Match Thread: Bradford Park Avenue V Lincoln City | Page 11 | Vital Football

Match Thread: Bradford Park Avenue V Lincoln City

clanfordimp - 22/12/2015 12:28

Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 12:04

clanfordimp - 22/12/2015 12:02

SIMJON - 21/12/2015 22:23

Davidimp - 21/12/2015 22:17

implausible - 21/12/2015 22:09

Skip155 - 21/12/2015 21:43

German Imp - 21/12/2015 21:35

Youth Policy !!

I'm a critic of that too but we played our first choice available back 4, first choice GK and captain marvel in midfield and didn't keep a clean sheet long enough to let the young lads play. That foundation has to 'be the men' to give the kids a bit of freedom. That said I don't think the youths are good enough.

The youths who have made the first team may be suspect but the current youth team are joint top of the league. if you don't give players a chance you miss another Sam Clucas.
Aren't the youth team currently top of their league?
Maybe they'll come good unlike the current crop.

There's a big difference between playing against other youths and playing against men though.

Absolutely correct, how many 17 and 18 year olds do you see playing in this league?
I think we would be much better served with having a reserve team than a youth team, it would allow you to attract players who cant afford to give up full time jobs to play for us and you could also play some of the better youngsters in the team allowing them to make the jump into the first team if good enough more smoothly.
We cannot afford to run a Reserve team unfortunately.

Why not, surely it wouldn't cost that much. Most of the players would be at the club full time anyway and you would top them up with trialists and non contract players and play in a midweek evening league, if they still exist. If not play friendlies against clubs from around the midlands.
From memory the cost of running a reserve side would be circa £100,000.
 
Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 12:47

clanfordimp - 22/12/2015 12:28

Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 12:04

clanfordimp - 22/12/2015 12:02

SIMJON - 21/12/2015 22:23

Davidimp - 21/12/2015 22:17

implausible - 21/12/2015 22:09

Skip155 - 21/12/2015 21:43

German Imp - 21/12/2015 21:35

Youth Policy !!

I'm a critic of that too but we played our first choice available back 4, first choice GK and captain marvel in midfield and didn't keep a clean sheet long enough to let the young lads play. That foundation has to 'be the men' to give the kids a bit of freedom. That said I don't think the youths are good enough.

The youths who have made the first team may be suspect but the current youth team are joint top of the league. if you don't give players a chance you miss another Sam Clucas.
Aren't the youth team currently top of their league?
Maybe they'll come good unlike the current crop.

There's a big difference between playing against other youths and playing against men though.

Absolutely correct, how many 17 and 18 year olds do you see playing in this league?
I think we would be much better served with having a reserve team than a youth team, it would allow you to attract players who cant afford to give up full time jobs to play for us and you could also play some of the better youngsters in the team allowing them to make the jump into the first team if good enough more smoothly.
We cannot afford to run a Reserve team unfortunately.

Why not, surely it wouldn't cost that much. Most of the players would be at the club full time anyway and you would top them up with trialists and non contract players and play in a midweek evening league, if they still exist. If not play friendlies against clubs from around the midlands.
From memory the cost of running a reserve side would be circa £100,000.

I would doubt if the additional cost would be any where near that much especially if you just played locally in the Midlands.
 
57harry - 22/12/2015 12:55

Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 12:47

clanfordimp - 22/12/2015 12:28

Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 12:04

clanfordimp - 22/12/2015 12:02

SIMJON - 21/12/2015 22:23

Davidimp - 21/12/2015 22:17

implausible - 21/12/2015 22:09

Skip155 - 21/12/2015 21:43

German Imp - 21/12/2015 21:35

Youth Policy !!

I'm a critic of that too but we played our first choice available back 4, first choice GK and captain marvel in midfield and didn't keep a clean sheet long enough to let the young lads play. That foundation has to 'be the men' to give the kids a bit of freedom. That said I don't think the youths are good enough.

The youths who have made the first team may be suspect but the current youth team are joint top of the league. if you don't give players a chance you miss another Sam Clucas.
Aren't the youth team currently top of their league?
Maybe they'll come good unlike the current crop.

There's a big difference between playing against other youths and playing against men though.

Absolutely correct, how many 17 and 18 year olds do you see playing in this league?
I think we would be much better served with having a reserve team than a youth team, it would allow you to attract players who cant afford to give up full time jobs to play for us and you could also play some of the better youngsters in the team allowing them to make the jump into the first team if good enough more smoothly.
We cannot afford to run a Reserve team unfortunately.

Why not, surely it wouldn't cost that much. Most of the players would be at the club full time anyway and you would top them up with trialists and non contract players and play in a midweek evening league, if they still exist. If not play friendlies against clubs from around the midlands.
From memory the cost of running a reserve side would be circa £100,000.

I would doubt if the additional cost would be any where near that much especially if you just played locally in the Midlands.
It rather depends on whether you want a reserve side that is of a standard to step into the first team when needed or are running one for the sake of it. A reserve side would need to be playing regularly with a reasonably settled side to allow the reserve team manager (another expense) the ability to have the team gel and provide an environment where the younger players in the side can learn the game. It would be a nonsense, in my opinion, to run a reserve side on an ad hoc, non-professional, non-regular playing basis and expect it to be any more effective in providing strong and adequate first team cover than the present set-up. To do that would cost money!
 
With a squad of 22 players, say, a reserve squad would have to consist of 16 of those. You'd surely be having a lot of overlap between the 1st and reserve squads?

In addition, I don't think the Youth set-up, whatever it's faults might be, actually costs the Club a lot of money - I think it's largely a separate entity, although I may be wrong on that.

I genuinely don't think a reserve side is an option atm.
 
impede - 22/12/2015 12:33

Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 12:04

clanfordimp - 22/12/2015 12:02

SIMJON - 21/12/2015 22:23

Davidimp - 21/12/2015 22:17

implausible - 21/12/2015 22:09

Skip155 - 21/12/2015 21:43

German Imp - 21/12/2015 21:35

Youth Policy !!

I'm a critic of that too but we played our first choice available back 4, first choice GK and captain marvel in midfield and didn't keep a clean sheet long enough to let the young lads play. That foundation has to 'be the men' to give the kids a bit of freedom. That said I don't think the youths are good enough.

The youths who have made the first team may be suspect but the current youth team are joint top of the league. if you don't give players a chance you miss another Sam Clucas.
Aren't the youth team currently top of their league?
Maybe they'll come good unlike the current crop.

There's a big difference between playing against other youths and playing against men though.

Absolutely correct, how many 17 and 18 year olds do you see playing in this league?
I think we would be much better served with having a reserve team than a youth team, it would allow you to attract players who cant afford to give up full time jobs to play for us and you could also play some of the better youngsters in the team allowing them to make the jump into the first team if good enough more smoothly.
We cannot afford to run a Reserve team unfortunately.
Glib response; does a youth team cost more or less than a reserve team. Without knowing the economics of both no conclusion can be wrought. The returns from the youth team have been nothing.
Glib answer: The youth team costs very little as it is largely self funding through fund raising and youth members paying an annual fee.
 
NottyImp - 22/12/2015 13:21

With a squad of 22 players, say, a reserve squad would have to consist of 16 of those. You'd surely be having a lot of overlap between the 1st and reserve squads?

In addition, I don't think the Youth set-up, whatever it's faults might be, actually costs the Club a lot of money - I think it's largely a separate entity, although I may be wrong on that.

I genuinely don't think a reserve side is an option atm.
You are correct Notty!
 
I used to think the youth policy had something but I am getting increasingly frustrated when I see no end product with players loaned out to other Lincolnshire clubs. Can we as a club afford to do it and offer what I would suggest are "Stocking Filler" squad places. Surely the money could be better pooled on one or maybe two better quality players. Likewise, youth players at other clubs are probably a better option IMO a bit like outsourcing rather than in-house. Yes, a youth set up gives kids something to aspire and if self funding then all well and good but not to the detriment of getting out of this league where quality and a little robustness is needed.
 
German Imp - 22/12/2015 14:01

I used to think the youth policy had something but I am getting increasingly frustrated when I see no end product with players loaned out to other Lincolnshire clubs. Can we as a club afford to do it and offer what I would suggest are "Stocking Filler" squad places. Surely the money could be better pooled on one or maybe two better quality players. Likewise, youth players at other clubs are probably a better option IMO a bit like outsourcing rather than in-house. Yes, a youth set up gives kids something to aspire and if self funding then all well and good but not to the detriment of getting out of this league where quality and a little robustness is needed.

At the very least, we need to be careful about who we offer contracts to when the players leave the youth system. I'd say that unless there is clear evidence of progress, promise and the strong possibility of first team impact, then we say good-bye. Equally, I appreciate that is hard to do with youngsters and asking an awful lot.
 
Does any other team have such an appalling cup luck/pedigree than Lincoln? If we're not constantly being drawn away, then we're losing to sides in leagues below us, while also failing to deliver when there is the all-to-rare lure of a big tie to look forward to, eg. losing to Mansfield after a replay a few years back when Liverpool awaited the winners.

I'm sure no other team has it as bad as us in knockout competitions. We should just veto them altogether and save us the inevitable heartache.
 
The Imposter - 22/12/2015 14:22

Does any other team have such an appalling cup luck/pedigree than Lincoln? If we're not constantly being drawn away, then we're losing to sides in leagues below us, while also failing to deliver when there is the all-to-rare lure of a big tie to look forward to, eg. losing to Mansfield after a replay a few years back when Liverpool awaited the winners.

I'm sure no other team has it as bad as us in knockout competitions. We should just veto them altogether and save us the inevitable heartache.

That is a fair summation. I kind of gave up on them years ago. Getting to second round is an achievement for LCFC.
 
The Imposter - 22/12/2015 14:22

I'm sure no other team has it as bad as us in knockout competitions. We should just veto them altogether and save us the inevitable heartache.

I remember suggesting the same thing in the DF following a cup defeat to Stafford Rangers. That was 1992. Things haven't got any better!


 
Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 13:39

impede - 22/12/2015 12:33

Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 12:04

clanfordimp - 22/12/2015 12:02

SIMJON - 21/12/2015 22:23

Davidimp - 21/12/2015 22:17

implausible - 21/12/2015 22:09

Skip155 - 21/12/2015 21:43

German Imp - 21/12/2015 21:35

Youth Policy !!

I'm a critic of that too but we played our first choice available back 4, first choice GK and captain marvel in midfield and didn't keep a clean sheet long enough to let the young lads play. That foundation has to 'be the men' to give the kids a bit of freedom. That said I don't think the youths are good enough.

The youths who have made the first team may be suspect but the current youth team are joint top of the league. if you don't give players a chance you miss another Sam Clucas.
Aren't the youth team currently top of their league?
Maybe they'll come good unlike the current crop.

There's a big difference between playing against other youths and playing against men though.

Absolutely correct, how many 17 and 18 year olds do you see playing in this league?
I think we would be much better served with having a reserve team than a youth team, it would allow you to attract players who cant afford to give up full time jobs to play for us and you could also play some of the better youngsters in the team allowing them to make the jump into the first team if good enough more smoothly.
We cannot afford to run a Reserve team unfortunately.
Glib response; does a youth team cost more or less than a reserve team. Without knowing the economics of both no conclusion can be wrought. The returns from the youth team have been nothing.
Glib answer: The youth team costs very little as it is largely self funding through fund raising and youth members paying an annual fee.

Subsidies made by LCFC for the Youth system have been about £K 25 pa for the last few years.Reports for the last financial year have suggested no subsidy was be paid .I am not sure about the situation going forward.So I wouldn't describe that as self funding. The biggest cost of the Youth system IMO is the tendency for managers to sign about 3-4 each year as full-time pros. My concern is that these,IMO, are mainly signed to justify the Youth system and the time and effort spent in their development. In all honesty the "development time" is irrelevant to the future as it is a "sunk cost". The lack of impact of the Youths on the first team has been well documented in this thread.

Another issue is that some of the fund raising that goes direct to the Youth set up could be diverted to LCFC in the event the former was scrapped.

 
57harry - 22/12/2015 15:02

Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 13:39

impede - 22/12/2015 12:33

Steve O'Dare - 22/12/2015 12:04

clanfordimp - 22/12/2015 12:02

SIMJON - 21/12/2015 22:23

Davidimp - 21/12/2015 22:17

implausible - 21/12/2015 22:09

Skip155 - 21/12/2015 21:43

German Imp - 21/12/2015 21:35

Youth Policy !!

I'm a critic of that too but we played our first choice available back 4, first choice GK and captain marvel in midfield and didn't keep a clean sheet long enough to let the young lads play. That foundation has to 'be the men' to give the kids a bit of freedom. That said I don't think the youths are good enough.

The youths who have made the first team may be suspect but the current youth team are joint top of the league. if you don't give players a chance you miss another Sam Clucas.
Aren't the youth team currently top of their league?
Maybe they'll come good unlike the current crop.

There's a big difference between playing against other youths and playing against men though.

Absolutely correct, how many 17 and 18 year olds do you see playing in this league?
I think we would be much better served with having a reserve team than a youth team, it would allow you to attract players who cant afford to give up full time jobs to play for us and you could also play some of the better youngsters in the team allowing them to make the jump into the first team if good enough more smoothly.
We cannot afford to run a Reserve team unfortunately.
Glib response; does a youth team cost more or less than a reserve team. Without knowing the economics of both no conclusion can be wrought. The returns from the youth team have been nothing.
Glib answer: The youth team costs very little as it is largely self funding through fund raising and youth members paying an annual fee.

Subsidies made by LCFC for the Youth system have been about £K 25 pa for the last few years.Reports for the last financial year have suggested no subsidy was be paid .I am not sure about the situation going forward.So I wouldn't describe that as self funding. The biggest cost of the Youth system IMO is the tendency for managers to sign about 3-4 each year as full-time pros. My concern is that these,IMO, are mainly signed to justify the Youth system and the time and effort spent in their development. In all honesty the "development time" is irrelevant to the future as it is a "sunk cost". The lack of impact of the Youths on the first team has been well documented in this thread.

Another issue is that some of the fund raising that goes direct to the Youth set up could be diverted to LCFC in the event the former was scrapped.
I think you should read my post again. I said it was "largely self funding" because it is. I would dispute whether very much of the funding that goes to it from the fund raising efforts would find its way to LCFC as most of it comes from the families of the lads that are involved and a few, like me, who feel that it is a great community initiative to encourage interest in the club at a young age. I would agree that there is little impact on the first team by young players that have come through the youth system but would point out that is the same with most clubs.
 
Thaddeus Griffin - 21/12/2015 23:31

NottyImp - 21/12/2015 22:13

JT_LCFC - 21/12/2015 22:03

Robinson just isn't up to it full stop.

I think that was his 68th game for City. I doubt he will be here next season.

The Youth set-up has surely to come under some scrutiny now. I can't recall the last time a player graduated from it to become a regular, solid first team player. If we can't sell 'em and we can't use 'em, then we need to scrap it asap.

At least then we could consolidate the (admittedly low) wages of the likes of Robinson, Everington and Simmons into one wage for a decent Conference player.

He's played more as Soccerbase doesn't carry qualifying rounds of the FA Cup or FA Trophy matches.

I'll take a look at minutes played tomorrow and see how many he, Simmons & Everington have actually managed in their Lincoln careers.

Took a look at Conner's minutes. He's played 3,230 over the course of his Lincoln career which would equate to just a shade under 36 matches.

9 goals in that time I think so averaging a goal every 4 matches in terms of minutes played.
 
Thaddeus Griffin - 23/12/2015 11:09

Thaddeus Griffin - 21/12/2015 23:31

NottyImp - 21/12/2015 22:13

JT_LCFC - 21/12/2015 22:03

Robinson just isn't up to it full stop.



I think that was his 68th game for City. I doubt he will be here next season.

The Youth set-up has surely to come under some scrutiny now. I can't recall the last time a player graduated from it to become a regular, solid first team player. If we can't sell 'em and we can't use 'em, then we need to scrap it asap.

At least then we could consolidate the (admittedly low) wages of the likes of Robinson, Everington and Simmons into one wage for a decent Conference player.

He's played more as Soccerbase doesn't carry qualifying rounds of the FA Cup or FA Trophy matches.

I'll take a look at minutes played tomorrow and see how many he, Simmons & Everington have actually managed in their Lincoln careers.

Took a look at Conner's minutes. He's played 3,230 over the course of his Lincoln career which would equate to just a shade under 36 matches.

9 goals in that time I think so averaging a goal every 4 matches in terms of minutes played.

Which is a better return than most on here would have thought. Vast majority of those minutes will be in fifteen and twenty segments.