dependant on date of birth) contracts so unless the FA recognise the problem and allow longer contracts nothing will change. Then you have the threat of non English clubs swooping in and taking anyone for just £500,000. The whole thing stinks and the only losers are clubs like Fulham who invest millions in an academy yet are unable to realise any meaningful money from the talent who will always be stolen by the big clubs.
If people think that by being a Premier league club will retain our talent well sorry because the likes of Liverpool et al will still be able to offer bigger salaries without corrupting their salary scale as their top players will be on 6 figures per week and even their fringe players will be on 5 figure, we cant afford that so will never be able to match those offers. Remember some of these clubs make more through shirt sales than we make in a year in total. Anyone know how much Arsenal paid for the lad who went there last year when his contract had run down?
I am not saying that they should be made to sign long term contracts but we should have an automatic renewal option for at least 12 months or the club taking the player should be made to make a suitable payment rather than the paltry sums currently including additional payments for 1st team appearances and goals, not just a percentage of a sell on fee if they are ever sold.
Rant over.

[Sting of the North]

The best, perhaps the only, way to ensure we retain the bulk of the talent we produce is to get ourselves into the PL and establish ourselves as a top club that knows how to develop young talent and has a top-level wage structure.. The youngsters won't want to move on to 'better things' if we are one of the 'better things'.

There really isn't much else that can be done. You can't give contracts to 16 year olds, and 17 year olds can only get 3 year contracts or renegotiate at 18. You can't force a player to sign a contract however old he may be.

Exactly and until then we just have to feed off the relatively modest (but definitely worthwhile)  transfer and compensation fees we can garner.

One blessing is that our academy has a great reputation and that helps attract young talent and their parents to sign up with us. It maintains a funnel of high quality young players working up the age groups and when we do re-establish ourselves as a Premier League football club that emerging talent will be much more likely to stay with us.

Sorry but I get really frustrated with the way our talent which is some cases has been nurtured over years of development get swiped from under our noses for what is for these clubs a pittance. Someone on here has said get them on long term contracts but until the age of 18 you can only offer short contracts (2 to 3 yers dependant on date of birth) contracts so unless the FA recognise the problem and allow longer contracts nothing will change. Then you have the threat of non English clubs swooping in and taking anyone for just £500,000. The whole thing stinks and the only losers are clubs like Fulham who invest millions in an academy yet are unable to realise any meaningful money from the talent who will always be stolen by the big clubs.
If people think that by being a Premier league club will retain our talent well sorry because the likes of Liverpool et al will still be able to offer bigger salaries without corrupting their salary scale as their top players will be on 6 figures per week and even their fringe players will be on 5 figure, we cant afford that so will never be able to match those offers. Remember some of these clubs make more through shirt sales than we make in a year in total. Anyone know how much Arsenal paid for the lad who went there last year when his contract had run down?
I am not saying that they should be made to sign long term contracts but we should have an automatic renewal option for at least 12 months or the club taking the player should be made to make a suitable payment rather than the paltry sums currently including additional payments for 1st team appearances and goals, not just a percentage of a sell on fee if they are ever sold.
Rant over.

Fulham are not losers, as the academy is FFP exempt and as such gives us a financial advantage compared to not having an academy. Losers are perhaps clubs lower down the pyramid (the clubs from which we steal players just like Liverpool steal from us), or clubs without a wealthy owner willing to invest his own money. Even if that would have been the case for Fulham (which it isn't) I am fairly sure that the fees we have received far outweigh the costs for running the academy and thus making it a worthwile investment any way. In other words, we do realise meaningful money from running the academy.

I agree that it is frustrating, and I agree that the system is not seemingly in a good place. I don't agree however that the real losers are Fulham.

[deadcowboys]

The real issue is the inability of FIFA, UEFA, FA etc to recognise they need to protect the production line of new talent wherever in the world & a realistic compensation process that is based on the transfer market at the time. Possibly also a guaranteed 50% sell on fee. So in Fab's case a fee of between £10m & £15m would seem reasonable. Clubs would then really have to back their judgement.

[bobby01]

If a player at the end of his youth contract is going somewhere to play then a large part of me says ok shame but I understand it.
However what riles me is teams taking academy players and getting them to sign for what are really ridiculous salaries, but actually have no intention of playing them just do not want anyone else to get them.
Chelscum the prime example the amount of players they have on loan is criminal.

[Cookie6262]

The rules are changing starting next year and there will be a limit of how many over 21's you can loan out. It will hopefully stop the Chelsea's and Man City's having football farms and could in the next few years create alot of frustrated good players looking for somewhere to go for 1st team football.

[JimOG]

If a player at the end of his youth contract is going somewhere to play then a large part of me says ok shame but I understand it.
However what riles me is teams taking academy players and getting them to sign for what are really ridiculous salaries, but actually have no intention of playing them just do not want anyone else to get them.
Chelscum the prime example the amount of players they have on loan is criminal.

A few years back Chelsea had 38 players scattered around the world - obscene but then the Big Boys have been the influencers

[Motspur Park]

The real issue is the inability of FIFA, UEFA, FA etc to recognise they need to protect the production line of new talent wherever in the world & a realistic compensation process that is based on the transfer market at the time. Possibly also a guaranteed 50% sell on fee. So in Fab's case a fee of between £10m & £15m would seem reasonable. Clubs would then really have to back their judgement.

This is exactly as I see it so if a club wishes to poach a youth prospect, they must pay a premium rate to do so as well as sell on compensation.

[Sting of the North]

The real issue is the inability of FIFA, UEFA, FA etc to recognise they need to protect the production line of new talent wherever in the world & a realistic compensation process that is based on the transfer market at the time. Possibly also a guaranteed 50% sell on fee. So in Fab's case a fee of between £10m & £15m would seem reasonable. Clubs would then really have to back their judgement.

This is exactly as I see it so if a club wishes to poach a youth prospect, they must pay a premium rate to do so as well as sell on compensation.

I believe that a mandatory sell on compensation is an interesting idea. Needs to still be fairly heavily regulated in order to not be circumvented by clever transfers etc. Also wouldn't solve the problem if a player doesn't move clubs again. So, if Elliott stays all his career for Liverpool a sell on clause would give us nothing more even if he turns out to be a Ballon d'Or winner. Maybe something tied to contract value over a certain amount of years? In general I believe that they just need to increase the general arbitration compensation to better reflect the value of a player and also speed up the process significantly.

It's a difficult one for sure.

[Motspur Park]

The real issue is the inability of FIFA, UEFA, FA etc to recognise they need to protect the production line of new talent wherever in the world & a realistic compensation process that is based on the transfer market at the time. Possibly also a guaranteed 50% sell on fee. So in Fab's case a fee of between £10m & £15m would seem reasonable. Clubs would then really have to back their judgement.

This is exactly as I see it so if a club wishes to poach a youth prospect, they must pay a premium rate to do so as well as sell on compensation.

I believe that a mandatory sell on compensation is an interesting idea. Needs to still be fairly heavily regulated in order to not be circumvented by clever transfers etc. Also wouldn't solve the problem if a player doesn't move clubs again. So, if Elliott stays all his career for Liverpool a sell on clause would give us nothing more even if he turns out to be a Ballon d'Or winner. Maybe something tied to contract value over a certain amount of years? In general I believe that they just need to increase the general arbitration compensation to better reflect the value of a player and also speed up the process significantly.

It's a difficult one for sure.

The link to contract values has a great deal of merit. If only those that run the game could recognise it. This also applies to the likes of us such as Stansfield etc.

[Blokeski]

I think what's interesting is that so many people see this issue through a financial lense.

The finances are important, but if you talked to the team running the academy programme, it would not be their main focus.  They are approaching this from a holistic development point of view, supporting the players in their development as both footballers and as people.

From that perspective, I think most outsiders would view our Academy as a massive success.  I think the fact that these threads repeatedly end up as a discussion around compensation (which is I agree an interesting subject) is reflective of how the world of football now revolves around money.

[Bill2]

The real issue is the inability of FIFA, UEFA, FA etc to recognise they need to protect the production line of new talent wherever in the world & a realistic compensation process that is based on the transfer market at the time. Possibly also a guaranteed 50% sell on fee. So in Fab's case a fee of between £10m & £15m would seem reasonable. Clubs would then really have to back their judgement.

This is exactly as I see it so if a club wishes to poach a youth prospect, they must pay a premium rate to do so as well as sell on compensation.

I believe that a mandatory sell on compensation is an interesting idea. Needs to still be fairly heavily regulated in order to not be circumvented by clever transfers etc. Also wouldn't solve the problem if a player doesn't move clubs again. So, if Elliott stays all his career for Liverpool a sell on clause would give us nothing more even if he turns out to be a Ballon d'Or winner. Maybe something tied to contract value over a certain amount of years? In general I believe that they just need to increase the general arbitration compensation to better reflect the value of a player and also speed up the process significantly.

It's a difficult one for sure.

Agree with the above and as I said any buying club if the player stays with them for years there should be additional.payment for games played, goals scored and especially if they win balloon d or other awards including international recognition.

[Twig]

I think what's interesting is that so many people see this issue through a financial lense.

The finances are important, but if you talked to the team running the academy programme, it would not be their main focus.  They are approaching this from a holistic development point of view, supporting the players in their development as both footballers and as people.

From that perspective, I think most outsiders would view our Academy as a massive success.  I think the fact that these threads repeatedly end up as a discussion around compensation (which is I agree an interesting subject) is reflective of how the world of football now revolves around money.

very good point.

[Twig]

The best, perhaps the only, way to ensure we retain the bulk of the talent we produce is to get ourselves into the PL and establish ourselves as a top club that knows how to develop young talent and has a top-level wage structure.. The youngsters won't want to move on to 'better things' if we are one of the 'better things'.

There really isn't much else that can be done. You can't give contracts to 16 year olds, and 17 year olds can only get 3 year contracts or renegotiate at 18. You can't force a player to sign a contract however old he may be.

Exactly and until then we just have to feed off the relatively modest (but definitely worthwhile)  transfer and compensation fees we can garner.

One blessing is that our academy has a great reputation and that helps attract young talent and their parents to sign up with us. It maintains a funnel of high quality young players working up the age groups and when we do re-establish ourselves as a Premier League football club that emerging talent will be much more likely to stay with us.

Sorry but I get really frustrated with the way our talent which is some cases has been nurtured over years of development get swiped from under our noses for what is for these clubs a pittance. Someone on here has said get them on long term contracts but until the age of 18 you can only offer short contracts (2 to 3 yers dependant on date of birth) contracts so unless the FA recognise the problem and allow longer contracts nothing will change. Then you have the threat of non English clubs swooping in and taking anyone for just £500,000. The whole thing stinks and the only losers are clubs like Fulham who invest millions in an academy yet are unable to realise any meaningful money from the talent who will always be stolen by the big clubs.
If people think that by being a Premier league club will retain our talent well sorry because the likes of Liverpool et al will still be able to offer bigger salaries without corrupting their salary scale as their top players will be on 6 figures per week and even their fringe players will be on 5 figure, we cant afford that so will never be able to match those offers. Remember some of these clubs make more through shirt sales than we make in a year in total. Anyone know how much Arsenal paid for the lad who went there last year when his contract had run down?
I am not saying that they should be made to sign long term contracts but we should have an automatic renewal option for at least 12 months or the club taking the player should be made to make a suitable payment rather than the paltry sums currently including additional payments for 1st team appearances and goals, not just a percentage of a sell on fee if they are ever sold.
Rant over.

Take a deep breath.  I sort of understand your frustration but just consider.........
We don't know what the running costs of the academy are so not sure how many "millions" it costs but bear in mind these costs do NOT count for FFP.
We do get fees for many of our younsters and let's not forget that we also sweep up some up from other smaller clubs and sometimes turn a good profit even if only in compensation (recently Harvey Elliot from QPR after only 20 mths with us).
Of course, when a youngster signs a new contract like Sess and then leaves we earn quite a handsome transfer fee.
I didn't suggest that our earanings from the departures of our young players is entirely fair, I said "relatively modest".  However, I suspect these returns more than cover the academy costs, althoigh I'm obviously guessing.
What is clear is that these fees are a gross benfit under FFP because the academy is zero cost for FFP.  So pretty much every penny of compensation or transfer fee benefits our FFP position.,
However, I do stand by my view that once we are established as a Prem club we will be much less likely to lose our young talent.  Think back to the years under Roy Hodgson, there were far fewer rants then from us about young players jumping ship!

[bencher]

I think what's interesting is that so many people see this issue through a financial lense.

The finances are important, but if you talked to the team running the academy programme, it would not be their main focus.  They are approaching this from a holistic development point of view, supporting the players in their development as both footballers and as people.

From that perspective, I think most outsiders would view our Academy as a massive success.  I think the fact that these threads repeatedly end up as a discussion around compensation (which is I agree an interesting subject) is reflective of how the world of football now revolves around money.

I think the point is that we view the products of our academy as our players, no different to the first team squad. So if they are good enough and we get to play them in the team, great, and if we have to lose them to a bigger club, we expect compensation for our loss.

Running an academy is first and foremost about producing the next crop of first team players, not some kind of benevolent programme for the good of humanity and the next generation of footballers.

[Burt]

Highlights here:
https://www.fulhamfc.com/news/2022/february/22/U23-Newcastle-Highlights/

Some tidy finishes in there.

If we beat Villa on Friday, the title is all but there...