Centurions
Well-Known Member
According to Twitter we're losing Noah Ohio & Sam Bellis from the U18's in the Summer. Anyone who has seen them knows if they'll be a big loss?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MCFC U-18's
- Thread starter Bilboblue
- Start date
According to Twitter we're losing Noah Ohio & Sam Bellis from the U18's in the Summer. Anyone who has seen them knows if they'll be a big loss?
No big loss. We could lose every academy player and it will also mean no big loss. It doesn't really matter now anymore, we will buy the players we need from now on. I only see Foden and maybe one more academy player making it into this team over the next 5 years.
In terms of the academy being there to make a profit, then sure maybe its a loss because we could probably sell them for something decent when they're 18-20, but I don't really care if City makes these 5m deals here and there, it's not my money, and its inefficient when they just spend 60m on another player anyways.
No big loss. We could lose every academy player and it will also mean no big loss. It doesn't really matter now anymore, we will buy the players we need from now on. I only see Foden and maybe one more academy player making it into this team over the next 5 years.
In terms of the academy being there to make a profit, then sure maybe its a loss because we could probably sell them for something decent when they're 18-20, but I don't really care if City makes these 5m deals here and there, it's not my money, and its inefficient when they just spend 60m on another player anyways.
Time may prove me wrong but I believe that the academy has two functions: to be self-sustaining and to provide potential first-team players. In terms of the former, then we are well on target having secured multi-million-pound deals for the likes of Matondo, Sancho and Diaz. To the latter, there is frustration among fans at the lack of game time for youth, which appears to be acting as a catalyst in the refusal to renew contracts. Both Foden and Muric have had first team opportunity this season and they are only in their teens. I would like to see more opportunities given but you do have to be exceptional to displace what we have in the first eleven, at least until players like Vinnie and David retire.
I agree (partially) with one of your parts and completely disagree with the other:Time may prove me wrong but I believe that the academy has two functions: to be self-sustaining and to provide potential first-team players. In terms of the former, then we are well on target having secured multi-million-pound deals for the likes of Matondo, Sancho and Diaz. To the latter, there is frustration among fans at the lack of game time for youth, which appears to be acting as a catalyst in the refusal to renew contracts. Both Foden and Muric have had first team opportunity this season and they are only in their teens. I would like to see more opportunities given but you do have to be exceptional to displace what we have in the first eleven, at least until players like Vinnie and David retire.
1. Foden is an academy player, Muric is not, we got him when he was like 17 years old, he is also 20 years old now and not a teenager (I am being pedantic I know). And I agree in that I think it is best for these players to come when veterans retire and the players we bought take their place with youth taking the backup spot, so Foden will be much more involved when David retires. I am not unhappy with Foden's development, it's not as fast as people would like, but he is 18 and gets some minutes.
2. My main issue is with the so called 'function' of the academy to make the club money, you only have to look at Sancho to see that its very inefficient, people are happy we made 8m selling him, but he is now worth 100m easily. Now you can say City tried everything they can to keep him, that is correct, but he left because no pathways has been shown ever in the first place, hence we made 8m selling Sancho, then spent 60m on Mahrez and actually in this case the academy has failed miserably in making the club money.
In fact in just this one player (losing the atleast 90m in Sancho), wipes out years of academy profits from other player sales. There are other players too mind you who will also be worth way more than when we sold them; Rony Lopes, Angelino, Diaz and Matondo come to mind immediately.
Now to be fair to the club, if they can put in a buyback clause (Angelino, Matondo) then perhaps we won't lose so much if we bring the player back, but very often that has not been the case in most sales.
So basically, this is why I don't really care if we lose academy players, they will hardly get integrated and we will sell them to make 'profits' but the profit is completely destroyed by the players potential. /rant
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 14,777
I agree (partially) with one of your parts and completely disagree with the other:
1. Foden is an academy player, Muric is not, we got him when he was like 17 years old, he is also 20 years old now and not a teenager (I am being pedantic I know). And I agree in that I think it is best for these players to come when veterans retire and the players we bought take their place with youth taking the backup spot, so Foden will be much more involved when David retires. I am not unhappy with Foden's development, it's not as fast as people would like, but he is 18 and gets some minutes.
2. My main issue is with the so called 'function' of the academy to make the club money, you only have to look at Sancho to see that its very inefficient, people are happy we made 8m selling him, but he is now worth 100m easily. Now you can say City tried everything they can to keep him, that is correct, but he left because no pathways has been shown ever in the first place, hence we made 8m selling Sancho, then spent 60m on Mahrez and actually in this case the academy has failed miserably in making the club money.
In fact in just this one player (losing the atleast 90m in Sancho), wipes out years of academy profits from other player sales. There are other players too mind you who will also be worth way more than when we sold them; Rony Lopes, Angelino, Diaz and Matondo come to mind immediately.
Now to be fair to the club, if they can put in a buyback clause (Angelino, Matondo) then perhaps we won't lose so much if we bring the player back, but very often that has not been the case in most sales.
So basically, this is why I don't really care if we lose academy players, they will hardly get integrated and we will sell them to make 'profits' but the profit is completely destroyed by the players potential. /rant
The thing with Sancho and others is that last year we won the league with a record points total. This year we are on to win the league again. Youth players should get the opportunity when they are ready and also when the team needs the players - last year we quite clearly didn't need the players, the same can be applied this year. There are still some opportunities but the players need to fit, Foden, Muric others might well be ready but the need is Left back and goalkeeper right now. My one complaint re the academy is we tend to churn out playmakers, wingers and CBs. No strikers and no full backs. If we had a decent LB come through then they could have played plenty of games and before you say Angelino - for whatever reason he left and if they leave then fine that is the decision they make.
FantasyIreland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 64,697
Ohio is a big loss because he's a tremendous prospect.He's a 16yr old Dutch National centre forward with pace and power and who knows where the back of the net is.No big loss. We could lose every academy player and it will also mean no big loss. It doesn't really matter now anymore, we will buy the players we need from now on. I only see Foden and maybe one more academy player making it into this team over the next 5 years.
In terms of the academy being there to make a profit, then sure maybe its a loss because we could probably sell them for something decent when they're 18-20, but I don't really care if City makes these 5m deals here and there, it's not my money, and its inefficient when they just spend 60m on another player anyways.
I guess we can't complain too much though as we took him off the rags ourselves.
I agree (partially) with one of your parts and completely disagree with the other:
1. Foden is an academy player, Muric is not, we got him when he was like 17 years old, he is also 20 years old now and not a teenager (I am being pedantic I know). And I agree in that I think it is best for these players to come when veterans retire and the players we bought take their place with youth taking the backup spot, so Foden will be much more involved when David retires. I am not unhappy with Foden's development, it's not as fast as people would like, but he is 18 and gets some minutes.
2. My main issue is with the so called 'function' of the academy to make the club money, you only have to look at Sancho to see that its very inefficient, people are happy we made 8m selling him, but he is now worth 100m easily. Now you can say City tried everything they can to keep him, that is correct, but he left because no pathways has been shown ever in the first place, hence we made 8m selling Sancho, then spent 60m on Mahrez and actually in this case the academy has failed miserably in making the club money.
In fact in just this one player (losing the atleast 90m in Sancho), wipes out years of academy profits from other player sales. There are other players too mind you who will also be worth way more than when we sold them; Rony Lopes, Angelino, Diaz and Matondo come to mind immediately.
Now to be fair to the club, if they can put in a buyback clause (Angelino, Matondo) then perhaps we won't lose so much if we bring the player back, but very often that has not been the case in most sales.
So basically, this is why I don't really care if we lose academy players, they will hardly get integrated and we will sell them to make 'profits' but the profit is completely destroyed by the players potential. /rant
While I agree with the tenet of what you say, using Sancho is an extreme example to justify the point, and he was a player we wished to keep.
Most players we have lost have not yet gone on to have astounding careers elsewhere and haven't been used as a stick to beat us with by the media.
I understand what your saying, but how is it a loss (figuratively)? The academy loses a a young promising player who was probably never going to get anywhere near the first team anyways. I am sounding cynical (I know that), but it's hard to care anymore about these prospects.Ohio is a big loss because he's a tremendous prospect.He's a 16yr old Dutch National centre forward with pace and power and who knows where the back of the net is.
I guess we can't complain too much though as we took him off the rags ourselves.
I agree Sancho was an extreme case, but I think Rony Lopes (whom I also mentioned) is also worth way more than when we sold him.While I agree with the tenet of what you say, using Sancho is an extreme example to justify the point, and he was a player we wished to keep.
Most players we have lost have not yet gone on to have astounding careers elsewhere and haven't been used as a stick to beat us with by the media.
Denis Suarez could have excelled here as well and is worth easily 25m+. Trippier and Rabiot were also solid prospects we brought in. Diaz will also most likely be worth 50m+ (the fact that we got 15m was not bad tbf).
Sure it makes money, but you have to factor in the cost to run the academy (all the wages and such), the cost of the facility itself, the loss assets from potential players, to see that its an inefficient business model that makes very little money for how much work is put into it.
I agree Sancho was an extreme case, but I think Rony Lopes (whom I also mentioned) is also worth way more than when we sold him.
Denis Suarez could have excelled here as well and is worth easily 25m+. Trippier and Rabiot were also solid prospects we brought in. Diaz will also most likely be worth 50m+ (the fact that we got 15m was not bad tbf).
Sure it makes money, but you have to factor in the cost to run the academy (all the wages and such), the cost of the facility itself, the loss assets from potential players, to see that its an inefficient business model that makes very little money for how much work is put into it.
I'd be interested in seeing the accounts for the academy alone. I don't think that any of the players you mention would make it here anyway, Trippier apart, rather bizarrely.