David Brooks Windfall £,£££,£££

[stringer]

Fourteen of our team against Bolton came out of our academy.

Wow, how wrong can you be. I'd have said only Sharp, it must be worth every penny then.

Read the question you asked me.

I would suggest it's Danny04 saying that all the players came through an academy 'somewhere' but don't let that cloud your point, such as it is.

14 academy products played on Saturday. Somewhere betweeen 11-14 will play on Friday. From Rangers, Carlisle/ManU, Everton, Blackburn, Liverpool and many, many more. United aren’t unique here and as CW said recently the job of the academy is to produce professional footballers, not just for United.

 

[Tom Bott]

Do Norwich City have forum threads about selling their top players ?

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/norwich-city/alletransfers/verein/1123

and about how little their owners spend.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

Read the question you asked me.

14 academy products played on Saturday. Somewhere betweeen 11-14 will play on Friday. From Rangers, Carlisle/ManU, Everton, Blackburn, Liverpool and many, many more. United aren’t unique here and as CW said recently the job of the academy is to produce professional footballers, not just for United.

The raison d’être of the Academy is to make a profit in real or notional terms.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Quite sad that if we could have 1988 all over again Brian Deane and Tony Agana would have got about 10 games each for us before being flogged for the massive sum of £250,000 for a third division player

Arguments are always strengthened by quoting hypothetical situations from thirty years ago. Bravo.

 

[Fanny magnet]

Quite sad that if we could have 1988 all over again Brian Deane and Tony Agana would have got about 10 games each for us before being flogged for the massive sum of £250,000 for a third division player

Only someone who didn't support the club in1988 would come out with such a ludicrous statement

 

[stringer]

The raison d’être of the Academy is to make a profit in real or notional terms.

By producing professional footballers

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

By producing professional footballers

No, by constantly producing footballers of a certain level of quality.

In my humble opinion, we’re wasting money if we’re supplying the Central Coast Mariners and Carlisle’s of the footballing world and by not having at least one player of a academy origin in the match day squad.

There’s nothing clever about spending £100k to produce £50k footballers. And it’s a glib comment to suggest otherwise. You’re the font of all wisdom, what’s the youngest we take players on at? 8? what’s the annual cost of training those players up to 18 with all the add on costs?

 

[BushBlade]

No, by constantly producing footballers of a certain level of quality.

In my humble opinion, we’re wasting money if we’re supplying the Central Coast Mariners and Carlisle’s of the footballing world and by not having at least one player of a academy origin in the match day squad.

There’s nothing clever about spending £100k to produce £50k footballers. And it’s a glib comment to suggest otherwise.

I’d be staggered if we were spending £100k for every £50k of player we produce. Over the last eleven or twelve years the academy must have cost about £60m if that were the case.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

I’d be staggered if we were spending £100k for every £50k of player we produce. Over the last eleven or twelve years the academy must have cost about £60m if that were the case.

I was just using the figures to illustrate my point & grabbed them out of thin air. I am sure the more learned amongst us with have the true figures to hand, to either prove or disprove my argument.

The point I was trying to clumsily make was that the academy of a championship club should not be just focused on producing ‘professional footballers’, but ‘championship level professional footballers’. The odd Maguire or Brooks every decade is a bonus.

For example, Ajax academy aims to produce players good enough to play for Ajax and then get sold on to the best clubs on the world, not central coast mariners on a free.

And before I’m denounced, I was supporting the club in 1988.

 

[I should coco]

I’d be staggered if we were spending £100k for every £50k of player we produce. Over the last eleven or twelve years the academy must have cost about £60m if that were the case.

I'd guess based on about 20 full time staff and establishment costs (rates/utilities etc) the academy will cost about £1-2m per year.

if you add on the sell ons for Kyle and Harry and Brooks/Naughton/Ramsdale/DCL/Jags/Tonge/Lowton fees, the academy is probably in profit since 2000, but not by that much.

Still, I'm sure the anti-Kevs can twist this to 'prove' how badly we've been run and how much he's pocketed.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'd guess based on about 20 full time staff and establishment costs (rates/utilities etc) the academy will cost about £1-2m per year.

if you add on the sell ons for Kyle and Harry and Brooks/Naughton/Ramsdale/DCL/Jags/Tonge/Lowton fees, the academy is probably in profit since 2000, but not by that much.

Still, I'm sure the anti-Kevs can twist this to 'prove' how badly we've been run and how much he's pocketed.

I know who owns the freehold.

 

[Tom Bott]

Does owning a freehold provide for free lunches though ?

At the end of the day football is about creating a successful team, how individuals are moved around in that process is a job for others.

 

[stringer]

No, by constantly producing footballers of a certain level of quality.

In my humble opinion, we’re wasting money if we’re supplying the Central Coast Mariners and Carlisle’s of the footballing world and by not having at least one player of a academy origin in the match day squad.

There’s nothing clever about spending £100k to produce £50k footballers. And it’s a glib comment to suggest otherwise. You’re the font of all wisdom, what’s the youngest we take players on at? 8? what’s the annual cost of training those players up to 18 with all the add on costs?

Needless dig aside, ask Chris Wilder as that was a direct quote out of his mouth

 

[BushBlade]

I was just using the figures to illustrate my point & grabbed them out of thin air. I am sure the more learned amongst us with have the true figures to hand, to either prove or disprove my argument.

The point I was trying to clumsily make was that the academy of a championship club should not be just focused on producing ‘professional footballers’, but ‘championship level professional footballers’. The odd Maguire or Brooks every decade is a bonus.

For example, Ajax academy aims to produce players good enough to play for Ajax and then get sold on to the best clubs on the world, not central coast mariners on a free.

And before I’m denounced, I was supporting the club in 1988.

I know exactly what Ajax do and have done since I read Venables’ autobiography about 25 years ago. They’re also the biggest club in the Nederlands with a history of high level achievement behind them and a sizeable income. We’re a second tier club with a Cat 2 academy.

Obviously our intention is to produce footballers capable of playing at the highest level but it’s almost impossible to predict which of our players will actually do so. So we make a best guess, release the ones we think have no chance and sell the ‘possibles’ to smaller clubs, once we’ve had them out on loan to assess them, with add ons to cover us if we’ve got it wrong.

Pretty much the same as every other club with an academy.

Your last paragraph seems oddly unnecessary and, if anything, makes me think you might be pork.

 

[BushBlade]

I'd guess based on about 20 full time staff and establishment costs (rates/utilities etc) the academy will cost about £1-2m per year.

if you add on the sell ons for Kyle and Harry and Brooks/Naughton/Ramsdale/DCL/Jags/Tonge/Lowton fees, the academy is probably in profit since 2000, but not by that much.

Still, I'm sure the anti-Kevs can twist this to 'prove' how badly we've been run and how much he's pocketed.

Bear in mind we get money from the PL to contribute to the running costs (that’s what EPPP was all about) and sponsorship too.
I don’t think the academy in it’s current form was set up until 2003.

 

[Booker4]

Norwood was funded by Evans and Leonard. The Brooks money wasn’t touched.

We sold a player now being linked with the top teams to fund 3 January loans. I’d say that’s not the best business.

Someone may have already posted this mate - not read all 18 pages - but you've forgotten Egan cost us £4m. That is our record transfer paid and I believe was financed from a loan that McCabe took out in the summer, so its not as if we didn't spend money this summer. Only time will tell if the loans we got in January will make the difference - I believe they will - but I doubt they cost all the Brooks money either, and I don't believe we received the full money for Brooks yet, we certainly didn't in the summer.

I heard another fan yesterday saying we should have kept Brooks because we'll be going up and that gets us £135m and we didn't need the Brooks money! Presumably he's forgetting that last summer we didn't know where we were going to finish, its all very well saying that now!

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

.

 

[Brian Deane]

Quite sad that if we could have 1988 all over again Brian Deane and Tony Agana would have got about 10 games each for us before being flogged for the massive sum of £250,000 for a third division player

I can't speak for Tony but I certainly wouldn't be lacing my boots for a paltry £250k

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

No, by constantly producing footballers of a certain level of quality.

In my humble opinion, we’re wasting money if we’re supplying the Central Coast Mariners and Carlisle’s of the footballing world and by not having at least one player of a academy origin in the match day squad.

There’s nothing clever about spending £100k to produce £50k footballers. And it’s a glib comment to suggest otherwise. You’re the font of all wisdom, what’s the youngest we take players on at? 8? what’s the annual cost of training those players up to 18 with all the add on costs?

But its the future

 

[Topplayersleave]

Arguments are always strengthened by quoting hypothetical situations from thirty years ago. Bravo.

Yes, there wasn't a stockpiling of young talent being wasted in those days, a player would rather earn £500 a week and play rather than £1,500 a week for two years and never be seen again
20x his salary for 3 or 4 years to sit and scratch his arse, then retire, wasn't available

 

[BladeInIreland]

Someone may have already posted this mate - not read all 18 pages - but you've forgotten Egan cost us £4m. That is our record transfer paid and I believe was financed from a loan that McCabe took out in the summer, so its not as if we didn't spend money this summer. Only time will tell if the loans we got in January will make the difference - I believe they will - but I doubt they cost all the Brooks money either, and I don't believe we received the full money for Brooks yet, we certainly didn't in the summer.

I heard another fan yesterday saying we should have kept Brooks because we'll be going up and that gets us £135m and we didn't need the Brooks money! Presumably he's forgetting that last summer we didn't know where we were going to finish, its all very well saying that now!

Egan didn’t cost 4 mill, nowhere near I believe.

 

[Topplayersleave]

Only someone who didn't support the club in1988 would come out with such a ludicrous statement

I was probably one of the 7,000 0r 8,000 best fans this club had in those days

 

[Topplayersleave]

I can't speak for Tony but I certainly wouldn't be lacing my boots for a paltry £250k

No, but you could have doubled your wages from about £500 to £1,000 a week for a couple of years plus a whopping £20 or £30 grand signing on fee that would have paid your mortgage off

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Egan didn’t cost 4 mill, nowhere near I believe.

He is on a pay per play basis - we pay Brentford for every game he plays over the length of his contract.
If plays every game it would add up to £4m. There was a down payment apparently but not substantial.

UTB

 

[Fanny magnet]

I was probably one of the 7,000 0r 8,000 best fans this club had in those days

And you think our board then was better than now ?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes, there wasn't a stockpiling of young talent being wasted in those days, a player would rather earn £500 a week and play rather than £1,500 a week for two years and never be seen again
20x his salary for 3 or 4 years to sit and scratch his arse, then retire, wasn't available

IT DIDNT HAPPEN!

 

[Brian Deane]

No, but you could have doubled your wages from about £500 to £1,000 a week for a couple of years plus a whopping £20 or £30 grand signing on fee that would have paid your mortgage off

Mortgage WTF is one of those

 

[Maidenhead]

The risk with Brooks was minimal

The risk with Brooks was £12m to the owners.

I wouldn't call that minimal

 

[Tezza1889]

Way back in the mists of time I remember a quote from the club regarding the proposal to build the accademy, it went along these lines..

“We need a facility to bring our own players through because we can’t compete with the amounts of money being paid for footballers these days, the plan is to bring our own homegrown players through and see them play for Sheffield United's first team”

My thoughts are maybe we’ve been a victim of our own success, we’ve put them in the shop window and previous to brooks pretty much given the buying club a real bargain..

They have to be a success in the PL to generate the really top valuations, It’s the move and how they take the oppprtunity that makes the players value rocket, and it wouldn’t happen if they weren’t playing PL football..

Saying that, them clauses must really help, and I think under wilder it’ll be less of having our pants down in future, and we got lucky when brooks was let go by Man City, not sure many have considered that fact..

 

[Topplayersleave]

And you think our board then was better than now ?

Where does it say that