The clubs agreed to it because the premier league would have withdrawn the £5.5m of funding they give (each?) to the trust if they turned it down. It's an utter disgrace.
The clubs accepted it because they chose the guarenteed funding over possible riches if they get a star youngster. An important example of the new system is Chelsea signing a young MK Dons player recently/soon for 1.5 mil. Under new regs they could pay less than 150,000 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2011/10/football_league_votes_in_favou.html#299200). Football in general has been giving more and more control and influence to the big countries and big clubs for some timme now, the break away of the football league, the favouring of european countries in the way FIFA work out the points nations get from matches, the seeding of big nations for the last WC play-offs when it looked like big teams wouldn't get through, Liverpool wanting to allow clubs to get their own TV rights, the TV rights deal for La Liga... all this will mean is that any half-decent youngster gets snapped up by a big club, doesn't play, gets loaned out and is then released back down... sometimes players need to play to develop.
The analysis of this by journalists seems grossly incompetent. It goes to prove the widely pathetic level of analysis from mainstream news outlets on sports in this country. Until David Conn, or the Liverpool Swiss banker comment on this I'll hold my breath....
Firstly both Shelvey and Jenkinson were under contract so the fee had to be negotiated. Secondly Sam Baldock was 22 and under contract, when sold to the Whammies. So how in the fucking hell would that be under the agreed pricing structure BBC? I don't think anyone would have touched Baldock until this season. We would have lost out on the Mcwhatever he was who went to Man U.
Yes it appears grossly ridiculous, but equally in the main does not affect us. If players play for us in youth teams, it is probably because they are not good enough or do not want to play for the Arse or other big clubs.
The problem is not with transfer fees but the amount that clubs get paid for youngsters who have not signed pro-deals. This will mean that rather than waiting to see if a player does well when he reaches his late teens the big clubs will just try and sign the kids earlier so that they avoid having to the negotiate a transfer fee. This could be a lot of fear, but the real issue I have is the way that the Prem League threatened to withdraw funding and basically blackmailed the league clubs. Football governance is awful around the world.
Sorry KHA, but your views bring to mind the old adage......if rape is inevitable, lie down and enjoy it !
I'm not sure I like my views being compared to condoning rape to be honest Granpa!
Ultimately the Premier League made us an offer. We can have £5.5m (or what ever it is) of the the money they (and it is the Premier League that motivates people to subscribe to Sky in most cases) earn from TV revenue for nothing, or we can can charge them extortionate fees for finding talented young players. We can't have both. It is their money, they can choose to do whet ever they want with it. Sky are not going to be too worried if they lose the right to show games from the Championship downwards, and if they wanted them they would negotiate a deal themselves, and in the absence of any meaningful competition I doubt they would pay the Championship clubs £132m a year.
I seriously doubt that there are many clubs that have averaged more that £5.5m a year in transfer fees for their promising youngsters, so it was a simple decision to make. Chances are the Premier League will use this tactic again when they want something from us, but as it's their money they can do what they like.
The problem is not with transfer fees but the amount that clubs get paid for youngsters who have not signed pro-deals. This will mean that rather than waiting to see if a player does well when he reaches his late teens the big clubs will just try and sign the kids earlier so that they avoid having to the negotiate a transfer fee.
I suspect that you are right and these players will be in limbo for a few months, but sooner or later they will be loaned out to clubs where they will get valuable experience. The players will be earning more, they will have more security (the big clubs can offer them longer deals) and they will probably play at the appropriate level for their development.
I see this as a win win for all the parties except the football league clubs that currently get paid big fees for what is essentially being lucky and finding a talented young player.
Sorry KHA, but your views bring to mind the old adage......if rape is inevitable, lie down and enjoy it !
I'm not sure I like my views being compared to condoning rape to be honest Granpa!
Ultimately the Premier League made us an offer. We can have £5.5m (or what ever it is) of the the money they (and it is the Premier League that motivates people to subscribe to Sky in most cases) earn from TV revenue for nothing, or we can can charge them extortionate fees for finding talented young players. We can't have both. It is their money, they can choose to do whet ever they want with it. Sky are not going to be too worried if they lose the right to show games from the Championship downwards, and if they wanted them they would negotiate a deal themselves, and in the absence of any meaningful competition I doubt they would pay the Championship clubs £132m a year.
I seriously doubt that there are many clubs that have averaged more that £5.5m a year in transfer fees for their promising youngsters, so it was a simple decision to make. Chances are the Premier League will use this tactic again when they want something from us, but as it's their money they can do what they like.
You keep saying 'find these players' as if the clubs don't train, nuture and develop these young lads. Clubs invest a lot of money into bringing youth players through the system, this decision has pretty much taken away any incentive to do so.
This can only be a bad thing for the English game.
KHA, there was no intention on my part to insult you. If you are my age it's a well known saying that suggests that if something is inevitable, you may as well smile and take it.
You are seemingly heavily into the detail of this particular transaction, whereas I am viewing it as yet another part of the apparent plan by the Premiership to rule the World ( of football ), which I see as detrimental to the game as a whole.
Also I don't see it as lucky when you find talented young players, having secured an excellent Training Ground, run something like Valley Gold, and employed someone like Paul Hart ( presumably not cheap ) to direct your Academy. That my friend is good business practice.
I cant see this is in the interests of football in general in this country, in the interests of the young kids or for any football club ouside the big 6.
Very bad for serious competition and bad for ambitious lower league clubs.
The outcome will be that the big clubs will take on
Also I don't see it as lucky when you find talented young players, having secured an excellent Training Ground, run something like Valley Gold, and employed someone like Paul Hart ( presumably not cheap ) to direct your Academy. That my friend is good business practice.
Sure, the academy does add something to the players, and the scouting network is a part of the business that can be improved to increase the chances of finding the talent. My reference to luck is based on the fact that no amount of training can make a super star out of a poor player. If an academy was able to produce consistent results, irrespective as to the talent of the kids that go in, then every player it produces would go on to play at exactly the same level. This clearly doesn't happen.
Quite an upbeat article about the new youth deal from Steve Kavanagh. While saying it is a threat he states that Clubs saw the £300k pa each club will get as a good deal. Didnt say how we voted just that we have invested a lot in staff and infrastructure to improve the academy.
Charlton chief executive Stephen Kavanagh addressed the subject of the restructuring of academy football in his Valley Review column for Saturday's match against Preston North End - and now supporters can also read the article on www.cafc.co.uk.
"The biggest change to youth football for many years was agreed by Football League clubs last month, not without some controversy.
"The proposals regarding the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) mean that lower-league clubs will no longer be able to demand such significant fees when U17 players are snapped up by bigger clubs.
"But while it's undoubtedly good news for the biggest clubs, as the academy system undergoes a big shake-up, here at Charlton we are confident we can make the most of the new system.
"The arguments surrounding the EPPP have focused on the fact that new tariffs will lead to selling clubs receiving as little as £3,000 per year for the early stages of a player's development, with further sums depending on the categorisation of the selling club's academy.
"This is a substantial reduction, and would have resulted in us receiving a much smaller fee when Sean McGinty moved to Manchester United two years ago, for example.
"However, the Premier League has also agreed to increase its grant for Football League clubs' youth set-ups by around £300,000 per year.
"With no guarantees that any club will produce a player talented enough to be wanted by the bigger clubs, this is a significant sum, because clubs are effectively being paid run to their academies, whether they produce players to be sold on or not.
"As we have made clear many times, the aim of our academy is first and foremost to produce players for the Charlton first team, and during the summer we made structural changes to anticipate these proposals.
"The underlying principle is that not enough young English talent is reaching the Premier League because homegrown players are too expensive, which leads to the influx of cheaper foreign players, which has a knock-on effect on the national team.
"There is a premium on young English players because clubs spend a lot of money developing those players through their youth set-ups and, quite rightly, want compensating for that if bigger clubs come calling.
"This prompted a lot of arguments, and the league won important concessions in areas such as reducing the number of staff required and independent auditing of academies, but clubs ultimately accepted the benefits of having a constant income stream.
"What's vital now is that we accept and deal with the changes, and we have already put in place plans to improve our facilities as part of the restructuring of the academy system that will lead to an improvement in the standard of the player we are bringing through, and establish as many safeguards as possible to avoid losing players to bigger clubs.
"This will always happen. It happens now and will continue to happen, because we cannot force anyone to sign scholarship forms. But this club's great selling point is that we can demonstrate time and again that there is a clear pathway from the youth team to the first team, and it's a powerful argument.
"At present, we are aiming to become a category two academy, but we are not ruling out category one status in the future.
"For the clubs outside the top few in the country, the EPPP represents a threat to their development of young talent.
"But it also represents an opportunity for clubs to improve their youth set-ups, and those who adapt quickly to the new system will fare well.
"We're already a long way down the track in doing that. We've recruited a number of new staff over the summer and developed a new infrastructure, and we are confident we can maintain, and improve, this club's fine reputation for producing young players."
A clear strategy for lower league clubs is to demonstrate to young players the benefits of staying put, getting earlier first team experience and improving, then moving to the PL at a later stage.
I guess a PL clubs counter view will be, "join us, & we'll send you out on loan to get the experience (& be paid more)"
All well & good concentrating on developing players good enough for Charlton's first team & some will still dribble through, but I'd guess the more promising ones will have left long before?
A clear strategy for lower league clubs is to demonstrate to young players the benefits of staying put, getting earlier first team experience and improving, then moving to the PL at a later stage.
I guess a PL clubs counter view will be, "join us, & we'll send you out on loan to get the experience (& be paid more)"
All well & good concentrating on developing players good enough for Charlton's first team & some will still dribble through, but I'd guess the more promising ones will have left long before?
It's not clear from that article what Charlton's view was prior to the decision but now it's been made it seems they are going to make the most of it.
As we already have a strong academy infrastructure we're ahead of a lot of other clubs and can get a least level 2 status, putting us up with most prem clubs.
I suspect but don't know that the long term view is that sooner rather than later we'll be a big bad premiership team creaming off the best players from lesser clubs.
Or that might just be wishful thinking on my part : - )
Can a "tier 1" academy 'poach' from a Tier 1 academy?
Or can players only move upwards between the tiers/gradings?
Considering we scrapped our Academy & reverted to a school of excellence due to the amount of players being signed by Chelsea, Liverpool, etc for peanuts, this doesn't bode too well for our youth outlook.
Can a "tier 1" academy 'poach' from a Tier 1 academy?
Or can players only move upwards between the tiers/gradings?
Considering we scrapped our Academy & reverted to a school of excellence due to the amount of players being signed by Chelsea, Liverpool, etc for peanuts, this doesn't bode too well for our youth outlook.
I think tier 1 and 2 can sign players at a much younger age than the others. So by the time smaller clubs get a chance the big boys have already hovvered up much of the talent. Not sure how the poaching between tier 1 clubs work but I think the way it's been designed the PL think that is just going to be the very top clubs and no one else anyway.
Comments
In fact, according to this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8886558.stm
We get £335,000 a season.
This can only be a bad thing for the English game.
I cant see this is in the interests of football in general in this country, in the interests of the young kids or for any football club ouside the big 6.
Very bad for serious competition and bad for ambitious lower league clubs.
The outcome will be that the big clubs will take on
Quite an upbeat article about the new youth deal from Steve Kavanagh. While saying it is a threat he states that Clubs saw the £300k pa each club will get as a good deal. Didnt say how we voted just that we have invested a lot in staff and infrastructure to improve the academy.
Two more links on this, which I can't get to work on here but you can paste them into your browsers.
The Guardian one is by Simon Jordan, and is worth a look for his profile picture alone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15448999.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/nov/03/premier-league-football-league-academy?INTCMP=SRCH
Similar to Millwall fans, a surprisingly limited reaction from Charlton fans on here to the EPPP.
Find it quite worrying that this could lead to many lower league clubs just scrapping their youth systems.
That PL apperance figures, is that true? Not read that anywhere else.
Why would Charlton continue with a £1m+ Academy if all the top prospects are taken at 13/14 for peanuts?
Sad decision I think.
Charlton chief executive
Stephen Kavanagh addressed the subject of the restructuring of academy
football in his Valley Review column for Saturday's match against
Preston North End - and now supporters can also read the article on www.cafc.co.uk.
"The biggest change to youth football for many years was agreed by
Football League clubs last month, not without some controversy.
"The proposals regarding the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP)
mean that lower-league clubs will no longer be able to demand such
significant fees when U17 players are snapped up by bigger clubs.
Article continues
"But while it's undoubtedly good news for the biggest clubs, as the
academy system undergoes a big shake-up, here at Charlton we are
confident we can make the most of the new system.
"The arguments surrounding the EPPP have focused on the fact that new
tariffs will lead to selling clubs receiving as little as £3,000 per
year for the early stages of a player's development, with further sums
depending on the categorisation of the selling club's academy.
"This is a substantial reduction, and would have resulted in us
receiving a much smaller fee when Sean McGinty moved to Manchester
United two years ago, for example.
"However, the Premier League has also agreed to increase its grant
for Football League clubs' youth set-ups by around £300,000 per year.
"With no guarantees that any club will produce a player talented
enough to be wanted by the bigger clubs, this is a significant sum,
because clubs are effectively being paid run to their academies, whether
they produce players to be sold on or not.
"As we have made clear many times, the aim of our academy is first
and foremost to produce players for the Charlton first team, and during
the summer we made structural changes to anticipate these proposals.
"The underlying principle is that not enough young English talent is
reaching the Premier League because homegrown players are too expensive,
which leads to the influx of cheaper foreign players, which has a
knock-on effect on the national team.
"There is a premium on young English players because clubs spend a
lot of money developing those players through their youth set-ups and,
quite rightly, want compensating for that if bigger clubs come calling.
"This prompted a lot of arguments, and the league won important
concessions in areas such as reducing the number of staff required and
independent auditing of academies, but clubs ultimately accepted the
benefits of having a constant income stream.
"What's vital now is that we accept and deal with the changes, and we
have already put in place plans to improve our facilities as part of
the restructuring of the academy system that will lead to an improvement
in the standard of the player we are bringing through, and establish as
many safeguards as possible to avoid losing players to bigger clubs.
"This will always happen. It happens now and will continue to happen,
because we cannot force anyone to sign scholarship forms. But this
club's great selling point is that we can demonstrate time and again
that there is a clear pathway from the youth team to the first team, and
it's a powerful argument.
"At present, we are aiming to become a category two academy, but we are not ruling out category one status in the future.
"For the clubs outside the top few in the country, the EPPP represents a threat to their development of young talent.
"But it also represents an opportunity for clubs to improve their
youth set-ups, and those who adapt quickly to the new system will fare
well.
"We're already a long way down the track in doing that. We've
recruited a number of new staff over the summer and developed a new
infrastructure, and we are confident we can maintain, and improve, this
club's fine reputation for producing young players."
Cheers Henry. Interesting views from Kavanagh.
A clear strategy for lower league clubs is to demonstrate to young players the benefits of staying put, getting earlier first team experience and improving, then moving to the PL at a later stage.
I guess a PL clubs counter view will be, "join us, & we'll send you out on loan to get the experience (& be paid more)"
All well & good concentrating on developing players good enough for Charlton's first team & some will still dribble through, but I'd guess the more promising ones will have left long before?
As we already have a strong academy infrastructure we're ahead of a lot of other clubs and can get a least level 2 status, putting us up with most prem clubs.
I suspect but don't know that the long term view is that sooner rather than later we'll be a big bad premiership team creaming off the best players from lesser clubs.
Or that might just be wishful thinking on my part : - )
Think west ham are thinking along similar lines.
Can a "tier 1" academy 'poach' from a Tier 1 academy?
Or can players only move upwards between the tiers/gradings?
Considering we scrapped our Academy & reverted to a school of excellence due to the amount of players being signed by Chelsea, Liverpool, etc for peanuts, this doesn't bode too well for our youth outlook.