'Football Academies - A side of football no-one talks about'

[CPFC_DAVE77]

Plays for Bishops Stortford now.

[Poosence]

This was quite interesting but when I got to the line "given his selfless great attitude and a Commando ethos he learned from me over years of dedicated effort", my eyebrowes raised. I'd certainly be seeking the other side of the story before taking this guy's account as gospel. It's a shame because I'm sure there are some grains of truth in there on the academy system, but I couldn't be sure which.

[Pint of Speroni]

We regularly pick up players let go by other clubs at that age so not really sure - if he is good enough - how he's only ended up at Bishops Stortford

[Billyd]

Originally Posted by CPFC_DAVE77

Plays for Bishops Stortford now.

And there is the bitter truth of the matter.

Dont get me wrong it must be hard for parents to take when they have spent the best part of 10 years shipping their son around 3-4 times a week but there is no guarantee anyone will make it. If your not good enough your not good enough. Every parent knows this going in.

Also in this case it was purely their decision to travel further to get to 'West Ham'. I can understand it once the kid is 15+ but travelling 2 hours+ with a 8-14 year olds is bonkers.

There is a dad who posts on here who rejected some very big clubs for his 8/9 year son and instead took them Crawley because it was much more local. Meant it wouldn't disrupt his child's education and social upbringing. Not to mention pressure and demands etc. Definitely the right thing to do at that age.

[CPFC_DAVE77]

Originally Posted by Billyd

And there is the bitter truth of the matter.

Dont get me wrong it must be hard for parents to take when they have spent the best part of 10 years shipping their son around 3-4 times a week but there is no guarantee anyone will make it. If your not good enough your not good enough. Every parent knows this going in.

Also in this case it was purely their decision to travel further to get to 'West Ham'. I can understand it once the kid is 15+ but travelling 2 hours+ with a 8-14 year olds is bonkers.

There is a dad who posts on here who rejected some very big clubs for his 8/9 year son and instead took them Crawley because it was much more local. Meant it wouldn't disrupt his child's education and social upbringing. Not to mention pressure and demands etc. Definitely the right thing to do at that age.

It did strike me that the parent opened by explaining that there was not a PL academy near them.

Well, don't go to a PL academy then?

I guarantee there was a good club near them that they could have gone to.

[kolinkins]

Originally Posted by Billyd

And there is the bitter truth of the matter.

Dont get me wrong it must be hard for parents to take when they have spent the best part of 10 years shipping their son around 3-4 times a week but there is no guarantee anyone will make it. If your not good enough your not good enough. Every parent knows this going in.

Also in this case it was purely their decision to travel further to get to 'West Ham'. I can understand it once the kid is 15+ but travelling 2 hours+ with a 8-14 year olds is bonkers.

There is a dad who posts on here who rejected some very big clubs for his 8/9 year son and instead took them Crawley because it was much more local. Meant it wouldn't disrupt his child's education and social upbringing. Not to mention pressure and demands etc. Definitely the right thing to do at that age.

But you're missing the point of the article - among other things, not using a prefered agent, someone's son getting a deal etc.

[brooklynlou]

Originally Posted by sheepy

Obviously the riches for succeeding are astronomical but it just seems like an awful life to push a kid into. Less than a 1% chance of success after having to put so much effort in / give up so much of your childhood for (not to mention the politics / corruption the article alludes to).

Sort of like trying to make partner in a major law firm ...

[cpfc4evandeva]

Originally Posted by kolinkins

But you're missing the point of the article - among other things, not using a prefered agent, someone's son getting a deal etc.

Those are definitely two things which were actually quite bad. However, neither of them really have anything at all with the academy.

The agent thing sounds like it's higher management as opposed to the academy. And nepotism exists virtually everywhere.

But the article appears to be very much saying 'It's not fair, my son is the best footballer ever.' He's dropped down to Conference South but if he is good enough, he'll get a chance higher up. Saying things like 'Football League clubs don't take risks on youngsters is not true and just sounds like excuse making.

[Billyd]

Originally Posted by kolinkins

But you're missing the point of the article - among other things, not using a prefered agent, someone's son getting a deal etc.

No just that element of the article. And id agree, I know very little about agents and clubs giving out professional contracts to kids so I comment on that as would be unfair.

But I will say the article is very one sided about the situation and treatment from academy's in general.

Speaking of agents, wtf is it with everyone having them these days. I see 17 18 year olds playing non league with representatives these days!

[switchboard]

I'd say non league and youth players should be the ones with agents as they need the most guidance and contacts etc

[sirdougie]

Originally Posted by switchboard

I'd say non league and youth players should be the ones with agents as they need the most guidance and contacts etc

They don't need agents, they need good PFA union representatives.

[FourtyTwo]

I used to know (through a family friend) the guy that kept Frank Lampard out of the Essex schoolboys team. He ended up at Wealdstone, and Frank ended up at West Ham, despite not being as good as the other players in the squad at the time.

Sometimes, it is just who you know.

[Baffled Bob 2]

To be honest, I have little sympathy. These lads and their parents surely must know they're going into a brutally competitive industry?

[muswell eagle]

Didn't Dwight Gayle spend a year at Bishops Stortford at about the same age?

Premier League academies are brutal and Palace will be no exception. No academy product has made his debut in the Premier League since we were promoted.

I taught a boy last year who was released by Watford and got a 2 year scholarship at Ipswich and in terms of his chances of making it, I think he is now in a better place, especially after Watford's promotion. Having said that he is likely to just get two years working around a football club, but for a 16yo, that will feel like living the dream.

[917L]

Originally Posted by muswell eagle

Didn't Dwight Gayle spend a year at Bishops Stortford at about the same age?

.

He was 22 when he went to BS

[Woosie]

Originally Posted by Billyd

And there is the bitter truth of the matter.

Dont get me wrong it must be hard for parents to take when they have spent the best part of 10 years shipping their son around 3-4 times a week but there is no guarantee anyone will make it. If your not good enough your not good enough. Every parent knows this going in.

Also in this case it was purely their decision to travel further to get to 'West Ham'. I can understand it once the kid is 15+ but travelling 2 hours+ with a 8-14 year olds is bonkers.

There is a dad who posts on here who rejected some very big clubs for his 8/9 year son and instead took them Crawley because it was much more local. Meant it wouldn't disrupt his child's education and social upbringing. Not to mention pressure and demands etc. Definitely the right thing to do at that age.

There's no right or wrong thing to do. It's up to the parents and child and should reflect individual circumstances

Many academies now have a school link-up, and they are usually successful in terms of helping to balance school work with football. There's a reason it's required for Cat 1 of EPPP.

The points raised in the article are by no means unique, and I've spoken to academy players' parents (outside of Palace) who have said it rings true with them. It's certainly not as simple as if you're not good enough you're not good enough, there is a lot of politics involved at football clubs and their academies.

Originally Posted by muswell eagle

Didn't Dwight Gayle spend a year at Bishops Stortford at about the same age?

Premier League academies are brutal and Palace will be no exception. No academy product has made his debut in the Premier League since we were promoted.

I taught a boy last year who was released by Watford and got a 2 year scholarship at Ipswich and in terms of his chances of making it, I think he is now in a better place, especially after Watford's promotion. Having said that he is likely to just get two years working around a football club, but for a 16yo, that will feel like living the dream.

Watford's new owners barely pay lip service to their academy so he's better off out of there.

Originally Posted by Baffled Bob 2

To be honest, I have little sympathy. These lads and their parents surely must know they're going into a brutally competitive industry?

Doesn't make it OK though.

Originally Posted by FourtyTwo

Sometimes, it is just who you know.

This, especially in football, is true.

[Billyd]

Originally Posted by Woosie

There's no right or wrong thing to do. It's up to the parents and child and should reflect individual circumstances

Nope there isnt. But its my opinion that driving a child over 8+ hours a week to football isnt right. On top of school and then matches a weekends. Its a huge drain on a child. There is a rule in place for a reason and some clubs just bypass it. Again in my opinion its not right.

Originally Posted by Woosie

The points raised in the article are by no means unique, and I've spoken to academy players' parents (outside of Palace) who have said it rings true with them. It's certainly not as simple as if you're not good enough you're not good enough, there is a lot of politics involved at football clubs and their academies.

There is tons of politics no question. But my point still stands whenever a kid is released 95% of the time the parents will blame the academy/coach/club as opposed to accept it just wasn't to be.

I can fully appreciated the frustration. A parent might have potentially given up 10 years of their life shipping their child around, being promised the world by the club, then at 16/17 suddenly is released, often without too much warning. It must be a huge blow. But its not political. Its the fact its cut throat sport where everyone wants to make it and only a very few can.

[Billyd]

Originally Posted by FourtyTwo

I used to know (through a family friend) the guy that kept Frank Lampard out of the Essex schoolboys team. He ended up at Wealdstone, and Frank ended up at West Ham, despite not being as good as the other players in the squad at the time.

Sometimes, it is just who you know.

No. It just means you havent made it till you've made it. Being a top player 15/16 is no guarantee you will be at 19/20.

[Brett]

Should count himself lucky he didn't have to pay a fee for his son to be in an academy (lots of south-of-the-Thames clubs, hang your heads).

[firesign]

As a slight aside… only ten managers have been in their current job for more than three years and 50 have been in situ for less than a year. With that kind of turnover is it no wonder that there is little incentive to play youngsters from your academy. For most managers, logically, it is not worth the risk.

To view the link you have to Register or Login