Jay Stansfield

[Martin Lawrence]

martin - thanks. Can you further help my understanding of the different transfer fee regimes? As I ( perhaps mistakenly) understood it there are three regimes

1. EPPP. A fee fixed by a formula that will apply to anyone U16 (?) moving from one academy to another. For our players that normally means a maximum of around 60k plus fixed add ons.

2. Ethan Ampadu situations, where no longer in an academy but had not signed professionally for ECFC. There the fee is fixed, in the absence of agreement, by a tribunal, but the principal basis is ‘training compensation’ not full transfer value. This is better for City than EPPP. ( it is this I had assumed would have applied to Jay’s case if agreement hadn’t been reached.)

3. Transfers at the expiry of professional contract of players aged under 24. This is determined by a tribunal in default of agreement, but based on perceived market value and applied to the likes of James Dunne and TAH.

is the above correct? Or are 2 and 3 above effectively the same?

(PS I have checked the ECFC press release which confirms that the agreement with Fulham provides for add ons and sell ons)

To cut a long story short, 2 and 3 are the same. If a tribunal is involved it is for the club from whom the player has left, to put a reasonable case to support their valuation for the player. The tribunal will then consider whether in the circumstances of the case, this is reasonable.

The problem with the current arrangement is that tribunals are guided by a set of principles which are weighted in favour of the bigger clubs. For example, the level of compensation awarded by a tribunal for a young player, will often be linked to the category of academy the player has come from (although this is not the only consideration). In our case, we are a category 3 academy and therefore we are likely to receive less compensation than if we were a category 2 academy.

The purpose of the current process is to determine the amount of compensation due for developing a player. In my opinion, the current arrangements fails to properly consider the value that a club has added to a player through delivering development and only factors in arbitrary points such as the number if games they have played for the first team, no of years they have been with the club etc. They should also consider the value that the player is worth to the buying club and factor this in to the compensation equation. This us ultimately what screwed us with Ethan. We wanted the tribunal to recognise that without doing anything, Ethan was worth £5 million to Chelsea. Alas the tribunal didn't bite, because the principles upon which they are making their judgements did not support it.

 

[fred binneys head]

Maybe all Snoop is saying is that it's probably naïve to think the coaches at Fulham haven't improved Jay at all. Potentially, they've taken a raw talent that's been nurtured for a number of years and enhanced it in the year or so he's been there, and for that they deserve a certain quantity of credit. Of course City also deserve credit, but Snoop says that too.

OK, 5 months, not a year.

 

[IndoMike]

They don't factor in potential. They just factor in what the player has already achieved. Since these are very young players they haven't had much time to achieve a lot. But obviously Chelsea and Fulham both thought the players they took from us have a lot of potential.

 

[Snoop Fog]

So no point complaining about it then? Just sit back and watch as all the best players and money get funnelled to the prem while decades-old clubs go bankrupt? What a defeatist attitude you have.

Decades old clubs don't go bankrupt because their best players leave for the prem, they go bankrupt because of mis management. I'm not defeatist, quite the opposite, I'm just accepting of the reality.

 

[Snoop Fog]

It's a bit different taking non-professional players and giving them a chance at a professional career in football than, say, waiting while a professional club's Academy spends years and thousands investing in a youngster and poaching them just before they sign pro terms. Surely you can understand that?

They don't poach them. Poaching is illegal and Fulham have done nothing illegal. Yes our academy spends time and effort and money on developing players who on occasion, will leave before playing a first team game, and thus not bringing us the money we would have hoped. You win some you lose some and I understand it perfectly thank you

 

[Martin Lawrence]

They don't factor in potential. They just factor in what the player has already achieved. Since these are very young players they haven't had much time to achieve a lot. But obviously Chelsea and Fulham both thought the players they took from us have a lot of potential.

True, but the issue with Chelsea was that they could have signed Ethan from us and put him on the transfer list immediately without him ever even seeing a Chelsea coach. You can bet your life that Chelsea would have got more than the £1.3 million the tribunal initially ordered Chelsea to pay us from the open market. That was what was so manifestly unfair about the ruling.

 

[IndoMike]

True, but the issue with Chelsea was that they could have signed Ethan from us and put him on the transfer list immediately without him ever even seeing a Chelsea coach. You can bet your life that Chelsea would have got more than the £1.3 million the tribunal initially ordered Chelsea to pay us from the open market. That was what was so manifestly unfair about the ruling.

Yes, I agree that it's unfair.

 

[Snoop Fog]

Why???? Please do explain snoop as I would be most interested in knowing the miracles they have managed to produce in such a very short period of time considering we nurtured the lad for years. Would the size of Fulhams wallet be something we can give them credit for maybe?

I think they deserve credit for the opportunity and exposure that they have given him to the big time at such a young age. He made his debut in the 4th round of the fa cup against Aston Villa. We simply can't offer him those opportunities that Fulham can. He's moved to a bigger club and he's excelling. Good luck to the lad. I hope he goes to the very top and I hold no bitterness towards himself, Fulham or any other club he decides to join.

 

[STURTZ]

Never mind the money, all I imagine is what these young players would be like if they stayed and played for us. Selling is always sweet sorrow no matter how much we get. Maybe the players we do retain will be enough to propel us into a position where moving on is not such an option for the superkids. Until then it's the daily grind for us I'm afraid, and watching our boys on Match of the Day.

 

[jrg333]

Decades old clubs don't go bankrupt because their best players leave for the prem, they go bankrupt because of mis management.

Yes any club that goes bankrupt has been mismanaged to some extent. I didn't claim otherwise. But of course it would make a huge difference to a club the size of ours if, say, Stansfield had signed a pro contract. It would be the difference between receiving a few tens of thousands and a few million; which is precisely the sort of money that means a club will either sink or swim.

I'm not defeatist, quite the opposite, I'm just accepting of the reality.

You're not 'the opposite of defeatist' if you accept a system which results in the best young players being snapped up by top clubs for a fraction of their (obvious) value. At all. In fact 'defeatist' is by far the most appropriate word for your attitude.