Young Academy Prospects

[Alfreton14Blade]

I think we have cause and effect mixed up though. Although having a bloated squad hasn't helped providing space, the young players coming through look miles off promotion chasing players. I've no doubt if they weren't, both Clough and Adkins would have played them more.

I think we should be questioning the quality of players coming through, not why they aren't being given opportunities.

UTB

You look at Millwall and think: maybe it's just that they've got much better young players coming through than us? But then you'd have to ask: so many? and compared with our prize-winning academy?

Then you look at promotion-chasers, Walsall and Barnsley. And you start to think: maybe it's just that these clubs are willing to give young players a chance.

It's not a case of having to have world-beating quality youngsters. (They tend to get sold straight away anyway, as we found with the Kyles.) It's more having a strategy of and commitment to getting the best of your crop involved in the first team and gradually exposing them to first team football. All as part of running your club the right way, as in the case of Millwall, Barnsley and Walsall at our level. If they can do it, we can.

How many youth players have Millwall given debuts to this season and how many games did each of them play?

In terms of debuts, just Ben Thompson it seems (& in his case he'd admittedly played one cup tie last season), who's become an integral player over the second half of the season. But they've had Onyedinma and O'Brien make breakthroughs and play regularly this last season, have had Sid Nelson play a fair few games, and have played Powell, Chesmain, Philpot and Pavey a smattering of times.

Also, they'd picked up a couple of released players from other academies, Archer and Romeo, both of whom made a lot of appearances.

They seem to have made a commitment to make use of academy products as part of their rebuilding strategy.

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=1699

 

[1973Blade]

I have just read that Mikael Ndjoli one of our U21 trialists at the end of last season looks like signing for Premier League Bournemouth, although Arsenal and Palace are still keen to get this lad in. ( BBC SPORT PAGES )

From 95% of posts that watched this lad playing, he made no impact with us and was no better than any of our 16/17 or 18 year olds we currently have.

All of a sudden he is off to the Premier League after Millwall did not offer him a Pro Contract in March.

It suggests to me that while threads are posted that this young player is not good enough or that player is not what SUFC need, we should be giving these lads a bit of slack and let them develop without the negative views which are constantly spouted.

It also says to me that CAT 1,2,3 is a load of bollocks. Its all about opinions.

This lad was not good enough for SUFC in many peoples opinion but is good enough to attract 3 Premier League clubs............. i think we need to lower our standards a little. Many views think that if these lads are not a Walker or Magiure then bin them.......

Too early to say that we have made a mistake. Although if he does make it you can repost this thread in a couple of years time!

 

[larkymasher]

The academy has slowed up considerably of late.

Players coming through tend to lack height, physicality and most importantly, ability.

Other clubs players coming through look bigger, stronger, faster, more confident athletes.

Ours look small, weak, fragile and petrified.

Is that the small, week, fragile Sufc u18s that smashed Millwall for 5, Hull for 7, double over the pigs, double over Leeds, or the u21s that had the best defensive record in England at that age group ?
Yep...... Small and weak.

What a fucking shit pointless post.

 

[alcoblade]

Is that the small, week, fragile Sufc u18s that smashed Millwall for 5, Hull for 7, double over the pigs, double over Leeds, or the u21s that had the best defensive record in England at that age group ?
Yep...... Small and weak.

What a fucking shit pointless post.

Is it though (I don't know)?

Producing good youth teams is one thing. Producing exceptional one off talent, the few that will make it, a different one.

There's been a lack of emphasis on pace and athleticisn running through he club, In terms of transfer policy and youth. I think it's a fair question to ask.

UTB

 

[DazBlade88]

We have to take into consideration the fact that new managerial regimes every year also have an effect on the academy because they have different requirements and involvement in the academy. Turnbull and Adkins wanted a say where other managers prefer to leave the academy to do their job and pick the best players where necessary.

Is it though (I don't know)?

Producing good youth teams is one thing. Producing exceptional one off talent, the few that will make it, a different one.

There's been a lack of emphasis on pace and athleticisn running through he club, In terms of transfer policy and youth. I think it's a fair question to ask.

UTB

This is something the academy are trying to improve. We have plenty of lads coming through who are either quick, strong or both. They're trying to make sure that what we bring through is technically good enough as well as physically strong enough for the demands of the professional game. It's a very difficult process for any club and you will have dry spells and fruitful spells. Being in a position where we NEED to be promoted doesn't help the lads either because they are less likely to be given the chance.

People know I'm very passionate about our academy, and it's very difficult to appreciate the circumstances they are working in these days when you're in the same zone as the likes of Man City who are trying everything to hoover up talent. We all know the story about the two eleven year olds recently. Our neighbours are also throwing millions into the academy over the next few years just to try and compete with us. It is very much something to be proud of.

 

[alcoblade]

. It is very much something to be proud of.

But why be proud of it right now? Why care? It's a means to an end and nothing more. Its output has been really deficient for 5 + years now.

If, over the last decade, we'd put a fraction of the resource and effort into finding young players at 18-20 years old as we had into developing our own, I've no doubt we'd have returned far more.

 

[larkymasher]

Is it though (I don't know)?

Producing good youth teams is one thing. Producing exceptional one off talent, the few that will make it, a different one.

There's been a lack of emphasis on pace and athleticisn running through he club, In terms of transfer policy and youth. I think it's a fair question to ask.

UTB

How can you produce a good youth team with no individual stand out players.

Every good team always has 3 or 4 stand out performers. I sometimes wonder how many posters actually go and watch the academy teams on a regular basis before these negative comments.

Everyone is well aware why the academy is there. The negativity of young players trying to make their way in the game really is piss poor.

If you dont have raw pace you cant be a top player ? Wrong
If you are not an athletic god you cant be a top player ? Wrong

Terry, Metersacker, Mcgiure, Tonge, Cazola, Drinkwater, Sharp and the list goes on

 

[alcoblade]

How can you produce a good youth team with no individual stand out players.

Every good team always has 3 or 4 stand out performers. I sometimes wonder how many posters actually go and watch the academy teams on a regular basis before these negative comments.

Everyone is well aware why the academy is there. The negativity of young players trying to make their way in the game really is piss poor.

If you dont have raw pace you cant be a top player ? Wrong
If you are not an athletic god you cant be a top player ? Wrong

Terry, Metersacker, Mcgiure, Tonge, Cazola, Drinkwater, Sharp and the list goes on

There's been plenty of good youth teams that have produced no stand out performers.

That's a cold hard fact.

UTB

 

[larkymasher]

There's been plenty of good youth teams that have produced no stand out performers.

That's a cold hard fact.

UTB

What is the point of this..

You think you are wrong. A successful team always has some stand out performers.

Thats as cold and as hard a fact as i can be bothered with.

You have your point and i have mine pal. Thats the beauty of football.....

 

[1danewhitehouse]

The main point of my criticism of the academy is covered in your post. These young lads can get picked off by the best academies. What's more, the rules that compensated you have been switched on favour of the big clubs.

The youngsters develop independent of message board talk. In has no baring whatsoever on their progress,

UTB

Can't we counter that if we choose to invest and become Cat A?

 

[DazBlade88]

But why be proud of it right now? Why care? It's a means to an end and nothing more. Its output has been really deficient for 5 + years now.

If, over the last decade, we'd put a fraction of the resource and effort into finding young players at 18-20 years old as we had into developing our own, I've no doubt we'd have returned far more.

It's all down to who the first team manager is. We tried to get several towards the end of the season but they were turned down by Adkins and Turnbull for various reasons (including one player only being 6'1 not being 6'4!!!!).

So, I think it's our intention to do this. It just depends on what Wilder wants to do now.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

I'm fairly certain the academy has cost far more than it's brought in.

What makes you think that?
How much do you think it has cost?
How much do you think it has brought in?

Naughton, Walker, Maguire, Lowton, Slew = circa £16.5M since 2009
Plus players on the books who may or may not be eventually sold.
Do you think it is costing more than £2.5M to run?

 

[nopigfansintown]

What makes you think that?
How much do you think it has cost?
How much do you think it has brought in?

Naughton, Walker, Maguire, Lowton, Slew = circa £16.5M since 2009
Plus players on the books who may or may not be eventually sold.
Do you think it is costing more than £2.5M to run?

It has made a profit thus far (unspecified amount). This was confirmed by KM at the fans forum

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

It has made a profit thus far (unspecified amount). This was confirmed by KM at the fans forum

That's the problem, profit.

The mental state about the academy needs to change to it being a vehicle to produce 300+ appearances first teamers instead of selling at the first opportunity for profit.

The contracts need looking at as well, if we turn a kid into a top player like Walker and we can't keep them the contract should pay us a % of their earnings for making them the player they are.

 

[Benny and the Blades]

What makes you think that?
How much do you think it has cost?
How much do you think it has brought in?

Naughton, Walker, Maguire, Lowton, Slew = circa £16.5M since 2009
Plus players on the books who may or may not be eventually sold.
Do you think it is costing more than £2.5M to run?

Unfortunately the first team has gone backwards over the same period of time, so as a supporter what's been in it for me ?

 

[alcoblade]

Unfortunately the first team has gone backwards over the same period of time, so as a supporter what's been in it for me ?

Exactly, it's a gambling machine. After a decade, first team appearances would probably add up to 5 players for one season. Appalling.

We can debate if the transfer fees have covered the costs (I don't believe it), but we need to be generating players for to push us on, not to be sold to pay for the very thing that produced them.

You don't have to have an academy to profit from youth either. Our most valuable asset, right now, is Che Adams. Last season it was Jamie Murphy.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

What is the point of this..

You think you are wrong. A successful team always has some stand out performers.

Thats as cold and as hard a fact as i can be bothered with.

You have your point and i have mine pal. Thats the beauty of football.....

Not true. Good youth teams need 11 players, on average, better than the opposition. Above average youngsters will not make it.

Give me a shit team with 2 exceptional players and you've got a chance of producing first team regulars.

UTB

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Exactly, it's a gambling machine. After a decade, first team appearances would probably add up to 5 players for one season. Appalling.

We can debate if the transfer fees have covered the costs (I don't believe it), but we need to be generating players for to push us on, not to be sold to pay for the very thing that produced them.

You don't have to have an academy to profit from youth either. Our most valuable asset, right now, is Che Adams. Last season it was Jamie Murphy.

UTB

If you don't believe it, show your working out.
What do you believe the transfer fees to be?
What do you believe the costs to be?
It's apparent to most that it's more than paid for itself previously.
If it stops doing so going forward due to the rule changes, that's a different argument.
I have no doubt that McCabe will look to cut those costs if it becomes a loss-maker.

If you're going back a decade, you're including Jags, Tonge, Monty and Quinn who had sevaral hundreds of appearances between them.

I don't disagree with you about selling our best young players.
When we built a team around the above four, we got to the Premiership.
We could have done the same with Naughton, Walker, Lowton and Maguire.

We tried your alternative suggestion of signing a "Development Squad" of 18-20 year olds also.
We got very few first team appearances out of Tonne, Lokberg, Gardos, Philliskirk, McAllister etc and no transfer fees.
We've certainly fared better overall at developing our own young players than signing them.
The academy isn't to blame for our failings, it's been one of the few bright spots.

 

[larkymasher]

If you don't believe it, show your working out.
What do you believe the transfer fees to be?
What do you believe the costs to be?
It's apparent to most that it's more than paid for itself previously.
If it stops doing so going forward due to the rule changes, that's a different argument.
I have no doubt that McCabe will look to cut those costs if it becomes a loss-maker.

If you're going back a decade, you're including Jags, Tonge, Monty and Quinn who had sevaral hundreds of appearances between them.

I don't disagree with you about selling our best young players.
When we built a team around the above four, we got to the Premiership.
We could have done the same with Naughton, Walker, Lowton and Maguire.

We tried your alternative suggestion of signing a "Development Squad" of 18-20 year olds also.
We got very few first team appearances out of Tonne, Lokberg, Gardos, Philliskirk, McAllister etc and no transfer fees.
We've certainly fared better overall at developing our own young players than signing them.
The academy isn't to blame for our failings, it's been one of the few bright spots.

Thanks for that point. You have explained what have been trying to say fantastically well.

cheers

 

[alcoblade]

If you don't believe it, show your working out.
What do you believe the transfer fees to be?
What do you believe the costs to be?
It's apparent to most that it's more than paid for itself previously.
If it stops doing so going forward due to the rule changes, that's a different argument.
I have no doubt that McCabe will look to cut those costs if it becomes a loss-maker.

If you're going back a decade, you're including Jags, Tonge, Monty and Quinn who had sevaral hundreds of appearances between them.

I don't disagree with you about selling our best young players.
When we built a team around the above four, we got to the Premiership.
We could have done the same with Naughton, Walker, Lowton and Maguire.

We tried your alternative suggestion of signing a "Development Squad" of 18-20 year olds also.
We got very few first team appearances out of Tonne, Lokberg, Gardos, Philliskirk, McAllister etc and no transfer fees.
We've certainly fared better overall at developing our own young players than signing them.
The academy isn't to blame for our failings, it's been one of the few bright spots.

Jags, tongue etc were produced from a much simpler, cheaper setup than the academy.

The best information I can get is the average cost of a Cat B academy being £1,500,000 a year. Over 10 years, that's £15m running plus, towards £8,000,000 in setup cost ( not confident in that number but remember it being quoted somewhere).

We haven't generated nearly that, and the overall number of first team appearances has been utterly woeful.
Selling the players has had a far more damaging effect in the psyche of the fans than any positives that have come from it.

And you have to compare the cost to what might have been if we'd focussed the effort and resource elsewhere. Che Adams, Jamie Murphy are two recent examples of young talent available elsewhere, that you can cherry pick in the positions you need, not just what happens to be available from the academy.

And yes, the big problem is that we won't get chance to repeat the Walker and Naughton deals, because of the rule changes.

UTB

 

[larkymasher]

Jags, tongue etc were produced from a much simpler, cheaper setup than the academy.

The best information I can get is the average cost of a Cat B academy being £1,500,000 a year. Over 10 years, that's £15m running plus, towards £8,000,000 in setup cost ( not confident in that number but remember it being quoted somewhere).

We haven't generated nearly that, and the overall number of first team appearances has been utterly woeful.
Selling the players has had a far more damaging effect in the psyche of the fans than any positives that have come from it.

And you have to compare the cost to what might have been if we'd focussed the effort and resource elsewhere. Che Adams, Jamie Murphy are two recent examples of young talent available elsewhere, that you can cherry pick in the positions you need, not just what happens to be available from the academy.

And yes, the big problem is that we won't get chance to repeat the Walker and Naughton deals, because of the rule changes.

UTB

So much for SUFC being the family club for LOCAL talent to be given a chance to play for their club. Let them piss off to the Pigs, Barnsley or Leeds

Shut the fucking academy and lets bring in some cockney tossers, or Manc Scallies that know nothing about playing for the Blades.

 

[alcoblade]

So much for SUFC being the family club for LOCAL talent to be given a chance to play for their club. Let them piss off to the Pigs, Barnsley or Leeds

Shut the fucking academy and lets bring in some cockney tossers, or Manc Scallies that know nothing about playing for the Blades.

Wind your neck in son, it's just a discussion.

I personally don't care about local talent. I care about Sheffield United and success, nothing more. If I want to do my bit for the community I'll setup a charity.

Kyle Walker, an out an out Blades fan, left after a handful of games for his own personal gain. He looked after himself like all footballers do. Sheffield United should do what's in their own interests. That doesn't necessarily mean getting all gooey over the notion of community spirit. But even if it was a measure of success, it's another measure that the academy has failed on.

UTB

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Jags, tongue etc were produced from a much simpler, cheaper setup than the academy.

The best information I can get is the average cost of a Cat B academy being £1,500,000 a year. Over 10 years, that's £15m running plus, towards £8,000,000 in setup cost ( not confident in that number but remember it being quoted somewhere).

We haven't generated nearly that, and the overall number of first team appearances has been utterly woeful.
Selling the players has had a far more damaging effect in the psyche of the fans than any positives that have come from it.

And you have to compare the cost to what might have been if we'd focussed the effort and resource elsewhere. Che Adams, Jamie Murphy are two recent examples of young talent available elsewhere, that you can cherry pick in the positions you need, not just what happens to be available from the academy.

And yes, the big problem is that we won't get chance to repeat the Walker and Naughton deals, because of the rule changes.

UTB

The initial setup costs appears to be around £5M of which £800K was a grant:-

http://www.furd.org/default.asp?intPageID=170

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2511663.stm

That £4.2M investment was to provide first class training pitches and facilities for the first team as well as to develop young players.
You've not included any money received for sponsorship in your calculations or the potential value / first team appearances of players currently on the books.

United didn't invent the Academy system model for developing young players, we just elected to join it along with every single one of our rivals and peers.

What was the alternative? We were a top Championship club at the time and it would have been a huge backwards step for the club to join a handful of minnows who operate outside the established Academy System (i.e. Wycombe, Morecambe and Yeovil)

It still would be going forward. The club still needs a training ground and all associated facilities, so there is no gain to be made by "selling off" Shirecliffe and rebuilding it all elsewhere.

If we abandon the idea of an academy all together, how do this "Development Squad" of 18-20 year olds actually develop? Who do they play against? There's no Northern Intermediate League or Reserve fixtures any more. The U21 Academy team has replaced all that for all clubs.

Of course we should still be signing young players like Adams and Murphy as well but neither was an instant success. For every one who does get established and/or turn us a profit, we have a McGinty or a Johns or a Cuvelier or a couple of Wallaces. It's hardly a foolproof method of recruitment any more than developing our own talent.

The fact that we sold Murphy and will sell Adams before they make hundreds of appearances doesn't make it a bad idea to have signed them in the first place.

 

[Chali 2na]

Jags, tongue etc were produced from a much simpler, cheaper setup than the academy.

The best information I can get is the average cost of a Cat B academy being £1,500,000 a year. Over 10 years, that's £15m running plus, towards £8,000,000 in setup cost ( not confident in that number but remember it being quoted somewhere).

We haven't generated nearly that, and the overall number of first team appearances has been utterly woeful.
Selling the players has had a far more damaging effect in the psyche of the fans than any positives that have come from it.

And you have to compare the cost to what might have been if we'd focussed the effort and resource elsewhere. Che Adams, Jamie Murphy are two recent examples of young talent available elsewhere, that you can cherry pick in the positions you need, not just what happens to be available from the academy.

And yes, the big problem is that we won't get chance to repeat the Walker and Naughton deals, because of the rule changes.

UTB

Excuse my ignorance, but how would the rule changes affect the Naughton & Walkers deals (making believe we were selling them now, rather than a few years ago)

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Excuse my ignorance, but how would the rule changes affect the Naughton & Walker's deals (making believe we were selling them now, rather than a few years ago)

They wouldn't, the EPPP rules only effect players under 18 years old.
Walker was 19 and Naughton was 20:-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Player_Performance_Plan

 

[Chali 2na]

They wouldn't, the EPPP rules only effect players under 18 years old.
Walker was 19 and Naughton was 20:-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Player_Performance_Plan

I suspected so.

So this would affect deals like Mellis instead?

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Jags, tongue etc were produced from a much simpler, cheaper setup than the academy.

The best information I can get is the average cost of a Cat B academy being £1,500,000 a year. Over 10 years, that's £15m running plus, towards £8,000,000 in setup cost ( not confident in that number but remember it being quoted somewhere).

We haven't generated nearly that, and the overall number of first team appearances has been utterly woeful.
Selling the players has had a far more damaging effect in the psyche of the fans than any positives that have come from it.

And you have to compare the cost to what might have been if we'd focussed the effort and resource elsewhere. Che Adams, Jamie Murphy are two recent examples of young talent available elsewhere, that you can cherry pick in the positions you need, not just what happens to be available from the academy.

And yes, the big problem is that we won't get chance to repeat the Walker and Naughton deals, because of the rule changes.

UTB

Can you explain the rule changes please.

How much would we get for Walker and Naughton now?

 

[alcoblade]

As posted above, if we held them until the age we did, nothing would have changed. But it's now much easier to take them at a younger age, and PL clubs are doing it more and more, making it much less likely the best ones will remain at 3rd division clubs until they can realise the type of money we did.

In the end this argument will go around and around. I'm fairly convinced it's a millstone we'd be better off without in the third division and possibly championship. I place no value in the "who will think if the children " line. These two points are about speculation and emotion and there's not an argument to be won, it's just opinion.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

The initial setup costs appears to be around £5M of which £800K was a grant:-

http://www.furd.org/default.asp?intPageID=170

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2511663.stm

That £4.2M investment was to provide first class training pitches and facilities for the first team as well as to develop young players.
You've not included any money received for sponsorship in your calculations or the potential value / first team appearances of players currently on the books.

United didn't invent the Academy system model for developing young players, we just elected to join it along with every single one of our rivals and peers.

What was the alternative? We were a top Championship club at the time and it would have been a huge backwards step for the club to join a handful of minnows who operate outside the established Academy System (i.e. Wycombe, Morecambe and Yeovil)

It still would be going forward. The club still needs a training ground and all associated facilities, so there is no gain to be made by "selling off" Shirecliffe and rebuilding it all elsewhere.

If we abandonthe idea of an academy all together, how do this "Development Squad" of 18-20 year olds actually develop? Who do they play against? There's no Northern Intermediate League or Reserve fixtures any more. The U21 Academy team has replaced all that for all clubs.

Of course we should still be signing young players like Adams and Murphy as well but neither was an instant success. For every one who does get established and/or turn us a profit, we have a McGinty or a Johns or a Cuvelier or a couple of Wallaces. It's hardly a foolproof method of recruitment any more than developing our own talent.

The fact that we sold Murphy and will sell Adams before they make hundreds of appearances doesn't make it a bad idea to have signed them in the first place.

Thanks for the numbers re the setup cost. Remember this was a decade Ago through. £5m them would be £8m in today's money, but I was still off there.

We would obviously need somewhere to train but it could be a scaled down version of Shirecliffe.

Charlton are abandonsing the academy. Others don't have them. Watford scaled there's right down, ironically just before they were promoted I believe. What I'm suggesting isn't without precedent.

I wasn't suggesting we had a development squad. I would invest more into young players already at the point of first team action, hence the suggestion of Adams and Murphy.

We could further speculate and send them out on loan if we so chose.

UTB

 

[larkymasher]

Wind your neck in son, it's just a discussion.

I personally don't care about local talent. I care about Sheffield United and success, nothing more. If I want to do my bit for the community I'll setup a charity.

Kyle Walker, an out an out Blades fan, left after a handful of games for his own personal gain. He looked after himself like all footballers do. Sheffield United should do what's in their own interests. That doesn't necessarily mean getting all gooey over the notion of community spirit. But even if it was a measure of success, it's another measure that the academy has failed on.

UTB

It is a discussion pal so we are all entitled to an opinion.
Your point is valid although I disagree.
I will roll my neck in if you take your head out of your arse and accept others points of view.

As for Kyle Walker I think he will agree that it was the Sufc Academy set up that got him on his way and his transfer fee helped the club achieve other things ......... What that was is another issue.

Let's accept we disagree and quietly move on to another thread.