Don't think Southampton have been fortunate fella. Don't Chelsea make money from their academy? Loftus Cheek and Abraham if not up to their standard will be worth a few quid.
I think Southampton have been fortunate, certain players came through and done well, fair play to them....might be it for a while though, some players they could have kept and helped them climb up the league rather than fight relegation.. As for Chelsea, Loftus Cheek & Abraham....is that it, not exactly world beaters are they? Can't even get in their squad, is that a good return?.....and do they need the money?
Southampton have been producing great players back to Shearer and Le Tissier. Cant be luck. Another can do how good and far their academy goes. They have once got into serious difficulty by over stretching themselves. Now they sell players to help balance the books. That looks like a well run club. Cant see what there not to agree with. Loftus Cheek & Abraham could net Chelsea?? Fifty million?? Not sure?? That looks like a great return.
When I defended the academy on here and said it should always be a fundamental part of BCFC my argument was socio economic. The social is BCFC should provide the best they can for the best local kids. The economic argument is watertight. One Joe Bryan every few seasons is easily financially justified. It covers costs and if needed will help balance books. By paralleling aspects of Southampton, a club who are brilliant at producing their own players BCFC should hope to produce more than one Joe every few seasons. It is self financing, although costs are exempt under FFFP. I have never claimed the academy will finance the FC, and neither does Southamptons. I argued that less money should not be spent of journeymen like Steward and Hunt and James and the countless rest leading to tens of millions of loss, and the money saved invested into the academy and redeveloping the stadium. The academy then becomes an asset to create players for the XI, sell if necessary and to reinvest - service FC debt/loss. Its a righteous circle working alongside other elements like commercial activity driven by the redevelopment of Ashton Gate. I also argued that young players should be purchased, developed and sold because they had worth, represented better value and this ethos allied to a particular playing style supported by the academy would push the club on not backwards. Its dreamland to suggest as you appear to be doing that the academy can sustain a competitive XI by itself, and not be bolstered by signings. Its feasible lower down the leagues, abroad backed by philosophy that would never work/be accepted here. BCFC will always need to sign players. I did not envisage the creation of Bristol Sport but that apart I am utterly convinced the path that Mr Lansdown is pursuing is a far more sensible and progressive one than the stupidity of the not so long ago past.
I don't think anyone could disagree with this, but you're argument against a Bristol sport umbrella is intriguing and slightly baffling. Why would it not be good business to include Bristol rugby who are on the brink of playing premiership rugby and this time competing there, meaning the stadium has continued use and increased income on a more regular basis, it means the ability to centralise certain costs between the two clubs like the commercial department (there performance levels is a different argument.) and the costs, we have seen an increase in sponsorship levels that sometimes cross both sports for the first time, the socio economic argument is enhanced by the increase in daily jobs at ashton Gate and the increase in staff that requires. Local business has seen a marked increase in trade due to the Bristol sport umbrella and I am struggling to see the downside of the amalgamation in any way, I was initially worried about the effect a rugby club would have on the pitch but that fear has been shown to be unnessacery as the impact on the pitch has been minimal (I do think the pitch markings could be removed a bit better) but pitch costs are also another shared cost to our advantage. As far as I can see the advantages are far outweighing any initial fears at the moment.
In life not every iota succeeds... so out of say 20 academy starters 5 make it into football maybe 1 will be a star, you may have to wait for 1 of 5 or 6 of these stars to be a super star... but they will mostly have some financial return... As for keeping them? well Manu did have a good little group at one time!
I never said it did, I said I believe that's what it should be for, the players in the academy should fundamentally be for your own purpose/squad. I 100% agree spending money on journey men is a waste. Excess players would be moved on for profit or exchange but not, if reducing your teams chances of success. It goes without saying, that the more success your team. has the more the players are likely be worth, if required to sell....
Blimey, that was before they had proper academies wasn't it?!!. I think we produced Chris Garland and Geoff Merrick!! Anyway Le Tiss stayed and Shearer moved on for better things due to the lack of Southamptons success...
Because the same can be achieved via a backroom operation with Bristol City at the zenith of the organisation. It is an odd autocratic entity based on no obvious successful model. European sporting models operate in this manner of FC's being first and foremost. Commercial activity is outsourced to companies that act on behalf of the dominant FC, they do not usurp it, there is no rebrand, no loss of identity. BCFC is subservient to Bristol Sport and is an equal partner alongside rugby in the BS group, and an FC with next to no assets beyond the players.That is an almost parasitic arrangement where other sporting organisation piggy back a club which has existed in BS3 for 100 years. The European model sees FC's acting as super clubs with members, low level democracy, supporter stake holding and mass participation in the FC. Bristol Sport have none of this and have made decisions to withdraw BCFC involvement in the Community, and decrease coaching provision for Bristol kids - Barcelona didn't inspire that np matter how much people insists it has.
No. Southampton had an academy ran by Dave Merrington. If BCFC had gone down a similar path perhaps we may have a had a few of the top level talents Southampton have produced,
Your argument would only apply to someone who is unable accept BCFC in an equality to the other clubs within the Bristol sport brand, I agree that Ashton Gate should always belong to BCFC in its entirety but there has been no loss of identity really, only an effort to give other brands an identity within the organisation, something the other clubs fans demand and contribute too financially. How has that affected your match day experience, other than enhanced it, it doesn't need a successful model basis to prove it works does it? Its not about piggy backing, its about offering a hand up to those with potential and in the process showing the other Pro club in Bristol how irrelevant it has become. Personally the European model means very little to me, The model you quote would have been Italian 10 years ago, now it is Spanish, it means nothing. you suggest that BCFC has withdrawn its involvement in the community but I have just spent the afternoon with a coach who spends his time coaching Bristol kids and the training that allows him to do that was provided by BCFC.
"JUST STRINGING TOGETHER WORDS THAT APPEAR TO LOOK INTELLIGENT" zenith: the point of the celestial sphere that is directly opposite the nadir and vertically above the observer ... by goodness we are in the heavens! No wonder we often have high balls! QUICK DUCK HERE COMES A COMET! Autocratic describes a way of ruling, but not in a nice way entity - a thing with distinct and independent existence.
Not sure that was an academy as such.....Just couching a few youngsters ......Think most clubs had something like that back in the day..I remember Norman Hunter down at Ashton Gate doing that back in the 70s.....I know, I was there, belonging to a club that trained with him!! Anyway I think we have reached an end to this topic as you are telling me what an academy is set up for. My argument is what the academy should be for. My mind will not change!!
It was very much an academy scouting and developing players from the South West, to the South to the North.
Don't think so. Jason Dodd and Dareen Eadie were local lads who went to Southamptons academy. they had a set up in Bath even then. Think Shearer went to Blackburn for money. back then Jack Walker really did buy a league didn't he???
Are you two of the same person?? Feels like it.. Anyway, Jargon all you like, I still believe that an Academy should be set up to develop players primarily for your own use for your own success. The excess would be sold or exchanged to improve weaker positions..
Christ fella no. all I did was answer your questions. answer a few of mine. Southampton are successful aren't they? Compare them to Sunderland or Newcastle??? they kept hold of Le Tissier could they really keep the Shearers and Bales?? that's step up in class w. Should City not have sold Maynard and Kodjia?? where is real the difference?
Southampton successful. mmm not really. Last few years they have done ok, not long ago they had League 1 status and nearly went out of business. Is it possible that the academy at Southampton isn't that good but the scouting of players is excellent? As the players transferred on, improve somewhat, Bale being just one example, plenty more I could list. When at Southampton, didn't Bale play at the back and wasn't that special until he went to Spurs and they played him up front.....A decent academy would have surely had noticed his best position!! Maynard was injury prone and Kodja wanted to go to a bigger club..Don't see your point!
