Jay Stansfield

[grecian-near-hell]

Stanno Jr was under EPPP (although going by the BBC article linked in the other thread on Chrisene we negotiated a fee above the minimum under EPPP rules), while Ampadu Jr wasn't and was therefore decided by a tribunal.

I've always thought we accepted the Fulham offer because it was more than we would get under EPPP, and therefore outside of it https://www.devonlive.com/sport/football/fulham-exeter-city-championship-football-3110749

 

[Jason H]

I've always thought we accepted the Fulham offer because it was more than we would get under EPPP, and therefore outside of it https://www.devonlive.com/sport/football/fulham-exeter-city-championship-football-3110749

That's what I mean - we managed for some reason to persuade Fulham to give us a bit more than they needed to.

 

[geoffwp]

More loose language.

Players are NOT bought and sold, despite the sloppy journalese which is all too common. The semi-sefdom of the 1950s has long gone. They sign contracts for their services with football clubs, willing parties on both sides. If players have not signed contracts clubs have limited power to persuade them.

.
Ummm, bought and sold then.

 

[SEA Grecian]

Martin Lawrence is usually the best source of expertise on these things but my understanding is that the Ampadu and Stansfield situations were similar.

Both players were 16, had been offered but not accepted a place as a scholar in the academy and I, think, it had been made clear they would be offered a professional contract as soon as they turned 17. The reason we wanted more compensation for Ethan is because he had already played a number of times for our first team; Chelsea didn't match our valuation so it went to a tribunal. By contrast Jay was seemingly a long way from the first team when he left so we expected less for him; Fulham, for whatever reason, wanted to avoid a tribunal so offered us a sum of money we were happy to accept.

Again I'm happy to be corrected but the reason that EPPP didn't come into play in either case is because neither player were technically part of our academy when they left.

 

[malcolms]

This is the mess that the Academy system has brought to football. A club like Exeter can invest huge amounts of time and money in developing a player to a level where he becomes valuable, only to have that 'value' completely undermined before much compensation, let alone profit, can be realised. Someone must pay for this, if it's not the club who signs the player then who should it be, the player from future earnings? It's not like he can provide quantifiable value because he hasn't contributed to the earning level of the club...

 

[Martin Lawrence]

Martin Lawrence is usually the best source of expertise on these things but my understanding is that the Ampadu and Stansfield situations were similar.

Both players were 16, had been offered but not accepted a place as a scholar in the academy and I, think, it had been made clear they would be offered a professional contract as soon as they turned 17. The reason we wanted more compensation for Ethan is because he had already played a number of times for our first team; Chelsea didn't match our valuation so it went to a tribunal. By contrast Jay was seemingly a long way from the first team when he left so we expected less for him; Fulham, for whatever reason, wanted to avoid a tribunal so offered us a sum of money we were happy to accept.

Again I'm happy to be corrected but the reason that EPPP didn't come into play in either case is because neither player were technically part of our academy when they left.

Correct. The reason we got more money for Ampadu was because of the wealth of evidence that Tisdale and Perryman built up on Ampadu's skills that were amassed through his game time in the first team.

Jay was a great player but because of the lack of first team exposure, we just didn't have the evidence to support a large valuation like Ampadu. It is for this reason that a tribunal would have been likely to have ruled along EPPP lines (although EPPP didn't technically apply) for Jay.

 

[jimbo-gould]

Nice mention of Jay on the transfer talk program on sky sports news today. Saying he is a potential replacement for Mitrovic who’s injured. Mentioned how he was signed in the summer from us, with the presenter saying “so big shoutout to Exeter”.

 

[elginCity]

This is the mess that the Academy system has brought to football. A club like Exeter can invest huge amounts of time and money in developing a player to a level where he becomes valuable, only to have that 'value' completely undermined before much compensation, let alone profit, can be realised. Someone must pay for this, if it's not the club who signs the player then who should it be, the player from future earnings? It's not like he can provide quantifiable value because he hasn't contributed to the earning level of the club...

Quite so, this is all so massively skewed in favour of the purchasers of potential, that the developers are disincentivised. Academies are closing, ours could follow suit. As well as a more reasonable level of compensation, for Cat 3, I'd like to see a transfer sell-on clause introduced, a nominal percentage going to the Academy club rewarding that realised potential. It won't happen of course, this is Premiership-led, a system serving self-interest, and myopic.

 

[denzel]

On the bench tonight.

 

[budegrecian]

Nice mention of Jay on the transfer talk program on sky sports news today. Saying he is a potential replacement for Mitrovic who’s injured. Mentioned how he was signed in the summer from us, with the presenter saying “so big shoutout to Exeter”.

Great that they recognise where he came from, but unfortunately a 'big shout out' doesn't pay the bills.