Sure, but the principle is the same isn't it? Firstly not all the players in the Southampton academy will get first-team football, far from it. Most will not, even out of the ones who are good enough to be professionals. The likes of Isgrove and Stephens, whom we have loaned to lower league clubs now, have never played for the first team (maybe ten minutes in a cup game notwithstanding) and are likely to be released this summer. However, they're still arguably better players than they would have been had they been brought through at a smaller club. Secondly, you point to examples of specific clubs, but your issue is with the system isn't it? In future bigger clubs will be more financially constrained, have increasing home-grown player targets to meet, and big academies like ours will be considered necessary for all of them. Yes, they will harvest promising kids from the smaller clubs around them, and yes, those clubs won't get enough money for them (I agree with you on this point), but those kids will play with better players, and use better facilities, and probably develop into better players than they would have (maybe they will even spend time on loan in the lower leagues). Still, few will make the first team of the big club so they will be released back to the lower leagues. The same players may not end up back at their original clubs, but it still means that enough players make it back to that level and the skill level of all players, at all levels, should be increased. Granted, it means that the bigger clubs get the better players earlier and smaller clubs are less likely to have a home-grown gem to sell, but if you're right that there's no substitute for playing first-team football then the lower leagues will still produce a lot of good players (though maybe later in their careers) due to the experience they get. If you hold Southampton as a good model though, you should be pleased surely that more clubs will follow that model in future?
According to this article, we favour having an official feeder club http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eams.html#readerCommentsCommand-message-field Personally I imagine we chose the idea we least hated, as opposed to genuinely being in favour of an official feeder club. Loans just don't seem to be the way we want to develop our players.
Not sure how that is substantively different. Whoever our feeder club is would just be Southampton B with a different name and kit. Sure, you'd keep the old fans for a while but they'd soon get bored of supporting a B team.
That worm Danny Mills was on the radio last night squirming about how B teams would not be in the current league pyramid and we should all wait for the report. He knew the idea was terrible and was not brave enough to confirm anything on the radio. What he did say was that they consulted the premier league teams 1st as they were the most important in terms of playing English player of International quality and the ideas all stink of premier league clubs first and **** everyone else. The best idea would be to do what they should have done 22 years ago and filtered more money down the English league ladder. Give the 72 other clubs the money to be able to improve there facilities and coaching instead of scraping by . What would be the downfall? The premier league clubs would have less money to spend on wages and transfer fees on foreign players. Then they'll end up playing more English players. If the commission really wanted to change English football for the better they would stand up to the premier league clubs instead of kissing their collective bottoms
It's a good point PTF, but regardless of indoors, outdoors or type of pitch, it is the coaching mentality that is what is wrong. We just can't shake our 'play to win' approach with young kids. I even heard Wilkinson today say that the B teams would have something to play for... Misses the point entirely; to have a better national team we need to develop technically better players.
Conference have come out now and said that they were not consulted...bit rich as they would be the ones most affected initially. Not a whole lot of support for this.
That's amazing when Dyke and Danny Mills have said they've consulted widely from all leagues, including Conference. Just goes to show what measure of consultation the FA had with the NonPro-League. Practically zero.
Not sure why people think there needs to be more pitches built 3G or not. From what I experience in Lincoln (probably different elsewhere) is that there are plenty of pitches. They are everywhere, but trying to find a football team for your kid is almost impossible. The problem is that there aren't enough coaches so all the available teams are always full. Fathers (or mothers ) don't want to be an U8/9/10/11/12 etc manager/coach because their spare time is far too valuable these days. Another thing is the whole CRB process. Then you have to consider that everyone thinks everything is bullying these days and that a lot of parents can be very very aggressive about anything at all. Maybe just me but back when I was a kid, most parents were less aggressive, less over-protective and anyone could just decide to start a kids team and not have to have CRB and other red tape + plus assign a treasurer + have to be administrator for the £35 per kid registration and then the football pitch (field with white lines) hire etc. It's just too much hassle (and risk when dealing with large sums of money) even for people who are prepared to leave facebook alone for more than a couple of hours a week. So do I think we need more football pitches? Nope, they will still be underused because there aren't enough kids teams to use them. I speak as a parent of an 9 year old that is still waiting to join a football team. He gets to train with a couple of teams before the season starts and then when it is time the manager always announces 'Sorry but you aren't one of the 12 this year'. 3 teams he trained with last summer, all with the same result. 1 team the summer before with the same result. He will try another 4 this summer and I don't hold out too much optimism for him.
Daniel Harris (Guardian journo) said "Danny Mills' thickness is of such viscous intensity as to endanger the entire cosmos."
Why is Lallana always given as an example of current English youth - surely he is established, just not always in the Premiership.
Because he was allowed to develop at a lower league level and thus proves this system could work. after all he wouldn't have been given the chance if we weren't in the Prem, just like we haven't given a chance to JWP, Shaw, Chambers, Reed etc.
It's at a much lower level and not widely known, but Saints are partly funding Andover Town FC already.
Here's a scheme you will all hate: Set the maximum roster size for all Premier League Clubs to 20 players over the age of 21 and an additional 10 players 21 or under. The club must pay half the remainder of the contract for every player on a pro contract not officially placed on a roster, at which point they become free agents and able to sign with whatever team they wish.
Impsaint, That is a tough situation and I feel for you and your lad. Couple of points on the rest of your post: 1. You live in 'rural' Lincolnshire, so I think your number of available football pitches may be a little different to an inner city area. Overall there are not enough good football pitches 2. When I was a kid, parents were just as bad 3. What's your issue with the CRB check; it's to protect the kids and only an issue if someone has a relevant criminal record. I coach an Under 13s team and have had the team since under 7. I assure you it is a thankless, time consuming task.
