Stop 'elite' clubs hoarding players

LuckyLloyd

There's a serious lack of substantive arguments for why this activity needs to be curbed.

POKERKING

Mr.H wrote: »

Here is the first I heard that Chelsea and city have the best academies in England.

West Ham and Southampton are probably rated higher for production. Arsenal rated higher for recruitment.

Man city screwed up their academy when they got cash because they started buying players instead of producing.

Chelsea are just following the arsenal model of recruiting players from other clubs that are young enough to be academy players (Chelsea are not the only club guilty of this by a long shot which is the issue of hoarding)

I remember loads of pundits and ex players praising Liverpool united and arsenal on their academies but I ever heard that Chelsea and city have the beat ones.......

Can you expand on this bit?

Mr.H

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There's a serious lack of substantive arguments for why this activity needs to be curbed.

How???

there is less players coming through academies that are making it into respective clubs!!!!

Countries are having less big time players

Scotland had Souness, Dalglish, Law, Strachan, Hansen, McCoist

Wales has Rush, Giggs, Hughes, Speed, Toshack, Saunders

Northern Ireland had Best, Gregg, Jennings, Lennon, Gillespie

Ireland had McGrath, Keane (Roy), Duff, Giles, Mccarthy (Mick), Staunton, Irwin, Stapleton, Ronnie Whelan, Packie Bonner, Aldridge

These 4 countries have always taken most of their players from the english league system since its the closest most professional system we all have access to.

Even the English team is nothing compared to the teams of the 90's and 80's

How in any way do you think the English system is not failing young players??

Mr.H

POKERKING wrote: »

Can you expand on this bit?

Sure. Its not a dig at City.

In 2006-2007 they had players such as;

Sturridge (was with the first team), Richards, Miller (Ibraham or something like that, not important enough to google), Johnson, Hart (with the first team), Barton, Ireland, Schmeichel (on the fringes)

City up to this point produced a lot of home grown players and it showed in the first team. Players got opportunities. After this the above players started to be phased out as City tried to replace them with players for crazy money like Elano and Robinho and then Kaka (120 million bid back then!!!)

City also left go their head of youth development at the time and one of their top chief scouts (went to Arsenal iirc)

City's model changed as they had moeny and wanted to bring in big names so they forgot about their youths. I dont blame them because they got excited. Who wouldnt?

But yes before the takeover Man City had an amazing academy but when the deal was made they fell way behind

Deise Vu

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There's a serious lack of substantive arguments for why this activity needs to be curbed.

Just because you are ignoring the substantive arguments doesn't mean there aren't any. It is clearly wrong that teams can ensure that their main opponents face stronger opposition than they do themselves. The whole point of a league is everyone plays everyone else home and away on a level basis and the best team comes out on top. That is not the case if Liverpool and Arsenal have to play Bournemouth while they have a player on loan from Chelsea who then sits out the Chelsea game and instead Chelsea face a player in whom his own manager self evidently has no confidence.

The top teams also get to blood players at no risk to team results, the lesser lights have to throw youngsters in at the deep end and hope for the best. Again this is not a level playing field.

Also, the lower level teams whose best talent is being poached the minute they appear on a national squad never get to cash in properly on the time and energy they have invested in developing players. The transfer fees these teams earned in the past often kept them afloat. The top clubs philosophy is now: why wait until the guy costs £15M and maybe doesn't make the step up. Lets get 20 of the best underage players and throw goodies at them and their gullible parents for a fraction of that. A couple of them might come good and we will probably recoup any outlay in a couple of transfer fees anyway.

The worst thing is it doesn't even seem to work. Lukaku seems to be the only example where it has paid off. The fact that he paid off in spades is probably the reason Chelsea persist with it even though I can't see any players that Chelsea use week in week out who came back to them through this system. (I am excluding Aké who is currently only getting splinters in his rear end at Chelsea, although his potential transfer fee is probably a source of comfort to Mr Abramovitch).

Jayop

City and Chelsea are being vaunted now as having the best youth set ups in England, and for all you can chat about private school education or other perks, the reason a kid joins an Academy is to play football and I can't think of a single player at either club that has gone through the process and become a first team fixture. Until that happens then they can have all the facilities or coaches but it's for nothing. Southampton, United, Everton and others are all consistently bringing more players through than these clubs and if my lad was good enough that's what I'd be looking at.

Mr.H

Jayop wrote: »

City and Chelsea are being vaunted now as having the best youth set ups in England, and for all you can chat about private school education or other perks, the reason a kid joins an Academy is to play football and I can't think of a single player at either club that has gone through the process and become a first team fixture. Until that happens then they can have all the facilities or coaches but it's for nothing. Southampton, United, Everton and others are all consistently bringing more players through than these clubs and if my lad was good enough that's what I'd be looking at.

But by who???

Any source??

POKERKING

Mr.H wrote: »

Sure. Its not a dig at City.

In 2006-2007 they had players such as;

Sturridge (was with the first team), Richards, Miller (Ibraham or something like that, not important enough to google), Johnson, Hart (with the first team), Barton, Ireland, Schmeichel (on the fringes)

City up to this point produced a lot of home grown players and it showed in the first team. Players got opportunities. After this the above players started to be phased out as City tried to replace them with players for crazy money like Elano and Robinho and then Kaka (120 million bid back then!!!)

City also left go their head of youth development at the time and one of their top chief scouts (went to Arsenal iirc)

City's model changed as they had moeny and wanted to bring in big names so they forgot about their youths. I dont blame them because they got excited. Who wouldnt?

But yes before the takeover Man City had an amazing academy but when the deal was made they fell way behind

Likes of sturridge, Richards, and Miller were all bought too(Hart too but he was never academy at city), they were all at academies pre city, the difference now is the calibre of academy player bought is better and is coming from further afield. Its the same at most clubs, due to area restrictions where you can actually get young acadamey players from(i believe im not up to date on it). its rare you will get local academy graduates but there are a few at city like Phil Foden, Cameron humphries, Tomy Doyle, Tosin Adrabayio all Manc lads.

I wouldnt say the academy was forgotten when we got taken over far from it, one of the earliest plans was to build the new academy which is currently one of the best facilities in the world. The problem with the players we produced were they werent at the required level, the level currently needed is a million miles away from pre takeover where we didnt have a pot to piss in and had no choice but to use the academy players. I think this will all change in the future, city are dominant(along with Chelsea) at every age group, the better players that are capable of adding to the squad will come to fruition soon. Im confident we could revisit this in a few years and people will talk about city academy in glowing terms.

Another thing the old academy didnt do was produce good human beings, we produced a lot of footballers but alot of bad eggs, loads who made it spent time in jail or were general scallys, not just the high profile ones like Barton or Evans or Bradley Wright Phillips, there was much more. That culture seems to have ended, with a high emphasis on private education and character building and getting the right people in not just based on football ability.

As i said earlier, despite my city biased, if my son was to have a choice of any clubs in england it would be chelsea or City for me. There is a reason Utd players are putting there kids in the city academy and not the utd one.

POKERKING

Jayop wrote: »

City and Chelsea are being vaunted now as having the best youth set ups in England, and for all you can chat about private school education or other perks, the reason a kid joins an Academy is to play football and I can't think of a single player at either club that has gone through the process and become a first team fixture. Until that happens then they can have all the facilities or coaches but it's for nothing. Southampton, United, Everton and others are all consistently bringing more players through than these clubs and if my lad was good enough that's what I'd be looking at.

Would you not like your lad to have private education if football failed? Would you not like to have the best facilities in the world to learn his trade? Would you not like him to work with the best coaches in the world?

Even if you dont make it at city or chelsea you still have a great chance of been a professional at a high level. It would be an easy choice for me, everything else been even.

irelandrover

Mr.H wrote: »

Sure. Its not a dig at City.

In 2006-2007 they had players such as;

Sturridge (was with the first team), Richards, Miller (Ibraham or something like that, not important enough to google), Johnson, Hart (with the first team), Barton, Ireland, Schmeichel (on the fringes)

City up to this point produced a lot of home grown players and it showed in the first team. Players got opportunities. After this the above players started to be phased out as City tried to replace them with players for crazy money like Elano and Robinho and then Kaka (120 million bid back then!!!)

City also left go their head of youth development at the time and one of their top chief scouts (went to Arsenal iirc)

City's model changed as they had moeny and wanted to bring in big names so they forgot about their youths. I dont blame them because they got excited. Who wouldnt?

But yes before the takeover Man City had an amazing academy but when the deal was made they fell way behind

Most of those players aernt good enough to play for a team challenging for the title. Thats why they made the Man City team before the money and they don't now.

City have put a lot of money and effort into their academy since they got money. It should start to show in the next few years as the younger players they recruited will start to come through.

Mr.H

POKERKING wrote: »

Likes of sturridge, Richards, and Miller were all bought too(Hart too but he was never academy at city), they were all at academies pre city, the difference now is the calibre of academy player bought is better and is coming from further afield. Its the same at most clubs, due to area restrictions where you can actually get young acadamey players from(i believe im not up to date on it). its rare you will get local academy graduates but there are a few at city like Phil Foden, Cameron humphries, Tomy Doyle, Tosin Adrabayio all Manc lads.

I wouldnt say the academy was forgotten when we got taken over far from it, one of the earliest plans was to build the new academy which is currently one of the best facilities in the world. The problem with the players we produced were they werent at the required level, the level currently needed is a million miles away from pre takeover where we didnt have a pot to piss in and had no choice but to use the academy players. I think this will all change in the future, city are dominant(along with Chelsea) at every age group, the better players that are capable of adding to the squad will come to fruition soon. Im confident we could revisit this in a few years and people will talk about city academy in glowing terms.

Another thing the old academy didnt do was produce good human beings, we produced a lot of footballers but alot of bad eggs, loads who made it spent time in jail or were general scallys, not just the high profile ones like Barton or Evans or Bradley Wright Phillips, there was much more. That culture seems to have ended, with a high emphasis on private education and character building and getting the right people in not just based on football ability.

As i said earlier, despite my city biased, if my son was to have a choice of any clubs in england it would be chelsea or City for me. There is a reason Utd players are putting there kids in the city academy and not the utd one.

Sturridge was bought by city when he was 13?(open to correction) - that is young enough that he is definitely a City youth product

A lot of kids in the north especially, come from rough areas (thanks to the torries but thats just politics). It is good that City are trying to change the standard of education the kids receive but this is done by most clubs now.

The biggest issue though is the fact that big clubs and I am not picking on City or Chelsea. This is the new culture of top flight clubs. It is stockpile as many young prospects as possible with the hope that if you have 15-20 at each age level you will have about 5 that can be sold for profit each year and maybe 1 every couple of years that will shine through.

So thats fine as they all have the opportunity. But what about the other 15 kids each year that are just released at the age of 17-18? Sure they have their gcse's but they had their hopes set on being a footballer and now they will try to get a new club to develop them (often dont) or just seek a new career.

In older days there was not as many kids in each age category. So it meant there was more one on one time with the kids. Kids were given a chance to develop and often stayed in the reserves until their early 20's to be given a chance. Doesnt happen now.

I was trying to find an article that I read some time ago about the subject. Its an good read if you are interested (doesnt mean you will agree with what is said of course)
http://sabotagetimes.com/football/are-big-clubs-like-chelsea-ruining-the-potential-of-young-players

I just think that a restriction needs to be placed on numbers that clubs have on their books. No team should have 100 young kids hoping to come through the academy with the lure of fame and cash instead of learning the game at a lower level.

I mean if you are 14 and want to be a pro footballer is it better to go the City and get a posh education and maybe learn a few football things or is it better to go to a team down the leagues and grind your way into the game.

Steve Finnan is the only player to have played in all four levels of the English league, the Conference, The Uefa cup, Champions League and world cup. That is an example of a player who worked his way up. I doubt we will see that again. Closest is maybe Vardy?

Mr.H

irelandrover wrote: »

Most of those players aernt good enough to play for a team challenging for the title. Thats why they made the Man City team before the money and they don't now.

City have put a lot of money and effort into their academy since they got money. It should start to show in the next few years as the younger players they recruited will start to come through.

They probably arent good enough but they were all highly rated (as in next big thing) in those early years and were discarded.

City have their money for the last 10 years?

If they invested then we should definitely be seeing it already shouldnt we?

Even the young players back then would be in their 20's now. If the new prospects that should be coming through are 18 (I doubt they will be trying to bring through 20 odd year olds) that means they only really went to the academy in the last 5 years or so meaning that when City first got their money they did nothing of note in the first 5 years with the academy.

Even the article that praises City's academy (manchester evening news) only mentions players prior to City's cash which was 10 years ago and names the players I named as an example of how great the academy is!

They are stock piling though so eventually yes they will have one or two come through. It was mentioned that they are successful in each age level but that is only because they buy the kids from other clubs without the clubs having any say

LuckyLloyd

Mr.H wrote: »

How???

there is less players coming through academies that are making it into respective clubs!!!!

Countries are having less big time players

Scotland had Souness, Dalglish, Law, Strachan, Hansen, McCoist

Wales has Rush, Giggs, Hughes, Speed, Toshack, Saunders

Northern Ireland had Best, Gregg, Jennings, Lennon, Gillespie

Ireland had McGrath, Keane (Roy), Duff, Giles, Mccarthy (Mick), Staunton, Irwin, Stapleton, Ronnie Whelan, Packie Bonner, Aldridge

These 4 countries have always taken most of their players from the english league system since its the closest most professional system we all have access to.

Even the English team is nothing compared to the teams of the 90's and 80's

How in any way do you think the English system is not failing young players??

That issue had long reared its head before Chelsea adapted this new system to create additional streams of revenue in the wake of FFP. The lack of home grown players being developed through the English league is the consequence of the ending of the home grown quota for starting XI's in European competition and the general opening up of the EU labour market.

The fix for the problem you cite relates to strictly enforcing homegrown XI quotas and other measures that may be challenged from the EU perspective. And any move in that regard would have to be balanced against the short to medium term loss of relative competitiveness. Curbing the current activities of City or Chelsea would not alleviate the problem, even in part.

Deise Vu wrote: »

Just because you are ignoring the substantive arguments doesn't mean there aren't any.

The arguments presented in this thread are emotional or unrelated or simply borne of competitive envy.

Deise Vu wrote: »

It is clearly wrong that teams can ensure that their main opponents face stronger opposition than they do themselves. The whole point of a league is everyone plays everyone else home and away on a level basis and the best team comes out on top. That is not the case if Liverpool and Arsenal have to play Bournemouth while they have a player on loan from Chelsea who then sits out the Chelsea game and instead Chelsea face a player in whom his own manager self evidently has no confidence.

This is an example of an unrelated argument. The loan system and the ability to loan excess players to other Premier League teams and then enforce contractual terms that deny the on loan player the ability to line out against his source club predate the current City / Chelsea player farming. Enforcing a rule that Premiership players cannot be loaned out to other Premiership teams would not impinge upon the current system employed by City and Chelsea, as they would happily loan their players out around the EU instead.

Deise Vu wrote: »

The top teams also get to blood players at no risk to team results, the lesser lights have to throw youngsters in at the deep end and hope for the best. Again this is not a level playing field.

Football is not and never will be a level playing field. In the 70's and 80's Liverpool were able to bring talented young players into demonstrably stronger squads and have them develop as a role player while facing less exposure. They also had 60+ game seasons due to the success of the first XI so it was easier to get a young player games than it would have been for a lessor team. Again, this type of imbalance existed before City and Chelsea's modern academy activities.

Deise Vu wrote: »

Also, the lower level teams whose best talent is being poached the minute they appear on a national squad never get to cash in properly on the time and energy they have invested in developing players. The transfer fees these teams earned in the past often kept them afloat. The top clubs philosophy is now: why wait until the guy costs £15M and maybe doesn't make the step up. Lets get 20 of the best underage players and throw goodies at them and their gullible parents for a fraction of that. A couple of them might come good and we will probably recoup any outlay in a couple of transfer fees anyway.

And yet lower teams still end up developing and selling on players. Top clubs make mistakes and cut players who end up developing at smaller clubs anyway and becoming stars. But I'll concede this is the first point that kind of relates to what City and Chelsea and other top clubs are doing. That said, to properly unwind this effect you need to unwind the increased professionalism present in a fully globalised game. Brentford can't afford to have scouting relationships in South America or France so will never compete on a level playing field when it comes into attracting young players into their setup.

Deise Vu wrote: »

The worst thing is it doesn't even seem to work. Lukaku seems to be the only example where it has paid off. The fact that he paid off in spades is probably the reason Chelsea persist with it even though I can't see any players that Chelsea use week in week out who came back to them through this system. (I am excluding Aké who is currently only getting splinters in his rear end at Chelsea, although his potential transfer fee is probably a source of comfort to Mr Abramovitch).

If does work. Chelsea and City are developing a very strong stream of additional revenue. The objectives do not necessarily resolve around player development for themselves. They are becoming clearing houses for elite young talent. The greater the size of the programme, the greater the economies of scale in running it, the more players in the system the more loan fees accrued and ultimately transfer fees.


The big problem is that you either have to fully regulate the sport and achieve collective bargaining arrangements with the players or you exist at the whim of clubs exploiting every loophole possible because they have the financial motivation to figure them out and pursue them ruthlessly. The bottom line in this case though is that the arguments being made in this thread are frustrations based on football's overall development as a professional international game and how the landscape has utterly changed and the chasm between the super elite clubs and mid level professional clubs has never been greater.

City and Chelsea's activities are not harming players (they are extremely well treated and receive an education); or making it more difficult for them to succeed (the programme ensures first team football for those good enough and arms them to be flexible in the face of a globalised player market); or breaking any employment laws; or contravening any current UEFA / FIFA regulations. What's killing people really is that they've found a new way to flex their financial muscles and circumvent FFP legally. If you stop them farming players, they'll start farming actual clubs themselves, or eventually leagues. Money will succeed in the absence of a US style sports system.

LuckyLloyd

Jayop wrote: »

City and Chelsea are being vaunted now as having the best youth set ups in England, and for all you can chat about private school education or other perks, the reason a kid joins an Academy is to play football and I can't think of a single player at either club that has gone through the process and become a first team fixture. Until that happens then they can have all the facilities or coaches but it's for nothing. Southampton, United, Everton and others are all consistently bringing more players through than these clubs and if my lad was good enough that's what I'd be looking at.

It's not necessarily about playing for City or Chelsea. All a young player and his family should think about is making it as a professional full stop. Chelsea are certainly producing a lot of professional footballers, they simply don't need them to come through into their own XI as they can buy what they need at the top of the market.

Bridge93

I've definitely heard that Chelsea and City were the coming forces at academy level. There was an article that listed the ex-United players who's kids were playing for city. Think it included Phil Neville, Rooney, Andy Cole, RVP and Darren Fletcher

Chelsea starting to bear fruit even if they were recruited. Will be interesting how successful city are. Southampton and West Ham always stuck out as very strong academies.

Jayop

Mr.H wrote: »

But by who???

Any source??

Common perception. Read this thread Ffs.

Jayop

POKERKING wrote: »

Would you not like your lad to have private education if football failed? Would you not like to have the best facilities in the world to learn his trade? Would you not like him to work with the best coaches in the world?

Even if you dont make it at city or chelsea you still have a great chance of been a professional at a high level. It would be an easy choice for me, everything else been even.

I'd want him to go where he had the absolute best chance if making it in his chosen career. On recent records that's not city or Chelsea although maybe they will start bringing players through but I doubt it given the short termism apparent at both clubs.

You almost make out like they don't get schooling at other clubs, or the likes of the clubs I listed have idiots in charge if their academies despite having proven track records year on year of producing top players who go on to play for top sides.

Look at Everton and the players they are bringing through. They get to stay there, keep the same coaches, get into the first team and then move to a champions league club if they're good enough. When have city or Chelsea produced the talent of a stones or a Barkley? Look at the young lads who made their debuts this year and scored against City. Brilliant club for kids is Everton.

rwbug

Mr.H wrote: »

City have their money for the last 10 years?

If they invested then we should definitely be seeing it already shouldnt we?

Harsh on City. They have moved very fast imo.

City were bought in Sept 2008. City first team at that time included the likes of Ben-Haim, Garrido, Etuhu, Gelson, Evans and would most likely have been in a relegation battle. Focus was correctly placed on first team investment at that time.

Three years later in 2011 City began plans for a state of the art academy. They bought contaminated industrial land which had to be cleaned before construction could begin. The academy opened in December 2014.

Mr.H

Jayop wrote: »

Common perception. Read this thread Ffs.

Despite your tone I'll respond by saying I have read the thread. I only see some here claiming that City and Chelsea have the best academies in England. But as someone who also pays a lot of attention to the goings on, I have not seen that sentiment anywhere else. That is why I was asking for a source as I am interested to read such an argument for it.

You see the problem is I remember how good the City academy was perceived when they returned to the Championship.

I remember when most of their young players were looked at as future top class players. Players like Evans, Ireland, Sturridge, Richards, Hart would have all moved for huge money in todays relative terms. To compare it was like having Del Ali, Sterling and Rashford all coming through in teh same club at the same time.

That was then. All they had to do is continue the work but they sacked half the youth staff (coaching staff) and started ignoring the young lads. Given was bought for the first team when Hart was talked about as Englands number one ffs. City abandoned their youths.

Show me one credible article that says City and Chelsea are the best youth academies in England. Just one.

Mr.H

rwbug wrote: »

Harsh on City. They have moved very fast imo.

City were bought in Sept 2008. City first team at that time included the likes of Ben-Haim, Garrido, Etuhu, Gelson, Evans and would most likely have been in a relegation battle. Focus was correctly placed on first team investment at that time.

Three years later in 2011 City began plans for a state of the art academy. They bought contaminated industrial land which had to be cleaned before construction could begin. The academy opened in December 2014.

They had loads of young English lads coming through and tried to get rid of them. Richards and Hart were lucky not to see the door the first year. They had an amazing youth set up that could have been built on

Jayop

I'm not claiming they are. I'm claiming the perception among people is that they are. This thread is the proof.

Mr.H

This thread is only proof that there are some fans who believe in something that may or may not be true. Do you believe in god?? (That is rhetorical)

I just mean in terms of players actually being developed there is zero evidence to show that City and Chelsea are doing anything other than hoarding players which is the meaning of this thread.

How is having 30 players out on loan any way beneficial to any of those individual players?? It is beneficial only to Chelsea as they could profit from the sale of these players to other clubs at a lower level.

Look at Tom Ince at Liverpool as an example. Went to an academy that was full of praise at the time for bringing in all these big name Spanish youth development people. He got very little chance at Liverpool and was loaned out. While on loan he got no benefit from the Liverpool youth development lads. he eventually made the smart choice and went on a free to a lower level side where he would get game time. Sure he isnt a top player now but would he have played as many top flight games if he stayed at Liverpool?

Tom got lucky as he still plays

There was a lad who was a huge up and comer he was about 16 and at Leeds. Hi name was Taiwo (I think thats the spelling) he was the next big thing. He was tapped up by Chelsea before signing for them. After a couple of years with the Academy he was inevitably loaned out to lower league teams and then Chelsea told him he wasnt wanted anymore so was just released.

He still plays at a lower level as well but you cant say taht either of those players were cared for the way they would have been by teams with less stock piling attitudes

Jayop

I agree with you completely that they're not top academies, but the perception among the public is that they are.

irelandrover

I think that the academy at Man city will be one of the best. Its still young since the new academy opened less than 3 years ago. An interesting article on it here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/10/29/how-manchester-city-are-revolutionising-the-entire-football-acad/

I think its only fair to judge it in a few years time.

I do however think that there isnt a one size fits all, some kids will benefit from being in a small club where they have very close contact with the trainer and a liklier path to the first team and the stability of being at one club through it all. Other children will benefit more from being at a big academy, where they are one of many kids, and they might not need the same stability so being sent out on loan every year doesnt affect them as much.

grumpymunster

I would take the word of someone who bothered to look into it properly and is the owner of one of the more progressive clubs outside of the PL. But that does not fit in with some agendas so best ignore it what? The link is below from a man who has put his money where his mouth is.

http://beesotted.co.uk/?p=12965

rwbug

If Citys academy is judged purely on producing first team players for City then it is way too early to say if it is a success or not. If it is judged on producing players capable of forging a good career for themselves then it is already a success. Fofana, Ntcham, Celina, Evans, Lopes, Rekik and plenty others in the lower leagues are doing well for themselves.

I don't know about Chelsea but it is not correct to say Manchester City are simply hoarding players, Citys EDS/reserve squad for example isn't exactly massive and often has to be supplemented with u18 players. The top line number of City players on loan is boosted by a couple of things -

Partner clubs - for example, City buys a player and immediately loans them to Girona. On paper these are City players but in reality they will never see England.

Right to Dream Academy - A large number of Citys loan players are players from the Right to Dream Academy. These are African players that City try to help gain a move to Europe. These tend to be decent players but not top quality, but good enough to forge a career for themselves in Scandanavia etc. If a cull on loan numbers was to be made I would imagine this academy would be the first thing to go.

Citys general policy with youths is to play their u19 team in the u23 reserve league, then a year on loan or with the first team, then a decision will be made. It means that there is no hording of 21 year old or older players.

grumpymunster

rwbug wrote: »

If Citys academy is judged purely on producing first team players for City then it is way too early to say if it is a success or not. If it is judged on producing players capable of forging a good career for themselves then it is already a success. Fofana, Ntcham, Celina, Evans, Lopes, Rekik and plenty others in the lower leagues are doing well for themselves.

I don't know about Chelsea but it is not correct to say Manchester City are simply hoarding players, Citys EDS/reserve squad for example isn't exactly massive and often has to be supplemented with u18 players. The top line number of City players on loan is boosted by a couple of things -

Partner clubs - for example, City buys a player and immediately loans them to Girona. On paper these are City players but in reality they will never see England.

Right to Dream Academy - A large number of Citys loan players are players from the Right to Dream Academy. These are African players that City try to help gain a move to Europe. These tend to be decent players but not top quality, but good enough to forge a career for themselves in Scandanavia etc. If a cull on loan numbers was to be made I would imagine this academy would be the first thing to go.

Citys general policy with youths is to play their u19 team in the u23 reserve league, then a year on loan or with the first team, then a decision will be made. It means that there is no hording of 21 year old or older players.

Interestingly Chelsea are involved in the right to play organisation and had dispensation from UEFA to carry Right to Play on their shirts in Champions League games.
The City academy has made great strides and look likely bar a miracle to be in their 3rd FA Youth cup final in consecutive years against Chelsea - which I would have thought is a testament to both clubs.

POKERKING

Jayop wrote: »

I'd want him to go where he had the absolute best chance if making it in his chosen career. On recent records that's not city or Chelsea although maybe they will start bringing players through but I doubt it given the short termism apparent at both clubs.

You almost make out like they don't get schooling at other clubs, or the likes of the clubs I listed have idiots in charge if their academies despite having proven track records year on year of producing top players who go on to play for top sides.

Look at Everton and the players they are bringing through. They get to stay there, keep the same coaches, get into the first team and then move to a champions league club if they're good enough. When have city or Chelsea produced the talent of a stones or a Barkley? Look at the young lads who made their debuts this year and scored against City. Brilliant club for kids is Everton.

Everton isnt a good example. John Stones is particularly not a good example. That is John Stones who played 24 games for Barnsley who Everton signed for 3m pound. Of all clubs to use as shinning example Everton wouldnt be one. Barkley is an academy graduate, Tom Davies is a recent one and thats it from players who have played this season in the first team. Jeez even city have given more chances to youth team players than Everton this year.

As for the line bolded, there is as much chance if not more chance of making it as a professional footballer by starting at city's academy than anyone else's, granted it may not be with City but still.

Mr.H

grumpymunster wrote: »

I would take the word of someone who bothered to look into it properly and is the owner of one of the more progressive clubs outside of the PL. But that does not fit in with some agendas so best ignore it what? The link is below from a man who has put his money where his mouth is.

http://beesotted.co.uk/?p=12965

You mean a guy who stands to benefit from kissing up to one of the richest clubs in Europe???

They want to build a relationship with Chelsea to get players on loan. Of course they will talk Chelsea up.

Chelsea dont even have the best academy in London let alone England

POKERKING

Mr.H wrote: »

Despite your tone I'll respond by saying I have read the thread. I only see some here claiming that City and Chelsea have the best academies in England. But as someone who also pays a lot of attention to the goings on, I have not seen that sentiment anywhere else. That is why I was asking for a source as I am interested to read such an argument for it.

You see the problem is I remember how good the City academy was perceived when they returned to the Championship.

I remember when most of their young players were looked at as future top class players. Players like Evans, Ireland, Sturridge, Richards, Hart would have all moved for huge money in todays relative terms. To compare it was like having Del Ali, Sterling and Rashford all coming through in teh same club at the same time.

That was then. All they had to do is continue the work but they sacked half the youth staff (coaching staff) and started ignoring the young lads. Given was bought for the first team when Hart was talked about as Englands number one ffs. City abandoned their youths.

Show me one credible article that says City and Chelsea are the best youth academies in England. Just one.

You have got City all wrong there. Del Ali Sterling and Rashford is nothing like comparing Evans, Ireland, Sturridge etc. Its not even close i dont even know where to start.

City didnt abandon there youths, there youths were no longer good enough. The only who could claim to be good enough was Sturridge and he wanted 50k a week as an untested youngster, turned down Citys contract offer and signed for Chelsea. As for Richards, he stayed and was a vital part of winning the league, he chose himself to leave after he turned down a contract he wanted more first team football.

Hart was never part of Citys academy, never. He came from Shrewbury with a season under his belt and cost 500k. His development at city was one of the things we have got right over the years! A year on loan at Birmingham did him world of good and he came back and dislodged Given. He was talked about as Englands #1 and became #1 how can you use that as a stick to beat city?

And Jim Cassell(academy director) wasnt sacked, he was promoted!

I think the fact city and Chelsea academies are talked about as the best academy's is they are dominant in all age groups, last two season fa youth cup final have been competed by both and looks like it will be another this season. City have either won or got very close to most competitions there youth teams have competed in the last couple of seasons.

POKERKING

Just to confirm why City and Chelsea might be considered the best academies around.

Chelsea have won the Fa youth Cup the last three seasons.

City and Chelsea have contested the final for the past two seasons.

This season Chelsea have already qualified for the final by beat Spurs 9-2 on aggregate.

The other Semi final City are 6-0 up from the first leg against Stoke.

Final and semi finals are on Itv 4 well worth watching for those interested.

Chelsea style is completely different to City style but far more effective at this level.

City have a lot of small technically gifted players while Chelsea have a strong phsyical team who are technicaly gifted too but slightly inferior to city but more than make up for it with there physicality.

This years final will be interesting as city probably have the best team they have ever had at this level so be interesting to see how they compare to Chelsea.

Deise Vu

POKERKING wrote: »

Just to confirm why City and Chelsea might be considered the best academies around.

Chelsea have won the Fa youth Cup the last three seasons.

City and Chelsea have contested the final for the past two seasons.

This season Chelsea have already qualified for the final by beat Spurs 9-2 on aggregate.

The other Semi final City are 6-0 up from the first leg against Stoke.

Final and semi finals are on Itv 4 well worth watching for those interested.

Chelsea style is completely different to City style but far more effective at this level.

City have a lot of small technically gifted players while Chelsea have a strong phsyical team who are technicaly gifted too but slightly inferior to city but more than make up for it with there physicality.

This years final will be interesting as city probably have the best team they have ever had at this level so be interesting to see how they compare to Chelsea.

This bit grates. It means City and Chelsea have the best players not necessarily the best academies. It especially doesn't follow that the pillaging of the best young players is good for anyone (except City and Chelsea as if they hadn't enough advantages already).

Going back to Taiwo and Gael Kakuta, Chelsea have shown that that they have no scruples when it comes to tapping up youngsters who are all inevitably turned by the money. Unfortunately too much too soon doesn't necessarily make for good development. (Who was the guy who wanted €50K a week at the start of this season? You can only laugh when the biter gets bit!). That just might be the Achilles heel for this odious scheme, players who are near the end of their apprenticeship refusing to sign an extension unless its bananas money. It doesn't seem like such a risk-free get rich scheme if young players with no guaranteed future hold out for ludicrous terms.

Laois_Man

POKERKING wrote: »

Everton isnt a good example. John Stones is particularly not a good example. That is John Stones who played 24 games for Barnsley who Everton signed for 3m pound. Of all clubs to use as shinning example Everton wouldnt be one. Barkley is an academy graduate, Tom Davies is a recent one and thats it from players who have played this season in the first team. Jeez even city have given more chances to youth team players than Everton this year.

As for the line bolded, there is as much chance if not more chance of making it as a professional footballer by starting at city's academy than anyone else's, granted it may not be with City but still.

You've moved the goal posts from an earlier post linking to an article about how "Nine players in the Euro 2016 squads spent time at the man City academy" when some of those players were poached from other academies and most of whom never even became first team footballers through Man City. 9 is a pretty normal number of Euro 2016 players to have "spent time" in any decent academy across Europe's top leagues (Everton had 8). By the same criteria, Stones "spent time" in the Everton academy and also counts, as does Mason Holgate. Seamus Coleman and Phil Jagielka were also at the Everton academy - Jagielka was bought from Sheffield Utd but was at the Everton academy before that. Also Kieron Dowell and John-Joe Kenny made their debuts at the end of last season and expect to see them again before this season is out. Teenagers called Beni Baningime and Courtney Duffus will show up soon too, but I doubt it'll be this season

There are also many players who spent time at the Everton academy playing for other clubs at Premier League level and also football league clubs too.

POKERKING

Deise Vu wrote: »

POKERKING wrote: »

Just to confirm why City and Chelsea might be considered the best academies around.

Chelsea have won the Fa youth Cup the last three seasons.

City and Chelsea have contested the final for the past two seasons.

This season Chelsea have already qualified for the final by beat Spurs 9-2 on aggregate.

The other Semi final City are 6-0 up from the first leg against Stoke.

Final and semi finals are on Itv 4 well worth watching for those interested.

Chelsea style is completely different to City style but far more effective at this level.

City have a lot of small technically gifted players while Chelsea have a strong phsyical team who are technicaly gifted too but slightly inferior to city but more than make up for it with there physicality.

This years final will be interesting as city probably have the best team they have ever had at this level so be interesting to see how they compare to Chelsea.

This bit grates. It means City and Chelsea have the best players not necessarily the best academies. It especially doesn't follow that the pillaging of the best young players is good for anyone (except City and Chelsea as if they hadn't enough advantages already).

Going back to Taiwo and Gael Kakuta, Chelsea have shown that that they have no scruples when it comes to tapping up youngsters who are all inevitably turned by the money. Unfortunately too much too soon doesn't necessarily make for good development. (Who was the guy who wanted €50K a week at the start of this season? You can only laugh when the biter gets bit!). That just might be the Achilles heel for this odious scheme, players who are near the end of their apprenticeship refusing to sign an extension unless its bananas money. It doesn't seem like such a risk-free get rich scheme if young players with no guaranteed future hold out for ludicrous terms.

Add in the already mentioned world class facilities(theres a good chance citys academy has the best facilities for an academy in world football), top level coaching and a private education plus the higher chance of making at as a professional footballer. What other variables do you use when judging an academy?

POKERKING

Laois_Man wrote: »

POKERKING wrote: »

Everton isnt a good example. John Stones is particularly not a good example. That is John Stones who played 24 games for Barnsley who Everton signed for 3m pound. Of all clubs to use as shinning example Everton wouldnt be one. Barkley is an academy graduate, Tom Davies is a recent one and thats it from players who have played this season in the first team. Jeez even city have given more chances to youth team players than Everton this year.

As for the line bolded, there is as much chance if not more chance of making it as a professional footballer by starting at city's academy than anyone else's, granted it may not be with City but still.

You've moved the goal posts from an earlier post linking to an article about how "Nine players in the Euro 2016 squads spent time at the man City academy" when some of those players were poached from other academies and most of whom never even became first team footballers through Man City. 9 is a pretty normal number of Euro 2016 players to have "spent time" in any decent academy across Europe's top leagues (Everton had 8). By the same criteria, Stones "spent time" in the Everton academy and also counts, as does Mason Holgate. Seamus Coleman and Phil Jagielka were also at the Everton academy - Jagielka was bought from Sheffield Utd but was at the Everton academy before that. Also Kieron Dowell and John-Joe Kenny made their debuts at the end of last season and expect to see them again before this season is out. Teenagers called Beni Baningime and Courtney Duffus will show up soon too, but I doubt it'll be this season

There are also many players who spent time at the Everton academy playing for other clubs at Premier League level and also football league clubs too.

I didnt move the goalposts they are clearly two sepearate points.

1) city produce a lot of professional footballers through there academy
2) Everton arent a beacon of light when producing players directly from there academy to there first team. It was no dig at Everton, it was in relation to if you had to advise your own child. Im not going to waste both our times by arguing if stones, jags, coleman etc are academy graduates or not when we both know in anyones definition they arent.

764dak

Beckham tried to his scions into the Chelsea academy. Rooney's son is at City. RVP's son was at City.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4042532/Why-Wayne-Rooney-s-right-son-Man-City-United.html

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

You mean a guy who stands to benefit from kissing up to one of the richest clubs in Europe???

They want to build a relationship with Chelsea to get players on loan. Of course they will talk Chelsea up.

Chelsea dont even have the best academy in London let alone England

You keep asking for links etc now show me proof Chelsea do not have the best academy in London. Multiple FA youth cups would suggest otherwise. I think the Chelsea and City academy are very close I would not like to say which is the best at this point.

I also assume you have proof of your allegation against the Bees chairman Do you have a link to that.

Chelsea have a good relationship with Brentford as they have with a lot of clubs but because he does not fit in with your dreams you prefer to insult him. So put up or shut up links and proof for both please.

KaiserGunner

Just because Man City and Chelsea are contesting and winning the last few youth cups doesn't mean that they are the best academies around. Maybe they are the best academies, but results in the youth cup and youth leagues don't prove it. At youth level it's all about producing top quality individual players and not top quality teams.

Judge youth academies by players making it at the top level. Maybe Man City and Chelsea are producing great individuals ( I don't know? ) but youth cups don't prove anything. I know Arsenal try to develop individuals and don't really care if the team wins, so long as each player is trying to play and develop their individual games. Making mistakes at that level and learning is more valuable than a well drilled team that wins as a unit at youth level.

Not suggesting that this isn't the case for Man City or Chelsea, maybe it is, but winning youth cups doesn't prove it.

topmanamillion

irelandrover wrote: »

Most of those players aernt good enough to play for a team challenging for the title. Thats why they made the Man City team before the money and they don't now.

City have put a lot of money and effort into their academy since they got money. It should start to show in the next few years as the younger players they recruited will start to come through.

But they wont come through.
The club will just buy a E50M glactico and young talent will be thrown on the scrap heap.

POKERKING

topmanamillion wrote: »

But they wont come through.
The club will just buy a E50M glactico and young talent will be thrown on the scrap heap.

Scrap heap? That's not true. Firstly they will have a private education, secondly they will have spent the last few years been taught by some of the best coaches in the best facilities in the world. They may not make it at City or Chelsea but they certainly wont be on the scrap heap. The worse case scenario is they have an education better than they would have got if they never joined an academy(for most cases). There is still a good chance they will make it as a professional footballer somewhere in the world.

grumpymunster

POKERKING wrote: »

Scrap heap? That's not true. Firstly they will have a private education, secondly they will have spent the last few years been taught by some of the best coaches in the best facilities in the world. They may not make it at City or Chelsea but they certainly wont be on the scrap heap. The worse case scenario is they have an education better than they would have got if they never joined an academy(for most cases). There is still a good chance they will make it as a professional footballer somewhere in the world.

This is the thing which people just refuse to acknowledge the young men are given every opportunity to make it as a professional footballer. This takes a lot of time and money and despite what people on here seem to think there is a limit to both.
As I suggested earlier there are 20 PL clubs each week there are 18 players actively involved with each team every week - that is a maximum of 360 players per week either starting or on the bench. The barriers to entry are very very high.
I know Chelsea are very keen to see regular starters for the first team coming through from their academy as it has the potential to save them a huge amount of money - I can only assume City would be the same - and it would be wonderful PR. We are certainly getting closer but meanwhile lots of clubs are benefiting from the fruit of the scheme either through picking up excellent young players or using the loan system (I am sure Bristol City are very glad to have Tammy this season and Huddersfield also picked up some very good loans from Chelsea).

Jayop

topmanamillion wrote: »

But they wont come through.
The club will just buy a E50M glactico and young talent will be thrown on the scrap heap.

They claim to be trying to get away from that but I see no one their with the patience to wait years for a young player to come good and keep giving them chances and passes when they screw up.

Jayop

POKERKING wrote: »

Scrap heap? That's not true. Firstly they will have a private education, secondly they will have spent the last few years been taught by some of the best coaches in the best facilities in the world. They may not make it at City or Chelsea but they certainly wont be on the scrap heap. The worse case scenario is they have an education better than they would have got if they never joined an academy(for most cases). There is still a good chance they will make it as a professional footballer somewhere in the world.

You're obsessed with this private education. Honestly that has been mentioned by you so many times it's like reading a press release over and over. It has no relevance into whether they will be making it as footballers or put on the football scrap heap.

The insinuation from you repeatedly posting that is that other clubs do nothing for the players education. I'm sure they are all schooled by tutors at all the top clubs.

POKERKING

Jayop wrote: »

You're obsessed with this private education. Honestly that has been mentioned by you so many times it's like reading a press release over and over. It has no relevance into whether they will be making it as footballers or put on the football scrap heap.

The insinuation from you repeatedly posting that is that other clubs do nothing for the players education. I'm sure they are all schooled by tutors at all the top clubs.

I see how you conveniently ignored my point about Everton.

Private education at one of the best schools in the UK is important, hence the reasons i have repeated it. And of course its important when in context of our discussion on which academy you would send your kid, then again i value education not everyone does. End up out of football with nothing or end up out of football with an education i know which one i would prefer, Have a read of this, its a good read:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/educating-city-boys-the-league-leaders-are-taking-the-schooling-of-their-academy-players-seriously-9348440.html

Jayop

POKERKING wrote: »

I see how you conveniently ignored my point about Everton.

Private education at one of the best schools in the UK is important, hence the reasons i have repeated it. And of course its important when in context of our discussion on which academy you would send your kid, then again i value education not everyone does. End up out of football with nothing or end up out of football with an education i know which one i would prefer, Have a read of this, its a good read:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/educating-city-boys-the-league-leaders-are-taking-the-schooling-of-their-academy-players-seriously-9348440.html

I understand why you mentioned it in the first place however you have now said it about ten times and really in the context of this thread it's meaningless and post filler. We're fans and what we are talking about here is a players football education and whether they will make top players.

Your point about Everton was already rebuffed perfectly by another poster, I didn't feel I needed to repeat that post because I find repeatedly making the same point boring.

Jayop

And talking about ignoring posts, twice now I've challenged your insinuation that if city are providing a top education that other top clubs are offering a sub standard one. Wonder why?

Mr.H

All clubs provide education and to be fair it doesnt matter. The only relevant education is coaching. In fact that is the only thing teh FA talk about when it comes to education for youth academies.

In terms of football coaching it is better to be in a place where there are fewer players as you will get more one on one coaching.

If it was better to mass educate these players (like all the top clubs not just city and chelsea) then why dont the FA just take over youth academies altogether?? Because its not better!!

City Chelsea and EVERY top club that hoards youth players will destroy more careers than they make

POKERKING

Jayop wrote: »

I understand why you mentioned it in the first place however you have now said it about ten times and really in the context of this thread it's meaningless and post filler. We're fans and what we are talking about here is a players football education and whether they will make top players.

Your point about Everton was already rebuffed perfectly by another poster, I didn't feel I needed to repeat that post because I find repeatedly making the same point boring.

Its part of the conversation thats why its mentioned and if you cant understand that then im wasting my time. The Everton point was aimed at you and another poster took up the point and didnt rebuff it at all. You made a silly point i pulled you up on it and then you ignored it fair enough.

Jayop wrote: »

And talking about ignoring posts, twice now I've challenged your insinuation that if city are providing a top education that other top clubs are offering a sub standard one. Wonder why?

On the basis that no clubs i know of(i could be wrong but no one has challenged that yet) offer a private education tailored specifically around the player in a top class education institution then yes then it is a comparatively sub standard one.

I have made my points in this thread, more than once as you pointed out, so there is no need for me to post again. Happy to continue the debate by private message should you wish to debate this more.

rwbug

Jayop wrote: »

And talking about ignoring posts, twice now I've challenged your insinuation that if city are providing a top education that other top clubs are offering a sub standard one. Wonder why?

United send their trainees to a school they sponsor - Ashton on Mersey, a school of 1500 pupils, City send theirs to St Bedes at £10k a year. I have no idea how good Ashton on Mersey is, but parents seem to prefer sending their kids to City and St Bedes.

Last years City FA youth cup team had 9 Manchester born players. Those Manchester born kids in previous years would have preferred United over City. Now because of the new shiny City academy kids are preferring City and because of St Bedes parents are preferring City.

Jayop

rwbug wrote: »

United send their trainees to a school they sponsor - Ashton on Mersey, a school of 1500 pupils, City send theirs to St Bedes at £10k a year. I have no idea how good Ashton on Mersey is, but parents seem to prefer sending their kids to City and St Bedes.

Last years City FA youth cup team had 9 Manchester born players. Those Manchester born kids in previous years would have preferred United over City. Now because of the new shiny City academy kids are preferring City and because of St Bedes parents are preferring City.

The clubs are all attracting players from Manchester. They're supposed to be pretty much all players from an hour and a half of Manchester. I'll have a look at the United team that was in the youth cup later but I'm sure most of them were from the area.

Do United also offer private tutoring? I'm sure they do from watching programs in the past about it but can't see a link now.

Regardless anyway, the point remains that in the context of the thread we're in this is a distraction. What game's a player gets is irrelevant to what football education they are getting.