The original statement from the club, that was linked to in the OP, clearly states there will add-ons and a sell-on.The system is broken. There is limited incentive to produce players at a young age. Indeed I've not seen any mention of a sell-on clause or appearance money for Stansfield.
I hope the lad has a fantastic career.
Why does it have to be either/ or? I mentioned earlier in this thread that in the last two transfer windows we have signed three young players from Premiership or Championship clubs that all have the potential to be sold on for a profit.It's an interesting discussion, the benefits of having an academy with a full range of teams from 8 upwards, against a sophisticated scouting system that identifies players who have been developed, but discarded, by other clubs. Taking them at an age where they have potential to improve and then to sell them on when they are worth real money....I think Brentford have made a success of this strategy and although there will be many who disagree, it certainly has its merits.
Thanks for pointing that out. It's good to know.The original statement from the club, that was linked to in the OP, clearly states there will add-ons and a sell-on.
But what is Market value?Thanks for pointing that out. It's good to know.
However my overarching point that the system is broken still remains. The Club are clearly disappointed and state that the deal was significantly below real market value.
Good point. I see from the EPPP proposals in 2011 that the fixed fee for under 16s includes a formula for a fixed add on for appearances. 25k for 10 championship appearances up to a maximum of 250k for 100 appearances. In the Prem it’s 150k for 10 appearances up to a max of 1.3m for 100 appearances.The original statement from the club, that was linked to in the OP, clearly states there will add-ons and a sell-on.
EPPP creates a fixed starting point for any negotiations which is massively weighted in favour of the buying club.But what is Market value?
One price to one side is too much, or too little, to the other.
God forbid, but he could suffered a career ending injury in a match,or in training, and then we'd be quids in, as he was on Fulham's books and we'd banked the cash already. Had he stayed, and suffered the same injury, with ECFC we'd all be doubly sad. Firstly for the lad, but also for the club who had lost a 'potentially' valuable asset before it's full potential was realised.
Like at lot of things i life and football it's a gamble, some you win, some you loose and some well..............