Post by QPR Report on Dec 15, 2008 7:50:28 GMT
Couple of different interesting points being made here. One) "Exposing" Football League Chairman claim about Football League and England stars; two the "moral" case re big fees demanded for youth players/ "children" (normally just hear the club's perspective about what it costs them/how they're robbed
Sam Wallace: Independent
Mawhinney loses his footing after a bizarre attempt at teenage kicks
The trade in teenage players is one of the least edifying aspects of English football
In the aftermath of England's victory over Germany in Berlin last month, the Football League released a piece of propaganda to stake its claim to a slice of the credit for Fabio Capello's happy revolution with the national team. Lord Mawhinney, the Football League chairman, claimed that 14 out of the 23 players in the England squad had been "developed" by Football League clubs. It was, to use a technical phrase, cobblers.
Presumably having glanced through a few old programmes Mawhinney made the assertion that Paul Robinson, Wayne Bridge, Scott Carson, David James, Darren Bent, Micah Richards, Jermain Defoe, Gareth Barry, Theo Walcott, Ashley Young, Scott Parker, Joleon Lescott, Curtis Davies and Matthew Upson were all, in his words, "developed by youth-development programmes at Football League clubs". If only he had taken a closer look.
The idea that Robinson or Bridge were developed by Football League clubs is the most preposterous. Their respective former clubs, Leeds United and Southampton, were long-standing Premier League members for the entire time that Robinson and Bridge played for them. Robinson left the summer Leeds were relegated in 2004; Bridge left Southampton in 2003, two years before their relegation.
Carson was at Leeds for his entire development. When they were relegated in May 2004 he left the following January, having never played a Championship game. James was a Football League player because until he was 22 – and this is the really clever part – there was no Premier League (although until he was 18, Watford were still in the top tier of English football).
Bent played his first five games for Ipswich in the second of their two seasons in the Premier League. Although Walcott spent some time at Swindon Town, Southampton were only a Football League club for eight of the months he was there – they were relegated in May 2005, he left the following January. Richards left Oldham at 13 to join Manchester City – are we to assume that he was the player he is now at that tender age and that City had nothing to do with his progress?
Defoe (left Charlton at 16) and Barry (left Brighton at 16) still had a major part of their development at Premier League clubs. Those who truly pass the test as Football League-developed are Young (who was actually released by Watford but came back to train on his own time), Parker (developed at Charlton Athletic before they were promoted), Lescott (Wolves), Davies (Luton Town) and Upson (he left Luton for Arsenal at 17). Working on Mawhinney's rather loose criteria, it is a wonder he did not claim Steven Gerrard as Football League-developed on the basis Gerrard once stopped off for a sandwich at a service station near Tranmere.
Mawhinney was trying to make a point that the Football League has a major role in developing elite footballers, although rather fewer than he first claimed. The real sadness about promising young footballers who do find themselves at Football League clubs and want to leave is that their options are being limited by the huge transfer fees set by tribunal. The trade in teenage players is one of the least edifying aspects of English football
I bow to no one in my admiration of the work of my fellow Independent columnist Neil Warnock, whose club Crystal Palace sold the midfielder John Bostock to Tottenham for a fee set by tribunal in May. Whatever Neil might say, the consensus in football is that Palace got one hell of a good deal. The tribunals are now setting such high fees for young players that many Premier League clubs, Manchester United among them, will not buy a player if the fee goes to tribunal.
Aged 16, Bostock was sold to Tottenham for an initial up-front payment of £700,000 and further payments totalling £1.25m which will be liable if he plays 40 senior games (£250,000 for the first five, another £250,000 for the first 10 and so on in increments of 10 up to 40). Palace will get £200,000 if Bostock plays for England and 15 per cent of any sell-on fee.
Screwing the big clubs for £2m for an unproven teenager may look like a strike for the little man but it is not doing the young players themselves any good. Players like Bostock are still, according to the law, children yet they are potentially denied the right to change clubs because of the issue of money. Of course, the selling club are entitled to be reimbursed for their investment and to earn according to what the player achieves, but it is the enormous up-front payments, like the one for Bostock, that are placing limitations on good young players who want to leave lower-leagueclubs.
Unfortunately, change is coming very slowly to the crucial issue of youth development in English football. The "youth development group" (YDG), which was set up with representatives of the Football League, Premier League and Football Association to revolutionise the system of developing young players, has been a disaster. The Lewis Report came out in June 2007 with 64 recommendations for change in the existing academy system. Recommendations implemented by the YDG so far? One.
Mawhinney's Football League proxies who sit on the group have been hugely at odds with the representatives from the Premier League. There has been no progress on any matters of serious importance. Capello attended two meetings and refused to come back for a third. This month's meeting has been postponed to January. And, in the meantime, the young footballers whom we will pin our hopes on in generations to come are trapped in English football's imperfect system.
Phone-in fool proves that not everybody has the right to be heard
A new nadir for football phone-ins was reached on Victoria Derbyshire's BBC Five Live show last week. A man known as "James from Aberdeen" called during a debate on gay people in sport to ask whether Justin Fashanu might like to call in to discuss his experiences.
After a second of stunned radio silence Derbyshire explained exactly why Fashanu would not be ringing Five Live or any other station for that matter. What followed was almost as remarkable. She then allowed this halfwit to go on and make whatever point was on his mind despite him having demonstrated that he was about as well-informed on current affairs as one of those Second World War Japanese soldiers marooned in the jungle, unaware the war was over.
In our modern age of web messageboards and phone-ins, everyone claims their entitlement to an opinion with great militancy. There are those who do not bother to arm themselves with the facts, however, who forfeit their right to be heard....
www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/sam-wallace-mawhinney-loses-his-footing-after-a-bizarre-attempt-at-teenage-kicks-1067087.html
Sam Wallace: Independent
Mawhinney loses his footing after a bizarre attempt at teenage kicks
The trade in teenage players is one of the least edifying aspects of English football
In the aftermath of England's victory over Germany in Berlin last month, the Football League released a piece of propaganda to stake its claim to a slice of the credit for Fabio Capello's happy revolution with the national team. Lord Mawhinney, the Football League chairman, claimed that 14 out of the 23 players in the England squad had been "developed" by Football League clubs. It was, to use a technical phrase, cobblers.
Presumably having glanced through a few old programmes Mawhinney made the assertion that Paul Robinson, Wayne Bridge, Scott Carson, David James, Darren Bent, Micah Richards, Jermain Defoe, Gareth Barry, Theo Walcott, Ashley Young, Scott Parker, Joleon Lescott, Curtis Davies and Matthew Upson were all, in his words, "developed by youth-development programmes at Football League clubs". If only he had taken a closer look.
The idea that Robinson or Bridge were developed by Football League clubs is the most preposterous. Their respective former clubs, Leeds United and Southampton, were long-standing Premier League members for the entire time that Robinson and Bridge played for them. Robinson left the summer Leeds were relegated in 2004; Bridge left Southampton in 2003, two years before their relegation.
Carson was at Leeds for his entire development. When they were relegated in May 2004 he left the following January, having never played a Championship game. James was a Football League player because until he was 22 – and this is the really clever part – there was no Premier League (although until he was 18, Watford were still in the top tier of English football).
Bent played his first five games for Ipswich in the second of their two seasons in the Premier League. Although Walcott spent some time at Swindon Town, Southampton were only a Football League club for eight of the months he was there – they were relegated in May 2005, he left the following January. Richards left Oldham at 13 to join Manchester City – are we to assume that he was the player he is now at that tender age and that City had nothing to do with his progress?
Defoe (left Charlton at 16) and Barry (left Brighton at 16) still had a major part of their development at Premier League clubs. Those who truly pass the test as Football League-developed are Young (who was actually released by Watford but came back to train on his own time), Parker (developed at Charlton Athletic before they were promoted), Lescott (Wolves), Davies (Luton Town) and Upson (he left Luton for Arsenal at 17). Working on Mawhinney's rather loose criteria, it is a wonder he did not claim Steven Gerrard as Football League-developed on the basis Gerrard once stopped off for a sandwich at a service station near Tranmere.
Mawhinney was trying to make a point that the Football League has a major role in developing elite footballers, although rather fewer than he first claimed. The real sadness about promising young footballers who do find themselves at Football League clubs and want to leave is that their options are being limited by the huge transfer fees set by tribunal. The trade in teenage players is one of the least edifying aspects of English football
I bow to no one in my admiration of the work of my fellow Independent columnist Neil Warnock, whose club Crystal Palace sold the midfielder John Bostock to Tottenham for a fee set by tribunal in May. Whatever Neil might say, the consensus in football is that Palace got one hell of a good deal. The tribunals are now setting such high fees for young players that many Premier League clubs, Manchester United among them, will not buy a player if the fee goes to tribunal.
Aged 16, Bostock was sold to Tottenham for an initial up-front payment of £700,000 and further payments totalling £1.25m which will be liable if he plays 40 senior games (£250,000 for the first five, another £250,000 for the first 10 and so on in increments of 10 up to 40). Palace will get £200,000 if Bostock plays for England and 15 per cent of any sell-on fee.
Screwing the big clubs for £2m for an unproven teenager may look like a strike for the little man but it is not doing the young players themselves any good. Players like Bostock are still, according to the law, children yet they are potentially denied the right to change clubs because of the issue of money. Of course, the selling club are entitled to be reimbursed for their investment and to earn according to what the player achieves, but it is the enormous up-front payments, like the one for Bostock, that are placing limitations on good young players who want to leave lower-leagueclubs.
Unfortunately, change is coming very slowly to the crucial issue of youth development in English football. The "youth development group" (YDG), which was set up with representatives of the Football League, Premier League and Football Association to revolutionise the system of developing young players, has been a disaster. The Lewis Report came out in June 2007 with 64 recommendations for change in the existing academy system. Recommendations implemented by the YDG so far? One.
Mawhinney's Football League proxies who sit on the group have been hugely at odds with the representatives from the Premier League. There has been no progress on any matters of serious importance. Capello attended two meetings and refused to come back for a third. This month's meeting has been postponed to January. And, in the meantime, the young footballers whom we will pin our hopes on in generations to come are trapped in English football's imperfect system.
Phone-in fool proves that not everybody has the right to be heard
A new nadir for football phone-ins was reached on Victoria Derbyshire's BBC Five Live show last week. A man known as "James from Aberdeen" called during a debate on gay people in sport to ask whether Justin Fashanu might like to call in to discuss his experiences.
After a second of stunned radio silence Derbyshire explained exactly why Fashanu would not be ringing Five Live or any other station for that matter. What followed was almost as remarkable. She then allowed this halfwit to go on and make whatever point was on his mind despite him having demonstrated that he was about as well-informed on current affairs as one of those Second World War Japanese soldiers marooned in the jungle, unaware the war was over.
In our modern age of web messageboards and phone-ins, everyone claims their entitlement to an opinion with great militancy. There are those who do not bother to arm themselves with the facts, however, who forfeit their right to be heard....
www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/sam-wallace-mawhinney-loses-his-footing-after-a-bizarre-attempt-at-teenage-kicks-1067087.html