[Archived] Our Loaned Players In Action

[FourLaneBlue]

It all make me wonder if the cost of the academy is worth the outlay.

The clubs who benefit tremendously from the academy, are the lower league clubs who, having watched rovers spend a lot of money on the development of the youngsters, snap them up for free.

361591[/snapback]

Well...we could keep the Academy which provides an important function scouting local kids (although admittedly they are now also looking much further afield) and also the chance of regularly picking up the future Duff, Dunn, Damien Johnson, Garner, Beattie, Barker etc or we could use the investment to pay the yearly wages of someone like Amoruso or Grabbi.

The Academy is good PR as much as anything else. It shows the club are not necessarily solely looking for the easy cash option which many Premiership clubs seem to do. If a club is not willing to invest in the future or in giving local lads the best chance to succeed then they cannot really complain if the locals are no longer willing to invest in the future of a club which puts short-termism above developing youngsters. Rovers are not a club like that, much to their credit.

I'm hoping BRISA will be in favour of retaining the Academy. Enough fans have been complaining about not being able to relate to the players without withdrawing funding from a system which has the potential to bring through home-grown players.

As for other clubs in the lower leagues benefitting...so what? It brings young lads through and gives them a chance as well as helping out lower league football in general. If they are good enough for Rovers then that is wonderful but setting those kids who don't quite make it at Ewood on the road to a hopefully fulfilling career is also an achievement to be proud of.

PS - Good post from TommySeddon above.

[philipl]

A question worth posing but really is a no brainer.

Cost of Academy £2.5m pa (less cash outlay but allowing for depreciation of equipment and land and buildings etc.)

Cost of wages £35m pa (at least £30m of that goes on the first team squad- many players are on over £1m a year)

Cost of amortisation of transfer fees £11m pa in the the last two sets of accounts.

So the Academy costs about 7% of the costs of running the first team squad. Translating that to normal business terms, Rovers are investing the equivalent of 7% of the costs of running its core business in research and development which is a healthy and not excessive ratio.

This argument that x,y and z were before the Academy doesn't wash. R&D is a long term activity- the vast majority of businesses are in reality living on the fruits of R&D work done years if not decades ago- even in the high tech field.

Therefore it is correct to take the transfer fees of the likes of Dunn, Duff, Taylor, Beattie (and the sell on transfer to Everton) into account.

Just as it is right to count the dribbles of income from Johnson and the small fees paid by League clubs for transfers. Sales of the likes of Douglas, Gallagher, McEveley, Johnson (if Hughes decides to get rid) will bring in several hundred thousands if not the odd million which means the Academy would wash its face in current terms this year even if it hasn't produced a player for the starting eleven.

Edited November 18, 2005 by philipl

[den]

I'm not making a judgement on the academy, simply putting the other side of the story.

It's alright quoting R&D Philip, but there still has to be some benefit. The academy must produce more than the 2.5 - 3 million pounds would, if given to the manager every season, on top of his normal budget.

You insist that Dunn and Duff should be included. Is there any reason why Dunn and Duff wouldn't have been there under the old scouting network?

[joey_big_nose]

I'm not making a judgement on the academy, simply putting the other side of the story.

It's alright quoting R&D Philip, but there still has to be some benefit. The academy must produce more than the 2.5 - 3 million pounds

361755[/snapback]

Wow! Is it really as high as that?

If it is that does put a perspective on it, especially in the increasingly depressed transfer market.

For that amount of money invested we should really be hoping for another top class player who can make a serious impact at Premiership level to come through.

Out of interest when Dunn was coming through did he look like a top class player at 17, or did it take a while for his talents to be recognised?

Edited November 18, 2005 by joey_big_nose

[den]

Wow! Is it really as high as that?

If it is that does put a perspective on it, especially in the increasingly depressed transfer market.

For that amount of money invested we should really be hoping for another top class player who can make a serious impact at Premiership level to come through.

Out of interest when Dunn was coming through did he look like a top class player at 17, or did it take a while for his talents to be recognised?

361757[/snapback]

Dunny always looked good. He was always a threat to the opposition.

[philipl]

I'm not making a judgement on the academy, simply putting the other side of the story.

It's alright quoting R&D Philip, but there still has to be some benefit. The academy must produce more than the 2.5 - 3 million pounds would, if given to the manager every season, on top of his normal budget.

You insist that Dunn and Duff should be included. Is there any reason why Dunn and Duff wouldn't have been there under the old scouting network?

361755[/snapback]

I am getting confused now. Didn't Dunn and Duff get fed and housed, have training pitches, trainers, medics etc etc under "the old scouting network"? Weren't they signed by Rovers at 16 or younger? Didn't we run age group football teams (remember Rovers A and Rovers B in the old Lancashire Leagues)?

The Academy is a fancy name for doing the scouting network in a more professional better structured way. The incremental cost of having an Academy over what we have always done to develop players is not a lot within that £2.5m figure. After all, Jack specifically wanted us to have the best youth set-up in Europe and invested his money accordingly so to that extent it was not an option for the club not to have an Academy.

Dunn and Duff absorbed seven plus years' effort by the club before becoming sellable. Why should the current crop of youngsters be instantly sellable?

Like any R&D effort, the Academy should be very closely monitored in terms of its current workings but results should be judged over five or ten year cycles.

A five year cycle return for Rovers' youth development would read:

Costs: £12.5m

Return: Transfer income received £25m (Dunn, Duff, Taylor, Beattie sell-on, probably others I have forgotten) plus whatever value can be given to all the first team appearances and goals by players who came through the ranks.

No doubt we'd be delighted if the rest of the club were so profitable.

[Ste B]

This argument that x,y and z were before the Academy doesn't wash.

It does when the players you quote had little academy influence on them at all. They were all on the fringes of the first team or in Beatties case sold when academy itself was created.

There has been little or no impact on the first team from players who have been through the full academy setup. . Partly this could be attributed to the previous management, but at least Hughes is starting to address this by making changes to the reserves setup.

[philipl]

In that case, wait another few years until some full Academy generations of players have been through the system before judging it.

[den]

I said it wasn't a judgement.

[andy82]

I am getting confused now. Didn't Dunn and Duff get fed and housed, have training pitches, trainers, medics etc etc under "the old scouting network"? Weren't they signed by Rovers at 16 or younger? Didn't we run age group football teams (remember Rovers A and Rovers B in the old Lancashire Leagues)?

361761[/snapback]

I remember them signing, season after the Premiershiop win. Work it out from that!

[FourLaneBlue]

I'm not making a judgement on the academy, simply putting the other side of the story.

It's alright quoting R&D Philip, but there still has to be some benefit. The academy must produce more than the 2.5 - 3 million pounds would, if given to the manager every season, on top of his normal budget.

You insist that Dunn and Duff should be included. Is there any reason why Dunn and Duff wouldn't have been there under the old scouting network?

361755[/snapback]

The thing I disagree with is how you arguing this - you are using just the figure of 2.5-3 million a year (I'm not even sure how accurate that figure is) but the Academy provides many things that can't be explained by figures on paper. It brings prestige and shows that Rovers are not just in this to compete in the here and now but also have longer-term plans. I'll be the first to agree that the Academy has not been a roaring success in the last couple of years as regards first team players but over time it may well be worth it's weight in gold.

The club spends a fortune every month on wages, signing-on fees and (less so now) transfer fees for players like Lorenzo Amoruso, Vratislav Gresko, Dominic Matteo and Garry Flitcroft. Surely a few million a year to give kids the best chance the club can isn't so much.

The manager needs to help as well. We seem to have a good bunch coming through with the likes of Garner, Barker and Andy Taylor. Souness was rather erratic when it came to bringing through youngsters. While the likes of Dunn and Duff blossomed under his tutelage it was in contrast to Martin Taylor, Jonathon Douglas, Damien Johnson and Jay McEveley who were given chances in the first team only to be traded back and forth to the reserves. As soon as they appeared to be embarking on some sustained first team experience they were speedily dropped again.

Hopefully Hughes can bring through the youngsters and give them a proper chance, not just a game or two followed by months back in the reserves.

As for the Academy...it's something that a Rovers fan should be proud of. If we are to scrap it, let's not do it just to line the pockets of underachieving millionaires even more than we already do now. It's a great idea and, given faith, could produce great results. :

Edited November 19, 2005 by FourLaneBlue

[den]

1]  The thing I disagree with is how you arguing this - you are using just the figure of 2.5-3 million a year (I'm not even sure how accurate that figure is) but the Academy provides many things that can't be explained by figures on paper.

2]  The club spends a fortune every month on wages, signing-on fees and (less so now) transfer fees for players like Lorenzo Amoruso, Vratislav Gresko, Dominic Matteo and Garry Flitcroft. Surely a few million a year to give kids the best chance the club can isn't so much.   

3]  The manager needs to help as well. We seem to have a good bunch coming through with the likes of Garner, Barker and Andy Taylor.

4]  While the likes of Dunn and Duff blossomed under his tutelage it was in contrast to Martin Taylor, Jonathon Douglas, Damien Johnson and Jay McEveley who were given chances in the first team only to be traded back and forth to the reserves. As soon as they appeared to be embarking on some sustained first team experience they were speedily dropped again.   

362036[/snapback]

1] I'm only putting the other side of the argument. JW is duty bound to look at the running costs and decide whether it's cost effective. The £2.5m figure was correct 2 years ago.

2] "a few million a year", is a lot of money to rovers.

3] Those three are a long way off regular premiership standard at the minute. IMO.

4] Martin Taylor, Jonathon Douglas, Damien Johnson and Jay McEveley wouldn't get in the rovers first team. So the point?

[rover6]

The decision to slim down the academy scene to clubs fielding one U18 side is definitely a positive step imo. The chances of a player slipping through, perhaps, is increased but that is off-set by the fact less expense goes on players who will clearly not make it.

I think the youth international scene could do with something similar - although obviously not reducing to just one youth side per country but what is the point of U17s, U18s, U19s and U20s? How many of these players even make it to the U21s?

[nolan9]

Talking of our players in the Championship. Paul Gallagher has just got Stoke's second.

[rover6]

Gary Harkins' Blackpool debut lasted 75 mins. They lost 3-2 to Colchester.

Jemal Johnson played the second 45 in PNE's 2-1 win over Cardiff.

Matt Derbyshire was used as a time-wasting sub in the 93rd min as Plymouth won.

Jon Douglas remained rooted to the bench to watch Leeds' amazing comeback.

Paul Gallagher, as Nolan9 reported, scored Stoke's second in a 2-1 win.

Luke Jones' Cercle face Beveren tonight, with the Rovers player set to be a sub.

And that, Ladies' and Gentleman, was your Rovers loanee round-up.

Edit: Beveren thrashed Cercle 5-1. Jones was on the bench.

Edited November 20, 2005 by rover6

[thenodrog]

I don't mind admitting that I really rated McEverly when he played his firts few games under Souness, and I have frequently wondered why...

1. He left Everton

2. He has not developed in line with the talent and promise that he posesses.

This article from tonights LET shines some light on things.....

"McEveley: Andy Cole saved my career

BLACKBURN Rovers defender Jay McEveley has found the road to redemption - and it's all thanks to his former team-mate Andy Cole.

The England Under 21 international, who is currently on loan to Ipswich Town, admits there was a point in his career when he was guilty of having a serious attitude problem.

However, some wise words from Cole helped to put him back on the straight and narrow, and now McEveley appears to have rediscovered his focus once again after spending several years in the football wildnerness.

McEveley was first thrust into the limelight as a 17-year-old, when he was given a Premiership baptism of fire by Graeme Souness in a Lancashire derby with Bolton Wanderers at the Reebok in December 2002.

He then went on to make a further 12 appearances in the first team that season, including both legs of a League Cup semi-final with Manchester United in which he was given the task of marking David Beckham.

But, instead of kicking on from there and trying to nail down a regular starting place in the side the following season, the Liverpool-born defender sulked when he was eventually axed by Souness and it took a pep-talk from Cole to bring him to his senses.

McEveley, now 20, and older and wiser than the teenager who made his Blackburn bow, said: "When Graeme Souness took me out of the side I did not know what to do.

"I was being selfish and stupid. If I was out of the team, I would sulk and moan and say I didn't care.

"The penny dropped when Andy pulled me aside one day. He reminded me how I had got into the side by working hard and doing things properly.

"They were brilliant words and, from that moment, I have never slacked off.

"I went off the rails a bit but, as I've grown older, I've learned how to deal with it."

McEveley's fit of pique ultimately cost him the chance to make the left-back spot his own at Blackburn.

Souness questioned his attitude on several occasions and eventually shipped him out to Burnley on loan in December 2003, the first of three such spells with Championship clubs.

Mark Hughes briefly offered him a route back last season; McEveley made four Premiership appearances on the bounce last Autumn.

But he was then sent out on loan again, this time to Gillingham, before he returned in time to appear in Rovers' game at Tottenham on the final day of last season, the last time he pulled on a shirt in the Premiership.

Ipswich was McEveley's next port of call and since August, he's been a regular in Joe Royle's side, clocking up 12 appearances and scoring once.

It remains to be seen whether McEveley still has a future at Blackburn or not, but, wherever his career ends up leading him, he will always be grateful to Cole for saving him from football's scrapheap."

Serious attitude problems! What a cupid stunt eh?

[herbergeehh]

Can't remember the game he was axed for tbh, but I do remember him doing very well in the first few games after his debut. So can't really blame him for being disappointed in being axed - and surely Souey didn't talk him through it, it was never his style was it?

Not sure what you mean though, drog, I sense some sarcasm but it might also be my imagination fecking with me

Anyway, it seems like he's put those little problems behind him, I truly hope he returns to claim a place in the team soon. Good to see Gally scoring again, and I'm a bit bemused that Douglas isn't playing - I thought Leeds had severe injury problems?

Any reports on their game then, Rover6?

[greggyk]

seem to remember he was axed because Souness felt he didnt want to burn him out?? not sure though.

[todd_could_take_tyson]

All the stoke fans are calling for gallagher to be signed permately, most of his performances have been match winning ones, and goals all top class. If he continues this form, hopefully he wont be sold. Although his poor form last season when the strikers really had something to prove and cement a first team place cant have impressed sparky.

[FourLaneBlue]

1]  I'm only putting the other side of the argument. JW is duty bound to look at the running costs and decide whether it's cost effective. The £2.5m figure was correct 2 years ago.

2]  "a few million a year", is a lot of money to rovers.

3]  Those three are a long way off regular premiership standard at the minute. IMO.

4]  Martin Taylor, Jonathon Douglas, Damien Johnson and Jay McEveley wouldn't get in the rovers first team. So the point?

362049[/snapback]

1. I know you are, I'm only putting the other side to your...er...other side.

2. Yes it is, so they should be looking the Academy to pay its way but it should be looked at over decades, it's only been in operation for a short time. Besides, the club still have enough to compete with. Grabbi alone must have taken up five years' worth of Academy funding. Cole even more than that. As for Davies...

3. Yes, it's an ongoing project. That is what the Academy is all about. However we should remember that the Academy isn't a truly new approach, just a souped-up version of the old system we had which did produce the likes of Duff, Dunn etc. It's obviously a big shame we haven't had the same quality coming through since but the Academy is just a bit more money than before being spent on youth with a more professional setup. It'll pay. As Bogey said. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but soon. And for the rest of our etc etc

4. Firstly, Damien Johnson is good enough for our team. I'd rather have them Aussie Bertie (one in six games) flattering to deceive for another season on the right. Johnson should never have been allowed to almost finish his contract before leaving for 150K. Poor decision by Souness and even worse in retrospect now that Johnson has established himself as a solid if unspectacular Premiership performer.

As for the others...my point was that they all had great potential, especially Taylor. If they'd been handled differently at a very important time in their career then who knows?

Edited November 20, 2005 by FourLaneBlue

[herbergeehh]

4]  Martin Taylor, Jonathon Douglas, Damien Johnson and Jay McEveley wouldn't get in the rovers first team. So the point?

362049[/snapback]

All of them good backup players though, perhaps with the exception of Taylor - who really had great talent, but wasn't learned how to use it

The last few months we've been bringing in quite a few youngsters from outside UK. Do you think that would've happened without the academy? With so many youngsters, with so many youth caps, I'm sure one or two of them will come up and do a job for us.

[The Harwood Yankee]

Are we the only team in the Premiership who doesnt have a single first-team regular who was home grown? Just a thought.

[herbergeehh]

Sunderland?

Everton, Fulham, Portsmouth, Charlton, Bolton and in fact Tottenham are all one-home-grown teams though..

It's all coincidences though, no one wants Hibbert, Knight, O'Neil and Nolan - that's why they're still there

Edited November 20, 2005 by herbergeehh

[LeChuck]

Sunderland?

362239[/snapback]

They have quite a few...Nosworthy, Whitehead, Lawrence...

Shame they're all crap like.

[todd_could_take_tyson]

Gallagher played left wing for stoke on saturday btw and has played right wing in the two games before that.