Is it time to ditch Shirecliffe ?

[crucialkneeligaman]

It is a shame that we have come to discussing this, which in the scheme of things should be an important aspect of the club. There is no doubt that the facilities are up there with some of the best in the land, and it would be sad to lose it, difficult one. Good points made by both camps in my humble opinion.

 

[SandyMcBlade]

Some enjoyed poking fun at the fact that Clough brought in his brother as chief scout but in 18 or so month he was scout he brought in Adams Wallace and McGahey, I'd argue that they cost the club a dam sight less than it's cost developing Reed De Girolamo and long. and I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't get a better return for the money.
The only way the supporters and the team will ever get any benefit out of the Academy is if we are fortunate enough to get three or four top class prospects come through at the same time, and if we did the club will have sold them before the start of the following season to pay for the Academy....
The Shircliffe ground is on the wrong side of the city for the fan base and a needless drain on the clubs finances, while a shared ground with Sheffield FC on land provided by the council and financed by all three on the original Mires grove site would be far more beneficial for the fans of both teams...

 

[bladeinspaceandtime]

Eg we now have Long and Reed as first team squad players which means in simple/simplistic terms we have not had to spend money filling those positions. That finance is therefore available to spend on other players.

If you accept that Long is a good enough replacement for Howard then that's saved us £100 000 say.

But players aren't brought through the Academy system for zero cost. If you costed the time/resource put into developing players like Long to first team level I suspect you don't save any money; that's not taking into account the risk involved as well.

 

[ghandi]

Some enjoyed poking fun at the fact that Clough brought in his brother as chief scout but in 18 or so month he was scout he brought in Adams Wallace and McGahey, I'd argue that they cost the club a dam sight less than it's cost developing Reed De Girolamo and long. and I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't get a better return for the money.
The only way the supporters and the team will ever get any benefit out of the Academy is if we are fortunate enough to get three or four top class prospects come through at the same time, and if we did the club will have sold them before the start of the following season to pay for the Academy....
The Shircliffe ground is on the wrong side of the city for the fan base and a needless drain on the clubs finances, while a shared ground with Sheffield FC on land provided by the council and financed by all three on the original Mires grove site would be far more beneficial for the fans of both teams...

Myers Grove schoool was in S6 unless you meant Olive Grove.

 

[Borbokisfreekick]

One other reason why we may not be bringing as many youth players through is the constant change over of manager.

The managers where we've seen most youth players brought through over the past say 30 years have been Bassett, Warnock and Blackwell.

Bassett and Warnock had reigns of 9/7 years at the club so could get more ingrained with the youth team and could nurture through the young talent, and could plan ahead a year or so. Which leans towards the positives of having a manager longer term. Which was the plan with Clough.

In warnocks time he gave debuts to Monty, jags, tongue, doane, sharp, forte, law, Thompson, Quinn, hurst. All these players either made substational appearances for the club or where sold on for a fee.

Blackwell was here almost 3 years, but was at the club shortly before that so probably knew some of what was coming through. In his short time with us he brought through walker, naughton, lowton, which eventually brought in 11million in transfer fees.

If you look back over the past 15 years, since Warnock started with us, our academy has been hugely successful in bringing through players and has probably brought in close to 20million in transfer fees.

Imagine how successful it would be if we had a CEO / managing director / chairman whatever you want to call him, who actually knew how to run a football club. Who didn't just spout off the jargon and cliches, but just ran the club with common sense.

I honestly think the best thing the club could do would be to employ Warnock as a director of football, or to run the football side of things at the club. He wouldn't make rash decision in sacking managers, he'd know the benefits of nurturing through our own players, knows the nature of the fans, the history of the club etc. and he wouldn't be after the managers position as he's too long in the tooth.

 

[SandyMcBlade]

Myers Grove schoool was in S6 unless you meant Olive Grove.

I apologize ghandi, your quite right I did indeed mean Olive Grove.....

 

[SandyMcBlade]

QUOTE="Borbokisfreekick, post: 881763, member: 12841"]One other reason why we may not be bringing as many youth players through is the constant change over of manager.

The managers where we've seen most youth players brought through over the past say 30 years have been Bassett, Warnock and Blackwell.

Bassett and Warnock had reigns of 9/7 years at the club so could get more ingrained with the youth team and could nurture through the young talent, and could plan ahead a year or so. Which leans towards the positives of having a manager longer term. Which was the plan with Clough.

In warnocks time he gave debuts to Monty, jags, tongue, doane, sharp, forte, law, Thompson, Quinn, hurst. All these players either made substational appearances for the club or where sold on for a fee.

Blackwell was here almost 3 years, but was at the club shortly before that so probably knew some of what was coming through. In his short time with us he brought through walker, naughton, lowton, which eventually brought in 11million in transfer fees.

If you look back over the past 15 years, since Warnock started with us, our academy has been hugely successful in bringing through players and has probably brought in close to 20million in transfer fees.

Imagine how successful it would be if we had a CEO / managing director / chairman whatever you want to call him, who actually knew how to run a football club. Who didn't just spout off the jargon and cliches, but just ran the club with common sense.

I honestly think the best thing the club could do would be to employ Warnock as a director of football, or to run the football side of things at the club. He wouldn't make rash decision in sacking managers, he'd know the benefits of nurturing through our own players, knows the nature of the fans, the history of the club etc. and he wouldn't be after the managers position as he's too long in the tooth.[/QUOTE]



Didn't we try this one with Bassett ?
The clubs gone down hill since we lost Dooley.....

 

[Borbokisfreekick]

QUOTE="Borbokisfreekick, post: 881763, member: 12841"]One other reason why we may not be bringing as many youth players through is the constant change over of manager.

The managers where we've seen most youth players brought through over the past say 30 years have been Bassett, Warnock and Blackwell.

Bassett and Warnock had reigns of 9/7 years at the club so could get more ingrained with the youth team and could nurture through the young talent, and could plan ahead a year or so. Which leans towards the positives of having a manager longer term. Which was the plan with Clough.

In warnocks time he gave debuts to Monty, jags, tongue, doane, sharp, forte, law, Thompson, Quinn, hurst. All these players either made substational appearances for the club or where sold on for a fee.

Blackwell was here almost 3 years, but was at the club shortly before that so probably knew some of what was coming through. In his short time with us he brought through walker, naughton, lowton, which eventually brought in 11million in transfer fees.

If you look back over the past 15 years, since Warnock started with us, our academy has been hugely successful in bringing through players and has probably brought in close to 20million in transfer fees.

Imagine how successful it would be if we had a CEO / managing director / chairman whatever you want to call him, who actually knew how to run a football club. Who didn't just spout off the jargon and cliches, but just ran the club with common sense.

I honestly think the best thing the club could do would be to employ Warnock as a director of football, or to run the football side of things at the club. He wouldn't make rash decision in sacking managers, he'd know the benefits of nurturing through our own players, knows the nature of the fans, the history of the club etc. and he wouldn't be after the managers position as he's too long in the tooth.

Didn't we try this one with Bassett ?
The clubs gone down hill since we lost Dooley.....[/QUOTE]

Not really, Bassett was brought into advise Micky Adams as we were sinking fast. He was only in place for about 4 months, and Adams got is relegated. Hardly enough time to affect anything.

I agree with you on Dooley. The combination of Dooley and Warnock worked very well.

 

[alcoblade]

DOF- another way of flushing half a million quid a year down the toilet. I've never understood it.

If you buy players who are third iivision standard, you'll be in the third division no matter what.

Strong, pacey, athletic players - who wouldn't want them? (other than us it seems).

You don't need to pay loads of money out to avoid the basic errors we keep repeating.

As an aside - I'm sure Dooley was a nice man, but having had the pleasure of discussing issues at Sheffiekd United with him, I am 100% convinced that he added no real value to us.

UTB

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Your point about mercenaries doesn't hold. Home grown Kyle Walker and Kyle Naughton were just as mercenary as any of the players brought in since.

Strongly disagree with this. Surprised it's even debatable.

Firstly it was my perception about mercenaries. the reasoning is/articles of faith are something along the lines of some players will have more affection for the club than others, this seems obvious. (The counter, afaics, is that any player who leaves has the same motivations as any other player; so Tony Currie is no more a Blade than Don Givens?)

Secondly given the obvious affection that, say, Walker still has for the club this delusion has some basis in reality.

How far the flight of fancy has flown from its ground based starting point is up for contention.

UTMB

 

[alcoblade]

Strongly disagree with this. Surprised it's even debatable.

Firstly it was my perception about mercenaries. the reasoning is/articles of faith are something along the lines of some players will have more affection for the club than others, this seems obvious. (The counter, afaics, is that any player who leaves has the same motivations as any other player; so Tony Currie is no more a Blade than Don Givens?)

Secondly given the obvious affection that, say, Walker still has for the club this delusion has some basis in reality.

How far the flight of fancy has flown from its ground based starting point is up for contention.

UTMB

So, can your offer some examples of this homegrown affection for the club offering us any tangible benefit?

Go back over two decades to Dane Whitehouse, and it dries up after that.

It sounds wonderful on paper. In reality it simply does not exist.

UTB

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

One other reason why we may not be bringing as many youth players through is the constant change over of manager.

The managers where we've seen most youth players brought through over the past say 30 years have been Bassett, Warnock and Blackwell.

Bassett and Warnock had reigns of 9/7 years at the club so could get more ingrained with the youth team and could nurture through the young talent, and could plan ahead a year or so. Which leans towards the positives of having a manager longer term. Which was the plan with Clough.

In warnocks time he gave debuts to Monty, jags, tongue, doane, sharp, forte, law, Thompson, Quinn, hurst. All these players either made substational appearances for the club or where sold on for a fee.

Blackwell was here almost 3 years, but was at the club shortly before that so probably knew some of what was coming through. In his short time with us he brought through walker, naughton, lowton, which eventually brought in 11million in transfer fees.

If you look back over the past 15 years, since Warnock started with us, our academy has been hugely successful in bringing through players and has probably brought in close to 20million in transfer fees.

Imagine how successful it would be if we had a CEO / managing director / chairman whatever you want to call him, who actually knew how to run a football club. Who didn't just spout off the jargon and cliches, but just ran the club with common sense.

I honestly think the best thing the club could do would be to employ Warnock as a director of football, or to run the football side of things at the club. He wouldn't make rash decision in sacking managers, he'd know the benefits of nurturing through our own players, knows the nature of the fans, the history of the club etc. and he wouldn't be after the managers position as he's too long in the tooth.

Great post.

Wrt the specifics of the DoF that would be a key very long term appointment shaping the whole ethos of the club. You have to be sure you're getting it right. That person would have to be there for several years regardless of the managers.

The best example might be the way Cruyff's vision of football eventually played out at Barcelona but didn't this take many years. It has to.

I don't know if it's practically workable - apart from a very few cases.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

So, can your offer some examples of this homegrown affection for the club offering us any tangible benefit?

Go back over two decades to Dane Whitehouse, and it dries up after that. It just does not exist.
I
It sounds wonderful on paper. In reality it simply does not exist.

UTB

This seems to confuse the point.

I said I'd rather see some home-grown players on the pitch rather than everyone being bought in.

As this is a personal opinion I can't see that it can reasonably be contested.

The assertion that everyone who leaves is equally mercenary I don't think bears any scrutiny at all.

Others are taking up the nitty-gritty of cost/benefit analysis, and on a superficial viewing I'd be surprised if we hadn't profited from the Academy - but that wasn't what I was posting about.

Given how the rules have changed the future of Academies may be different - but not all bad.

 

[alcoblade]

This seems to confuse the point.

I said I'd rather see some home-grown players on the pitch rather than everyone being bought in.

As this is a personal opinion I can't see that it can reasonably be contested.

The assertion that everyone who leaves is equally mercenary I don't think bears any scrutiny at all.

Others are taking up the nitty-gritty of cost/benefit analysis, and on a superficial viewing I'd be surprised if we hadn't profited from the Academy - but that wasn't what I was posting about.

Given how the rules have changed the future of Academies may be different - but not all bad.

I don't really get the point then. Some people probably want to sit on Orange seats too - good luck to them. It has the same influence on the product I get to watch every week - none.

I don't care what goes through the mind of those who've left us. It has the same impact on my match day experience as Orange seats.

I think it's this type of fluff, sprinkled with a few lines about "ethos" and being "United together", that has led the people in power to fail time after time. Let's concentrate on what works, not the nice things that make people feel warm and fluffy.

I know what people like to see - winning football. Everything else is fluff. Crewe are stacked full of homegrown players, ticking all those fluffy boxes. They are also wank, and nobody actually turns up to watch them play.

UTB

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I know what people like to see - winning football.

Not against Fleetwood they didn't.

I'd prefer homegrown players. If we ditched them would I stop going? Don't know - but I'd lose a connection. It's just a personal opinion. I'd rather we were Barcelona than Real Madrid.

Related: It was interesting to hear the (puritanical) roots of Barnsley as a community club.

And ethos isn't fluffy - it's the philosophy of the club, as Keynes said in a different context:

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”

Arguably philosophy/ethos matters more than anything else.

 

[alcoblade]

Not against Fleetwood they didn't.

I'd prefer homegrown players. If we ditched them would I stop going? Don't know - but I'd lose a connection. It's just a personal opinion. I'd rather we were Barcelona than Real Madrid.

Related: It was interesting to hear the (puritanical) roots of Barnsley as a community club.

And ethos isn't fluffy - it's the philosophy of the club, as Keynes said in a different context:

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”

Arguably philosophy/ethos matters more than anything else.

We regularly have no homegrown players, and you're our biggest fan.

But seriously, when you can point to a club that isn't successful (ie doesn't win a lot), but is bringing in big crowds because of some "ethos", I will eat humble pie. One example will do. I am 100% confident that you can't.

We should always have a philosophy - to win as many football matches as we possibly can. Leave it as simple as that, and we will get on the right track.

UTB

 

[bettsyblade86]

We regularly have no homegrown players, and you're our biggest fan.

But seriously, when you can point to a club that isn't successful (ie doesn't win a lot), but is bringing in big crowds because of some "ethos", I will eat humble pie. One example will do. I am 100% confident that you can't.

UTB

St Pauli?

 

[alcoblade]

St Pauli?

In a city of over 1.7 million people they sit 5th from the top of the 2nd tier, averaging 24,000. Not very much more than us at our pispotical low point.

Is that really some abnormal stat?

(Good try mind, they were a club I considered when I posted the query, having stayed in that location)

UTB

 

[Old Skool]

Yes McCabe should sell Shirecliffe and resurrect the old Green Hut at the top of Richmond Park !!!! (Those of you of a certain age and who went to a certain school in the S.E. of the city will understand) !!!!

 

[wizadry]

pispotical

 

[SandyMcBlade]

No one is trying to say we don't need a modern training ground, or a proper pitch and changing rooms for the club in general, why not football has come a long way since the old ball inn days,but I do believe it was a poor decision from the fans point of view to put it where they have.
There's been a lot of talk about the club being part of the community, I just happen to think where it is a present it's serving the wrong community

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

But seriously, when you can point to a club that isn't successful (ie doesn't win a lot), but is bringing in big crowds because of some "ethos", I will eat humble pie. One example will do. I am 100% confident that you can't.

Again not really the point I'm trying to make.

I take the Keynes quote to mean that those who profess themselves to be entirely practical are in fact acting out an implicit but very real philosophy whether they know it or not.

Another version:

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is water?"

Success or failure - there's always an ethos it's not fluffy or irrelevant it's fundamental. And being explicitly #unitedtogether should be a good one.

Btw the This is Water quote which is famous in its own world, in context.

 

[Silent Blade]

The managers where we've seen most youth players brought through over the past say 30 years have been Bassett, Warnock and Blackwell.

Bassett and Warnock had reigns of 9/7 years at the club so could get more ingrained with the youth team and could nurture through the young talent, and could plan ahead a year or so. Which leans towards the positives of having a manager longer term. Which was the plan with Clough.

In warnocks time he gave debuts to Monty, jags, tongue, doane, sharp, forte, law, Thompson, Quinn, hurst. All these players either made substational appearances for the club or where sold on for a fee.
.

Bassett's youth policy was terrible. Whitehouse and Ward were signed by us before Bassett became our manager.

Monty, Thompson and Jags never played in any Academy matches for us. Tonge was released by Man U when he was 15 and played in a few Academy matches for us and we signed Steve Quinn from St Patrick's Athletic when he was 18 or 19

 

[SandyMcBlade]

And don't forget Tony Currie came from the QPR school and was just 18 when we signed him from Watford....

 

[alcoblade]

Again not really the point I'm trying to make.

I take the Keynes quote to mean that those who profess themselves to be entirely practical are in fact acting out an implicit but very real philosophy whether they know it or not.

Another version:

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is water?"

Success or failure - there's always an ethos it's not fluffy or irrelevant it's fundamental. And being explicitly #unitedtogether should be a good one.

Btw the This is Water quote which is famous in its own world, in context.

Once again, too clever for me - I'm sincerely sorry and I'm sure you know the relevance of the point you're making.

So perhaps this doesn't answer your point - but it's the only point I care about and I'm absolutely convinced by its' validity;

If we win football matches everyone will be happy. If we don't they won't. "Ethos", "birthplace of players", "community"are when stripped back, nothing statements that lead nowhere.

UTB

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Once again, too clever for me - I'm sincerely sorry and I'm sure you know the relevance of the point you're making.

So perhaps this doesn't answer your point - but it's the only point I care about and I'm absolutely convinced by its' validity;

If we win football matches everyone will be happy. If we don't they won't. "Ethos", "birthplace of players", "community"are when stripped back, nothing statements that lead nowhere.

UTB

Ethos (explicit or implicit) is fundamental to success or failure. It's the exact opposite of nothing: it informs everything you do - whether you believe it does or not.

As for winning games = happiness. Fleetwood.

 

[alcoblade]

Ethos (explicit or implicit) is fundamental to success or failure. It's the exact opposite of nothing: it informs everything you do - whether you believe it does or not.

As for winning games = happiness. Fleetwood.

I don't understand the first bit, so I'd give that up if I were you. I'll happily accept I'm thick, with a tiny hint of thinking it's just more fluff that leads nowhere

In terms of winning - I'm talking on a repeated basis. Keep winning = promotion. Promotion = people keep coming and you get 30,000+ in the premiership. We're told "ethos" was missing under Warnock, but people voted with their feet.

I accept individual games can be won or lost with both pleasure and pain.

UTB

 

[Borbokisfreekick]

Bassett's youth policy was terrible. Whitehouse and Ward were signed by us before Bassett became our manager.

Monty, Thompson and Jags never played in any Academy matches for us. Tonge was released by Man U when he was 15 and played in a few Academy matches for us and we signed Steve Quinn from St Patrick's Athletic when he was 18 or 19

Monty, jags and Thompson never played in the academy??? That's not true at all. They all did at somepoint.

Yeah we got tonge at 15, but he didn't make his debut for us until 18, so he was playing in the academy and reserves for 3 years. Same goes for Quinn.

Nothing wrong with signing players at 15/16/17 and then developing them further to bring through...which supports the notion that the academy is worthwhile as we used it to develop those players during the later stages of their development.

 

[alcoblade]

Monty, jags and Thompson never played in the academy??? That's not true at all. They all did at somepoint.

Yeah we got tonge at 15, but he didn't make his debut for us until 18, so he was playing in the academy and reserves for 3 years. Same goes for Quinn.

Nothing wrong with signing players at 15/16/17 and then developing them further to bring through...which supports the notion that the academy is worthwhile as we used it to develop those players during the later stages of their development.

There's never a question of it adding some value, just questions of if it recoups its' costs, and if it detracts from scouting the players you actually need.

UTB

 

[bladesmanluke]

Sometimes I think we need a supporter on the board as they usually know more about football than the men in suits... Then I read shit like this