How long did it take you to construct those two sentences? Wonderfully insightful contribution! Thanks

Don't like it well piss off to we love qpr or whatever it's called

Edited by goodersgold (06 May 2015 4.09pm)

Yes, I still oppose it.
Regardless of whether it has actually happened (and I haven't been bothered to look) the fact is that it CAN happen. I also can't say I follow your argument that it enforces clubs to invest in youth - I'd say precisely the opposite. What is the point in investing 10s or 100s of thousands developing a young player who you then have to make avaiulable to 'bigger' clubs for peanuts? It would be fine if the levels of compensation were attractive, then at least the small clubs make some cash out of the bigger ones who, let's face it, have it thrown at them in sack fulls by Sky, but as it stands, I just see it as another skewing of the playing field in favour of the Premier League.

I'd reiterate that the first point is irrelevant - my point is it can happen (and don't forget that CPFC are at the top table for the moment, and less likely to get plundered than lower division clubs as a result).
Yes it can happen, but actually if the cat 1 clubs provide better facilities, support services, coaching etc is it not better that top players train at those clubs. Would you not say that a good player at Gillingham is better off in Palaces Academy?

The second point - leaving aside that the 'explanation' on that web site seems to have been written by a dyslexic teenager: that is obviously a skewed view - the original club makes money IF the player goes on to 'make it' at a bigger club. That's great, but I would see that the kid has a far greater chance of making it as a pro if he stays at a smaller club. Why would a big club stick with a kid who's developing slower than anticipated when there's a queue of people round the block trying to get in? Look at the lower leagues and just how many of their kids come through the ranks and compare.
Yes the website is not an official one but the graphic is. Clubs still get good compensation for players if they don't 'make it' (if Chelsea took a player from Palace at U12 and he stayed at Chelsea until he was 16 Palace would receive £100 000) and this forgets the most important point in all this - parental choice. I think they is something unethical about clubs deciding what happens to a child when actually parents and child views should be a deciding factor. Prior to EPPP they had no choice. Now they do.

Which kind of covers the third point too. Undoubtedly someone honing their skills at a cat 1 academy will receive better coaching, but that doesn't follow that they are more likely to become a pro, much less a good one - that's a gut feel, however, I haven't seen figures of how many kids from the different categories go on to become pros, and you, of course, have to keep in mind that the cat 1 academies get their pick of the talent, so it's fairly obvious that they have the more talented kids, and therefore will achieve more success with them.

I see why you see that as a contradiction - the point I was making is that cat1 academies get free access to any player they want, so it follows that they take better youngsters, therefore of course they are more likely to make it as pros (question is, how much of that is down to the cat1 academy, and how much down to the club they came from?)