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

Charlton 13th most "productive" Academy in 2017/18

And 2nd most productive Cat 2 academy behind Leeds.

Clearly lots of factors in play and "productive" in terms of games played won't always mean better but an indication that for the time being at least one part of club continues to function well.

http://trainingground.guru/articles/academy-productivity-rankings-2017/18

Comments

  • Intresting that Charlton, Coventry and Blackburn are ranked so highly yet a lot of people wouldn't credit the owners with anything positive over the last 3 years.

    Leeds had there problems to.
  • Did it say whether the "production" eventually went to other teams?
  • Cafc43v3r said:

    Intresting that Charlton, Coventry and Blackburn are ranked so highly yet a lot of people wouldn't credit the owners with anything positive over the last 3 years.

    Leeds had there problems to.

    Our youth team has been one of the best for years, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rolands input.
  • Rob7Lee said:

    Doesn't that just show players used, i.e. if a madman buys a football club, makes a mess of the playing side, leaves the manager with a lack of experienced players meaning the manager has to field players from the academy, wouldn't that get you up this particular league table?

    It would, hence why it's not necessity the best way to measure success.
  • Did it say whether the "production" eventually went to other teams?

    Yes, in way. It shows what level the players are performing
  • Cafc43v3r said:

    Intresting that Charlton, Coventry and Blackburn are ranked so highly yet a lot of people wouldn't credit the owners with anything positive over the last 3 years.

    Leeds had there problems to.

    No I wouldn’t credit them with anything.
  • Surprised Leeds are only Cat 2

    I always think these stats are a bit unfair on Swansea (and Cardiff) as they only count English players produced, and not Welsh ones!
  • shine166 said:

    Cafc43v3r said:

    Intresting that Charlton, Coventry and Blackburn are ranked so highly yet a lot of people wouldn't credit the owners with anything positive over the last 3 years.

    Leeds had there problems to.

    Our youth team has been one of the best for years, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rolands input.
    Who pays for it? Father Christmas? Yes we get an central academy grant, and other external funding, but Charlton and Coventry don't generate enough income for the academy to be viable without owner funding.

    My point was that 3 or 4 clubs who's fans have been, publicly, very unhappy with their yet they have still invested in the clubs academies.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Cafc43v3r said:

    shine166 said:

    Cafc43v3r said:

    Intresting that Charlton, Coventry and Blackburn are ranked so highly yet a lot of people wouldn't credit the owners with anything positive over the last 3 years.

    Leeds had there problems to.

    Our youth team has been one of the best for years, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rolands input.
    Who pays for it? Father Christmas? Yes we get an central academy grant, and other external funding, but Charlton and Coventry don't generate enough income for the academy to be viable without owner funding.

    My point was that 3 or 4 clubs who's fans have been, publicly, very unhappy with their yet they have still invested in the clubs academies.
    And Roland hasn't invested in our academy for the good of the club, he has invested in the academy to line his own pockets. Where did the Lookman money go?
  • edited December 8
    Cafc43v3r said:

    Intresting that Charlton, Coventry and Blackburn are ranked so highly yet a lot of people wouldn't credit the owners with anything positive over the last 3 years.

    Leeds had there problems to.

    The unit of measure here is games played by academy graduates. All three of those clubs have under invested in transfers. That means gaps in the squad, that others might plug by signing an established pro, have been filled by promoting youth players early. Consequently youth players get more first team playing opportunities.

    It makes perfect sense for those 3 clubs to be high up the list. They all had well established, well run academies before their respective toxic owners took over which has helped keep their team’s head above water.

    In Roland’s case, the best you could say is he has largely kept his meddling out of academy affairs. He seemed to identify it was already well run and selling graduates for profit was always a foundation stone of his business plan, as far as he had one.
  • edited December 8
    Not sure our academy can claim much credit for Lookman, seeing that he was 16 when we signed him
  • Cafc43v3r said:

    shine166 said:

    Cafc43v3r said:

    Intresting that Charlton, Coventry and Blackburn are ranked so highly yet a lot of people wouldn't credit the owners with anything positive over the last 3 years.

    Leeds had there problems to.

    Our youth team has been one of the best for years, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rolands input.
    Who pays for it? Father Christmas? Yes we get an central academy grant, and other external funding, but Charlton and Coventry don't generate enough income for the academy to be viable without owner funding.

    My point was that 3 or 4 clubs who's fans have been, publicly, very unhappy with their yet they have still invested in the clubs academies.
    If you want to give Roland credit for not destroying the academy or CACT that’s your prerogative. I suppose in a weird way you could credit him for leaving them the fuck alone, shame he didn’t take that view with the running of other parts of the club, like the first team or the fan base.
  • Cafc43v3r said:

    shine166 said:

    Cafc43v3r said:

    Intresting that Charlton, Coventry and Blackburn are ranked so highly yet a lot of people wouldn't credit the owners with anything positive over the last 3 years.

    Leeds had there problems to.

    Our youth team has been one of the best for years, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rolands input.
    Who pays for it? Father Christmas? Yes we get an central academy grant, and other external funding, but Charlton and Coventry don't generate enough income for the academy to be viable without owner funding.

    My point was that 3 or 4 clubs who's fans have been, publicly, very unhappy with their yet they have still invested in the clubs academies.
    Well you can credit him for taking it backwards if that helps? Roland wouldn't put money in unless he was getting something out of it.... Just look at the first team.
  • Easy to forget the likes of Fuller, Azeez, Rickets, Smith, Piggott, Turner, Charlie, Thomas, Ajayi, Shittu, JCR, RCC et al who have had decent careers, most without earning us a fee.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!