Building a young team for the future?

[Saint Billy]

That´s what Lowe said at the start of the season. How is that possible?

 

Surman and Lallana may be off in the transfer window if rumours are to be believed.

 

Numerous loan players in is hardly a good basis for building a team. Most of these will be off when the loan expires as we can´t afford to buy them.

 

Surley all he is really doing with our young talent is putting them in the shop window regardless of how results go.

[Andy_Porter]

We need to put players in the shop window so we can stay afloat, it's not ideal but when we're getting 14k for home games it's the only way really.

[Tamesaint]

That´s what Lowe said at the start of the season. How is that possible?

 

Surman and Lallana may be off in the transfer window if rumours are to be believed.

 

Numerous loan players in is hardly a good basis for building a team. Most of these will be off when the loan expires as we can´t afford to buy them.

 

Surley all he is really doing with our young talent is putting them in the shop window regardless of how results go.

 

 

This is one of the most annoying features of our revolutionary coaching scheme. We are going to go through the pain of matches like lat night's whilst the lads get experience & thenby the time next season starts we will have a fresh et of lads having to get experience as many of the previous crop will have to be sold.

 

 

.. and with the proceeds of the sale we can invest in a new radio station / insurance company / mortgage provider and also make sure that those long suffering shareholders get a good dividend.

[NickG]

That´s what Lowe said at the start of the season. How is that possible?

 

Surman and Lallana may be off in the transfer window if rumours are to be believed.

 

Numerous loan players in is hardly a good basis for building a team. Most of these will be off when the loan expires as we can´t afford to buy them.

 

Surley all he is really doing with our young talent is putting them in the shop window regardless of how results go.

 

don't really understand your bit about shop window? Yes young players doing well are likely to be subject of bids but what is the point of them if they don't play?

Think JP gave some partial reassurances about January this week.

Part of what Lowe said was that we would be seen as a place that the likes of Chelsea would want to loan players to to develop them. Yes it benefits them in the long term but we hope to get better players in the short term.

 

It does seem that some are used more than they are ready for though. In the past young players play odd games then back to reserves etc now once in they are part of first team set up.

[Saint Billy]

don't really understand your bit about shop window? Yes young players doing well are likely to be subject of bids but what is the point of them if they don't play?

Think JP gave some partial reassurances about January this week.

Part of what Lowe said was that we would be seen as a place that the likes of Chelsea would want to loan players to to develop them. Yes it benefits them in the long term but we hope to get better players in the short term.

 

It does seem that some are used more than they are ready for though. In the past young players play odd games then back to reserves etc now once in they are part of first team set up.

 

Shop window, I feel that more priority is being given to showing these players off rather than building a strong team. How can you build a strong team when there are and will be a conveyor belt of players coming and going.

 

How can it benefit us as a unit with a continual change of personell, the only ones who benefit are the player and the team that has loaned him.

 

On sky last night it was mentioned that our lineup in defence was the eighth different combination. Yes I know injuries has played a part, but it does go to show how destructive a constant change in players can be.

[Big Ron fan]

Think JP gave some partial reassurances about January this week.

 

He also said that Stern was now the official penalty taker, the day before he was shipped out on loan!

[up and away]

That´s what Lowe said at the start of the season. How is that possible?

 

Surman and Lallana may be off in the transfer window if rumours are to be believed.

 

Numerous loan players in is hardly a good basis for building a team. Most of these will be off when the loan expires as we can´t afford to buy them.

 

Surley all he is really doing with our young talent is putting them in the shop window regardless of how results go.

 

Where the fook were you when we were wasting every penny we came into contact with? We are now forced down this route with very little flexibility as to the way forward. Our only chance lies with these young players being able to plug financial holes, because no one else is taking the senior cart horses that are costing us an arm and a leg.

[Window Cleaner]

Where the fook were you when we were wasting every penny we came into contact with? We are now forced down this route with very little flexibility as to the way forward. Our only chance lies with these young players being able to plug financial holes, because no one else is taking the senior cart horses that are costing us an arm and a leg.

 

U+A, they just won't understand until the accounts are published. Can't think what's holding them up,unless they're incredibly difficult to unravel with "expense accounts" and that sort of thing . I mean it's not as if the current team have much to do with whatever the accounts might show. unless of course there's some trouble brewing up for the AGM but there again i would have thought the longer it has to brew the worse it may get.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

 

Part of what Lowe said was that we would be seen as a place that the likes of Chelsea would want to loan players to to develop them. Yes it benefits them in the long term but we hope to get better players in the short term.

 

 

This is an interesting concept. So SFC bring on other clubs' youngsters for them... and then they go back?

 

The question is do we believe it is just a short-term policy through necessity, or is it how Lowe thinks the club should be run long-term?

 

If it is to be a long-term policy, can anyone tell me what supporters are actually supporting? A bunch of 3-6 month loans? Are we supporting a club in the way most of us used to understand it? Because that's not what I understood "club" meant when I grew up supporting.

[Saint Billy]

Where the fook were you when we were wasting every penny we came into contact with? We are now forced down this route with very little flexibility as to the way forward. Our only chance lies with these young players being able to plug financial holes, because no one else is taking the senior cart horses that are costing us an arm and a leg.

 

I agree that we are in a financial hole but don't cover it up with "Building a young side" and "Total Football" labels.

 

Let's face it, realistically it should be described as "Total survival" and "If your any good your gone".

 

So ok, if the sale of these young players plug financial holes, where does that leave saints as a footballing side. It will help to a small degree as far as finance is concerned, but we are sure going to drop like a stone football wise.

 

It hurts when you watch a game on Sky and the commentator mentions that Lallana is getting interest from prem clubs, and that Surman has interest from Pompey of all clubs, and Spiderman seems set to leave, might I add, whilst we are getting beat, and you just think to yourself, jeese, we are sh*te with these three players, what will be like when they have gone!

[Saint Billy]

This is an interesting concept. So SFC bring on other clubs' youngsters for them... and then they go back?

 

The question is do we believe it is just a short-term policy through necessity, or is it how Lowe thinks the club should be run long-term?

 

If it is to be a long-term policy, can anyone tell me what supporters are actually supporting? A bunch of 3-6 month loans? Are we supporting a club in the way most of us used to understand it? Because that's not what I understood "club" meant when I grew up supporting.

 

Exactly!

[Wes Tender]

There is no way that we can build anything if the moment any player shows any promise he is sold. That is not building, it is ticking over. We are Crewe mark two, a bit higher up than them, but it won't be long before we are in the same division as them once we have sold Lallana and Surman and used the money to pay into the overdraught.

[70's Mike]

U+A, they just won't understand until the accounts are published. Can't think what's holding them up,unless they're incredibly difficult to unravel with "expense accounts" and that sort of thing . I mean it's not as if the current team have much to do with whatever the accounts might show. unless of course there's some trouble brewing up for the AGM but there again i would have thought the longer it has to brew the worse it may get.

 

 

IT is strange because the one Director who spans all leadership groups is David Jones, Financial Director, who is responsible for the accounts

[NickG]

This is an interesting concept. So SFC bring on other clubs' youngsters for them... and then they go back?

 

The question is do we believe it is just a short-term policy through necessity, or is it how Lowe thinks the club should be run long-term?

 

If it is to be a long-term policy, can anyone tell me what supporters are actually supporting? A bunch of 3-6 month loans? Are we supporting a club in the way most of us used to understand it? Because that's not what I understood "club" meant when I grew up supporting.

 

I think that's about the way it is unfortunately

[dubai_phil]

I wish Wenger would stop giving Rupert ideas, we all know he can get away with it because of the fact that they are just a teeny weeny bit better than ours....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/arsenal/3438998/Arsenals-Carling-Cup-squad-for-Wigan-clash-includes-thirteen-teenagers-Football.html

 

Arsenal's squad to face Wigan, at the Emirates Stadium in tonight's Carling Cup fourth round, includes no fewer than 13 teenagers.

 

tonight's squad's age average is just over 18.

[Arizona]

This is an interesting concept. So SFC bring on other clubs' youngsters for them... and then they go back?

 

The question is do we believe it is just a short-term policy through necessity, or is it how Lowe thinks the club should be run long-term?

 

If it is to be a long-term policy, can anyone tell me what supporters are actually supporting? A bunch of 3-6 month loans? Are we supporting a club in the way most of us used to understand it? Because that's not what I understood "club" meant when I grew up supporting.

 

It's starting to look a bit that way.

 

I get the general feeling that Lowe wants to turn us into a day-care centre, where Prem clubs can send their kids until they are old enough for the Prem. I don't think he particularly cares which league we are in. As long as enough cash is coming in to cover the running costs of the club and the (very low) wages of the kids, I think he will be happy.

 

It's a bummer for the fans, but sadly I think it's the way we're heading.

[dubai_phil]

It's starting to look a bit that way.

 

I get the general feeling that Lowe wants to turn us into a day-care centre, where Prem clubs can send their kids until they are old enough for the Prem. I don't think he particularly cares which league we are in. As long as enough cash is coming in to cover the running costs of the club and the (very low) wages of the kids, I think he will be happy.

 

It's a bummer for the fans, but sadly I think it's the way we're heading.

 

mind you, young Ramsey & Wilshire for half a season may be slightly more entertaining to watch than Jermaine Wright...

 

Just a shame we're not getting those sorts in....

[Snowballs2]

It is a total myth that we are building a team for the future, we are building a team for Lowe to sell.

[um pahars]

U+A, they just won't understand until the accounts are published. Can't think what's holding them up,unless they're incredibly difficult to unravel with "expense accounts" and that sort of thing . I mean it's not as if the current team have much to do with whatever the accounts might show. unless of course there's some trouble brewing up for the AGM but there again i would have thought the longer it has to brew the worse it may get.

 

The Annual Report and accounts do indeed relate to the financial period, which on the whole was before Lowe & co returned. But these reports also include a forward looking perspective, namely the concept of Going Concern (i.e. the concept that assumes that the Club will continue in business in the foreseeable future).

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was much heated discussion between the Board, the Auditors and the Bank about this issue.

 

Signing off last years numbers won't be the issue, it will be convincing the auditors that we are a going concern that is probably causing us problems.

[Big Matt]

Not for the first time, you're turning this great club into a laughing stock. Go now, I'll pay for the taxi.

[Arizona]

mind you, young Ramsey & Wilshire for half a season may be slightly more entertaining to watch than Jermaine Wright...

 

Just a shame we're not getting those sorts in....

 

Well yeah, that's pretty much the point. The likes of Ramsey, Wiltshire and last season Guthrie are too good for us and will end up at Prem sides or promotion hunting CCC sides.

 

I can't see us getting many players which other clubs envy.

[Saint Billy]

And if buy chance we do loan the odd gem, it only benefits us short term.

Edited 12 November, 2008 by Saint Billy

[Saint Billy]

The problem with all of this is that, Lowes cost cutting measures might bring some sort of temporary financial respite, but the end result is an inadequate team that cannot compete is this league. If, as a result of all of this we are relegated, we will be in far worse financial sh*te than we are now.

[eelpie]

Lowe is building a young team for other clubs' futures.

[L1Minus10]

Unless we are in the top half by the end of January we will be relegated as the squad we have post-January will be a lot worse than the one we have now. Even if we sold Surman and Lallana for £4m the pair, I doubt any of that would be re-invested in the first team. Maybe 2 20 year old replacements on loan.

 

Our only hope really is to get lucky with a few loans who perform like Defoe did at Bournemouth for example. Even if we got these players I have no faith in Jan P getting the most out of them.

 

You can't build a young team for the future in the CCC - it's impossible when the best ones will be sold and replaced with inferior players every 6 months.

[Windmill Arm 2]

Theres a lot to be said for Youth though, found this on another forum from an Arsenal fan, he makes a great point, and Ray Wilkins is a ***t.

 

Dear Ray Wilkins,

 

as a former Manchester United and Chelsea player I have never really liked you. It's nothing personal, it's just that you are tainted by association. I have to admit I took umbrage at your remarks yesterday in which you claimed that playing young players in the Carling Cup devalued the competition.

 

To my mind this was an obvious dig at Arsenal. In a way I can understand it. You say your focus is on winning the Carling Cup so you'll play your first team players. It's a decent bluff, in fairness. Chelsea have a good record in the competition as Arsenal fans know only too well. Your lot did us in the final a couple of years back.

 

But let's be honest. The real reason you play your first team players in this competition is because you don't have any kind of youth system to speak of. As your team has been assembled by the chequebook there's no need to waste any time on anything as paltry as young players. If a star leaves you can simply buy another star.

 

While Arsenal see the Carling Cup as a way of blooding fresh talent and giving them the chance of first team football, Chelsea see it as just another trophy. Which is fine, one man's meat is another man's poison and all that. But surely as a former Chelsea apprentice, who made his debut in 1973 having just turned 17, you'd like to see some young players get their chance. Imagine if you were a youngster at Chelsea now. You wouldn't stand a chance of getting anywhere near the first team. Chelsea would simply go out and buy somebody who could pass the ball sideways rather than bring through a youngster who could pass the ball sideways all day long.

 

You said "Playing a young or weakened team undermines the value of the competition. And we have not and will not do that. We want to win it, big time". Far be it for me to suggest otherwise but perhaps some young players might have approached the game against Burnley with a little more effort than some of your 'big time' players.

 

Oh, you can put it down to a freak result, these things happen in cup football, blah, blah, blah, but we all know that's not true. Chelsea lost because you happened to open your big mouth and then you sideways passed your own foot into it. You totally and utterly jinxed them with your comments. And it's brilliant.

 

Did you see Arsenal against Wigan? Did you? Do you really think seeing young players enjoying their football is undermining the value of the competition? Do you think Arsenal slashing ticket prices so more fans, especially young fans, can attend the games is undermining the value of the competition? Do you think those young fans seeing incredible young talent like Wilshere, Ramsey, Vela, Djourou, Merida and Simpson is undermining the value of the competition?

 

If you do then you might need to step back and have a little rethink. Surely Chelsea's 'big time' players bottling a penalty shoot-out undermines the value of the competition more. Surely Didier Drogba throwing a coin at the crowd, Carragher style, undermines the value of the competition more. Surely even playing Drogba (a man whose behaviour in the Champions League final was so appalling that most clubs would have sold him in a heartbeat) ahead of some, young, eager teenager undermines the value, not only of the competition, but of your club. That's assuming there are any values there to begin with. Which there aren't.

 

We beat Wigan with kids, you couldn't beat Burnley with your first team. That's proper 'big time'. Anyway, I'm rambling here. I'd best leave you to work with those 'big time' players. What joy it must bring you to coach £140,000-a-week been there, done that, worn the t-shirt players and have them lose in a cup game to a team with Ade Akinbiyi in it. I'm sure it's nothing like the pleasure gained from taking young players, developing them the 'Arsenal' way, and seeing them destroy a Premier League team. Not that you'd know.

 

 

sincere regards,

 

arseblogger

[hughieslastminutegoal]

Theres a lot to be said for Youth though, found this on another forum from an Arsenal fan, he makes a great point, and Ray Wilkins is a ***t.

 

Dear Ray Wilkins,

 

as a former Manchester United and Chelsea player I have never really liked you. It's nothing personal, it's just that you are tainted by association. I have to admit I took umbrage at your remarks yesterday in which you claimed that playing young players in the Carling Cup devalued the competition.

 

To my mind this was an obvious dig at Arsenal. In a way I can understand it. You say your focus is on winning the Carling Cup so you'll play your first team players. It's a decent bluff, in fairness. Chelsea have a good record in the competition as Arsenal fans know only too well. Your lot did us in the final a couple of years back.

 

But let's be honest. The real reason you play your first team players in this competition is because you don't have any kind of youth system to speak of. As your team has been assembled by the chequebook there's no need to waste any time on anything as paltry as young players. If a star leaves you can simply buy another star.

 

While Arsenal see the Carling Cup as a way of blooding fresh talent and giving them the chance of first team football, Chelsea see it as just another trophy. Which is fine, one man's meat is another man's poison and all that. But surely as a former Chelsea apprentice, who made his debut in 1973 having just turned 17, you'd like to see some young players get their chance. Imagine if you were a youngster at Chelsea now. You wouldn't stand a chance of getting anywhere near the first team. Chelsea would simply go out and buy somebody who could pass the ball sideways rather than bring through a youngster who could pass the ball sideways all day long.

 

You said "Playing a young or weakened team undermines the value of the competition. And we have not and will not do that. We want to win it, big time". Far be it for me to suggest otherwise but perhaps some young players might have approached the game against Burnley with a little more effort than some of your 'big time' players.

 

Oh, you can put it down to a freak result, these things happen in cup football, blah, blah, blah, but we all know that's not true. Chelsea lost because you happened to open your big mouth and then you sideways passed your own foot into it. You totally and utterly jinxed them with your comments. And it's brilliant.

 

Did you see Arsenal against Wigan? Did you? Do you really think seeing young players enjoying their football is undermining the value of the competition? Do you think Arsenal slashing ticket prices so more fans, especially young fans, can attend the games is undermining the value of the competition? Do you think those young fans seeing incredible young talent like Wilshere, Ramsey, Vela, Djourou, Merida and Simpson is undermining the value of the competition?

 

If you do then you might need to step back and have a little rethink. Surely Chelsea's 'big time' players bottling a penalty shoot-out undermines the value of the competition more. Surely Didier Drogba throwing a coin at the crowd, Carragher style, undermines the value of the competition more. Surely even playing Drogba (a man whose behaviour in the Champions League final was so appalling that most clubs would have sold him in a heartbeat) ahead of some, young, eager teenager undermines the value, not only of the competition, but of your club. That's assuming there are any values there to begin with. Which there aren't.

 

We beat Wigan with kids, you couldn't beat Burnley with your first team. That's proper 'big time'. Anyway, I'm rambling here. I'd best leave you to work with those 'big time' players. What joy it must bring you to coach £140,000-a-week been there, done that, worn the t-shirt players and have them lose in a cup game to a team with Ade Akinbiyi in it. I'm sure it's nothing like the pleasure gained from taking young players, developing them the 'Arsenal' way, and seeing them destroy a Premier League team. Not that you'd know.

 

 

sincere regards,

 

arseblogger

 

All very fine, and laudable, but you don't do it every game for a whole season.

.....Oh, we do.

[Mowgli]

For the first part of this thread there were some good arguments on both sides but then it fell apart. So sad really.

 

I mentioned elsewhere that one good sale a year compensates for our lower attendances. I would expcet three a year to go but given the size (and quality) of our youth conveyor belt I do not see that as a problem. We are building a team for the future but if and when we start to go up in the league we will then have the means to supplement those with good purchases.

 

Lowe has already shown he is prepared to spend significant amounts in the PL but we need to get there first. Of course it will never be as much as we want but that's life. He knows the finances. We do not.

 

I do have an issue with some of the loans. I'm happy with Smith and maybe Robertson who could become permanent signings but the others are short term measures - presumably because JP has asked for more competition for places.

 

The board need to build good relationships with the big clubs so taking their youngsters short term may well help with transfer dealings further down the line.

 

There are a dozen other better ways of running a club but those options are simply not available to us at this point in time.

 

Look on the bright side. We could be witnessing the modern day 'busby babes' ;~)