Meltdown (youth "poaching")

[AdamTheGreatOneB]

Well, you said that they don't "bring these players up just so they can be sold" & then said that without those sales they wouldn't survive, which seems somewhat contradictory to me. So if that apparent contradiction devalues your argument, it's your contradiction - I've just highlighted it as I don't see how your argument can be valid if it's contradictory. Following your own argument, if those youngsters only developed as far as the first team & no offers came in for them then Crewe, to use your example, wouldn't survive. Therefore, they must be dependant on those sales. It seems to me the whole process is just a way for the more affluent clubs to subsidise the less well off & as such I doubt it will continue in the current form, particularly if prices are on the rise. If the top clubs wanted to be supportive of the lower divisons we would never have had the breakaway from the Football League to form the Premier League.

Again it's not a contradiction. They don't bring up these players just so they can be sold. Teams like Crewe want these players to help the club to progress but their progression is hindered when the bigger clubs take away their best young players. They wouldn't survive if their best prospects were always taken away without compensation. They either need the money for these players, or these players stay and the team progresses and earns the club more money through on the field success.

 

[AdamTheGreatOneB]

I agree with all you've said there, however, when these players are released or sold for a nominal sum due to not making the grade at the top level they must obviously still be attractive to the lower division clubs that take them on. Often some of these players have a successful career in the lower leagues, but the club that invested in their development doesn't get much, if any compensation - presumably on the basis that they can afford it. So the system isn't really about compensating clubs for their investment, but profiteering on youngsters potential.

Well at least we agree on something

I think it's a bit of both.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

Again it's not a contradiction. They don't bring up these players just so they can be sold. Teams like Crewe want these players to help the club to progress but their progression is hindered when the bigger clubs take away their best young players. They wouldn't survive if their best prospects were always taken away without compensation. They either need the money for these players, or these players stay and the team progresses and earns the club more money through on the field success.

I see what you mean, but if all the top clubs were developing their own players or importing talent from abroad, then all these lower division clubs would get to keep their young players - but obviously they can't all progress, comparatively speaking, & so they won't all earn more money through on field success. Therefore getting to keep your talent only helps if most other clubs don't do likewise.

However, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree anyway.

 

[AdamTheGreatOneB]

I see what you mean, but if all the top clubs were developing their own players or importing talent from abroad, then all these lower division clubs would get to keep their young players - but obviously they can't all progress, comparatively speaking, & so they won't all earn more money through on field success. Therefore getting to keep your talent only helps if most other clubs don't do likewise.

However, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree anyway.

Agreed.