Tom Shaw | Page 3 | Vital Football

Tom Shaw

brisimp said:
The footballl league pays a certain amount to academies each year depending on what cat and what division i believe
Click to expand...

Why would the amount paid to academies be partly determined by the breed of cat living at the football club? Politics gone mad, if it is politics...
 
I think the local non-league clubs are the beneficiaries of our youth team as we are of the premiership and championship schemes.
 
Sincilbanks said:
The lower down the pyramid the easier it gets. At league 1 I would have thought we'd be capable of churning out at least 1 defender and 1 midfielder who can occupy the bench and play in the cup games...
Click to expand...
You could be right maybe the group will startproducing next season if some have been with the club 2 yrs plus
 
Just a few general points to throw in.

Firstly, I believe we have to run an academy to qualify for certain subsidies - perhaps someone can clarify that.

Secondly - and most importantly at this juncture - we received no funding at all for our academy for six years out of the Football League. The academy was sustained through donations and some sterling work by a number of people including Roger Bates and Chris Moyses, not to mention the parents of the players. It is very unfair to criticise the current output from our academy because it has been on a financial hiding to nothing until very recently. It will take some time to catch up, and expecting it to produce League One standard players already is unrealistic and an insult to those working very hard to re-establish Lincoln City as a bona fide professional football club. It surprises me that so many people forget where we have been. Perhaps a little patience is needed before we can start to judge Tom Shaw or how effective our academy is.

One general point to end with. It must not be forgotten that City's academy is part of an extensive network of academies that provides a supply of footballers to all levels of the game. We benefit from the academies at Manchester City, Spurs and others by receiving players on loan to assist us financially. We perform the same function for clubs below us in the pyramid. Those academies help young players to bridge the gap between school football and the professional game; in addition to football skills, they teach young players how the game works and (hopefully) how to conduct themselves; they teach them about wider aspects such as nutrition and further their academic education; and they provide a fantastic testing ground for young coaches - a vast number of top managers started out coaching in academies. The connections they build with players and with other coaches is an integral part of the fabric of professional football at all levels, and a chasm would open without academies. Would we have had Keith Alexander without running an academy, for example?
 
At some stage the question will be asked whether on not the Academy is worthwhile. This question will no doubt be asked by many other lower league clubs in a likely tougher economic environment. I take the point about "Jam tomorrow " but you cannot keep using that. I suspect in 5 years we will be having the same conversation but looking forward to promising youngsters in 2028. The lack of an end product for the last 20-25 years has been already noted. It is reasonable to expect an Academy to provide transfer fee income as well as a significant difference to the First team squad.
 
Harry, you are our resident accounts guru. It seems to me that we are all talking in vague terms about whether the academy is worthwhile, yet no one has any idea what the net cost is.

Is it possible for you (or anyone else) to establish:
a) how much the academy costs to run;
b) how much of that is covered by the solidarity payment;
c) how much of that is covered by grants and donations;
d) how much we have actually recouped in sales (e.g. Tim Akinola);
e) therefore the net cost?

I also seem to recall that there is a certain amount of subsidy that we are obliged to spend on the academy, i.e. money that we cannot use for any other purpose. I may be wrong about that. If correct, does that amount cover the full cost of the academy?

It would be interesting to know the answers.
 
Brendan Bradley said:
I thought that nobody liked the idea of B-sides in the pyramid?

This is the thin end of the wedge.

Should Lincoln City go the whole hog and become a West Bromwich Albion experimental outfit?
Click to expand...
No disagreement from me, you are quite right. However as it is happening (the coaching role), I hope The Imps benefit from it.

Should the Trinity fans object (or a wider group), in the event that they really did become an Imps Youth XI and for example raised a petition, then on principle I would have to sign it. Ball is in their court to accept it or fight it and organise resistance to such a development.

Of course it's a moot point currently as Trinity may end up loaning zero Imps players.

Regarding ourselves, I (as MA has indicated) would like us to move away from a reliance on loan players but can live with the current situation. Of course if B Teams became an official thing then it would be time to mobilise against it. In the meantime I would be very happy to see loans in a match day squad reduced to a maximum of two or three, plus emergency 'keeper.

Perhaps this is where the PL are being crafty and are effectively sneaking B Teams in via the loan system.
 
Scotimp said:
Harry, you are our resident accounts guru. It seems to me that we are all talking in vague terms about whether the academy is worthwhile, yet no one has any idea what the net cost is.

Is it possible for you (or anyone else) to establish:
a) how much the academy costs to run;
b) how much of that is covered by the solidarity payment;
c) how much of that is covered by grants and donations;
d) how much we have actually recouped in sales (e.g. Tim Akinola);
e) therefore the net cost?

I also seem to recall that there is a certain amount of subsidy that we are obliged to spend on the academy, i.e. money that we cannot use for any other purpose. I may be wrong about that. If correct, does that amount cover the full cost of the academy?

It would be interesting to know the answers.
Click to expand...

I can only partly answer this.

My understanding is that Grants,ect come to about 50% of the costs,but I am not sure about that. From general reading though,there is a cost to academies,despite the grants.For instance,Brentford scrapped their academy at a saving of £M 1.5 per year,and went on the B-Team model.

As for transfer fees received,it is fair to say these have been minimal over the years. Apart from Tim Akinola and Ellis Chapman,I can't think of any others. In the case of Chapman,I beileve we were entitled to ask Cheltenham for a fee-whether we did or not,I dont know.
 
57harry said:
I can only partly answer this.

My understanding is that Grants,ect come to about 50% of the costs,but I am not sure about that. From general reading though,there is a cost to academies,despite the grants.For instance,Brentford scrapped their academy at a saving of £M 1.5 per year,and went on the B-Team model.

As for transfer fees received,it is fair to say these have been minimal over the years. Apart from Tim Akinola and Ellis Chapman,I can't think of any others. In the case of Chapman,I beileve we were entitled to ask Cheltenham for a fee-whether we did or not,I dont know.
Click to expand...

I think we hold a continuing interest with Chapman as opposed to taking a fee. In effect a percentage of any sell-on Cheltenham may make. I suspect that was an agreement because Cheltenham couldn't afford a transfer fee for a player who had no intention of re-signing for us. We could still end up with a percentage of bugger all
 
I think we hold a continuing interest with Chapman as opposed to taking a fee. In effect a percentage of any sell-on Cheltenham may make. I suspect that was an agreement because Cheltenham couldn't afford a transfer fee for a player who had no intention of re-signing for us. We could still end up with a percentage of bugger all.

Having seen Ellis Chapman play recently not sure that I would hold my breath on any future sell-on fee - on current form not sure where his next move would be bit certainly not upwards for a lot of dosh.
 
I can see two sides to the argument but fundamentally although LCFC is not a charity it is a pillar in our community. Let’s not talk about players needing men’s football, let’s talk about the younger children, I would suggest it gives them hope and focus and to stay on a good pathway. It keeps them off the streets and may generate further LCFC supporters with their classmates listening to what they are doing and how. For these children it gives them hope and drive. Yes, perhaps not one of them will make the grade, at least they tried and have learned life skills in the process. I hope some say as they grow up through the years, if it wasn’t for LCFC perhaps I wouldn’t be the person I am today.
 
Scotimp said:
Harry, you are our resident accounts guru. It seems to me that we are all talking in vague terms about whether the academy is worthwhile, yet no one has any idea what the net cost is.

Is it possible for you (or anyone else) to establish:
a) how much the academy costs to run;
b) how much of that is covered by the solidarity payment;
c) how much of that is covered by grants and donations;
d) how much we have actually recouped in sales (e.g. Tim Akinola);
e) therefore the net cost?

I also seem to recall that there is a certain amount of subsidy that we are obliged to spend on the academy, i.e. money that we cannot use for any other purpose. I may be wrong about that. If correct, does that amount cover the full cost of the academy?

It would be interesting to know the answers.
Click to expand...
I suspect the youth set-up also played a part in the community areas of the new SW and enabled us to get the grants in as well? The youth set-up probably opens up a number of doors in that respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.