Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

8+8+8

12346»

Comments

  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 17,641
    Carter has told Cawley the 8+8+8 might shift to 9+9+9 now. As a writer to the Mendez/Cawley pod said, we don't really seem to be fitting it anyway. Academy wise we've had minutes from Anderson, TC, Gough, Leaburn & Leaburn which is 5 not 8. And beyond TK (who hasn't been great!) who were the club thinking of as being in the top 8? Bell? Burke? Feels so odd to still be banging on about it when its patently not actually being used
  • Redhenry
    Redhenry Posts: 5,446
    It's just a wage structure thing, top 9 wages, second 9 wages and the 9 lowest wages...

  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 17,641
    Redhenry said:
    It's just a wage structure thing, top 9 wages, second 9 wages and the 9 lowest wages...

    Of course but they're selling it as "Elite 9" at the top and "Academy 9" at the bottom, it's stupid to say that if it's easily disproved 
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 71,580
    To me, if you're going to follow this scheme, then the academy 8 should be rookie youngsters on low contracts, rather than established first teamers. 

    TC for example is an established first team player, it makes no sense to classify him differently from Apter or Kelman, just because he's home grown.
  • Crispywood
    Crispywood Posts: 1,730
    killerandflash said:
    To me, if you're going to follow this scheme, then the academy 8 should be rookie youngsters on low contracts, rather than established first teamers. 

    TC for example is an established first team player, it makes no sense to classify him differently from Apter or Kelman, just because he's home grown.
    I think it’s more the fact TC didn’t cost a fee, whereas those two cost a hefty sum to get them through the door 
  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 17,641
    Crispywood said:
    killerandflash said:
    To me, if you're going to follow this scheme, then the academy 8 should be rookie youngsters on low contracts, rather than established first teamers. 

    TC for example is an established first team player, it makes no sense to classify him differently from Apter or Kelman, just because he's home grown.
    I think it’s more the fact TC didn’t cost a fee, whereas those two cost a hefty sum to get them through the door 

  • Redhenry
    Redhenry Posts: 5,446
    fenaddick said:
    Redhenry said:
    It's just a wage structure thing, top 9 wages, second 9 wages and the 9 lowest wages...

    Of course but they're selling it as "Elite 9" at the top and "Academy 9" at the bottom, it's stupid to say that if it's easily disproved 
    Think your overthinking it
  • Crispywood
    Crispywood Posts: 1,730
    fenaddick said:
    Carter has told Cawley the 8+8+8 might shift to 9+9+9 now. As a writer to the Mendez/Cawley pod said, we don't really seem to be fitting it anyway. Academy wise we've had minutes from Anderson, TC, Gough, Leaburn & Leaburn which is 5 not 8. And beyond TK (who hasn't been great!) who were the club thinking of as being in the top 8? Bell? Burke? Feels so odd to still be banging on about it when its patently not actually being used
    I think it’s hard to implement that strategy after one season especially in the championship because not only wages/fees go up but level as well making it harder as a cat 2 academy to get the level of younger players ready for this level. I think it’s a template for what we want to do which we slowly build towards similar to last season 

    Last year
    8 elite L1: Ramsay , Jones, Edwards, Coventry, Doc, Berry, Godden, Aneke 

    8 middle L1 : , Mannion, Watson, Mitchell, Macca, McIntyre, Gilbert, Ahadme 

    8 academy/young L1: Kanu, Leaburn, TC, Mbick, Anderson, Small, AMB


Categories

“Marketplace”