Administrator Batard 2,534 Posted April 2, 2017 Administrator Share Posted April 2, 2017 1 minute ago, StefBWFC said: Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that final bit the done thing in France? I was under the impression that these national academies were the preferred way for young French players to get into the game? They are. But he'd already been at another teams youth academy prior to going to Clairefontaine. I don't know how true it is, but Monaco may have offered financial inducements to the parents for Mbappe to sign on. Monaco have a history of sniffing around other teams youth academies. And have done since Wenger worked at the club all those years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike 5,085 Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, Batard said: They are. But he'd already been at another teams youth academy prior to going to Clairefontaine. I don't know how true it is, but Monaco may have offered financial inducements to the parents for Mbappe to sign on. Monaco have a history of sniffing around other teams youth academies. And have done since Wenger worked at the club all those years ago. Wenger really brought youth poaching to the forefront didn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Batard 2,534 Posted April 2, 2017 Administrator Share Posted April 2, 2017 Just now, Spike said: Wenger really brought youth poaching to the forefront didn't he? Clubs don't value their youth players as much as they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,200 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Morally what's the difference between selling merchandise to millions of foreigners who have nothing to do with the club but claim to be fans and being financed by one foreigner who has nothing to do with the club? You can blame the Chelseas and Man City's all you want but it was the Premier League and clubs in it like United who kick started the whole process. Now if you're saying money from actual fans vs money from a foreign owner then you've got a point but that's definitely not been the case for any big club in England for just under 2 decades now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Batard 2,534 Posted April 2, 2017 Administrator Share Posted April 2, 2017 The Premier League is plastic as fuck on the whole, the notion of an additional fixture played abroad for pots of cash was sheer cringe. The establishment is as plastic as the owners looking to milk the clubs through global product placements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike 5,085 Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 One of the reasons England has sustained success is because of international TV rights. No league has been as successfully whored out to international markets in any sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliveandblue 7 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 My domestic league is the most plastic thing around - and yet it's somehow not. The advantage of restricted spending is that franchises HAVE to find and develop talent to fill certain roles. They don't have the choice of poaching and staying under the cap. The clubs have no sense of identity, but they also are conscious of it and do offer a decent fan experience for those that can make it out to see a game. It's not the worst product out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Mel81x+ 3,607 Posted April 2, 2017 Subscriber Share Posted April 2, 2017 7 hours ago, SirBalon said: So you're ok with using an academy for football player speculation? You loan them out and then reap the rewards in terms of financial gain! It's ok to think that way but I don't see it romantic to think that local young lads coming through the system can't dream of one day putting on that club shirt and playing in the first team. As I said in my statement that's the club's decision and sadly those decisions are not just governed anymore just by a philosophy but by business decisions to chase targets. If a club 'wants' to go that route then they can but in the current climate that isn't always the case and when you receive money there are some obligations that come with it unless you're super successful already and the investor is at your beck-and-call not the other way around. As for the romantic comment lets put it this way, if a local kid was at club X and wanted to be a part of the first team, worked really hard and went up the ranks, now lets say someone like Bayern or Barcelona or Real Madrid came along and offered that person a deal and they go play there instead? Is that a business/career decision or a decision governed by what the club should ideally have gotten out of the academy investment they made? Some clubs don't see their academies as sources for maybe this reason or many more. Is it the right thing to do? IMO clubs should be holding onto their youth prospects better but with the way money becomes an issue in the modern game and the chance to maybe invest in a better prospect its not hard to see why clubs choose to sell and reinvest. There have been many cases over the years of clubs that have done well with their own products only to have seen those players get sold the next year because the 'bigger' teams saw something good and poached those players. There is no remedy for this really, money became an important factor for clubs that couldn't compete the way they were and then add things like TV deals, imbalanced leagues with some clubs just affording or poaching more and then of course lets not leave the players and their agents out of this as well. Its really just a circle of greed and desperation with no concrete way of gaining success and the easy way out is to sell and get money and reinvest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadLinesman 5,938 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Danny said: Morally what's the difference between selling merchandise to millions of foreigners who have nothing to do with the club but claim to be fans and being financed by one foreigner who has nothing to do with the club? You can blame the Chelseas and Man City's all you want but it was the Premier League and clubs in it like United who kick started the whole process. Now if you're saying money from actual fans vs money from a foreign owner then you've got a point but that's definitely not been the case for any big club in England for just under 2 decades now. Yeah, I remember the days when they made it illegal for any club other than United to float on the stock exchange and operate as a business........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,200 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 17 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said: Yeah, I remember the days when they made it illegal for any club other than United to float on the stock exchange and operate as a business........... it was the Premier League and clubs in it like United All clubs in it....I'm hardly going to name drop fucking Everton or Swindon Town when they've won fuck all from it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirBalon 2,692 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 It's not just one point whether academies, ownership or the stock exchange... It's various things that make some clubs seem more "plastic" than others. History and heritage for me is extremely important. Take for example one of the most plastic clubs in the whole wide world for me... MK Dons... THEY'RE plastic! They're plastic for every reason under the sun and anyone that supports them is also plastic. It doesn't just have to be sugar daddy football clubs... There are various reasons why a club can be deemed that way and various adjectives can be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,200 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 1 hour ago, SirBalon said: It's not just one point whether academies, ownership or the stock exchange... It's various things that make some clubs seem more "plastic" than others. History and heritage for me is extremely important. Take for example one of the most plastic clubs in the whole wide world for me... MK Dons... THEY'RE plastic! They're plastic for every reason under the sun and anyone that supports them is also plastic. It doesn't just have to be sugar daddy football clubs... There are various reasons why a club can be deemed that way and various adjectives can be used. Arsenal have similar beginnings though...South London to North London for a bigger fanbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirBalon 2,692 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Danny said: Arsenal have similar beginnings though...South London to North London for a bigger fanbase. I don't think MK Dons moved for a bigger fanbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,200 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, SirBalon said: I don't think MK Dons moved for a bigger fanbase. No they moved for £££ much like yourselves. Fanbase = £££ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirBalon 2,692 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Danny said: No they moved for £££ much like yourselves. Fanbase = £££ There were various factors as to why they moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,200 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Just now, SirBalon said: There were various factors as to why they moved. Various factors that all fitted around giving the city of Milton Keynes a football club in a professional division at the expense of Wimbledon who were on their way out anyway. But Wimbledon FC's move to MK was all about the money that kept the business alive (the club dead however). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirBalon 2,692 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, Danny said: Various factors that all fitted around giving the city of Milton Keynes a football club in a professional division at the expense of Wimbledon who were on their way out anyway. But Wimbledon FC's move to MK was all about the money that kept the business alive (the club dead however). One thing is moving across London over 100 years ago and another is moving to to another town outside London. But if you want to relate Arsenal FC with MK Dons then that's fine because you do have a point in what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,200 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Just now, SirBalon said: One thing is moving across London over 100 years ago and another is moving to to another town outside London. But if you want to relate Arsenal FC with MK Dons then that's fine because you do have a point in what you're saying. I mean really moving from one side of London to another 100 years ago is pretty similar to moving from London to MK (1 hour max) considering the vast changes in migration, infrastructure and transportation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.