Ordinarily this would have really pissed me off but given Duchatelet will only trouser whatever the fee is, then the smaller the better as far as I am concerned. The sooner his windfalls from cashing in on players dries up the better.
It's his job, has nothing to do with loyalty. Can you explain why you are even talking about loyalty?
Thing is, it is not just a job. If he has been with us since, say 8,then he will also have benefitted from education (both football and non football), counselling, etc as part of being in our system. I do think that should engender some loyalty. I have previously compared it to a university education. If you go to Uni they throw a huge resource at giving you the best chance to succeed. They cannot ensure you do but they give you the tools. For that you pay and on graduation many, many post grads then chose to donate for the rest of their lives in thanks and acknowledgement of that and because they want other people to have the same chance in life.
If kids lap up their football education at clubs like Charlton then leave for nothing then more and more clubs will close their academies as things are tight and will likely get tighter and it becomes an unnecessary cost with limited benefit. Essentially these kids are putting at jeopardy the chance of future generations coming through that club.
Look at all the players we have developed and we are in League One so it has hardly benefitted us from a playing perspective. Financially how much has the academy cost over the last 10 years compared to receipts from Gomez, Jenkinson, Shelvey and a handful of others. Brentford have an increasingly compelling storey (Pope, Lookman, Aribo etc would fall into Brentford business model rather than our alameda products).
assuming labour laws do not cut through it I would change the current system so that a buying club pay a lump decided by a panel, minimum of £1M and then have to pay fixed amounts at certain milestones linked to the market... ie 10 PL appearances = £2M more, England cap = £5-10M more depending on their position and significant sell on. I would also have a clause whereby that player paid a % of their future career salary to the team that developed them linked to the number of years they spent at the club before 17.
That way the top clubs can still pick up the best talent but have to be far more discerning meaning their squads are smaller and more likely to make it. The club producing the talent is appropriately compensated and their is some sort of financial incentive for the youngster to consider about actually staying at the club that nurtured them.
Charlton do not “throw huge resource at giving our young players the best chance to succeed” - we don’t even sort them out breakfast before training (plus I’ve never felt compelled to donate to my Uni since I left, I paid quite enough in tuition fees whilst there).
People expecting loyalty in football are mad. When the boot was on the other foot should we have shown loyalty towards Tamer Tuna?
Hate to say yet if his parents did want £1m for him then they can feck right off
He's still a kid and needs to prove himself before he can start earning and good money from the game... Keep that lifestyle away from him at least until he's at least 20 if possible and he'll have continued working hard to get there, now he'll potentially have the attitude of someone who thinks they've already made it in the game if that's what Benfica have offered
It's his job, has nothing to do with loyalty. Can you explain why you are even talking about loyalty?
Thing is, it is not just a job. If he has been with us since, say 8,then he will also have benefitted from education (both football and non football), counselling, etc as part of being in our system. I do think that should engender some loyalty. I have previously compared it to a university education. If you go to Uni they throw a huge resource at giving you the best chance to succeed. They cannot ensure you do but they give you the tools. For that you pay and on graduation many, many post grads then chose to donate for the rest of their lives in thanks and acknowledgement of that and because they want other people to have the same chance in life.
If kids lap up their football education at clubs like Charlton then leave for nothing then more and more clubs will close their academies as things are tight and will likely get tighter and it becomes an unnecessary cost with limited benefit. Essentially these kids are putting at jeopardy the chance of future generations coming through that club.
Look at all the players we have developed and we are in League One so it has hardly benefitted us from a playing perspective. Financially how much has the academy cost over the last 10 years compared to receipts from Gomez, Jenkinson, Shelvey and a handful of others. Brentford have an increasingly compelling storey (Pope, Lookman, Aribo etc would fall into Brentford business model rather than our alameda products).
assuming labour laws do not cut through it I would change the current system so that a buying club pay a lump decided by a panel, minimum of £1M and then have to pay fixed amounts at certain milestones linked to the market... ie 10 PL appearances = £2M more, England cap = £5-10M more depending on their position and significant sell on. I would also have a clause whereby that player paid a % of their future career salary to the team that developed them linked to the number of years they spent at the club before 17.
That way the top clubs can still pick up the best talent but have to be far more discerning meaning their squads are smaller and more likely to make it. The club producing the talent is appropriately compensated and their is some sort of financial incentive for the youngster to consider about actually staying at the club that nurtured them.
Charlton do not “throw huge resource at giving our young players the best chance to succeed” - we don’t even sort them out breakfast before training (plus I’ve never felt compelled to donate to my Uni since I left, I paid quite enough in tuition fees whilst there).
People expecting loyalty in football are mad. When the boot was on the other foot should we have shown loyalty towards Tamer Tuna?
I have no idea how much the academy costs to run but suspect that as a % of out fairly meagre League One turnover it is very substantial. The youth get the coaching, facilities, teaching etc they need to give them a great chance.
The cost will not be huge compared to a Man City granted but things are relative and I would bet it is much better than just about any other team at our level and many above.
Whether you donate to your uni or not, you paid for it when there, youth football players contribute nothing at all, particularly if they leave on a free. I think that is a shame as it will, ultimately, ruin that chance for future generations if repercussions are fewer academies which we are already seeing,
Youth football is a privately run form of education, in my opinion the clubs loyalty is to give the youngsters the best chance to make it, as an educational establishment would, of course they owe no more loyalty to the ones that don’t make it like Tuna, he got his chance.
I don’t expect loyalty in this day and age, that would be naive, and that is why my suggestions above would not be contingent on a players loyalty.
There were very strong rumours his family asked for £1million sign on to stay at Charlton. Wonder what deal they got at Benfica. #cafc
I hope this is not true, if it is you cant really blame Charlton here. Youngsters/parents getting greedy. Yes if we weren't such a tinpot club we should just stump up, but clearly we wouldn't be able to meet the demands with our current twat of a owner!
There were very strong rumours his family asked for £1million sign on to stay at Charlton. Wonder what deal they got at Benfica. #cafc
I hope this is not true, if it is you cant really blame Charlton here. Youngsters/parents getting greedy. Yes if we weren't such a tinpot club we should just stump up, but clearly we wouldn't be able to meet the demands with our current twat of a owner!
Based on Konsa being sold due to FFP it makes you wonder if we'd have been blocked from offering Jeremy £1m for that reason else it would have meant losing someone like Aribo in January regardless
I've always wondered what sort of contract Gomez signed with us, and whether his agent had included a release clause allowing him to go to certain clubs if they paid £3.5m (or whatever) and if he would have left on a free if he hadn't agreed to it
I've always wondered what sort of contract Gomez signed with us, and whether his agent had included a release clause allowing him to go to certain clubs if they paid £3.5m (or whatever) and if he would have left on a free if he hadn't agreed to it
It's his job, has nothing to do with loyalty. Can you explain why you are even talking about loyalty?
Thing is, it is not just a job. If he has been with us since, say 8,then he will also have benefitted from education (both football and non football), counselling, etc as part of being in our system. I do think that should engender some loyalty. I have previously compared it to a university education. If you go to Uni they throw a huge resource at giving you the best chance to succeed. They cannot ensure you do but they give you the tools. For that you pay and on graduation many, many post grads then chose to donate for the rest of their lives in thanks and acknowledgement of that and because they want other people to have the same chance in life.
If kids lap up their football education at clubs like Charlton then leave for nothing then more and more clubs will close their academies as things are tight and will likely get tighter and it becomes an unnecessary cost with limited benefit. Essentially these kids are putting at jeopardy the chance of future generations coming through that club.
Look at all the players we have developed and we are in League One so it has hardly benefitted us from a playing perspective. Financially how much has the academy cost over the last 10 years compared to receipts from Gomez, Jenkinson, Shelvey and a handful of others. Brentford have an increasingly compelling storey (Pope, Lookman, Aribo etc would fall into Brentford business model rather than our alameda products).
assuming labour laws do not cut through it I would change the current system so that a buying club pay a lump decided by a panel, minimum of £1M and then have to pay fixed amounts at certain milestones linked to the market... ie 10 PL appearances = £2M more, England cap = £5-10M more depending on their position and significant sell on. I would also have a clause whereby that player paid a % of their future career salary to the team that developed them linked to the number of years they spent at the club before 17.
That way the top clubs can still pick up the best talent but have to be far more discerning meaning their squads are smaller and more likely to make it. The club producing the talent is appropriately compensated and their is some sort of financial incentive for the youngster to consider about actually staying at the club that nurtured them.
Charlton do not “throw huge resource at giving our young players the best chance to succeed” - we don’t even sort them out breakfast before training (plus I’ve never felt compelled to donate to my Uni since I left, I paid quite enough in tuition fees whilst there).
People expecting loyalty in football are mad. When the boot was on the other foot should we have shown loyalty towards Tamer Tuna?
I have no idea how much the academy costs to run but suspect that as a % of out fairly meagre League One turnover it is very substantial. The youth get the coaching, facilities, teaching etc they need to give them a great chance.
The cost will not be huge compared to a Man City granted but things are relative and I would bet it is much better than just about any other team at our level and many above.
Whether you donate to your uni or not, you paid for it when there, youth football players contribute nothing at all, particularly if they leave on a free. I think that is a shame as it will, ultimately, ruin that chance for future generations if repercussions are fewer academies which we are already seeing,
Youth football is a privately run form of education, in my opinion the clubs loyalty is to give the youngsters the best chance to make it, as an educational establishment would, of course they owe no more loyalty to the ones that don’t make it like Tuna, he got his chance.
I don’t expect loyalty in this day and age, that would be naive, and that is why my suggestions above would not be contingent on a players loyalty.
Tuna got several years of free football education, so he's hardly hard done by. Imagine how good British tennis would be if players got free coaching from the age of 8 until 16, and how many more working class players we would have.
Academies will only survive if the clubs receive decent compensation for the years of training the clubs pay for, we mustn't let the Roland issue distract us from this.
Good luck to the boy in his football career. He has done nothing wrong, if the regulations are such that we get nothing in compensation, that’s the fault of the football authorities and not him or his family. As been pointed out he’s off to a prestigious club with a history of bringing on young players, we are a lower league club beset by problems, which on the face of it aren’t going away quickly. It was an easy choice.
It is what it is but when we are back on top, and we will be, I hope we make an effort to see what can do to screw Benfica, in the interests of fairness of course...
It is what it is but when we are back on top, and we will be, I hope we make an effort to see what can do to screw Benfica, in the interests of fairness of course...
We took Martin Pringle from them... this is their revenge
It's his job, has nothing to do with loyalty. Can you explain why you are even talking about loyalty?
Thing is, it is not just a job. If he has been with us since, say 8,then he will also have benefitted from education (both football and non football), counselling, etc as part of being in our system. I do think that should engender some loyalty. I have previously compared it to a university education. If you go to Uni they throw a huge resource at giving you the best chance to succeed. They cannot ensure you do but they give you the tools. For that you pay and on graduation many, many post grads then chose to donate for the rest of their lives in thanks and acknowledgement of that and because they want other people to have the same chance in life.
If kids lap up their football education at clubs like Charlton then leave for nothing then more and more clubs will close their academies as things are tight and will likely get tighter and it becomes an unnecessary cost with limited benefit. Essentially these kids are putting at jeopardy the chance of future generations coming through that club.
Look at all the players we have developed and we are in League One so it has hardly benefitted us from a playing perspective. Financially how much has the academy cost over the last 10 years compared to receipts from Gomez, Jenkinson, Shelvey and a handful of others. Brentford have an increasingly compelling storey (Pope, Lookman, Aribo etc would fall into Brentford business model rather than our alameda products).
assuming labour laws do not cut through it I would change the current system so that a buying club pay a lump decided by a panel, minimum of £1M and then have to pay fixed amounts at certain milestones linked to the market... ie 10 PL appearances = £2M more, England cap = £5-10M more depending on their position and significant sell on. I would also have a clause whereby that player paid a % of their future career salary to the team that developed them linked to the number of years they spent at the club before 17.
That way the top clubs can still pick up the best talent but have to be far more discerning meaning their squads are smaller and more likely to make it. The club producing the talent is appropriately compensated and their is some sort of financial incentive for the youngster to consider about actually staying at the club that nurtured them.
Cant remember the name of the book that Robinson mentioned last year at Bromley, Henry may recall. Read that before you think kids are anything but commodities and meat and certsinly its no University education.
It is what it is but when we are back on top, and we will be, I hope we make an effort to see what can do to screw Benfica, in the interests of fairness of course...
Comments
People expecting loyalty in football are mad. When the boot was on the other foot should we have shown loyalty towards Tamer Tuna?
@Redhenry
He's still a kid and needs to prove himself before he can start earning and good money from the game... Keep that lifestyle away from him at least until he's at least 20 if possible and he'll have continued working hard to get there, now he'll potentially have the attitude of someone who thinks they've already made it in the game if that's what Benfica have offered
The cost will not be huge compared to a Man City granted but things are relative and I would bet it is much better than just about any other team at our level and many above.
Whether you donate to your uni or not, you paid for it when there, youth football players contribute nothing at all, particularly if they leave on a free. I think that is a shame as it will, ultimately, ruin that chance for future generations if repercussions are fewer academies which we are already seeing,
Youth football is a privately run form of education, in my opinion the clubs loyalty is to give the youngsters the best chance to make it, as an educational establishment would, of course they owe no more loyalty to the ones that don’t make it like Tuna, he got his chance.
I don’t expect loyalty in this day and age, that would be naive, and that is why my suggestions above would not be contingent on a players loyalty.
I hope this is not true, if it is you cant really blame Charlton here. Youngsters/parents getting greedy. Yes if we weren't such a tinpot club we should just stump up, but clearly we wouldn't be able to meet the demands with our current twat of a owner!
Academies will only survive if the clubs receive decent compensation for the years of training the clubs pay for, we mustn't let the Roland issue distract us from this.