Jay Stansfield

[John William]

I find the tone of *some* of this discussion concerning.

Young football players are people, not the property of football clubs which can be bought and sold. They should of course consider carefully the interests of the clubs who have helped them develop and discuss this with them, but in the final analysis the have the right, indeed the duty, to do what's best for themselves and their families. The unfairness of the EPPP is not their fault.

 

[edwin_price]

I find the tone of *some* of this discussion concerning.

Young football players are people, not the property of football clubs which can be bought and sold. They should of course consider carefully the interests of the clubs who have helped them develop and discuss this with them, but in the final analysis the have the right, indeed the duty, to do what's best for themselves and their families. The unfairness of the EPPP is not their fault.

Agreed. There's 2 issues, isn't there. The underlying structure, which is problematic and the decisions of the players, which isn't. Best not to confuse them.

 

[geoffwp]

I find the tone of *some* of this discussion concerning.

Young football players are people, not the property of football clubs which can be bought and sold. They should of course consider carefully the interests of the clubs who have helped them develop and discuss this with them, but in the final analysis the have the right, indeed the duty, to do what's best for themselves and their families. The unfairness of the EPPP is not their fault.

I dont believe that 'tone' is in evidence at all john. I dont believe there has been any suggestion that young players are property as such. However, players ARE bought and sold! I think the tone is one of frustration that clubs further up the food chain can leach on smaller clubs in a system that fails the lower leagues. After all, we are not running our academy because we owe something to society, because we feel it is our vocation. First and foremost we do it to benefit the club.

 

[John William]

I dont believe that 'tone' is in evidence at all john. I dont believe there has been any suggestion that young players are property as such. However, players ARE bought and sold! I think the tone is one of frustration that clubs further up the food chain can leach on smaller clubs in a system that fails the lower leagues. After all, we are not running our academy because we owe something to society, because we feel it is our vocation. First and foremost we do it to benefit the club.

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.

Transfer fees and compensation for their playing registrations and development are however a different matter and smaller clubs like ours are indeed shafted by a system designed to massively favour big clubs. The solution is to change that system, as Taggy and now Matt Taylor have been trying.

But take it out on the Premier League, FA, EFL etc., not the young men involved, they are not disloyal or mercenary for doing what they think best for themselves. They are not "ours".

Whether they are often mistaken or badly advised is another different question.

 

[STURTZ]

How did we get (what now seems) such a good deal for Ampadu in comparison with Stansfield? 1.2 million plus additions for appearances and a sell on.

Perhaps the way forward should be that all under age non contractual players which move to other clubs should, by FA law, be subject to appearance and sell on clauses in their new professional contracts. Buying clubs are subject to a certain amount of risk when taking on such players, such clauses would protect both the buyer and the seller.

 

[chunkymorrinmunter]

at the end of the day it looks like we are spotting talent for bigger clubs , saves the bigger clubs having a network of scouts,we do it for them, then any lad who shows promise has their head turned and its cheerio thanks for developing me but i have a offer which i cant refuse, and we cant compete with ,cant blame the lads really.

 

[IndoMike]

How did we get (what now seems) such a good deal for Ampadu in comparison with Stansfield? 1.2 million plus additions for appearances and a sell on.

Perhaps the way forward should be that all under age non contractual players which move to other clubs should, by FA law, be subject to appearance and sell on clauses in their new professional contracts. Buying clubs are subject to a certain amount of risk when taking on such players, such clauses would protect both the buyer and the seller.

Why should buying clubs be protected against risk? They have their cake and eat it? If we buy a player we're not protected against risk
If a PL team signs one of our academy players their risk is small whereas their potential profit is large. And nobody forces them to do it.
Feck'em

 

[STURTZ]

Why should buying clubs be protected against risk? They have their cake and eat it? If we buy a player we're not protected against risk
If a PL team signs one of our academy players their risk is small whereas their potential profit is large. And nobody forces them to do it.
****'em

Alright I agree, **** em. I was just trying to justify how the system might appear to be more fair without resorting to trying to get under 16 year olds signing professional contracts.

From our point of view, at least we would still have some investment in our young players and if those players don't develop as hoped, then no significant monies lost by either side. Of course there should still be a signing on fee as well to, at least cover the cost of their training and development. In that respect £12500 for each year spent in development for a cat 3 academy is indeed pathetic.

 

[IndoMike]

Alright I agree, **** em. I was just trying to justify how the system might appear to be more fair without resorting to trying to get under 16 year olds signing professional contracts.

From our point of view, at least we would still have some investment in our young players and if those players don't develop as hoped, then no significant monies lost by either side. Of course there should still be a signing on fee as well to, at least cover the cost of their training and development. In that respect £12500 for each year spent in development for a cat 3 academy is indeed pathetic.

Agreed. By signing the academy player they are acknowledging that he has the potential to be a PL player :if they are not acknowledging that, why sign him?
Nobody is forcing them to do it. Imo they are valuing that player highly, so why can they acquire him for peanuts?
Feck 'em
(As must be repeated : don't blame the players)

 

[Jason H]

How did we get (what now seems) such a good deal for Ampadu in comparison with Stansfield? 1.2 million plus additions for appearances and a sell on.

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.