This is a serious threat to the grass roots of English football. I can't believe the Football League voted for it and I certainly hope Charlton did not.
Once again the big boys of the PL bully their way to make their life easier. There is now little point in FL clubs producing youngsters good enough to play at the highest level as they won't get more than £130k for them.
I wish this disgrace would get the proper attention it deserves, but it'll get less comment in the media than a Rooney yellow card.
There must've been some incentive for league clubs to vote for it but I'd like to think the infrastructure in place at Charlton is perceived to be good enough to keep youngsters around compared to, no disrespect, the likes of Rotherham.
Oh yes, there's some incentive. The PL have withheld payment of their 'solidarity' payment until the Football League agrees to their proposals.
Do you really think a youngster is going to turn down a PL club (Jenkinson? Shelvey?) because we've got a nice infrastructure. Under this system we would have got about £250k for Shelvey and Jenkinson and probably be in administration.
From what I made of it (and don't quote me on it) if the vote did not get a "yes" result the Premier League said they would pull the plug on the £5 million plus funding they provide to football league clubs.
So in other words they threatened the football league
What a bloody rip-off. I can only hope that the league teams can come up with a contract that keeps their young players with them until the age of 18 or provides for a very significant buy-out clause.
Out of the top four this weekend, I bet there's not even five players that will start that have come through their own academies. Welbeck, Richards and Terry are the only ones I can think of between Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham.
I hope the bigger clubs don't buy all the good 16/17 year olds for an amazing u18 team, win the youth cups, then bring none of them through.
Looks like most clubs had no choice but to vote for the change. Only clubs with deep pockets could consider voting against and I hope we are one of those 22. I believe this is the tipping point with the result that the reduction in full time professional clubs is inevitable. How the hell are most clubs going to break even now?
This will mean in principal a selling club will be paid £3,000 per year for every year of a player's development between the ages of nine and 11. The fee per year from 12 to 16 will depend on the selling club's academy status but ranges between £12,500 and £40,000.
From Twitter:
#eppp appearance payments to original club, if playing in Prem: 10: £150k, 20: £300k, 30: £450k, 40: £600k, 50: £750k, 60: £900k, 70: £1m, then £1.1m, £1.2m and £1.3m after 80, 90 and 100 apps. Adds up to a lot. So if a Player does v well at poaching club eventual rewards high
Is £1.3m high for a player who's played 100 appearances in the PL? I don't think so.
And what if he doesn't make it because he's at a club like Chelsea or Man City who are always buying players and rarely promoting from their youth team? The 'selling' club gets very little.
Either way, the big clubs can't lose. It's a recipe for more bankruptcies.
This will mean in principal a selling club will be paid £3,000 per year for every year of a player's development between the ages of nine and 11. The fee per year from 12 to 16 will depend on the selling club's academy status but ranges between £12,500 and £40,000.
From Twitter:
#eppp appearance payments to original club, if playing in Prem: 10: £150k, 20: £300k, 30: £450k, 40: £600k, 50: £750k, 60: £900k, 70: £1m, then £1.1m, £1.2m and £1.3m after 80, 90 and 100 apps. Adds up to a lot. So if a Player does v well at poaching club eventual rewards high
Is that total appearances or just appearances with the club that take the player? That could make a big difference. If its total appearances then it sounds reasonably fair to me. It means that if the player does turn out to be good enough then you get a decent fee if he disappears and turns out to be a little over valued then you get less for having him on your books as a kid for a few years.
I know it won't be popular but in all honesty why should the League club get a fortune for being 'lucky' enough to have found the talented youngster in the first place. What can we reasonably claim to have added to Jenkinson? I mean he wasn't even given offered a contract until it was known that Arsenal were interested. If he was such a prospect why did he not get near our first team until literally months before he left, and why didn't we tie him up to a long term deal the summer before he left?
If we were churning out stars on a regular basis then I could accept that maybe, just maybe, we were making players great, but as Shelvey is the only decent player (apart from Jenkinson - see above) we have brought through for about a decade I think we have to hold our hands up and say that he would have been that good if he'd signed for just about any team when he signed for us.
I think we need to accept that these boys (and they are in most cases boys) can't be expected to be traded (transferred) like an adult that can enter a legally binding contract. The EU have been trying to force freedom of movement on football clubs for years, if this agreement wasn't made then sooner or later they would have made a ruling on it anyway. How you can expect an under age boy, not legally old enough to sign an enforceable contract, to be told he can't move employer because his current employer wants a payment for his training. This doesn't happen in any other industry, and nor should it.
As for the death knell of the Football League clubs. If they are only expecting to survive based on being lucky enough to find a future star and convince him to sign for them every few years then they need to look at their business model and change it.
I get the concept of having a competitive league structure I really do, but to be honest, all the time the lower league clubs are spending huge proportions of their turn over on the wages of footballers that probably couldn't earn half as much doing something else they have no right to expect the rich clubs to keep bailing them out with the TV money they receive. It's, frankly, no better than the welfare state. If all the clubs managed their finances properly the league would be fine, thank you very much. The only to lose out would be the football agents and the players themselves. Even at our level we have players earning close to eight times the national average that can't get into our first team squad.
The truth is that the Premier League don't need the football league clubs. The reason there are so many foreign players in England isn't just because they are the best players in the world, it's partly because they are cheaper than the equivalent players from an English Football League club. That probably needs to change to provide the young English players the chance to play at the top level.
I suspect I'll get slated for this, but if I'd run my business expecting my competitors to give me handouts every now and then I would have gone to the wall a long time ago.
I cannot believe that the 71 league clubs who voted have allowed this to happen - 42 in favour. 3 didn't even bother to vote. Smaller clubs really do not have any hope of developing and retaining their young highly talented players wiuthout a bigger club poaching for a nominal sum. Academies cost bundles of money to run and I can see some clubs saying 'why bother'.
I cannot believe that the 71 league clubs who voted have allowed this to happen - 42 in favour. 3 didn't even bother to vote. Smaller clubs really do not have any hope of developing and retaining their young highly talented players wiuthout a bigger club poaching for a nominal sum. Academies cost bundles of money to run and I can see some clubs saying 'why bother'.
Maybe they should. If they can't develop players they can use then they are little more than expensive gambles hoping that they can win the 'lottery' of finding the next Wayne Rooney, or whom ever.
If all the smaller clubs do away with their Academies and the Premier League clubs take all the youngsters in and develop them then if/when they don't make the grade they will be released and the smaller clubs can sign them - presumably on free transfers.
Football clubs, and the game in general, need(s) to change. The massive trading losses can't carry on. Academies might have to go. I can't see how a club with an average attendance of less than 5,000 for 23 league games a season can possibly afford a serious youth set up.
I think people should bear in mind that most football league clubs have the turnover of a small local business, which is what they are, and the quality of (non-football) management to match. They can't afford better. As for the FL itself, well, I'd better not comment . . .
Many smaller clubs pick up released players at the exit trials and I can see that escalating to them getting all of their young players in that way. Vincenzo - not sure how you disagree with KHA. One sale of a young player pays for the academy and that could be taken away under these new rules.
This will mean in principal a selling club will be paid £3,000 per year for every year of a player's development between the ages of nine and 11. The fee per year from 12 to 16 will depend on the selling club's academy status but ranges between £12,500 and £40,000.
From Twitter:
#eppp appearance payments to original club, if playing in Prem: 10: £150k, 20: £300k, 30: £450k, 40: £600k, 50: £750k, 60: £900k, 70: £1m, then £1.1m, £1.2m and £1.3m after 80, 90 and 100 apps. Adds up to a lot. So if a Player does v well at poaching club eventual rewards high
It's an absolute disgrace. Still, why should we expect anything less? The PL have every small club in the country over a barrel and they know it. They couldn't give a shit about anything outside the PL - within ten years we won't have leagues 1 and 2 in anything like the shape or form they are now. They'll just be youth teams for premiership clubs - with a steady stream of ungrateful little shitbags playing for clubs who developed them before they were snapped up by parent clubs coming back and playing like they couldn't give a toss because they think they're too good for the league.
The analysis of this by journalists seems grossly incompetent. It goes to prove the widely pathetic level of analysis from mainstream news outlets on sports in this country. Until David Conn, or the Liverpool Swiss banker comment on this I'll hold my breath....
Firstly both Shelvey and Jenkinson were under contract so the fee had to be negotiated. Secondly Sam Baldock was 22 and under contract, when sold to the Whammies. So how in the fucking hell would that be under the agreed pricing structure BBC? I don't think anyone would have touched Baldock until this season. We would have lost out on the Mcwhatever he was who went to Man U.
Yes it appears grossly ridiculous, but equally in the main does not affect us. If players play for us in youth teams, it is probably because they are not good enough or do not want to play for the Arse or other big clubs.
The clubs agreed to it because the premier league would have withdrawn the £5.5m of funding they give (each?) to the trust if they turned it down. It's an utter disgrace.
Comments
Once again the big boys of the PL bully their way to make their life easier. There is now little point in FL clubs producing youngsters good enough to play at the highest level as they won't get more than £130k for them.
I wish this disgrace would get the proper attention it deserves, but it'll get less comment in the media than a Rooney yellow card.
There must've been some incentive for league clubs to vote for it but I'd like to think the infrastructure in place at Charlton is perceived to be good enough to keep youngsters around compared to, no disrespect, the likes of Rotherham.
Do you really think a youngster is going to turn down a PL club (Jenkinson? Shelvey?) because we've got a nice infrastructure. Under this system we would have got about £250k for Shelvey and Jenkinson and probably be in administration.
From what I made of it (and don't quote me on it) if the vote did not get a "yes" result the Premier League said they would pull the plug on the £5 million plus funding they provide to football league clubs.
So in other words they threatened the football league
Yeah, this just confirms their academies are shit.
Out of the top four this weekend, I bet there's not even five players that will start that have come through their own academies. Welbeck, Richards and Terry are the only ones I can think of between Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham.
I hope the bigger clubs don't buy all the good 16/17 year olds for an amazing u18 team, win the youth cups, then bring none of them through.
The upfront payments per player per year are new aren't they? Could help with cashflow but may just cause some clubs to stagnate.
This will mean in principal a selling club will be paid £3,000 per year for every year of a player's development between the ages of nine and 11. The fee per year from 12 to 16 will depend on the selling club's academy status but ranges between £12,500 and £40,000.
From Twitter:
#eppp appearance payments to original club, if playing in Prem: 10: £150k, 20: £300k, 30: £450k, 40: £600k, 50: £750k, 60: £900k, 70: £1m, then £1.1m, £1.2m and £1.3m after 80, 90 and 100 apps. Adds up to a lot. So if a Player does v well at poaching club eventual rewards high
And what if he doesn't make it because he's at a club like Chelsea or Man City who are always buying players and rarely promoting from their youth team? The 'selling' club gets very little.
Either way, the big clubs can't lose. It's a recipe for more bankruptcies.
Thoroughly depressing.