Dier is an issue too. I’m still an advocate for a system that works on two tiers - a requirement for players who have been registered at the club since a certain age/spent a certain time in the academy (even allowing for loans up to the age of 21, say) and a separate requirement for players who play for (or could play for) England. The first would be non-transferable between clubs (e.g. Kane would be club grown for us but not for another club, but would fit the second requirement for anyone). Ultimately IMO the rules around ‘home grown’ players should reward clubs who invest in their academies and promote those players, and should reflect that clubs need to make an effort to develop players who are eligible for the national team. There’s an argument to have the second eligibility extend to UK&I because of the fluidity between the countries at a youth level.
The problem with this is that the corrupt money clubs have nobbled the academy system and utterly dominate at that level. It gives them yet another massive advantage over everyone else, especially as they cheat while they're doing it.
They already have enough of an incentive to do it though, in terms of resale value and prestige, so I’m not sure it changes much. Like you say there will always be players who want to be in City or Chelsea’s academies because of the money and facilities and status (I’m sure the coaching is excellent too, to be fair) and there will always be some who don’t want to leave their local area or like the coaching environment where they are or feel that the path to the first team is better for them away from one of those clubs. Aside from changing rules on academy player recruitment or placing strict limits on how long a players has to have been with a certain club to qualify as ‘home grown/club grown’, I’m not sure what to do about it.
Potentially. But some clubs will still always be richer than others or have better facilities, coaching etc.
The THST said the club has rejected the chance for a meeting. The initial request in hindsight was arguably rash (despite three horrifically **** results and performances, coupled with **** performances beforehand) but it’s also not a good look from the club to reject the meeting knowing full well fan tension is at an all time high under ENIC’s stewardship and a chance to try and say a few things to appease fans shouldn’t have been dismissed in my opinion, especially as ironically one of the big things a lot of fans have been pissed off about is a lack of communication from the club…
I think they jumped the gun on the request for such a dramatically phrased meeting. I agree that the club could be more communicative (though Paratici has been put out there as well, doing his interviews) but they’ve repeatedly set out their aims this year in statements when Mourinho was sacked, when Paratici was appointed, and when Nuno was appointed, and I don’t know what the Trust think they’d have got out of the board in addition. What they want is obvious. - to improve on-pitch performances by better recruitment of players and coaching staff - increase off-field revenue by continuing to invest in the club A meeting with the club where all they say is what they’ve already said is not going to appease anyone.
PL-wide max wage for academy kids for starters. That removes the wage 'poisoning' undertaken by the Sugga Daddy FCs. Wanna pay them more ?? Be forced to give them a SENIOR squad contract, with a max number of U23 games the player can play per season (outside of rehab from a recent injury) .
After PL match weeks 13/26 IMHO should be routine calendar dates for such meeting, Extraordinary meetings in between those dates should be for stuff like the Ramos "2 from 8" etc.
While the request doesn't make the THST look good because it's the sort of knee-jerk response that they realistically need to be better than, I do get the feeling that the meeting being rejected is less to do with that and more to do with the club being PO'd with the THST over their very public demands that they meet with Joe Lewis over the summer and, as a result, we have the Mexican standoff we currently have
...and it's not over! There's the golf course to be developed into a THFC Women's training ground....(cough).....NFL training ground.....(cough) Plus, over the summer, where massive holes were left in the squad, there were renewals and amendments made to the planning consents for construction of the extreme sports centre, community health centre, etc., etc... https://www.football.london/tottenh...otspur-stadium-planning-applications-20822187 They're not going to stop and any idea that the football team is anywhere near their primary concern, is a complete joke.
I don't think that one affects the other, to be honest. All of the property and facilities are more money making projects. We've spent more as we've built more. We've just not done it well.
I can't agree. There's no reason for the club to be carrying out non-football developments. Every penny that Enic spend on such things is money that's not going to be seen on the pitch...and there's loads of other projects at different stages of development. Property development and running an entertainment venue are what they're concentrating on. If they were committed to making the club successful in sporting terms, they'd sell the projects on and we'd be able to fill the enormous holes in the squad... They won't and the problem with 'jam tomorrow', is Enic will see that tomorrow never comes.
There’s every reason for the club to do this. I know that you and others want ENIC to sell up but it appears they have no intention of doing so, ergo the way to increase spend potential is to increase revenue, which is what they’re investing in. The stadium debt is refinanced in a sustainable way and we’ve been spending again since the completion of the stadium. Sure we can’t match City (or Newcastle’s new owners) but building the commercial side of the club up, as Manchester United have done over the years, is the way to get close, without a sugar daddy owner. Levy focusing on this stuff is not an issue anymore because Paratici runs the footballing side of the club. I know many doubt that separation of church and state is real but until we see evidence otherwise then I see no reason to, personally. And I think I’m right in saying that Levy has said in minuted meetings with the trust that this development work post-stadium will not impact the football budget. If we sold the projects on I’m sure we’d fill some squad holes now but in 3-5 years time we’d be up **** creek again.
Is that not the point of Paratici though? He’s been bought in to run the football team and he’s got plenty experience in doing this. I’ve expressed frustration recently because of how he was appointed but the whole point of it is to have an expert doing that, while Levy deals with the commercial side of things, something he is clearly good at.
The academy system was nobbled before that, when Arsenal hoovering up players from French, Dutch and Spanish clubs when they were 16-17 so they'd qualify as HG, which is what led to Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool getting slapped on the wrist for tapping-up youngsters ...however, that's been knocked on the head to a degree as Premier League clubs are now banned from signing U18 players from abroad as one of the many advantages of quote-unquote taking back control (which is why we were signing the likes of Parrott, Paskotsi, Santiago and Solberg a couple of years ago)
Levy has over £500,000,000 of equity in the club. There is NO CHANCE of Daniel letting some bloke he doesn't know have control over 'his' club. None. Paratici reports into Levy and is given budgets by Levy. He has authority to do what Levy agrees with. Paratici was allowed nowhere near the Harry Kane issue and that is representative of his authority.
