The Academy- is it worth it?

[alcoblade]

I have always had the suspicion that it doesn't pay its' way. Until the Prince arrived, it seems we couldn't sustain ourselves on 15 - 20,000 gates in the third division, and it made be wonder where the money went.

I appreciate we've had the 2 Kyles, but is this really enough for all the time, effort at financial resource it's drained from us? Right now we have Maguire and Long - both prospects - but I suspect we'd raise little over £500,000 for the pair.

Players come through ad hoc, so you can't plan around it. Would the energy used on it be better aimed at finding the best young talent to fallout of the premier league?

Any thoughts?

UTB

 

[CarlingBlade]

You doubt we'd get £500k for Maguire and Long? I'm sure Long alone would command a fee of £1m plus.

I think the academy is a superb facility and will be a great asset looking to the future. I'd rather us produce and nurture our own talent rather than splashing out on random unknowns from overseas.

The academy has produced the two Kyles, mcfadzean, Long, Maguire, Lowton, Kennedy and Diego is in the brink of a come back and we're all expecting big things from him.

I'm sure the academy will be utilised to assist youngsters who have been dropped by PL teams, but doesn't that always happen, look at Baxter who was dropped by Everton, so that happens anyway.

 

[JohnDenver]

I'd be amazed if it wasn't paying its way, or at least was very close to doing so. Even since the two Kyles we've had good money for Lowton, Mellis and Slew. It also raises money as a venue and the site doubles as first team training facilities.

On this season's form you might argue the current England U21 pair aren't worth much, but I think their future value is only going up, especially given Clough's impact on form and confidence. Harry's performance in the last few games has been excellent.

What isn't clear to me is how viable relying on others' cast-offs could be. I'd imagine that if a Prem team releases a player of promise then they ensure a sell-on clause is in place. I also worry about the reliance on loans (who are often other team's kids), when I'd rather we blood our own as an investment.

I hope someone at the club has done a full cost/benefit.

 

[blader]

I think the sales of Jagielka, naughton, walker, slew, lowton, mellis, Quinn, sharp et al have more than paid for the cost of running the academy, plus the playing time we get from them.

So yes, I think it is worthwhile.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Curious as to why you think players come through ad hoc?

 

[TarquinDelouche]

I'd prefer the academy not to have to "pay for itself", and see it as a vital part of the club and community. We'd be poorer without it.

 

[alcoblade]

I think the sales of Jagielka, naughton, walker, slew, lowton, mellis, Quinn, sharp et al have more than paid for the cost of running the academy, plus the playing time we get from them.

So yes, I think it is worthwhile.

Jagielka wasn't an academy player from the outset.

But does anyone know the actual costs?

It was said that is paid it's way years ago, yet has had its budget slashed - why so if it pays its' way?

Why were we unable cope financially given our gates?

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

Curious as to why you think players come through ad hoc?

I mean like right now - we need a striker (perhaps a whole team) yet none are available (or good enough) from the academy. You cannot control the positions of best prospects coming through.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

I'd prefer the academy not to have to "pay for itself", and see it as a vital part of the club and community. We'd be poorer without it.

Ah, the old community bit. Sounds wonderful, until you accept that they all want to leave at the first sniff of something better.

This is about the worst reason for subsidising an academy that I could think of. Each to their own, or course.

UTB

 

[blader]

Jagielka wasn't an academy player from the outset.

But does anyone know the actual costs?

It was said that is paid it's way years ago, yet has had its budget slashed - why so if it pays its' way?

Why were we unable cope financially given our gates?

UTB

What was Jagielka then? Thought he'd been with us forever!

 

[alcoblade]

I hope someone at the club has done a full cost/benefit.

Well yes, but it's the benefit bit I'm questioning. Tarquin puts emphasis in being a community resource. I'd put none. Others want to see local youth developed, I don't particularly care. But perhaps those are the measures the club are using, and that's what I'm asking about.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

What was Jagielka then? Thought he'd been with us forever!

Jags, Tonge and Monty came into the previous youth development set-up, a much simpler and cheaper system than an academy.

UTB

 

[SwissBlade]

I'd say it has more than paid for itself. It's a huge success of the club and something which we can be proud of. Don't also underestimate the achievement of getting to the youth cup final. It showed the talent that we have/ had was of the top quality

However, it's not a production line, it doesn't clone players for certain positions. Your elusive striker won't be hand made in the academy unless were extremely lucky to unearth one

 

[alcoblade]

I'd say it has more than paid for itself. It's a huge success of the club and something which we can be proud of. Don't also underestimate the achievement of getting to the youth cup final. It showed the talent that we have/ had was of the top quality

"You'd say" - so would most - but I was hoping (unrealistically, probably) there may be some financial breakdown

The Youth Cup - Again, that might be a measure for some - for me it means nothing. If we can't play it or spend it then it's guff, to me.

UTB

 

[JohnDenver]

Well yes, but it's the benefit bit I'm questioning. Tarquin puts emphasis in being a community resource. I'd put none. Others want to see local youth developed, I don't particularly care. But perhaps those are the measures the club are using, and that's what I'm asking about.

UTB

The club is a huge part of the social capital of Sheffield, so I'm with Tarquin on that. It's not like the academy is being run for altruistic purposes, but the club does need roots in the community, and that's part of it.

McCabe originally said the thing had to be self-sustaining. If it's not, then you must be right in your suspicions about how its success is measured. But I doubt you are or else McCabe would have ditched it as part of last year's cuts.

 

[SwissBlade]

"You'd say" - so would most - but I was hoping (unrealistically, probably) there may be some financial breakdown

The Youth Cup - Again, that might be a measure for some - for me it means nothing. If we can't play it or spend it then it's guff, to me.

UTB

Well the youth cup seemed to work out pretty well for the class of beckham, scholes, butt and the nevilles so whilst it means guff to you it can be considered a good gauge. The knock on effects are also unmeasurable but perhaps parents and young kids want to play for an academy which is successful.

As for financials you can see them in the accounts

 

[Grecian2000]

It's a question well worth asking BUT without the figures it can't be answered.

If it costs about the same to run as the wages of your best paid player say, then surely it's a keeper. If it costs the same as the wages of the entire first team squad then it has to go.
I suspect it lies nearer the first than the second (on nothing other than a hunch though) and the production of the Kyles, Lowton and Slew mean it's in credit.

As I don't think our player recruitment from elsewhere has been anything short of disasterous over the last 5 years I would stick with it until we come up with a better policy.

 

[sheffielder]

Apart from Long and Maguire, we have probably wasted a generation of players including McFadzean, Whitehouse and Ironside etc.

The last part of a young player's development is confidence. Long and Maguire have benefited from having a long run in the 1st team whilst the others mentioned didn't. Both Kyle's went on loan at an early age and look at them now. As soon as Clough came through the door the 3 lads were sent on loan to get experience, however it's probably too late for them to come back in the fold.

From what I have read we probably have a better generation of player coming through and so the academy has done their part. It's not the job of Clough in his coaches to work out how to get the rest out of them.

I will probably get shouted down, however Wilson's years were lost years where most our youngsters were concerned. Maybe they aren't good enough, however we should have sent them on loan earlier to give them a fighting chance

 

[Grecian2000]

Well the youth cup seemed to work out pretty well for the class of beckham, scholes, butt and the nevilles so whilst it means guff to you it can be considered a good gauge.

Can't agree with that Swiss. Winning the Youth Cup made no difference at all. What made the difference was the fact that enough of those players turned out to be of sufficient quality to "make the grade" at the highest level.
Trophies at Youth level count for nothing if you can't convert some of the potential talent into actual talent in the following two or three seasons.

 

[sheffielder]

Well the youth cup seemed to work out pretty well for the class of beckham, scholes, butt and the nevilles so whilst it means guff to you it can be considered a good gauge. The knock on effects are also unmeasurable but perhaps parents and young kids want to play for an academy which is successful.

As for financials you can see them in the accounts

Look at Pogba from that Youth Cup final. One of the better players in Italy

 

[Pedro Verde]

Shirecliffe doubles up as our training facility for the first team.
Now its there and built I cant see the running costs being a lot more than a training facility for the first team squad built somewhere else. How much does it cost to employ coaches for the kids the majority of them being part time Im sure I read somewhere some of them do it on a voluntary basis
I cant really see your point

 

[alcoblade]

[quote="SwissBlade, post: 554290, member: 19]
As for financials you can see them in the accounts[/quote]
Accounts are as clear as mud.

Youth cup can be measured. By what's on the pitch. Reasonable, nothing more.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

Shirecliffe doubles up as our training facility for the first team.
Now its there and built I cant see the running costs being a lot more than a training facility for the first team squad built somewhere else. How much does it cost to employ coaches for the kids the majority of them being part time Im sure I read somewhere some of them do it on a voluntary basis
I cant really see your point

Well, I'm asking a question and not making a point, but I have more scepticism than most about the academy, clearly.

The question is - what are the costs, what are the benefits?

I've read Class 1 academies cost on average £3M to run. Class 3 £0.5M. Can't find figures for class 2, but this would point to around £2M per year.

Do we get enough back in benefit when you net off what we might return on that £2M by reinvesting in youth from elsewhere, plus the benefit of buying players to plug gaps rather than taking it as and when it comes from an academy?

UTB

 

[JohnDenver]

As I don't think our player recruitment from elsewhere has been anything short of disasterous over the last 5 years I would stick with it until we come up with a better policy.

This too ^^^

The irony being, if we'd have recruited well since 2007 we'd not remotely be in a position where the cost of the academy is deemed an issue. In fact, if HRH is genuine, it ain't an issue now.

 

[Philip Reed]

The academy already scout players released from premier league clubs. 3 of the 5 signed on a pro deal were previously with Man Utd at some stage, with the other two having come through the academy from under 9's.

 

[s4-blade]

Without academies the young talent your talking about wouldn't exist, they are a vital part of English football. As well as that the running costs of our's are fairly minimal, it s all paid off, the coaches are either part time or voluntary, the players have to pay s.u.b.s so that covers the wages of the part time coaches, if anything it creates revenue with the canteen (that is open to the public in certain hours), the walk on sessions (which also double up as a resource to scout players through), and private pitch hire costs. UTB and Long live Shirecliffe.

 

[Silent Blade]

I think the sales of Jagielka, naughton, walker, slew, lowton, mellis, Quinn, sharp et al have more than paid for the cost of running the academy, plus the playing time we get from them.

So yes, I think it is worthwhile.

Since we had the Academy in 2001, the first team had had only one season in the PL and they are about to have a 4th season in the lower divisions so the Academy hasnt really made us to get many seasons in the top level. Yes, we have produced some good players for the 1st team but with our Academy now being downgraded to level two (after the PL forced the FL clubs to agree to do this and we will not get the same fee we had for Melis again- Yeovil, Wycombe and Hereford have given up the Academy and it wouldnt surprise me if more clubs follow) it does look like that in the coming years we may produce less good prospects. I am getting the impression that in the last few years our Academy are recruiting more players from outside the Sheffield Junior League and I am not sure if this is a good thing

 

[Silent Blade]

Jags, Tonge and Monty came into the previous youth development set-up, a much simpler and cheaper system than an academy.

UTB

Yes, they came to us pre 2001

 

[Silent Blade]

I'd say it has more than paid for itself. It's a huge success of the club and something which we can be proud of. Don't also underestimate the achievement of getting to the youth cup final. It showed the talent that we have/ had was of the top quality

However, it's not a production line, it doesn't clone players for certain positions. Your elusive striker won't be hand made in the academy unless were extremely lucky to unearth one

A huge success? How many seasons have we had in thee Premiership since the Academy started in 2001 (and downgraded to level 2 since last year, I think)

 

[raul]

It's with us to stay because a) we've built the thing now and b) I understand the Prince is keen on the idea of home grown starts filling the first team and selling the surplus on to make it cost neutral(think we've heard that before?), but in the context of the performance of the club over time as Silent has described above, what might have happened if the start-up and building costs incurred at that time had gone on the first team, particularly relevant in seasons 02/03 and 03/04?