Insight into to Barca Academy

[Zappa 0]

I think you're the one not getting the point.

 

It isn't about some kind of ageism, it's the fact that bringing in established players within their prime years costs a lot of money in transfer fees and wages, even a free agent isn't really a 'free' signing when you bring in the various payments to agents etc. It's also a gamble much of the time if there's any sell on value, they really need to be a roaring succeess for that especially if you've already spent several million.

 

If you're like Man City with a bottomless pit of money to spend on these guys then fine, but we certainly aren't. We play in Scottish football which has very little in the way of good finance and prospects, the chances of moving to any other league system are still very far away, and any European progress is always touch and go at best. Not to mention that we went into administration just under a year ago and got demoted three divisions.

 

Developing our own players is a brilliant way to be self sustainable, you aren't having to spend a fortune to get them and if they become part of the first team their wage demands will rise more gradually. Then they're either long term Rangers players that we haven't had to splash out on to have at the club or if they're so good that we can't keep them, we'll make a very good profit since they came from our academy, there's even bonus payments for that if they're young enough. That's that the developement is for.

 

I don't think anybody has said we don't purchase or play established players but the idea is that should be kept to much more of a minimum with much more focus on bringing through our own. And even if that means sacrificing a bit of short term success then sobeit, as has been shown the last year we can't afford to simply buy our way to the top.

 

I have to agree.

 

When we got slapped with the over 18 signing embargo and dumped into Div3 the first thing the club should have done is said, right we'll use it as an opportunity to buy in some top quality youth talent.

 

However.... instead of spending some of the huge transfer kitty (which Green has said he has waiting for Ally) on a couple of world class 16 year olds, I bet you any money they're just lining up some free agent deals for September and don't bring in one single top class under 18 player this month. It'll be a massive opportunity missed.

[kuznetsov 0]

the whole season has been an opportunity missed.

[calscot 0]

I think you're the one not getting the point.

 

It isn't about some kind of ageism, it's the fact that bringing in established players within their prime years costs a lot of money in transfer fees and wages, even a free agent isn't really a 'free' signing when you bring in the various payments to agents etc. It's also a gamble much of the time if there's any sell on value, they really need to be a roaring succeess for that especially if you've already spent several million.

 

If you're like Man City with a bottomless pit of money to spend on these guys then fine, but we certainly aren't. We play in Scottish football which has very little in the way of good finance and prospects, the chances of moving to any other league system are still very far away, and any European progress is always touch and go at best. Not to mention that we went into administration just under a year ago and got demoted three divisions.

 

Developing our own players is a brilliant way to be self sustainable, you aren't having to spend a fortune to get them and if they become part of the first team their wage demands will rise more gradually. Then they're either long term Rangers players that we haven't had to splash out on to have at the club or if they're so good that we can't keep them, we'll make a very good profit since they came from our academy, there's even bonus payments for that if they're young enough. That's what the developement is for.

 

I don't think anybody has said we don't purchase or play established players but the idea is that should be kept to much more of a minimum with much more focus on bringing through our own. And even if that means sacrificing a bit of short term success then sobeit, as has been shown the last year we can't afford to simply buy our way to the top.

 

 

Your philosophy above is all very well but doesn't quite agree with what you've been suggesting. What you're saying is that all our players should be home grown but that's about introducing players to the team, developing them and keeping them. For that to be sustainable you can really only bring one or two players through the ranks every year. If players are useful from 18 to 33 then in a 16 man squad you would expect on average one player of every age. Bringing loads of youngsters on means you are upsetting that balance.

 

Not only that it doesn't deal with the fact that you need to win now. If you're currently developing many players then you are suboptimal for the challenges you face against similarly or better resourced rivals.

 

Then you get into the problem of trying to discover and develop talent from a small sample of players. Why should our youths be better than anyone elses apart from having the possibility of better coaches and training facilities? If that was all that counted then Messi would really be from Barcelona.

 

Seems to me it's better to cast your nets wider and at least the whole of Scotland. I think it's probably cheaper and far more effective to pinch the best players from other teams as well as developing some of your own with top youth coaches.

 

Our biggest problem in that sense is that we can no longer compete with English clubs for the best talent in Scotland and can't even keep our own best youths when they come sniffing around from over the border.

 

Your philosophy sound ideal but the numbers just don't stack up.

[calscot 0]

I have to agree.

 

When we got slapped with the over 18 signing embargo and dumped into Div3 the first thing the club should have done is said, right we'll use it as an opportunity to buy in some top quality youth talent.

 

However.... instead of spending some of the huge transfer kitty (which Green has said he has waiting for Ally) on a couple of world class 16 year olds, I bet you any money they're just lining up some free agent deals for September and don't bring in one single top class under 18 player this month. It'll be a massive opportunity missed.

 

 

I think the biggest reason for this is that we're already playing about 11 young players, there isn't much room for more, so we'd have to find ones that are noticeably better than the ones we already play.

 

It seems fairly obvious to me that if playing 11 youngsters is a good idea then what is wrong with playing them in an U21 league? Surely they should develop just as well. If everyone was playing youngsters how would it be different than an U21 league? And yet people say playing them in such a league instead of the first team is "ruining" them.

 

So which is it? For me I think players learn from experienced team-mates. The more youngsters you have the less mentoring they will be receiving.

[calscot 0]

PS it will be interesting to see where the class of 12/13 is in 10 years time and whether playing so many of them has stopped them being "ruined" and developed them into a generation of great players. Obviously they won't be playing for us as we'll be developing loads more youths.

[simplythebest 0]

Your philosophy above is all very well but doesn't quite agree with what you've been suggesting. What you're saying is that all our players should be home grown but that's about introducing players to the team, developing them and keeping them. For that to be sustainable you can really only bring one or two players through the ranks every year. If players are useful from 18 to 33 then in a 16 man squad you would expect on average one player of every age. Bringing loads of youngsters on means you are upsetting that balance.

 

Not only that it doesn't deal with the fact that you need to win now. If you're currently developing many players then you are suboptimal for the challenges you face against similarly or better resourced rivals.

 

Then you get into the problem of trying to discover and develop talent from a small sample of players. Why should our youths be better than anyone elses apart from having the possibility of better coaches and training facilities? If that was all that counted then Messi would really be from Barcelona.

 

Seems to me it's better to cast your nets wider and at least the whole of Scotland. I think it's probably cheaper and far more effective to pinch the best players from other teams as well as developing some of your own with top youth coaches.

 

Our biggest problem in that sense is that we can no longer compete with English clubs for the best talent in Scotland and can't even keep our own best youths when they come sniffing around from over the border.

 

Your philosophy sound ideal but the numbers just don't stack up.

I don't think i've ever said all our players should be home grown. It really depends how you define a player being part of the squad, for example we have Fraser Aird who I don't think has started many games but has certainly become a proper member of the group and still got valuable experience. Squad balance can come from rotation as well as a variety of ages, you can have a core of experience while still bringing plenty of players through.

 

As I said, I think we need to get round to the idea of sacrificing a bit of short term success. Obviously if it was ridiculous like us being in relegation battles or not getting promoted even then it would be drastic but we do also need to try and move away from 'need to win now' and any obsessions there may be about stopping Celtic doing this and that. It's not that I don't want us to do well ASAP but the means to do that are very risky, boom or bust has to be left behind completely.

 

Barcelona found Messi as a kid, it's still a home grown player who's cost hardly anything if you'd signed them at the age of 15 or something, scouting comes into that as well. The coaching and facilities will make all the difference and to improve them we could spend money on them, e.g. some of Green's forecasted £10 million budget for Ally.

 

Don't disagree that you should cast your nets wider, by no means do I believe we should stop buying established players as some sort of rule, Templeton was an excellent addition for example. But that's pretty much all we relied on for a long time and even very recently under Walter young players only really were in the mix because the bank forced us to trim our numbers and the SPL had the under-21 rule.

 

That's an issue of course with playing in Scotland, but I did say that's part of the self sustaining idea, make a big profit from the our successful home grown guys if we can't keep hold of them forever and re-invest the money wisely.

 

I'm not saying the philosophy is so easy that it can just be done by a click of the fingers but I believe it's what we should be working towards starting right now.

[Zappa 0]

I think the biggest reason for this is that we're already playing about 11 young players, there isn't much room for more, so we'd have to find ones that are noticeably better than the ones we already play.

 

We're not currently playing 11 youngsters in my book. Almost all of them are 18 or older and while you can still class them as youngsters, what I was really talking about is buying in one or two top class 16 year olds with first team transfer cash.

 

As an example.... All things considered with the club's current situation, I would rather we spend two or three million buying a couple of top class 16/17 year olds than be signing and paying a couple of 30+ year olds for that position (strikers is a good example with signing Kyle etc).

 

It seems fairly obvious to me that if playing 11 youngsters is a good idea then what is wrong with playing them in an U21 league?

 

For a kick off... the dimwits who've been running Scottish football into the ground have just set up an U20 league instead of an U21 league like they should have done.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

At the age of 11, Messi was diagnosed with a growth hormone deficiency.[30] Local powerhouse River Plate showed interest in Messi's progress, but were not willing to pay for treatment for his condition, which cost $900 a month.[24] Carles Rexach, the sporting director of FC Barcelona, had been made aware of his talent as Messi had relatives in Lleida, and Messi and his father were able to arrange a trial with the team.[24] Rexach, with no other paper at hand, offered Messi a contract written on a paper napkin.[31][32] Barcelona offered to pay for Messi's medical bills if he was willing to move to Spain. Messi and his father moved to Barcelona where Messi enrolled in the club's youth academy.[28][32]

[the gunslinger 3,366]

messi is very much a product of barcas youth accademy and cost them no fee.

[Zappa 0]

My mistake gunslinger!

 

I was just going from memory of something I'd read, but must be getting mixed up with another top player who was bought from South America at 16 for quite big money.