steve lansdown

[bh red]

Apart from Cottrell do you think we have had a good fee for any of the players that have left

as others have said in previous threads,

Lita - £1m + sell on - EXCELLENT FEW good fee

Golbourne - 600k, rising to £1m + sell on

Joe Anyinsah - £125k + Sell on's for a player, who looked poor for us and hasn't started a game since he left

very good fee's for the players mentioned.

plus other fee's for various other players,

REGARDLESS of all those fee's that has nothing to do what so ever with how the academy performs it has produced the players of a better standard of those that were created by the youth scheme that was before it.

[Guest ashtonyate]

as others have said in previous threads,

Lita - £1m + sell on - EXCELLENT FEW good fee

Golbourne - 600k, rising to £1m + sell on

Joe Anyinsah - £125k + Sell on's for a player, who looked poor for us and hasn't started a game since he left

very good fee's for the players mentioned.

plus other fee's for various other players,

REGARDLESS of all those fee's that has nothing to do what so ever with how the academy performs it has produced the players of a better standard of those that were created by the youth scheme that was before it.

So you think Lita was a good deal well i don't and there is no guarantee we will get any sell on money only if he moves before his contract runs out. golbourne a good long team investment for reading a England youth international he could have staid here also anyinsal but they wanted the big money i have said the academy is getting better at producing players the problem is keeping them

[jellyred]

So you think Lita was a good deal well i don't and there is no guarantee we will get any sell on money only if he moves before his contract runs out. golbourne a good long team investment for reading a England youth international he could have staid here also anyinsal but they wanted the big money i have said the academy is getting better at producing players the problem is keeping them

There is never a guarantee we will get any sell on money on any player that moves. Its not just keeping academy players that is the problem, its keeping any players that are deemed 'too good' for our division. What it appears you are forgetting yate is that we are only a league one side (div 3) so there are always more clubs above us ready to take our best players, whether they are academy graduates or otherwise.

[bh_red]

So you think Lita was a good deal well i don't and there is no guarantee we will get any sell on money only if he moves before his contract runs out. golbourne a good long team investment for reading a England youth international he could have staid here also anyinsal but they wanted the big money i have said the academy is getting better at producing players the problem is keeping them

but that is not the academies fault though is it.......THAT IS FOOTBALL IN GENERAL.

Arsenal.....runners up in the Champions League final, Ashley Cole wants to leave in the end join Chelsea, Frank Lampard possibly heading to Barcelona........it's players and freedom of contract that is the problem, not the academy!!!!!

Lita was excellent Business whatever what you put it, £1m upfront is Excellent, Lita has a 4 year contract as long as he doesn't leave the club on a Out of Contract Bosman we profit.

You really don't seem to have any POINT to your views? just general rambling?

[SE23Red]

So you think Lita was a good deal well i don't and there is no guarantee we will get any sell on money only if he moves before his contract runs out. golbourne a good long team investment for reading a England youth international he could have staid here also anyinsal but they wanted the big money i have said the academy is getting better at producing players the problem is keeping them

But that is not a problem for the academy. Once they sign a pro contract at 17/18 the academy has done its job. That player is then on the same contract as a player brought in from outside the club. Any player, academy produced or not, can leave at any time if a better offer comes along. Better offers tend to only come along for our better players.

The 'problem' (as you see it) is that the academy has produced players capable of playing at the top level. So what you are really complaining about is having talented players at Bristol City. I knew I knew you from somewhere, I just couldn't place you. You're Tony Pulis aren't you?

[Guest ashtonyate]

But that is not a problem for the academy. Once they sign a pro contract at 17/18 the academy has done its job. That player is then on the same contract as a player brought in from outside the club. Any player, academy produced or not, can leave at any time if a better offer comes along. Better offers tend to only come along for our better players.

The 'problem' (as you see it) is that the academy has produced players capable of playing at the top level. So what you are really complaining about is having talented players at Bristol City. I knew I knew you from somewhere, I just couldn't place you. You're Tony Pulis aren't you?

Yes but that is the problem they do not have to sign a contract they can sign for another team and a tribunal sets the fee which is not based on the potential but what it has cost to get the player to where he is now.you say that at 17/18 the academy has done its job but if the City do not sign him because he signs for some one else for a couple of 100 K's what job has the academy done for city we can argue for ever but until the producing club gets a better deal or we can keep player buy paying them the going rate the academy will never be one of my likes, at the moment we won't even buy a half tidy centre forward to get us promoted

[jellyred]

Yes but that is the problem they do not have to sign a contract they can sign for another team and a tribunal sets the fee which is not based on the potential but what it has cost to get the player to where he is now.you say that at 17/18 the academy has done its job but if the City do not sign him because he signs for some one else for a couple of 100 K's what job has the academy done for city we can argue for ever but until the producing club gets a better deal or we can keep player buy paying them the going rate the academy will never be one of my likes, at the moment we won't even buy a half tidy centre forward to get us promoted

But that has always been the case, before bosman and now after. Also we can't keep a player just by paying them 'the going rate'. If a player gets an offer from a better club then they are more than likely to move on.

We have tried to sign a decent striker but he turned us down.

[bh_red]

Yes but that is the problem they do not have to sign a contract they can sign for another team and a tribunal sets the fee which is not based on the potential but what it has cost to get the player to where he is now.you say that at 17/18 the academy has done its job but if the City do not sign him because he signs for some one else for a couple of 100 K's what job has the academy done for city we can argue for ever but until the producing club gets a better deal or we can keep player buy paying them the going rate the academy will never be one of my likes, at the moment we won't even buy a half tidy centre forward to get us promoted

but that has ALWAY been the case in football it's called freedom of employment, if the player becomes out of contract he is free to leave the club and is subject to the tribual, it has always been like that, nothing has changed, it's just that since the bosman ruling came in it is no longer a case where a player over 23 is subject to a tribual set fee, he can just leave, whereas with the younger players you are still eligable to a fee.

Since the Bosman came in the Tribual system has been improved and clubs get alot more than they used to and is alot fairer for the producing club thankfully clubs with Academies get alot better deals, where as some club without the academy systems have had players poached in the past and not got a fair value on the player however the recent case with Scott Sinclair has shown that has changed, Rovers despite their unhappiness of a player being poached are still due almost £1m if the player does well at Chelsea which more than covers the players potenital plus they get a decent sell on fee if he gets sold in the future. Which is evidence that the players potential is taken into consideration when a player joins another club

[SE23Red]

Yes but that is the problem they do not have to sign a contract they can sign for another team and a tribunal sets the fee which is not based on the potential but what it has cost to get the player to where he is now.you say that at 17/18 the academy has done its job but if the City do not sign him because he signs for some one else for a couple of 100 K's what job has the academy done for city we can argue for ever but until the producing club gets a better deal or we can keep player buy paying them the going rate the academy will never be one of my likes, at the moment we won't even buy a half tidy centre forward to get us promoted

But in every case you have used (Lita, Golbourne, Hill, Cotterill etc etc) they did sign a contract at 17/18. It was as senior players and under contract they decided to leave just as the 'half tidy centre forward' we tried to sign wanted to do if we didn't go up. The simple fact is that any player who has the ability to play at a higher level will be tempted.

If Brooker had left at the end of last season would you now insist we never sign another player from Port Vale? or the Potteries? Or anywhere north of Bristol just to be safe?

[Guest ashtonyate]

But in every case you have used (Lita, Golbourne, Hill, Cotterill etc etc) they did sign a contract at 17/18. It was as senior players and under contract they decided to leave just as the 'half tidy centre forward' we tried to sign wanted to do if we didn't go up. The simple fact is that any player who has the ability to play at a higher level will be tempted.

If Brooker had left at the end of last season would you now insist we never sign another player from Port Vale? or the Potteries? Or anywhere north of Bristol just to be safe?

Lita was under contract but it was soon to run out and then a tribunal would have desided the fee I don't think Golbourne signed one Hill signed but It allowed him to move on for a 100k's Cotterill was under a long contract thats why we got 2 Million for him.

Until producing clubs get a better deal which is unlikely to happen because the rules are made by the top clubs i am not really

interested by the academy except the money it takes to run it

[Nibor]

Lita was under contract but it was soon to run out and then a tribunal would have desided the fee I don't think Golbourne signed one Hill signed but It allowed him to move on for a 100k's Cotterill was under a long contract thats why we got 2 Million for him.

Until producing clubs get a better deal which is unlikely to happen because the rules are made by the top clubs i am not really

interested by the academy except the money it takes to run it

Golbourne did sign one.

It's pretty irrelevant what Hill left for. We got more than our money's worth out of him, he played over 200 games for us.

I agree producing clubs need more protection and that it will be hard to get that with Arsenal making the rules BUT... you still fail to acknowledge that despite that the academy is more than standing on it's own two feet financially and is making an important contribution to the first team squad. Fact of the matter is that the academy is well into the black and has produced players that are more than good enough. As for the rest that's the football club manager's problem not the academy's.

[bh red]

Fact is the Academy is producing the goods and in general clubs are getting good value for producing players,

Clubs are getting deals which take into account their current ability and their potenital, deals such as Sinclair from Rovers to Chelsea, gone for £160k rasing to nearly £1m plus a SELL ON, Theo Walcott - £7m upfront rising to £12m if we he does well.

As for Lita his contract did have time to run out but with his scoring record in that league the difference between what we actually got and what we would have got a very likely would have been about the same, all the players who have left City we have got very good deals from apart from Matt Hill who wasn't an Academy player but a senior player who had played almost 200 games for us we did well to get 100k for him as a couple of months earlier he could have left for nothing but managed to keep him that much longer but putting in the clause, again though Hill is another player who we could and are likely to profit on in the future if he makes

The Academy is now costing the club very little at all to run now it is at St George taking into consideration that the club also gets an FA Grant of around £138k per year, the final running cost that was mentioned before the move to St George was around £200k per season, taking into so before the move to St George it was costing the club in it's final years around £62k per season!

62k PER SEASON FOR THE ACADEMY! before the move to St George which has made the running costs EVEN lower!

[scumbag]

Lita was under contract but it was soon to run out and then a tribunal would have desided the fee I don't think Golbourne signed one Hill signed but It allowed him to move on for a 100k's Cotterill was under a long contract thats why we got 2 Million for him.

Until producing clubs get a better deal which is unlikely to happen because the rules are made by the top clubs i am not really

interested by the academy except the money it takes to run it

as mentioned by others though the Academy is now barely costing anything to run anymore, since it has moved to St George it is now paid for in it's pretty much completely by UWE sponsorship and the FA Grants, this is something I have put into a previous posting, the outlay for City Directly is now just a nominal figure, the scheme cost alot to initial setup but these costs have been paid pretty much initially buy John Laycock, money that was written off by him when he left the club.

The running costs now directly from the club are now almost nothing each season, why can't you understand this simple fact?

THE ACADEMY IS PAYING FOR ITSELF via FA Grant and UWE! the players that are being developed by the club are costing the club nothing to produce

[Guest ashtonyate]

as mentioned by others though the Academy is now barely costing anything to run anymore, since it has moved to St George it is now paid for in it's pretty much completely by UWE sponsorship and the FA Grants, this is something I have put into a previous posting, the outlay for City Directly is now just a nominal figure, the scheme cost alot to initial setup but these costs have been paid pretty much initially buy John Laycock, money that was written off by him when he left the club.

The running costs now directly from the club are now almost nothing each season, why can't you understand this simple fact?

THE ACADEMY IS PAYING FOR ITSELF via FA Grant and UWE! the players that are being developed by the club are costing the club nothing to produce

how much is this nearly nothing you seem to know a lot about the accounts or is it just hear say, also i think you will find the club still owes Laycock a lot of money from when he was on the board he may have given some money but a lot of it was loans

Remember after the tinnion debacle the club refinanced its self and a we owe a lot of money in long term loans a lot of fans think the board has given the club loads of cash but most of it is in loans which the club pay a rate of interest on

[Nibor]

how much is this nearly nothing you seem to know a lot about the accounts or is it just hear say, also i think you will find the club still owes Laycock a lot of money from when he was on the board he may have given some money but a lot of it was loans

Remember after the tinnion debacle the club refinanced its self and a we owe a lot of money in long term loans a lot of fans think the board has given the club loads of cash but most of it is in loans which the club pay a rate of interest on

If you're genuinely interested in what we owe, read this.

However, you've yet again ignored the points made in previous posts because you can't counter them and gone off on some weird tangent.

[scumbag]

how much is this nearly nothing you seem to know a lot about the accounts or is it just hear say, also i think you will find the club still owes Laycock a lot of money from when he was on the board he may have given some money but a lot of it was loans

Remember after the tinnion debacle the club refinanced its self and a we owe a lot of money in long term loans a lot of fans think the board has given the club loads of cash but most of it is in loans which the club pay a rate of interest on

as Nibor has already said you just seem to be completely ignoring any facts given to.

I'd repeat what I have already said however can I point you in the direction of POST 63 on this thread, must of the information I have previously quoted comes directly from Tony Fawthrop and a conversation I had with him about the academy at a academy team game a couple of seasons ago, it's isn't hearay as you put it, these are figures and information that are easily available.

[Guest ashtonyate]

If you're genuinely interested in what we owe, read this.

However, you've yet again ignored the points made in previous posts because you can't counter them and gone off on some weird tangent.

i read that link and its as i said you say we are nearly in the black only because Lansdown is committing his loans into shares which has a monetary value if he left he may ask that the shares be bought the real point is the club is deep in the red but with clever accounting it does not look that way

[Andy Horsman]

i read that link and its as i said you say we are nearly in the black only because Lansdown is committing his loans into shares which has a monetary value if he left he may ask that the shares be bought the real point is the club is deep in the red but with clever accounting it does not look that way

That's football all over, I am struggling to follow the point(s) you are trying to make. Are other clubs in the same boat? Invariably, yes. Good news is that our debts are, in footballing circles, relatively servicable, and we are not in hock for hundreds of millions like Manchester Redsocks.

Neither would we implode if our Russian multi-billionaire benefactor decided that he wants a new plaything.

As for the Academy, that is our one realistic opportunity to compete with the Premier league clubs in terms of recruitment and development, and for all the well-documented costs in setting up and running the academy,it offers us the hope of finding our own Rooney/Walcott/Huddlestone. Profits from sales, like it or lump it keep the club afloat while we languish in the lower leagues.

Viva Nibor, the guy debates with zeal and no shortage of research and valid opinions.

[bh_red]

but all of football is in debt, the higher up the leagues you go, pretty much the bigger the debts, look at a club like Liverpool prior to their take-over they were nearly £80m in debt, Man U? what they in debt now? £200m+? since Glazer came in?

EACH and EVERY football club owes someone somewhere some vast amounts of money that would harm the club if they pulled out, what's City "debt" £3m-£5m? that football unfortunately it's a money losing business unless you are in the top few clubs, hence scheme's like the Academy are vital to clubs finances to improve their own players instead of constantly wasting money on transfer fee's

[Nibor]

i read that link and its as i said you say we are nearly in the black only because Lansdown is committing his loans into shares which has a monetary value if he left he may ask that the shares be bought the real point is the club is deep in the red but with clever accounting it does not look that way

No, it's not just clever accounting. Lansdown is paying off the debt and getting a small return for what he's putting in.

This has nothing to do with the academy however which is in the black.