Tisdale - So what happens now FFS!

[Shabba]

How do you define 'small', and how does their budget compare to ours? How much did it cost them to bring in these ready made players and could we have afforded them?

Some of the player's they brought in could have been within our budget.

 

[Jason H]

If those "local lads" harbour any real ambition and ability to play football professionally, then there are plenty of options locally....

Yeovil operate their club in a different way and who can deny it's been successful ?

Successful short term thinking, I maintain that in 10 years time I believe we'll be higher (and consistently so) in the pyramid.

I'm talking about harbouring ambitions to play for their local team. Without a youth set up they'd have to go elsewhere. Plus having an opportunity (or at least an ambition) to grow up playing for your local team's youth sides is a great way of fostering long-term support and sense of "belonging" to your local team.

 

[Shabba]

As for the budget, well Yeovil's gates were lower than ours, so it wouldn't take Einstein to figure it out.

However, with Yeovil, they utilise the off field staff a lot better than city.

 

[Shabba]

Successful short term thinking, I maintain that in 10 years time I believe we'll be higher (and consistently so) in the pyramid.

Why haven't we managed it so far, Yeovil has been back in the football league for some years now, and apart from that season in League 1, where we reached 8th, we haven't managed it yet?

 

[Jason H]

Why haven't we managed it so far, Yeovil has been back in the football league for some years now, and apart from that season in League 1, where we reached 8th, we haven't managed it yet?

They only scrapped their youth system last year. I'll count it as 10 years from then, rather than from today.

 

[Shabba]

They only scrapped their youth system last year. I'll count it as 10 years from then, rather than from today.

So they were only better than us cos of their youth policy, despite bringing in loanees on a regular basis?

 

[Jason H]

Er, you what?

They had a storming late finish to last season which we almost matched in 2010/11. Because they were promoted they were able to do something we couldn't do, which was to hold on to their best players (althouth they've since sold their top scorer).

Scrapping their youth system was a short term move to channel funds into the playing squad, which I (and I'm not alone here) feel is something that will backfire on them in the long term. Look at Torquay.

 

[Antony Moxey]

Some of the player's they brought in could have been within our budget.

Such as? How much did they cost and how much did we have available?

 

[ExeterCitysRealDeal]

Er, you what?

They had a storming late finish to last season which we almost matched in 2010/11. Because they were promoted they were able to do something we couldn't do, which was to hold on to their best players (althouth they've since sold their top scorer).

Scrapping their youth system was a short term move to channel funds into the playing squad, which I (and I'm not alone here) feel is something that will backfire on them in the long term. Look at Torquay.

I don't know really, for me it is horses for courses. We have built our entire club around becoming a grooming yard for young kids to develop and either be sold on or to play in our 1st team with associated costs for coaching staff, coaching aids, training and development of coaches, facilities and time costs taking away from the 1st teams available budgets and potentially coaching capacity. Yeovil have built their club successfully around keeping their non 1st team costs at a minimum whilst developing and harvesting their network of 'friendly' clubs to a point where they get good quality players at discount rates on the understanding that the players they get on loan will get 1st team experience and the chance to 'shine'.

There are pros and cons for both strategies. Ishmael Miller is paid £15k a week plus bonuses and Yeovil are contributing 10% of that max whilst Forest pay the rest and he has scored 10 goals in 18 games for them this season and will play a big part in them staying up if they manage to. Also young Premiership players who go on loan to Yeovil have quite often ended up signing for Yeovil after they are released by their parents clubs in the summer after an enjoyable loan spell there with our very own Arron Davies being a case in point where he went to Yeovil on loan from Southampton years ago, signed for them in that summer on a free transfer after being released then progressed and gained exposure being with Forest being duped into paying £1million for him at the same time as signing Chris Cohen for £375k who had been through the same process but with West Ham being his previous club. Yeovil's strategy will mean that they struggle to ever build a side long term and means that their fans will almost become disengaged from the individual players but at the same time the 'club' becomes the focus which can be a good thing. Of course if they fail to get the right players in on loan or the players do not perform as well as they should they could easily have 2 bad season and go straight down to League 2 but you get the impression that some of the London clubs would perceive Yeovil to have to much value to them as almost a 'feeder' club in a decent league to allow that to happen and would let some of their better fringe or young players go there to keep them around in either the Championship or League 1 at worst.

Personally all things being equal I much prefer our strategy where as fans we can 'buy' into young local talent playing for our 1st team and the team itself growing together to charge up through the leagues. It can also have some major financial benefits if the players coming through are good enough to be sold on. BUT there are 3 major things that will affect how successful it works out for us:

1: Players coming through who are good enough for the 1st team and or to be sold on to finance the 1st team or youth system
2: The club being in a strong enough financial position to be able to dictate when and how much each player is sold for without falling in the trap of feeling compelled not to stand in the way of the player if he is under contract but wants to sign for X club when Y club will pay more
3: The club stays in the football league. If it doesn't central funding goes down and the young players value will also go down.

I know a young lad who was in Yeovil's youth system who after it was disbanded has gone on to sign for Arsenal so you could say that if Yeovil had of keep it going that there is a decent chance that he would have progressed either be good enough for the 1st team or be sold on before that stage for a decent wedge. But the same happens here anyway with Rod Young being released (possible personal reasons) then being signed for Norwich a couple of months later and ECFC getting diddly squat for him even though we had invested coaching money and time into him for a period.

Basically I am saying is for me there is no right or wrong way to do it and I don't think you can say one way or the other which is the best strategy long term as their are so many variables to consider which are likely to be different for both clubs.

 

[007]

I don't know really, for me it is horses for courses. We have built our entire club around becoming a grooming yard for young kids to develop and either be sold on or to play in our 1st team with associated costs for coaching staff, coaching aids, training and development of coaches, facilities and time costs taking away from the 1st teams available budgets and potentially coaching capacity. Yeovil have built their club successfully around keeping their non 1st team costs at a minimum whilst developing and harvesting their network of 'friendly' clubs to a point where they get good quality players at discount rates on the understanding that the players they get on loan will get 1st team experience and the chance to 'shine'.

There are pros and cons for both strategies. Ishmael Miller is paid £15k a week plus bonuses and Yeovil are contributing 10% of that max whilst Forest pay the rest and he has scored 10 goals in 18 games for them this season and will play a big part in them staying up if they manage to. Also young Premiership players who go on loan to Yeovil have quite often ended up signing for Yeovil after they are released by their parents clubs in the summer after an enjoyable loan spell there with our very own Arron Davies being a case in point where he went to Yeovil on loan from Southampton years ago, signed for them in that summer on a free transfer after being released then progressed and gained exposure being with Forest being duped into paying £1million for him at the same time as signing Chris Cohen for £375k who had been through the same process but with West Ham being his previous club. Yeovil's strategy will mean that they struggle to ever build a side long term and means that their fans will almost become disengaged from the individual players but at the same time the 'club' becomes the focus which can be a good thing. Of course if they fail to get the right players in on loan or the players do not perform as well as they should they could easily have 2 bad season and go straight down to League 2 but you get the impression that some of the London clubs would perceive Yeovil to have to much value to them as almost a 'feeder' club in a decent league to allow that to happen and would let some of their better fringe or young players go there to keep them around in either the Championship or League 1 at worst.

Personally all things being equal I much prefer our strategy where as fans we can 'buy' into young local talent playing for our 1st team and the team itself growing together to charge up through the leagues. It can also have some major financial benefits if the players coming through are good enough to be sold on. BUT there are 3 major things that will affect how successful it works out for us:

1: Players coming through who are good enough for the 1st team and or to be sold on to finance the 1st team or youth system
2: The club being in a strong enough financial position to be able to dictate when and how much each player is sold for without falling in the trap of feeling compelled not to stand in the way of the player if he is under contract but wants to sign for X club when Y club will pay more
3: The club stays in the football league. If it doesn't central funding goes down and the young players value will also go down.

I know a young lad who was in Yeovil's youth system who after it was disbanded has gone on to sign for Arsenal so you could say that if Yeovil had of keep it going that there is a decent chance that he would have progressed either be good enough for the 1st team or be sold on before that stage for a decent wedge. But the same happens here anyway with Rod Young being released (possible personal reasons) then being signed for Norwich a couple of months later and ECFC getting diddly squat for him even though we had invested coaching money and time into him for a period.

Basically I am saying is for me there is no right or wrong way to do it and I don't think you can say one way or the other which is the best strategy long term as their are so many variables to consider which are likely to be different for both clubs.

Yeah well covered but 4 me the sort of the 1st point you made is the way 2 go , ie bringing yoof thru in that it makes a club, as arguably opposed to Yeovils method which makes a squad.