calscot 0 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I'm not spinning anything, I leave that to you. We received £2m up front for Wilson. You are asserting that if a player leaves for a low amount, then the club were rubbish at developing him, if his value rises, then the club are great. We developed Wilson into a potential 5m player but he left a bit early, went to Liverpool and his value dramatically dropped to be a freebie for Hearts in the second tier. Under your own logic for Adam, that makes Rangers far better than Liverpool at developing players, so why your inconsistency? It suggests you spin things against Rangers as usual. Can you explain in what way I'm spinning? Why do you say that about Boumsong and Cuellar? We sold them for a far higher value than their other clubs, under your own logic that means we developed them better than anyone. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I would say mcormack is very much a product of our youth academy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) You are asserting that if a player leaves for a low amount, then the club were rubbish at developing him, if his value rises, then the club are great. We developed Wilson into a potential 5m player but he left a bit early, went to Liverpool and his value dramatically dropped to be a freebie for Hearts in the second tier. Under your own logic for Adam, that makes Rangers far better than Liverpool at developing players, so why your inconsistency? It suggests you spin things against Rangers as usual. Can you explain in what way I'm spinning? What I am asserting is basic logic and common sense. If we don't make a financial gain out of a player or they make a tangible contribution to the first team, then we have failed in the development of that player for our club. I don't see how it is possible to argue against that. If a player goes on several years later to do well at another club, that doesn't benefit us and who is to say where the credit lies in the player's development. Charlie Adam isn't actually even a product of our youth development, he was almost 18 when he joined and it wasn't until he played in England that he looked decent. There are hardly a plethora of top players who have come out of our youth academy in the last 10 years. We sold them for a far higher value than their other clubs, under your own logic that means we developed them better than anyone. Boumsong was free because his contract had expired. Playing in the SPL put Cuellar in the shop window for Premiership teams, I would also imagine he had limited time left on his contract. Edited July 14, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 What I am asserting is basic logic and common sense. If only... If we don't make a financial gain out of a player or they make a tangible contribution to the first team, then we have failed in the development of that player for our club. I don't see how it is possible to argue against that. It's so easy to argue against it, you need to look a bit harder. Every club has a load of youth players, some make a tangible contribution, most don't. By your logic, EVERY club has failed in the development of most of their players. The point I've shown you is that if you pick and choose your players you can see a player do better at one club than an other, including Rangers. Your view is that when you specially pick your players, Rangers are rubbish, but when your own logic is used to say that Rangers are good, you dismiss it and refuse to answer that. If a player goes on several years later to do well at another club, that doesn't benefit us and who is to say where the credit lies in the player's development. You seem to be able to say where it is and that it's never at Rangers. The examples are there to see, Wilson does well at Rangers goes on to Liverpool and does badly, you blame Rangers. Adam does quite well at Rangers, breaks into the team, doesn't quite make it and the fans don't take to him, does better elsewhere and you blame Rangers. A player like Naismith, does well with Kilmarnock, goes on to Rangers and becomes a star, but you say that's not possible at Rangers. Charlie Adam isn't actually even a product of our youth development, he was almost 18 when he joined and it wasn't until he played in England that he looked decent. That is your opinion and there are many people with opposing opinions to that. I've only seen him play for Scotland and wasn't particularly impressed. It was also under PLG where he went from promising to no good. As I've pointed out and you refuse to answer, there are players who have gone up in value after playing for Rangers, or just been pretty decent. We have, after all, won a shit load of trophies. What have Blackpool won again? There are hardly a plethora of top players who have come out of our youth academy in the last 10 years. I suppose that depends on what number you put on "plethora" and ability for "top", but without doing the numbers, I would say that the amount of decent players coming out of the academy is probably well above average for Scotland. You go on about Ajax, but don't use common sense or logic, where it is well known that the Netherlands have one of the best grass roots systems in the world, while Scotland's has gone downhill and crashed in the last 30 years. That is a massive factor. I'm not saying our youth system has been brilliant or world class or even as good as it should be, but again you select your examples and colour your arguments to show Rangers to be somehow the worst in the world, whereas the evidence suggests it has more likely been a bit of above average and for ambitions as a top club, in need of improvement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 If only... It's so easy to argue against it, you need to look a bit harder. Every club has a load of youth players, some make a tangible contribution, most don't. By your logic, EVERY club has failed in the development of most of their players. The point I've shown you is that if you pick and choose your players you can see a player do better at one club than an other, including Rangers. Your view is that when you specially pick your players, Rangers are rubbish, but when your own logic is used to say that Rangers are good, you dismiss it and refuse to answer that. I'm not picking and choosing anything. I have been consistent in my argument from the start - our youth development has been extremely poor for us in recent years, with a complete lack of players making a tangible contribution to the first team and/or being sold for a significant profit. If this is wrong, please start providing examples of all the players that prove this is incorrect. What specifically have I dismissed or refused to answer? You seem to be able to say where it is and that it's never at Rangers. The examples are there to see, Wilson does well at Rangers goes on to Liverpool and does badly, you blame Rangers. Adam does quite well at Rangers, breaks into the team, doesn't quite make it and the fans don't take to him, does better elsewhere and you blame Rangers. A player like Naismith, does well with Kilmarnock, goes on to Rangers and becomes a star, but you say that's not possible at Rangers. You appear to be all over the place here. I didn't blame anyone about Wilson, you're just making things up. I rate him highly and was delighted when we signed him again. Adam wasn't part of our youth development but of course I'm going to blame the club regarding his poor performance. He starred in the Championship and Premiership so of course questions must be asked when he looked woeful at a level far inferior to that. Naismith? I haven't even mentioned him nor have I stated that we never develop players. Please stick to the facts. That is your opinion and there are many people with opposing opinions to that. I've only seen him play for Scotland and wasn't particularly impressed. It was also under PLG where he went from promising to no good. As I've pointed out and you refuse to answer, there are players who have gone up in value after playing for Rangers, or just been pretty decent. We have, after all, won a shit load of trophies. What have Blackpool won again? If you don't even watch Adam play bar the token international game where he hasn't really stood out at all, perhaps you are not best fit to be commenting here. I'm not sure who these 'people with opposing opinions' are, Adam seems to have found his level at Stoke and is generally well regarded. He was phenomenal at Blackpool both in the Championship and Premiership, looked promising initially at Liverpool although ended up failing, then has been a solid performer at Stoke, chipping in with quite a few goals each season . Above all else, this seems a pretty pointless argument. He has been a regular starter for a mid table Premiership side, so it's fair to say we were not remotely getting the best out of him. I presume you are being facetious regarding the trophies Blackpool have won. He did though win the Championship play-offs with them, which is a far more difficult achievement than any trophy he won playing for us. I suppose that depends on what number you put on "plethora" and ability for "top", but without doing the numbers, I would say that the amount of decent players coming out of the academy is probably well above average for Scotland. You go on about Ajax, but don't use common sense or logic, where it is well known that the Netherlands have one of the best grass roots systems in the world, while Scotland's has gone downhill and crashed in the last 30 years. That is a massive factor. I'm not saying our youth system has been brilliant or world class or even as good as it should be, but again you select your examples and colour your arguments to show Rangers to be somehow the worst in the world, whereas the evidence suggests it has more likely been a bit of above average and for ambitions as a top club, in need of improvement. Who are all these decent players? Using other Scottish teams, apart from Celtic, as a barometer of success won't get us very far. As I already said in this topic, Hearts beat us at Tynecastle with 6 youth players in their starting lineup, compared to our 2 (both left now, Smith had been re-signed too) and they also had a bench full of them. They proceeded to destroy us in the league. I'm not 'going on about Ajax', I wasn't the one who brought them up. Ajax may well have a better initial pool of players to choose from but they also focus on bringing in overseas talent too. We just don't even try, only playing three youth players since administration on a regular basis. Instead of focusing on young players like they do, we sign players with no resale value. Hopefully that is now changing and the signs are promising. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) The question is - would Ajax have a better academy if it was based in Scotland and they had our revenue to spend? You can only work with what you have... Focusing on the development of young players is the main reason their revenues have been so high. I think you're way off the mark on that one SBS. There's about 17m people in Holland and Ajax is the biggest, most successful club, so the scales are tipped in it's favour before you even consider other factors of their revenue streams. With that size of population it means that when Ajax play in Champions League group stages and get a share of the TV pot money, they're getting more than 3 times the amount of cash that any Scottish Club gets for being in the CL group stages. Then there's the fact that Eredivisie Clubs get several times what Scottish premier league Clubs get from domestic TV broadcasting rights. Murdoch's Fox Sports is pumping in vast sums of money and every club is getting a big slice of it. They've also got a big deal with Adidas plus the shirt sponsor deal which is worth 8 million per season (just for the sponsor deal!). Our shitty 32red deal is only worth about £600k per season. That's just for starters. Tot up all of their revenue streams and they completely dwarf us before anyone even starts talking about the impact of their youth development and player sales. Edited July 14, 2015 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Ajax player sales from the last 10 years (£179.32m), facilitated mainly by their youth development and reliance on signing cheap young players from other clubs. 14/15 - 20.96 13/14 - 17.47 12/13 - 20.5 11/12 - 9.02 10/11 - 20.01 09/10 - 8.46 08/09 - 28.82 07/08 - 35.94 06/07 - 7.61 05/06 - 10.53 £179.32m 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Ajax player sales from the last 10 years (£179.32m), facilitated mainly by their youth development and reliance on signing cheap young players from other clubs. 14/15 - 20.96 13/14 - 17.47 12/13 - 20.5 11/12 - 9.02 10/11 - 20.01 09/10 - 8.46 08/09 - 28.82 07/08 - 35.94 06/07 - 7.61 05/06 - 10.53 £179.32m The players sales you've totted up are over a 10 year period (which is fine btw & thanks for doing it!), but the club's total revenue is about £75m per season. Edited July 14, 2015 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 SBS how many youth players have appeared for rangers first team over the last 3 year's? Also when calculating how much Ajax have made against ours how are you detracting the original out lay? Are you calculating it as a percentage of outlay? How are you evaluating available infrastructure as an influence on outcomes? How are you then calculating the area outside the youth academies influence to make brand awareness null and void? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 SBS how many youth players have appeared for rangers first team over the last 3 year's? Also when calculating how much Ajax have made against ours how are you detracting the original out lay? Are you calculating it as a percentage of outlay? How are you evaluating available infrastructure as an influence on outcomes? How are you then calculating the area outside the youth academies influence to make brand awareness null and void? sbs you are trying to evaluate the academy on several points that cant be mixed. uefa fifa the eca and several bodies for years have tried and failed to create a formula that is a fair reflexion of an academies success. The closest they have came is to state before evaluation the academy must first through the clubs board state its intended goals. Be it to maximise value through transfer income against outlays, have players good enough to play for the first team reducing outlay on transfers or it can also be to create footballers from local kids. If our academy was judged on transfer income it would fail but it would argue that the academy does not choose the time or price of when to sell and would point to its graduates being of a large value later on in their careers as proving its merits. If our academy was judged on how many players it had playing reguarely for the first team it would first point to the amount of players who had been promoted then once again point the finger of balme at the managers as these players have left the club then achieved a comparable level of success. If our academy was judged on how many youngsters from the local area it had taken and given the foundations to continue a professional career in football against investment it would be deemed a massive success so what criteria are you choosing? it cant be them all its impossible to do them all at once. Playing regularly would mean you didn't accept offers etc. pick one then i will play devils advocate . Common sense dictates you must first understand the criteria and parameters must be stated and evaluated fairly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.