Britt Assombalonga

[OldBlueLady]

He's a good boy and I'm delighted to see him doing so well :)

 

[Agent Lomas]

2012-13 - Blues - League Two
2013-14 - Peterborough - League One
2014-15 - Notts Forest - Championship
2015-16 - Notts Forest? - Premier League?

 

[BARNETBLUE]

2012-13 - Blues - League Two
2013-14 - Peterborough - League One
2014-15 - Notts Forest - Championship
2015-16 - Notts Forest? - Premier League?

You Forgot...2011-12 Wealdstone I saw him help beat Barrow in FA Cup...Then after that Braintree Town on loan...He has hacked it at every level so far!

 

[RobM]

Overpriced!

Really? I think many disagree.

 

[rlb999]

First time I've seen him play since he left us. To be fair he's moved his game on a couple of levels since then, and well done to him.

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

I promise (possibly) that this is the last time I will type this .........

How much money did we get for developing a player for another club to sell on for millions of pounds?

Otherwise I am pleased to see him doing so well.

 

[Beefy]

How much money did we pay for having a multi-million pound striker in our lineup for an entire season?

(Hint the answer is much less than we paid for Gavin Tomlin that season who then moved onto another club for free).

 

[ooh-andy-ansah]

I promise (possibly) that this is the last time I will type this .........

How much money did we get for developing a player for another club to sell on for millions of pounds?

Otherwise I am pleased to see him doing so well.

We may have played some part in his development but at the end of the day we don't have a pot to **** in so should be grateful that we got his services without having to pay a fee. Posh also played a big part in his development but unlike us they had the cash to buy him so deserve their profit.

 

[chapperzUK]

I promise (possibly) that this is the last time I will type this .........

How much money did we get for developing a player for another club to sell on for millions of pounds?

Otherwise I am pleased to see him doing so well.

We got 15 goals without having to buy him.

Could say that we didn't get anything for developing him, but we also got a decent fee for Hooper and I wouldn't say we developed him much and only got that after his loan spells. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

Sorry - all good attempts but the answer is nothing. Not one penny of the millions of pounds in transfer fees.

 

[Jam_Man]

Sorry - all good attempts but the answer is nothing. Not one penny of the millions of pounds in transfer fees.

Yet we got a player worth 1 million that we would have had no chance of having for the season.

Would you prefer we had never had him then?

You always ignore the benefits of having a loan player, you get a player for the season, that's the pay off.

 

[chapperzUK]

The same we got for Clarke, Kightly and Moussa, who were actually our players, cost us money and now playing in the top 2 leagues.

 

[Pubey]

Yet we got a player worth 1 million that we would have had no chance of having for the season.

Would you prefer we had never had him then?

You always ignore the benefits of having a loan player, you get a player for the season, that's the pay off.

That's fine, but Watford signed him as a 17 year old. He got a pro contract and made a couple of sub appearances. They then loaned him out to to three clubs over three years (Wealdstone, Braintree, us) Where he made over 50 appearances and scored 26 goals. Due to those loans spells and Britts development, they then had a player worth over a million. He has subsequently rewarded Watford and Peterborough with even more money due to his subsequent move to Forest.

The point is that larger clubs like Watford are able to attract young talent due to their critical mass, and then they're able to manage their development squad and flip them for significant profit when at no time have they been seriously considered for first team action in their team. He wasn't worth £1m when he came here, but he was at the end.

I'm not blaming Watford for doing what they did. They need to get a return on their subsential youth team bill, and they did really well out of Britt - although I bet they are slightly kicking themselves. However, we were exploited as part of the loanee system because we added significant value to Britt by the time and experience we gave him, but didn't get that in return (15 goals don't guarantee you anything). The current system continues to favour teams who hoard youngsters and loan them out for development, and the money continues to circulate at the top. Maybe there should be a required 'profit percentage' that automatically goes to loanee clubs to ensure that money continues to be more fairly distributed.

 

[Beefy]

We had the benefit of a top player who didn't a penny for for a whole year. We do it ourselves when we loan out players to teams below in the pyramid.

I genuinely don't see the issue.

 

[Pubey]

We had the benefit of a top player who didn't a penny for for a whole year. We do it ourselves when we loan out players to teams below in the pyramid.

I genuinely don't see the issue.

The issue is that the system encourages a race to snap up youngsters, loan them out and then either sell them or play them. By definition, bigger clubs will be better at this and money will continue to flow upwards to the higher leagues.

We got a lot of benefit from Britt I agree. I'm not accusing Watford of doing anything wrong, nor us. I'm also not accusing Chelsea of doing anything wrong even though they have 26 players out on loan.

The issue is hoarding young players as capital investment (or at least, it stops competitors from benefiting from them and discarding 50 x 21 year olds is worth it when you get the odd Welbeck or Sterling).

If clubs were taxed on the profits they made for player sales and that money redistributed to lower leagues/grass roots then I don't personally see that as a bad thing.

 

[Beefy]

I would see it as a bad thing, tbh. Top talent should be developed by top clubs with top coaches and top training facilities. That should be encouraged for the good of the game as a whole. Clubs like ours then end up benefiting from having large numbers of first team players who have had a top-class footballing education for which we have not contributed a penny towards, Our goalscorer last night, Conor Clifford, being a perfect example.

Besides none of these players are forced to sign for these clubs. They and their parents choose to do so and shouldn't be forced to accept a lower league club in order to conform to a lower league club's definition of "fairness".

Also in this particular case Britt was very much in Watford's plans. He was in their first team squad all pre-season after he came back from us. He had plenty of game time, scored a few goals and they weren't looking to sell him. Peterborough then offered huge money and they took it.

 

[ooh-andy-ansah]

Watford totally screwed up on this deal, too carried away with Zola's policy of buying foreign players whilst ignoring the talent already on the books

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

Well, I think the arguments on both sides have been well put.

As an older person I still think of the "right" way of development for a player (and for clubs) is for the player to work his way up the pyramid with transfer fees and money flowing down.

And for me the loan system has become too big. Scale it down quite a bit is all I ask as I think that would provide an overall benefit to all 92 league clubs.

 

[Jam_Man]

Well, I think the arguments on both sides have been well put.

As an older person I still think of the "right" way of development for a player (and for clubs) is for the player to work his way up the pyramid with transfer fees and money flowing down.

And for me the loan system has become too big. Scale it down quite a bit is all I ask as I think that would provide an overall benefit to all 92 league clubs.

Thats certainly a very good way of doing it as it means you are making money.

However you are also having to invest a lot of moneny into doing so with a fairly low chance of success. Not only do you need to produce a player worth a decent figure you have to then hope he doesnt leave on a free post the bosman rules.

You just have to look at some of the loans we have had the past few seasons, Britt, Egan, Sokolik, MKandawire. None of them we would have been able to play without the loan system.

Needs to have a balanced approach which with the amount of youngsters we have pushing for places now, plus one long term loan we seem to be doing pretty well.

 

[Pubey]

I would see it as a bad thing, tbh. Top talent should be developed by top clubs with top coaches and top training facilities. That should be encouraged for the good of the game as a whole. Clubs like ours then end up benefiting from having large numbers of first team players who have had a top-class footballing education for which we have not contributed a penny towards, Our goalscorer last night, Conor Clifford, being a perfect example.

Besides none of these players are forced to sign for these clubs. They and their parents choose to do so and shouldn't be forced to accept a lower league club in order to conform to a lower league club's definition of "fairness".

Also in this particular case Britt was very much in Watford's plans. He was in their first team squad all pre-season after he came back from us. He had plenty of game time, scored a few goals and they weren't looking to sell him. Peterborough then offered huge money and they took it.

Well I think that's slightly unfair to the lower league teams (and non-league teams) who can provide excellent coaching along with first team opportunities. Are you saying that someone like Daniel Bentley would be a better keeper now than he would have been if he'd be snapped up by Spurs aged 13 and received brilliant coaching but had to go on loan to get games - a tough ask for a young keeper?

I think there are (and should continue to be) coaching and facilities available for all professional clubs. A separate issue - but we need more community football facilities which can be used by clubs and local teams e.g. PlayFootball is used by SUFC, as is Gloucester Park.

Fewer clubs are persisting with a youth setup which IMO is a real shame, mainly due to the expenses involved, but also because it's hard to get a decent return on a player, tribunals pay out small amounts and players leave as a prospect at 16/17 and don't become the next Britt, Bentley who (potentially) leave for big bucks.

Someone like Daniel Bentley is a local lad and fan and has been able to develop to almost England U21 level here. He has a real connection with the club and fans. I think that's important. He's been able to bed in as a proper member of the squad and club, unlike a loanee - and he's had to work hard to get his chance rather than being air-dropped into a club where he's pretty much guaranteed to play. To me, that's the better approach to player development and perhaps the league should incentivise the system to make sure that clubs are rewarded when they develop young (english) players, whether their own or a loanee.

I also think it's important that youngsters aren't hoovered up with big clubs (there is a draw with big clubs and that's fine, who wouldn't want to be on the book of a prem club) and then 99% of them are chucked out. They give up football before even playing a competitive match. They've spent hours every week travelling and training, rather than playing and training locally and continuing to maintain effort at school.