Academy & U21s

[Mattyblue]

National League Cup, that’s the poor man’s EFL Trophy, I believe. I imagine a few NL club fans aren’t too enamoured about it.

[riverholmes]

A question for the regular Rovers U21s and academy football followers - at what point can we say whether or not the management are doing a good or bad job at that level? It does seem there's been a conscious decision to change the approach - perhaps, reacting in part to the structural changes, such as PL2 no longer having any relegation.

There has been a lot more emphasis on "toughening" the lads up with short-term non-league football loans and trying to mix that up with occasional Rovers games. Some of them, like midfielder, Lorenze Mullarkey-Matthews, are/were U18s players who have barely, as far as I know, played U21s level recently - or maybe at all.

There's also been a decision, as mentioned above, to sign up to various cup competitions (I guess some are voluntary). There is also recruitment at U21s level, such as Mafoumbi, Doherty and Barrett.

I guess it is too early to reach definitive conclusions (especially about the new recruits) but, to my mind, the  U21s are faltering at almost every metric - the most important being, contributing to the first team. On the other hand, it might be argued that talent comes in cycles and it just so happens that the current tranche are not as good as the classes that came before.

My view is that we do have to be patient, and there are some hopes at U21s and U18s level, but I do feel quite a lot of concern of the level of talent and progression and what it might mean for the club's future.

Edited December 26, 2024 by riverholmes

[bluebruce]

37 minutes ago, riverholmes said:

A question for the regular Rovers U21s and academy football followers - at what point can we say whether or not the management are doing a good or bad job at that level? It does seem there's been a conscious decision to change the approach - perhaps, reacting in part to the structural changes, such as PL2 no longer having any relegation.

There has been a lot more emphasis on "toughening" the lads up with short-term non-league football loans and trying to mix that up with occasional Rovers games. Some of them, like midfielder, Lorenze Mullarkey-Matthews, are/were U18s players who have barely, as far as I know, played U21s level recently - or maybe at all.

There's also been a decision, as mentioned above, to sign up to various cup competitions (I guess some are voluntary). There is also recruitment at U21s level, such as Mafoumbi, Doherty and Barrett.

I guess it is too early to reach definitive conclusions (especially about the new recruits) but, to my mind, the  U21s are faltering at almost every metric - the most important being, contributing to the first team. On the other hand, it might be argued that talent comes in cycles and it just so happens that the current tranche are not as good as the classes that came before.

My view is that we do have to be patient, and there are some hopes at U21s and U18s level, but I do feel quite a lot of concern of the level of talent and progression and what it might mean for the club's future.

When the current crop make it into the first team as at least squad members, or don't. There really is no other worthwhile metric of it. I know it's sadly a waiting game to judge it, but that's just how it is.

[Exiled_Rover]

7 hours ago, riverholmes said:

A question for the regular Rovers U21s and academy football followers - at what point can we say whether or not the management are doing a good or bad job at that level? It does seem there's been a conscious decision to change the approach - perhaps, reacting in part to the structural changes, such as PL2 no longer having any relegation.

There has been a lot more emphasis on "toughening" the lads up with short-term non-league football loans and trying to mix that up with occasional Rovers games. Some of them, like midfielder, Lorenze Mullarkey-Matthews, are/were U18s players who have barely, as far as I know, played U21s level recently - or maybe at all.

There's also been a decision, as mentioned above, to sign up to various cup competitions (I guess some are voluntary). There is also recruitment at U21s level, such as Mafoumbi, Doherty and Barrett.

I guess it is too early to reach definitive conclusions (especially about the new recruits) but, to my mind, the  U21s are faltering at almost every metric - the most important being, contributing to the first team. On the other hand, it might be argued that talent comes in cycles and it just so happens that the current tranche are not as good as the classes that came before.

My view is that we do have to be patient, and there are some hopes at U21s and U18s level, but I do feel quite a lot of concern of the level of talent and progression and what it might mean for the club's future.

How are they faltering? 

Besides the established Academy graduates in the first team you've got Duru on the cusp of breaking through. A couple of other Academy kids have made the bench recently too. 

[Mattyblue]

The Academy exists to provide players for the first team, that’s it. Of course only a handful in the building ever will be provided. Some years are more fruitful than others, but I wouldn’t say there’s an issue generally at the moment.

Unfortunately that means a lot of the lads are there just to make up the numbers. They’ll either end up at a Barrow or working in Tesco, that’s the game, it’s brutal.

[bluebruce]

Just thinking about our recruitment for the U21s this summer.

Mafoumbi seems to be a failed signing thus far. We spent a fee, not sure what it was but I think I remember hearing something like 200k? For that I'd think he was expected to be a U21 regular, contributing a good amount of goals, and occasionally sit the bench for the first team, with the possibility of breaking through. He was maybe even seen as a bit of a Telalovic replacement, a young striker who may come off the senior bench occasionally. He has scored 0 goals and has 0 assists for the U21s in 6 appearances totalling 339 minutes (equivalent to 3.7 full games). He didn't make the U21 bench for the last 3 matches, although I'm not sure if this was down to injury. We have lost every single game he has played in. Admittedly we have lost most games, but in the league when he hasn't played we have played 4, won 2, drawn 1 and lost 1. I'm not saying that's all down to him, but there's a clear pattern there. Didn't we use an ESC slot for him too? If so I'd be looking to jettison him and free it up. If not I guess we can afford a bit more time to see if he settles.

Aodhan Doherty seems to have fared better. Apparently we paid about 100k for him. A winger rather than a striker like Mafoumbi, but he has still scored 3 goals in 10 games, and added 2 assists. 565 minutes played, equivalent to 6.2 full matches, so 5 goal contributions is a pretty good return. Seems to be finding form too - the 3 goals came in the last 2 matches, and take them out we'd be 3 points lighter...we only have 7 points in total. Doherty is only 18, Mafoumbi is 19.

Thoughts from those who have actually watched games?

Edited January 5 by bluebruce

[KentExile]

25 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Just thinking about our recruitment for the U21s this summer.

Mafoumbi seems to be a failed signing thus far. We spent a fee, not sure what it was but I think I remember hearing something like 200k? For that I'd think he was expected to be a U21 regular, contributing a good amount of goals, and occasionally sit the bench for the first team, with the possibility of breaking through. He was maybe even seen as a bit of a Telalovic replacement, a young striker who may come off the senior bench occasionally. He has scored 0 goals and has 0 assists for the U21s in 6 appearances totalling 339 minutes (equivalent to 3.7 full games). He didn't make the U21 bench for the last 3 matches, although I'm not sure if this was down to injury. We have lost every single game he has played in. Admittedly we have lost most games, but in the league when he hasn't played we have played 4, won 2, drawn 1 and lost 1. I'm not saying that's all down to him, but there's a clear pattern there. Didn't we use an ESC slot for him too? If so I'd be looking to jettison him and free it up. If not I guess we can afford a bit more time to see if he settles.

Aodhan Doherty seems to have fared better. Apparently we paid about 100k for him. A winger rather than a striker like Mafoumbi, but he has still scored 3 goals in 10 games, and added 2 assists. 565 minutes played, equivalent to 6.2 full matches, so 5 goal contributions is a pretty good return. Seems to be finding form too - the 3 goals came in the last 2 matches, and take them out we'd be 3 points lighter...we only have 7 points in total. Doherty is only 18, Mafoumbi is 19.

Thoughts from those who have actually watched games?

Pretty sure I saw Mafoumbi was a free (although the link I posted below says he was €80K), I thought he was out of contract in France and so wouldn't have needed compensation as he moved countries.  Similar to how Rovers wouldn't get any compensation for Dolan if he moves overseas despite his age.

Thank being said, Mafoumbi looks lost as a central striker, even at U21 level, but looked better on the left cutting inside on his right, like Brereton.

He does seem to have disappeared in the past couple of months though, possibly injured, as Rovers do not report much on injuries for U21s & U18s unless they are long term 

edit -  He has scored one in the cup competitions, and yes I think he does take up an ESC spot

https://www.playmakerstats.com/player/exaucee-mafoumbi/1009406

 

Edited January 5 by KentExile

[bluebruce]

7 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Pretty sure Mafoumbi was a free, out of contract in France and so wouldn't have needed compensation as he moved countries.  Similar to how Rovers wouldn't get any compensation for Dolan if he moves overseas despite his age

Dunno, I could be misremembering. I can't find anything about whether he was a freebie or cost a fee, having searched several articles. Transfermarkt had his fee down as '?' which usually means an undisclosed fee, but may mean they don't know either way. In theory you're right, if he was out of contract it shouldn't have cost us anything, and I do see he turned down a contract.

Regardless though, he seems to have been shit here so far. Though I did see that he scored 30 goals in 39 appearances overall for Nantes U19s, including 3 goals and an assist in the UEFA Youth League last season, so maybe he just needs time to settle.

[KentExile]

3 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Dunno, I could be misremembering. I can't find anything about whether he was a freebie or cost a fee, having searched several articles. Transfermarkt had his fee down as '?' which usually means an undisclosed fee, but may mean they don't know either way. In theory you're right, if he was out of contract it shouldn't have cost us anything, and I do see he turned down a contract.

Regardless though, he seems to have been shit here so far. Though I did see that he scored 30 goals in 39 appearances overall for Nantes U19s, including 3 goals and an assist in the UEFA Youth League last season, so maybe he just needs time to settle.

I've just added to my original post, apparently 80K euros

Scoring goals in U19s is like the kids Rovers have had who tore up the U18s and then struggled to make the step up to U21s.  Like Nsangou who left in the summer

Edited January 5 by KentExile

[wilsdenrover]

20 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Pretty sure Mafoumbi was a free, out of contract in France and so wouldn't have needed compensation as he moved countries.  Similar to how Rovers wouldn't get any compensation for Dolan if he moves overseas despite his age.

Thank being said, Mafoumbi looks lost as a central striker, even at U21 level, but looked better on the left cutting inside on his right, like Brereton.

He does seem to have disappeared in the past couple of months though, possibly injured, as Rovers do not report much on injuries for U21s & U18s unless they are long term 

I think we’d have had to pay something under articles 20 of FIFA’s regulations (training compensation)  but I’ve no idea of what sort of sum we’re talking about.

I believe the same articles would be in play should Dolan go abroad (as said regulation covers players aged up to 23)

Edited January 5 by wilsdenrover

[bluebruce]

On 18/12/2024 at 20:28, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I thought the new throw in rules were a vast improvement. Take it from wherever you like as long as it’s in the correct half of the pitch !

Huh, what's this? Surely that just means if the ball goes out near the corner flag for a throw they're gonna take the throw from next to halfway? Which sounds ridiculous to me.

[bluebruce]

52 minutes ago, KentExile said:

I've just added to my original post, apparently 80K euros

Scoring goals in U19s is like the kids Rovers have had who tore up the U18s and then struggled to make the step up to U21s.  Like Nsangou who left in the summer

True, although I'd expect it to be a smidge better than u18 due to the extra year of development.

44 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think we’d have had to pay something under articles 20 of FIFA’s regulations (training compensation)  but I’ve no idea of what sort of sum we’re talking about.

I believe the same articles would be in play should Dolan go abroad (as said regulation covers players aged up to 23)

Ahh yes I forgot about the training comp rule. I was wondering why it was anything if he was out of contract. I assume he was actually out of contract as he signed his first pro deal with us, so his previous contract surely can't have taken him into a pro year.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

5 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Huh, what's this? Surely that just means if the ball goes out near the corner flag for a throw they're gonna take the throw from next to halfway? Which sounds ridiculous to me.

I was being sarcastic. I was watching players start walking with the ball about 4 yards from where the ball went out, walk on for 4 yards, run another 5, then actually throw the ball. It seems to be a modern trend.

[bluebruce]

6 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I was being sarcastic. I was watching players start walking with the ball about 4 yards from where the ball went out, walk on for 4 yards, run another 5, then actually throw the ball. It seems to be a modern trend.

Thank God, thought there was some bullshit attempt to test out new rules there.

[wilsdenrover]

25 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

True, although I'd expect it to be a smidge better than u18 due to the extra year of development.

Ahh yes I forgot about the training comp rule. I was wondering why it was anything if he was out of contract. I assume he was actually out of contract as he signed his first pro deal with us, so his previous contract surely can't have taken him into a pro year.

I think the training comp rules apply whether or not the player had a pro contract at his former club.

Edited January 5 by wilsdenrover

[bluebruce]

35 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think the training comp rules apply whether or not the player had a pro contract at his former club.

Yes they do, that's not what I meant. I was just musing as to whether he was out of contract or not (ie if we would have had to negotiate a fee also).

Having trained at a club between certain ages also means that club gets a tiny portion of any future revenue on all transfers for the rest of his career. So we'll be getting a tiny slice of all future Adam Wharton fees, even if he moves another ten times.

[wilsdenrover]

7 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Yes they do, that's not what I meant. I was just musing as to whether he was out of contract or not (ie if we would have had to negotiate a fee also).

Having trained at a club between certain ages also means that club gets a tiny portion of any future revenue on all transfers for the rest of his career. So we'll be getting a tiny slice of all future Adam Wharton fees, even if he moves another ten times.

I didn’t know that, thanks 👍

[bluebruce]

55 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I didn’t know that, thanks 👍

They're called solidarity payments, and they're seperate to training compensation payments (the latter of which stop applying once the season in which the player turned 23 is over):

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/a-guide-to-training-compensation-and-solidarity-payments-in-football

I believe they also apply in addition to any other percentage of future sale clauses agreed between clubs (I don't know if their percent is applied after contractual percentages are paid out, before, or simultaneously). So we'll get whatever is in the deal with Palace plus another percent from solidarity payments.

The link I just gave doesn't say how the solidarity payment is worked out, but it does mention the max is 5%. If I'm remembering rightly, the solidarity payments apply for clubs who trained the player between ages 12 and 21 (or it might be 23). So, I think it's 5% of the total transfer fee, split pro-rata between clubs who trained him in that period. So we would get the lion's share of any 5% of a deal this window or next, as we trained him from 12 to 19 and he's currently 20, but our chunk of future fees might shrink as we'll be a relatively smaller section of his trained, although still be entitled to the bulk. If he is moving after 23, I'd imagine we'll get 7 years, other clubs 4 years, so if the 5% amounted to 5.5 million for example (which would mean a 110 million fee!), we'd get another 3.5 million in solidarity payments, and other clubs would get a total 2 mill.

Obviously since solidarity payments are a percentage, they only apply when a player is transferred for a fee (presumably being transferred for compensation would also make them apply, so Preston will be due a small slice of what we might get for Dolan if he moves for compo in the summer). Although, it might not work quite like that actually with Dolan...I think they are due some of the training compensation if I'm reading that article right, which might mean the solidarity payment won't apply for that one. Since I think they trained him up until 18, I'm thinking Preston might be due about 2/5 of what we get? But I'm not sure I'm understanding that right.

This part of that article is confusing: Pursuant to the RSTP, purely domestic transfers of professional players do not give rise to an entitlement on the part of training club(s) to receive training compensation or a solidarity payment (see the “Scope” definition in Article 1 RSTP);

It seems to be saying transfers between two English clubs would mean no need for training compo or solidarity payments...but this is the opposite of what we know happens when an out of contract player moves between two English clubs. It's if he moves abroad that no compo is necessary, whereas domestic moves oblige it if the original club offered an equal or better contract than the current one. Maybe this bit is getting mistranslated by myself from legalese. This one might bring further context but I CBA to read it all: https://www.easportslaw.com/news/training-compensation-and-solidarity-mechanism

I'm also not sure if clubs who trained a player because they loaned him count...ie, if we would get something from a Harvey Elliott sale. I doubt it.

[wilsdenrover]

10 hours ago, bluebruce said:

They're called solidarity payments, and they're seperate to training compensation payments (the latter of which stop applying once the season in which the player turned 23 is over):

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/a-guide-to-training-compensation-and-solidarity-payments-in-football

I believe they also apply in addition to any other percentage of future sale clauses agreed between clubs (I don't know if their percent is applied after contractual percentages are paid out, before, or simultaneously). So we'll get whatever is in the deal with Palace plus another percent from solidarity payments.

The link I just gave doesn't say how the solidarity payment is worked out, but it does mention the max is 5%. If I'm remembering rightly, the solidarity payments apply for clubs who trained the player between ages 12 and 21 (or it might be 23). So, I think it's 5% of the total transfer fee, split pro-rata between clubs who trained him in that period. So we would get the lion's share of any 5% of a deal this window or next, as we trained him from 12 to 19 and he's currently 20, but our chunk of future fees might shrink as we'll be a relatively smaller section of his trained, although still be entitled to the bulk. If he is moving after 23, I'd imagine we'll get 7 years, other clubs 4 years, so if the 5% amounted to 5.5 million for example (which would mean a 110 million fee!), we'd get another 3.5 million in solidarity payments, and other clubs would get a total 2 mill.

Obviously since solidarity payments are a percentage, they only apply when a player is transferred for a fee (presumably being transferred for compensation would also make them apply, so Preston will be due a small slice of what we might get for Dolan if he moves for compo in the summer). Although, it might not work quite like that actually with Dolan...I think they are due some of the training compensation if I'm reading that article right, which might mean the solidarity payment won't apply for that one. Since I think they trained him up until 18, I'm thinking Preston might be due about 2/5 of what we get? But I'm not sure I'm understanding that right.

This part of that article is confusing: Pursuant to the RSTP, purely domestic transfers of professional players do not give rise to an entitlement on the part of training club(s) to receive training compensation or a solidarity payment (see the “Scope” definition in Article 1 RSTP);

It seems to be saying transfers between two English clubs would mean no need for training compo or solidarity payments...but this is the opposite of what we know happens when an out of contract player moves between two English clubs. It's if he moves abroad that no compo is necessary, whereas domestic moves oblige it if the original club offered an equal or better contract than the current one. Maybe this bit is getting mistranslated by myself from legalese. This one might bring further context but I CBA to read it all: https://www.easportslaw.com/news/training-compensation-and-solidarity-mechanism

I'm also not sure if clubs who trained a player because they loaned him count...ie, if we would get something from a Harvey Elliott sale. I doubt it.

Thank you so much for this - I’ll have a proper read of the links a bit later on.

Re the bit I’ve emboldened - I’ve had a quick look at the scope referred to and I think the answer is:

Domestic moves are covered by the individual association’s regulations rather than FIFA’s compensation rules.

So, in the case of an English domestic move , compensation is payable (in accordance with ‘our’ rules)

Ditto for solidarity payments. 

In short (as I understand it) domestic move = domestic rules, international move = FIFA rules.

Edited January 6 by wilsdenrover

[KentExile]

 

 

 

 

[KentExile]

In case anyone was planning to go to Chorley tonight

And Doherty shortlisted for PL2 player of the month

https://www.premierleague.com/news/4215343?sf275990073=1

[KentExile]

Contract extension for Michalski

Interview

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7 by KentExile

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, KentExile said:

Contract extension for Michalski

Interview

 

 

 

 

I came here to post this, knowing in my heart of hearts that you'd already posted it.

Strangely the article doesn't mention when the extension now takes him to, but a linked article says 2027 so he must have been due to expire before this. A bit surprising since he only signed his pro deal in March. So it was only just over a one year deal. He seems very promising, I'd say he's the only one of our glut of young keepers I'm a bit excited about, given how young he is for what he's achieved (England u18 caps, two loans, appearances on the first team bench, at just 17 is pretty impressive for a keeper). So it's very odd to me we are only giving him such short deals. We could easily bin off one of the several young keepers we clearly don't need and give him a longer deal (unless there is a limit on under 18s contract lengths...it definitely isn't one year though).

Tbh, makes me suspect it's the player who doesn't want to sign a very long term deal. Could he be fancying himself to follow the Finneran/Phillips route now he has England youth caps?

[KentExile]

34 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I came here to post this, knowing in my heart of hearts that you'd already posted it.

Strangely the article doesn't mention when the extension now takes him to, but a linked article says 2027 so he must have been due to expire before this. A bit surprising since he only signed his pro deal in March. So it was only just over a one year deal. He seems very promising, I'd say he's the only one of our glut of young keepers I'm a bit excited about, given how young he is for what he's achieved (England u18 caps, two loans, appearances on the first team bench, at just 17 is pretty impressive for a keeper). So it's very odd to me we are only giving him such short deals. We could easily bin off one of the several young keepers we clearly don't need and give him a longer deal (unless there is a limit on under 18s contract lengths...it definitely isn't one year though).

Tbh, makes me suspect it's the player who doesn't want to sign a very long term deal. Could he be fancying himself to follow the Finneran/Phillips route now he has England youth caps?

His previous contract was until 2026, so was a 2 (and a bit) year contract

A player cannot sign for more than 3 years until they turn 18 (FIFA regs), which will be late this season, it may be a case of rewarding him for progressing/keeping him sweet so that he is amenable (and until he is able) to signing a longer contract during the summer.

I think a deal until 2028 at this point would have not been allowed as it would essentially be seen as a 3.5 year deal

Edited January 7 by KentExile

[bluebruce]

36 minutes ago, KentExile said:

His previous contract was until 2026, so was a 2 (and a bit) year contract

A player cannot sign for more than 3 years until they turn 18 (FIFA regs), which will be late this season, it may be a case of rewarding him for progressing/keeping him sweet so that he is amenable (and until he is able) to signing a longer contract during the summer.

I think a deal until 2028 at this point would have not been allowed as it would essentially be seen as a 3.5 year deal

Oh I must have misread, I could have sworn I'd seen something saying it was a two year extension. Hopefully they get him tied up for longer once he's 18.