• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Britt Assombalonga

Are you really asking why one player can adapt better than another player?

As a striker, yes. Clearly Britt is a much better player than Barney for instance per se and that may be why but if your position is striker, if you can't adapt and play different type striking roles, then you aren't much of a striker.

Corr isn't too bad at adapting, he can be the target man, he can come deep and collect the ball and he can be the chaser that closer down defenders early.

Britt is clearly going to go far in the game because a few things. Attitude, determination, skill, and vision to name but a few

I'd like to think that coming to Southend helped his career and I for one have no problem with having players on loan who then go back to their parent club and get a good move on the back of the loan. It's a win/win as far as I can see
 
Can you give us more details on this policy that Spurs have? Examples? I'm genuinely curious.

They definitely look for players with high potential at 17/18, etc, but they'll typically have to pay fees for these. John Bostock being an example that comes to mind.

Do you not think that these players benefit more from training and coaching at bigger clubs than they ever would slumming it in the lower leagues with minimal investment and second-rate facilities?

I found an article recently on a spurs supporters website (was actually looking to see if I could see what Shaq was likely to be being paid) . I will see if I can find the article as it was quite interesting with examples.
this is on the same subject but not as much detail
http://www.newsatden.co.uk/2383-spurs-use-of-the-loan-system-is-unfair-on-clubs-and-players.html
 
One other thing to mention about Spurs is that they can become a victim of that strategy (long development contracts with loans). Caulker played a lot for spurs but he was on a long development squad contract which didn't pay very well. He wasn't happy about that but spurs wanted to keep him on a cheap contact because he wasn't quite at the level to be a key part of their defence. He got a far better (first team) contract at Cardiff. Was it good business for spurs? Time will tell, he's stagnated a little bit and QPR won't be a great experience this year but he's 22 and got a lot of talent. £8m might not look so smart in 5 years time when he hits his peak and could well be at a top club. They could have given him a squad contract and continued to loan him out if they wanted.
 
Do they? I can't remember a single player that Spurs have signed who has been loaned out straight away and sold. I think you mean Chelsea, who have signed players and loaned they out straight away to clubs they are linked with (e.g. Vitesse).





However if it can be seen that the club is making a profit on individual players (it could still be an overall lose across all players-in thi category )



That would be the ideal situation, but that wouldn't happen in reality. The academies will still be the same size, with the same amount of players. Maybe the development sides will get stronger and the under 21 leagues will increase in standard, but if they don't then there will be minimal improvement.

The loan system is there to benefit the player by exposing them to regular first team football at a decent standard which in turn helps the club who owns the player, and helping the club loaning the player in by allowing them to not have to carry a huge squad.



While the risk might be small, I can't see much difference in what would happen if there was no loan system. Actually, it could be harder for players to find new clubs if they weren't exposed to first team football from being loaned out. With only a tiny percentage of players actually progressing to the first team from the youth set up, those who don't make the grade will be released or sold.

This has happened so many times. A player comes through the youth system and at around the age of 20/21 they will either be deemed potential first team players or they will be discarded. Just like Sokolik and Egan were this summer and many before them.

What will happen to those deemed potential first team players? They will be given 2-3 years until the age of around 23 to make a claim for being a regular first team player and if they don't show they are good enough then they too will be sold. If the clubs can afford to keep them while they loan them out, then surely they can afford to keep them while they warm the bench or sit in the stands.
What would be interesting to see is the fees paid for/received in for players at premiership clubs who don't make the first team , or make a singular appearance in the Carling cup/UEFA cup etc but do go out on loan. Especially players that have gone out on loan and are then sold to that same club - who may not have bought them without the 'try the goods option' first? If it can be seen that the clubs actually loose money on all these players then I take your point that the clubs do not care about the financial risk. HOWEVER if it can be seen that the clubs make a profit on some of these players then it can be argued that their is an impact on the business model. Without the loan 'shop window' the club may not be able to move on these players as easily, or for the same fees and therefore may think twice before taking them on in the first place--- who knows.

ps- I am very happy to have had Britt here and hope that history repeats itself with the Southend /Forest conenction
 
I found an article recently on a spurs supporters website (was actually looking to see if I could see what Shaq was likely to be being paid) . I will see if I can find the article as it was quite interesting with examples.
this is on the same subject but not as much detail
http://www.newsatden.co.uk/2383-spurs-use-of-the-loan-system-is-unfair-on-clubs-and-players.html


found the article
Apologies my memory failed me,a case of reading too many webistes in one lunch time . The article starts off talking about spurs but then goes on to an unspecified club, the points made however are still valid. If this website is known to be utter dribble then fair enough the evidence to my opinion is pants

http://www.thesecretfootballer.com/...01/spurs-can-only-profit-from-chadli-capture/
 
Moreover, why did Arsenal recommend he join us? They're not likely to have said, "You're not good enough for us, but go to Southend where you can really ruin your career", are they? More likely they recommended us because we have a good set up and could help him progress.


Because there is a very good existing relationship between Ricky Duncan and his coaches and them, working both ways They regularly request that our teams play against their youngsters because they know the level at which ours are will give them good competition.
 
Do you not think that these players benefit more from training and coaching at bigger clubs than they ever would slumming it in the lower leagues with minimal investment and second-rate facilities?

I think so far as the big clubs produce the best players it's mainly because they get the best players to join them. How many kids are going to turn down Man U when they coming knocking?

Good facilities are IMO more useful in attracting than developing young players. And when clubs chuck money at "youth development" how much of that is at getting an edge in scouting rather than getting an edge in the amount of improvement from a player already at the club?

In fact, there's even a line of argument that smaller clubs would need to coach better as they need to find ways to do so in order to compete as they are left with the inferior talent.

How many of the current England team came thought the youth set-up of a top 6 team? And remember here that the big clubs generally get the pick of the players they want and there's probably a bias towards picking them for the national team. I'd suggest they have a poor return on youth development given their inherent advantages.
 
What would be interesting to see is the fees paid for/received in for players at premiership clubs who don't make the first team , or make a singular appearance in the Carling cup/UEFA cup etc but do go out on loan. Especially players that have gone out on loan and are then sold to that same club - who may not have bought them without the 'try the goods option' first? If it can be seen that the clubs actually loose money on all these players then I take your point that the clubs do not care about the financial risk. HOWEVER if it can be seen that the clubs make a profit on some of these players then it can be argued that their is an impact on the business model. Without the loan 'shop window' the club may not be able to move on these players as easily, or for the same fees and therefore may think twice before taking them on in the first place--- who knows.

ps- I am very happy to have had Britt here and hope that history repeats itself with the Southend /Forest conenction

That would be very interesting to see, but with so many transfer being "undisclosed fees" it is quite hard to find the actual figure. I haven't got hard facts to go on, but a big club could be releasing or selling 10+ players a season with maybe 1 or 2 making a profit.

If the transfer fees were disclosed, it still isn't simple to calculate any profit. For example, signing a player for £500,000 and selling 3 years later for £700,000 might seem like a good bit of business, but when you add in the player's wages for those 3 years at maybe around £1,000 per week then the total cost becomes £656,000. Then you have to remember that £656,000 3 years ago is worth more than £656,000 is worth now.

Without the loan system, what is there to stop a club like Tottenham agreeing with another club to "sell" a player to them with a buy-back clause of a similar amount?
 
Slightly off topic, but what was the Forest 'keeper doing for Fulham's first goal. What's the point diving after the ball has already gone in?

Well he did see it late.:smiles:

Did you notice the Fulham match commentator (gentleman Jim) didn't mention Britt's name until he'd got his third (and even then didn't mention it was his hat-trick)? :smile:
 
I think so far as the big clubs produce the best players it's mainly because they get the best players to join them. How many kids are going to turn down Man U when they coming knocking?

Good facilities are IMO more useful in attracting than developing young players. And when clubs chuck money at "youth development" how much of that is at getting an edge in scouting rather than getting an edge in the amount of improvement from a player already at the club?

In fact, there's even a line of argument that smaller clubs would need to coach better as they need to find ways to do so in order to compete as they are left with the inferior talent.

How many of the current England team came thought the youth set-up of a top 6 team? And remember here that the big clubs generally get the pick of the players they want and there's probably a bias towards picking them for the national team. I'd suggest they have a poor return on youth development given their inherent advantages.

I don't think I agree - I think a lot of it is down to the quality of facilities and the standard of coaching. Obviously you need the base talent to be there in the first place.

I'd be interested to hear ESB's take on the question though.
 
I don't think I agree - I think a lot of it is down to the quality of facilities and the standard of coaching. Obviously you need the base talent to be there in the first place.

I'd be interested to hear ESB's take on the question though.

Standard of coaching - yes. But how do you measure the standard of coaching? Are the best coaches instantly snapped up by the biggest teams?

Are we saying that Ricky Duncan is a fourth rate coach?
 
Well he did see it late.:smiles:

Did you notice the Fulham match commentator (gentleman Jim) didn't mention Britt's name until he'd got his third (and even then didn't mention it was his hat-trick)? :smile:

I'm at work. I watched it with the sound off!
 
Standard of facilities, in my opinion, will only take you so far. Obviously having a ball for each player and age-appropriate pitches/goals is an advantage, but I'd be horrified if any professional outfit didn't possess those really basic items. I take the point that the calibre of facilities is also likely to be a big draw for young players (or more likely their parents), but I genuinely don't think many kids have the foresight to read too much into them.

Quality of coaching is far more important than facilities, and that's evident simply by looking at the minimum credentials for anyone working at one of the bonafide academies these days (I say that because most Premier League clubs have several satellite academies players have to progress through before they're even considered for a spot aboard the Mothership). It's not that those more qualified are definitely better coaches - I know some proper idiots roaming about South London with UEFA B licences that still insist on 9 year-olds warming up with shuttle runs and laps - but they've been afforded the better education and the better insight, which is then relayed onto the young players.

Are the best coaches snapped up by the best teams? Yes and no. There's definitely an element of headhunting going on, but I'd say it's far more down to the wages on offer, particularly at the Foundation Phase (ages 8-11). These coaches are arguably the most important, but they're paid the least, and the rates of pay on offer the further down the spectrum you go is appalling. It's much better at the top-bracket clubs, so the best coaches naturally filter up the system in search of a respectable wage.

This is why one of the things I wanted to see brought in with Dyke's reforms is the funding for each regional FA to establish a centrally-contracted pool of coaches that can then be hired out by clubs, schools and the like. That not only stops the hoarding of coaching talent by Premier League clubs, but also ensures professional coaches could make a living and regional FAs would have another revenue stream.

In my opinion the real difference in terms of player education is in contact time. The EPPP has been designed to ensure that clubs have a set number of coaches available to players for a set amount of time, and that increases the higher up the ladder clubs go. It's been proven that schools with lower class sizes produce the best results and I'd bet that's true of football academies. You see some of these Chelsea or Fulham outreach centres in South London with support staff and tens of coaches handling hundreds of kids, and that's before you even get to the main facilities where the players are very well looked after. It's another world outside of that environment though, where the one coach will be expected to look after five or six different teams.
 
That would be very interesting to see, but with so many transfer being "undisclosed fees" it is quite hard to find the actual figure. I haven't got hard facts to go on, but a big club could be releasing or selling 10+ players a season with maybe 1 or 2 making a profit.

If the transfer fees were disclosed, it still isn't simple to calculate any profit. For example, signing a player for £500,000 and selling 3 years later for £700,000 might seem like a good bit of business, but when you add in the player's wages for those 3 years at maybe around £1,000 per week then the total cost becomes £656,000. Then you have to remember that £656,000 3 years ago is worth more than £656,000 is worth now.

Without the loan system, what is there to stop a club like Tottenham agreeing with another club to "sell" a player to them with a buy-back clause of a similar amount?

I agree the maths is not as simple as my illustration. The last point could be fixed simply with a change of rules concerning payments, a league 2 club might be reluctant to take a premiership player 'on loan' that they have had to make an actual physical down payment for, have a debt in the accounts AND are paying 100% of that players current wages.

not sure if you saw this article earlier and/or if this website is known as a good/bad source of info
http://www.thesecretfootballer.com/a...hadli-capture/
 
Some very good points being raised.

As to the question about standard of facilities, I wonder if this is being over exaggerated as there are other factors to consider.

For example, a more valid factor is the standard of the other players (youth or professional) that you are training with.

It may be one thing being able to take on two defenders that are possible Division 4 standard as against taking on two defenders that are being selected for England games. Training with top class players would sharpen your skills, timing and control.
 
We used to get a better class of loan player back in Tilly's time though (TBF we were a division higher).

Which is of course a huge generalisation (becoming something of a forte for you here), as I remember Tilson bringing in some spectacularly ordinary loanees, just as Sturrock and Brown (to a lesser extent, perhaps) have done since.
 
Back
Top