Interesting research. I think you should send it any academy player who starts getting their head turned by the bigger clubs.
In relation to why do they bother, the academies of the top 4 must almost be self sustaining financially. They are now able to attract the cream of the crop when it comes to young prosprects from all around Europe. If some category 2 or 3 team has a young starlet then they can now legitmately take them as their own (re: Kadell Daniel). When they reach 18, they send them out on loan where their wages are paid for and in some cases will receive a fee, then when they reach 22 and realise they are not willing to gamble on putting them in their first team, they sell them to a Championship club for £2 or £3 million, take Henri Lansbury.
Chelsea are already doing this on mass. They currently have 26 players on loan around Europe. I wouldn't mind betting that none of those kids will ever see the first team. They are already recieving an income from the loaning teams and when the time is right they will recoup upwards of £30 million from selling those 26 players!
All very true. Doesn't help our National team though because those players aren't, unlike our counterparts in Germany and Spain for instance, cutting their teeth at the top level.
To be fair Chelsea have had some successes with players that have been out on loan. Sturridge and Coutois are two that spring to mind that went out on loan and then played in the first team when they came back.
If a club has aspirations of being one of the best in the Europe, if not the world, then it is unlikely that they will be able to attract many young players (which I suggest means they must live locally) that will make it.
The loan system is not ideal, but all the while the top clubs have most of the money no one else can afford to finance these player's development without a transfer fee on sale and those fees make it cost effective for the top sides to run big academies.
...must have been huge and yet they haven't produced a single regular England International in that time.
Why should we then get upset when we fail to qualify for International tournies?
Because they'll just sign another English player to build up their quota. See City with Sinclair and Rodwell in previous transfer windows and then Lampard this summer and Barkley next year.
...must have been huge and yet they haven't produced a single regular England International in that time.
Why should we then get upset when we fail to qualify for International tournies?
Because they'll just sign another English player to build up their quota. See City with Sinclair and Rodwell in previous transfer windows and then Lampard this summer and Barkley next year.
Not sure that answers the question re the success of our National team. Lampard is retired, Sinclair and in all probability Rodwell too will never be International class.
City even had Richard Wright on their books to beat the system and maintain their quota and he would have been lucky to make their 4th team.
To be fair Chelsea have had some successes with players that have been out on loan. Sturridge and Coutois are two that spring to mind that went out on loan and then played in the first team when they came back.
If a club has aspirations of being one of the best in the Europe, if not the world, then it is unlikely that they will be able to attract many young players (which I suggest means they must live locally) that will make it.
The loan system is not ideal, but all the while the top clubs have most of the money no one else can afford to finance these player's development without a transfer fee on sale and those fees make it cost effective for the top sides to run big academies.
Some would argue that Sturridge should have been in their team in front of Torres for example but as the latter cost £50m and the former wanted first team football and could be sold for a quick buck that is precisely what happened.
And sending Courtois on loan does help Chelsea. But not England which is why you will struggle to find many English keepers in the PL.
To be fair Chelsea have had some successes with players that have been out on loan. Sturridge and Coutois are two that spring to mind that went out on loan and then played in the first team when they came back.
If a club has aspirations of being one of the best in the Europe, if not the world, then it is unlikely that they will be able to attract many young players (which I suggest means they must live locally) that will make it.
The loan system is not ideal, but all the while the top clubs have most of the money no one else can afford to finance these player's development without a transfer fee on sale and those fees make it cost effective for the top sides to run big academies.
To be fair Chelsea have had some successes with players that have been out on loan. Sturridge and Coutois are two that spring to mind that went out on loan and then played in the first team when they came back.
If a club has aspirations of being one of the best in the Europe, if not the world, then it is unlikely that they will be able to attract many young players (which I suggest means they must live locally) that will make it.
The loan system is not ideal, but all the while the top clubs have most of the money no one else can afford to finance these player's development without a transfer fee on sale and those fees make it cost effective for the top sides to run big academies.
Surely Chelsea signed Sturridge from Man City.
Yes they did. I wasn't, exactly, ignoring that fact I was just making the point that some of the players they have had out on loan have come back to play for them. there's probably more than just those two. I don't like the loan system and I'd be all for UEFA and/or FIFA changing the rules,but from a financial perspective it makes sense for the big clubs to do it.
It also makes sense for the smaller Premier League clubs to borrow players like Sturridge as it costs them a fraction of the true transfer fee and, probably, less than 100% of the player's wages. Many players are only with clubs for a season these days irrespective as the ownership, why not loan in two players for a season (each season) if you are in the Premier League, opposed to signing expensive players on long term contracts that will not leave if you are relegated?
But, perhaps, I should go back to my original question - why do Chelsea, Man United, Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal even bother throwing money at having an academy, certainly for anything earlier than say the age of Under 16?
It must cost them millions in terms of coaching, equipment etc etc to fund from ages Under 8 upwards which the above statistics rather prove it's money somewhat wasted.
It didn't apply when you originally asked the question, but one of the main reasons now for big clubs to retain an academy, is because it allows them, under the terms of the Elite Player Performance Plan (designed by the Premier League clubs) to go and cherry pick the best talent from smaller clubs' academies for next to nothing.
They probably make as much in transfer fees selling the players to smaller clubs as they spend on their academies, too.
Yep. Steal player off Barnsley/Exeter/Wycombe for £200k, let him float around your reserves/youth team/loan system for a couple of years - if he makes it he's cost you £200k, if he doesn't you can flog him to Wolves/Sheff Weds/Bolton for £800k.
They probably make as much in transfer fees selling the players to smaller clubs as they spend on their academies, too.
Yep. Steal player off Barnsley/Exeter/Wycombe for £200k, let him float around your reserves/youth team/loan system for a couple of years - if he makes it he's cost you £200k, if he doesn't you can flog him to Wolves/Sheff Weds/Bolton for £800k.
They probably make as much in transfer fees selling the players to smaller clubs as they spend on their academies, too.
Yep. Steal player off Barnsley/Exeter/Wycombe for £200k, let him float around your reserves/youth team/loan system for a couple of years - if he makes it he's cost you £200k, if he doesn't you can flog him to Wolves/Sheff Weds/Bolton for £800k.
But don't forget the cost of that player for the two years, not just his wages, (if you believe what they say Poyet is on, it must be the same for most premier youth players), but the facilities and coaches etc. I would doubt if a so-called profit of £600,000 would cover it.
I've seen a few reserve games of Arsenal on tele, the back end of last season and they have got a few good English players coming through, one kid in particular Jack Wiltshere who's 16 looks superb. I think he's been on the bench for them a couple of times already this season.
I was reading this thread, thinking it was a new one until I saw this one...............
If you're going to have young players you need to be able to develop them, even if you buy them young to start with. And trust me, the biggest clubs are recruiting years earlier than 15-16 year olds.
The root cause of the England problem remains the Premiership, but it's the least movable thing. The FA don't have the balls to challenge them, Danny Mills doesn't have the intelligence to see what's really going on, yet Chelsea's retention of 26 players that they're loaning to other clubs, along with those who are staying and not playing, epitomises the stockpiling of talent in the top flight and where the true restriction of a players' first team opportunities lies.
Dyke's got a point when he says English talent needs the opportunity, but if he restricted the number of pro players that could be on a Premiership club's books then the the Football League would afford that opportunity.
Our own kid Michael Turner is an example of this. He wasn't getting an opportunity in our Premiership first team, probably a year or two away from even being in regular contention. We could have kept hold of him, hawked him out on season long loans, but after a couple of short term loans we let him go permanently to Brentford where he could learn his trade and, ultimately, become a decent Premiership defender. Loans are helpful but you need to belong to a club, be part of it.
This is the solution to Dyke's problem. Stop the Prem clubs stockpiling the best players and let them develop their game at lower levels. Those that are good enough will rise to the top at the right time.
Comments
If a club has aspirations of being one of the best in the Europe, if not the world, then it is unlikely that they will be able to attract many young players (which I suggest means they must live locally) that will make it.
The loan system is not ideal, but all the while the top clubs have most of the money no one else can afford to finance these player's development without a transfer fee on sale and those fees make it cost effective for the top sides to run big academies.
City even had Richard Wright on their books to beat the system and maintain their quota and he would have been lucky to make their 4th team.
And sending Courtois on loan does help Chelsea. But not England which is why you will struggle to find many English keepers in the PL.
It also makes sense for the smaller Premier League clubs to borrow players like Sturridge as it costs them a fraction of the true transfer fee and, probably, less than 100% of the player's wages. Many players are only with clubs for a season these days irrespective as the ownership, why not loan in two players for a season (each season) if you are in the Premier League, opposed to signing expensive players on long term contracts that will not leave if you are relegated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Player_Performance_Plan
So what they lose in money wasted on their academy, they gain several times over on money spent in transfer fees.
The root cause of the England problem remains the Premiership, but it's the least movable thing. The FA don't have the balls to challenge them, Danny Mills doesn't have the intelligence to see what's really going on, yet Chelsea's retention of 26 players that they're loaning to other clubs, along with those who are staying and not playing, epitomises the stockpiling of talent in the top flight and where the true restriction of a players' first team opportunities lies.
Dyke's got a point when he says English talent needs the opportunity, but if he restricted the number of pro players that could be on a Premiership club's books then the the Football League would afford that opportunity.
Our own kid Michael Turner is an example of this. He wasn't getting an opportunity in our Premiership first team, probably a year or two away from even being in regular contention. We could have kept hold of him, hawked him out on season long loans, but after a couple of short term loans we let him go permanently to Brentford where he could learn his trade and, ultimately, become a decent Premiership defender. Loans are helpful but you need to belong to a club, be part of it.
This is the solution to Dyke's problem. Stop the Prem clubs stockpiling the best players and let them develop their game at lower levels. Those that are good enough will rise to the top at the right time.