Think their point, flawed as it is, is more geographical. Bath is undeniably closer to Bristol than it is to Southampton.
The problem that led to the new system was, England weren't very good. One reason was that there weren't enough English players coming out of top academies and into first teams. So the idea of EPPP was (amongst other stuff) to improve the balance by making it easier for the top young players to be matched to the top academies, and set down the system for that. Have they gone too far the other way and damaged clubs with smaller academies? Arguably, so I take the point, but our academies are not equal either. The 90 minute rule wasn't particularly sensible and didn't help get good players out the other end, so that couldn't really stay.
I'm not judging us or saying we are cheats, or that our club are 'doing anything wrong'. My point is that I think the rules/situation are unfair. I sympathise with Bristol City. The person who mentioned it would be unfair on Bath teams if Bristol took players also has a point to a degree. I think it is ludicrous that a 8/9/10/11/12/13 year old kid, who is picked up by a club to play for their academy, is then not allowed to play for his local side (non-pro). When this happens, you can have a kid taken away from his mates where he is having fun playing football and put in an academy for two years, then released as a 12 year old and he has to go and find a local team to play for, having been excluded from local football for two years.. I just don't hear any argument from the pro game that I think valid that tells me why an academy player up to 13/14 years can't still play with his mates team on a Saturday. Football at those young ages should be fun first.
Qwerty, I am looking at my soap box and wondering if I should go and stand on it The coaching of our kids is a huge part of why England don't develop enough quality players, but far more influential than that is the attitude and approach to games of the coaches and parents at grass roots level. It is always about winning and so, matches are played in a way that makes winning everything. Style of play and development of players is dictated by winning and comes second fiddle , nearly every time.
I appreciate they're "the enemy" in all this but that's not their argument at all. If we didn't have that satellite academy, they would be the biggest team in the area. They're angry that a bigger team from elsewhere has set up shop in their backyard.
I'm having supper and going to the theatre this evening with my Bristol City supporting friends. I shall gently broach this subject with them to get their opinion but I will not want it to spoil what I am hoping is going to be a very pleasant evening.
Well obviously. But what exactly is the problem with them "hoovering up" youngsters who live locally to Bristol? I'm not saying I agree with it but is the premise of their argument really so difficult to understand?
Oh they wouldn't stay there forever if they're that good, but it gives the lower league clubs a good player for two or three seasons, then a decent transfer fee at the end of it (if they scrap the stupid transfer fee system that they're bringing in). Everyone's happy, and plenty of players who go on to be successful don't join a big side until they're 18/19 anyway). Plus, they wouldn't be the worst teams in league 2 if they were to sign a few decent prospects! Basically, I think players under a certain age shouldn't play for football club academies but regional centres of excellence, then when they reach 16 or so, they're drafted NFL style!
