England's Future Stars - 20 to watch... but only one who really matters

[La Parka]

I'm wondering where the Indian players are. I used to live in England and I'm Indian and love football to death. At my school there were plenty of Indian kids playing but I haven't seen any at youth level yet. Am I wrong? There are a lot of Indian cricet players in England but I haven't seen any apart from Chopra(and he's half and half... my favorite... Get the reference?)

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article3341861.ece

 

There is a book on the subject, but I forgot who wrote it.

 

edit: http://www.routledgesociology.com/books/British-Asians-and-Football-isbn9780415395007

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

I'm wondering where the Indian players are. I used to live in England and I'm Indian and love football to death. At my school there were plenty of Indian kids playing but I haven't seen any at youth level yet. Am I wrong? There are a lot of Indian cricet players in England but I haven't seen any apart from Chopra(and he's half and half... my favorite... Get the reference?)

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article3341861.ece

 

There is a book on the subject, but I forgot who wrote it.

 

edit: http://www.routledgesociology.com/books/British-Asians-and-Football-isbn9780415395007

Yeah, this is somethingyou always wonder just in general. I mean the poor kids in  Mumbai love football just as much as the poor kids in Rio, Buenos Aires, Lagos, Abidjan, etc. Same with China. You'd think just with the sheer quantity of young kids playing football, that there would be some sucess...but this has not been the case. I remember some folks saying it's because they're less physical, but this is nonsense when you consider the best player in the world is 5'4".

[sicsfingeredmong]

Simon Jordan hit the nail on the head with Michael Carrick and John Bostock. Bostock should cost around 5m, because he has the potential to play for England, when Man Utd paid 20m nigh on for Carrick, whats bad about 5m for a player with the same potential.

 

Nothing wrong with paying the going rate, when speculating on potential. It irks me when clubs such as ours - under Ashley, same applies to Chelsea by picking another of Leeds' prospects no that long ago for 200k - miss the boat when spotting talent prior to the 15yr mark, only to then try & pennypinch by committing daylight robbery in attempting sign them up a couple of years later for a solitary million pounds or less.

 

Same has applied to Arsenal and their respective purchases of Pennant & Walcott, yet there is a bit of a myth that they're building a proverbial footballing empire - where the basis of which has been their youth ranks - for peanuts and that we/Ashley have been duly correct by following the so-called Arsenal route.

 

our problem was nothing to do with trying to be too much like arsenal and everything to do with trying to be too much like spurs.

 

In building an impressive list of youngsters our problem involves adopting a recruiting model - pertaining to the youth ranks, and the amount of money we're prepared to part with - which admittedly worked wonders for Arsenal when clubs were not so diligent in protecting their top youngsters from predatory & opportunistic buyers. That model/buying policy is dated and no longer relevant, and this is thanks to the dynamic of today's transfer market relating to the 15-18 yr old bracket.

 

erm, no.

 

 

there is no point debating this with you as you're not going to listen anyway.

 

Everybody knows the Continental set-up hasn't worked, as was the case at Spurs. That isn't being debated here, and it's been discussed in other threads.

 

In terms of recruiting kids with a huge scope for potential, and paying the going rate, Spurs' ambition has to be defended to a degree.

 

Signing kids like Ranger, for next to nothing due to extenuating circumstances - ie. a kid being released due to on-going disciplinary problems - doesn't happen often. Ranger opportunistically fell into our lap.

 

There is an accepted going rate, and Championship outfits are loath to part with fees lower than 5m - that's a rough figure - for kids who are highly thought of within England's respective U'19 and U'21 ranks.

 

My issue lies with the board's unwillingness to part with anything over 1m for such a player, in comparison to what we've been prepared to outlay for the likes Jenas - to what Spurs are willing to pay for as speculating on Bostock's scope for improvement. Yet for a comparable player, or the kid i highlighted when quoting the original article, we are laughed-off for our pisstake on what the market is saying.

 

You, for your own reasons, have a differing opinion. But in my eyes the club's ambition isn't good enough, and in this instance the belated effort shown on our part - ie. when actually having cough up a transfer fee, for what is a risk based on speculating on a player's potential - is an embarrassment.

 

The club, under Ashley's ownership, has truly become a hot-winded shrinking violet.

[Guest optimistic nit]

if you think the club's ambition isn't good enough then thats fair do's but your logic behind that conclusion is so faulty my eyes are watering.

 

if your going to have an anti ashley opinion, which is fair enough, there are very few reasons to defend him, then use one of the 100's of decent reasons to have a go at him, not the shite above.

[Baggio]

Simon Jordan hit the nail on the head with Michael Carrick and John Bostock. Bostock should cost around 5m, because he has the potential to play for England, when Man Utd paid 20m nigh on for Carrick, whats bad about 5m for a player with the same potential.

 

Nothing wrong with paying the going rate, when speculating on potential. It irks me when clubs such as ours - under Ashley, same applies to Chelsea by picking another of Leeds' prospects no that long ago for 200k - miss the boat when spotting talent prior to the 15yr mark, only to then try & pennypinch by committing daylight robbery in attempting sign them up a couple of years later for a solitary million pounds or less.

 

Same has applied to Arsenal and their respective purchases of Pennant & Walcott, yet there is a bit of a myth that they're building a proverbial footballing empire - where the basis of which has been their youth ranks - for peanuts and that we/Ashley have been duly correct by following the so-called Arsenal route.

 

our problem was nothing to do with trying to be too much like arsenal and everything to do with trying to be too much like spurs.

 

In building an impressive list of youngsters our problem involves adopting a recruiting model - pertaining to the youth ranks, and the amount of money we're prepared to part with - which admittedly worked wonders for Arsenal when clubs were not so diligent in protecting their top youngsters from predatory & opportunistic buyers. That model/buying policy is dated and no longer relevant, and this is thanks to the dynamic of today's transfer market relating to the 15-18 yr old bracket.

 

erm, no.

 

 

there is no point debating this with you as you're not going to listen anyway.

 

Everybody knows the Continental set-up hasn't worked, as was the case at Spurs. That isn't being debated here, and it's been discussed in other threads.

 

In terms of recruiting kids with a huge scope for potential, and paying the going rate, Spurs' ambition has to be defended to a degree.

 

Signing kids like Ranger, for next to nothing due to extenuating circumstances - ie. a kid being released due to on-going disciplinary problems - doesn't happen often. Ranger opportunistically fell into our lap.

 

There is an accepted going rate, and Championship outfits are loath to part with fees lower than 5m - that's a rough figure - for kids who are highly thought of within England's respective U'19 and U'21 ranks.

 

My issue lies with the board's unwillingness to part with anything over 1m for such a player, in comparison to what we've been prepared to outlay for the likes Jenas - to what Spurs are willing to pay for as speculating on Bostock's scope for improvement. Yet for a comparable player, or the kid i highlighted when quoting the original article, we are laughed-off for our pisstake on what the market is saying.

 

You, for your own reasons, have a differing opinion. But in my eyes the club's ambition isn't good enough, and in this instance the belated effort shown on our part - ie. when actually having cough up a transfer fee, for what is a risk based on speculating on a player's potential - is an embarrassment.

 

The club, under Ashley's ownership, has truly become a hot-winded shrinking violet.

 

Spurs are only paying £700,000 up front for Bostock, hardly speculating on his improvement.

 

You also can't compare Jenas to Delph, Jenas was an established first team player at Forest where as Delph hadn't even made a start for Leeds when we moved for him in the Summer.

[DJ_NUFC]

I'm wondering where the Indian players are. I used to live in England and I'm Indian and love football to death. At my school there were plenty of Indian kids playing but I haven't seen any at youth level yet. Am I wrong? There are a lot of Indian cricet players in England but I haven't seen any apart from Chopra(and he's half and half... my favorite... Get the reference?)

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article3341861.ece

 

There is a book on the subject, but I forgot who wrote it.

 

edit: http://www.routledgesociology.com/books/British-Asians-and-Football-isbn9780415395007

 

Cheers for the links, Spins.

 

But why on earth is the book worth $150?!

 

Note: There goes my first post on the new server.

[La Parka]

I'm wondering where the Indian players are. I used to live in England and I'm Indian and love football to death. At my school there were plenty of Indian kids playing but I haven't seen any at youth level yet. Am I wrong? There are a lot of Indian cricet players in England but I haven't seen any apart from Chopra(and he's half and half... my favorite... Get the reference?)

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article3341861.ece

 

There is a book on the subject, but I forgot who wrote it.

 

edit: http://www.routledgesociology.com/books/British-Asians-and-Football-isbn9780415395007

 

Cheers for the links, Spins.

 

But why on earth is the book worth $150?!

 

Note: There goes my first post on the new server.

 

Another link...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2005/oct/19/blueprintforabetterfootball.sport

 

 

Must be rare or something. I saw it in a review in 4-4-2 magazine a few years back, always fancied reading it.

 

 

[sicsfingeredmong]

Simon Jordan hit the nail on the head with Michael Carrick and John Bostock. Bostock should cost around 5m, because he has the potential to play for England, when Man Utd paid 20m nigh on for Carrick, whats bad about 5m for a player with the same potential.

 

Nothing wrong with paying the going rate, when speculating on potential. It irks me when clubs such as ours - under Ashley, same applies to Chelsea by picking another of Leeds' prospects no that long ago for 200k - miss the boat when spotting talent prior to the 15yr mark, only to then try & pennypinch by committing daylight robbery in attempting sign them up a couple of years later for a solitary million pounds or less.

 

Same has applied to Arsenal and their respective purchases of Pennant & Walcott, yet there is a bit of a myth that they're building a proverbial footballing empire - where the basis of which has been their youth ranks - for peanuts and that we/Ashley have been duly correct by following the so-called Arsenal route.

 

our problem was nothing to do with trying to be too much like arsenal and everything to do with trying to be too much like spurs.

 

In building an impressive list of youngsters our problem involves adopting a recruiting model - pertaining to the youth ranks, and the amount of money we're prepared to part with - which admittedly worked wonders for Arsenal when clubs were not so diligent in protecting their top youngsters from predatory & opportunistic buyers. That model/buying policy is dated and no longer relevant, and this is thanks to the dynamic of today's transfer market relating to the 15-18 yr old bracket.

 

erm, no.

 

 

there is no point debating this with you as you're not going to listen anyway.

 

Everybody knows the Continental set-up hasn't worked, as was the case at Spurs. That isn't being debated here, and it's been discussed in other threads.

 

In terms of recruiting kids with a huge scope for potential, and paying the going rate, Spurs' ambition has to be defended to a degree.

 

Signing kids like Ranger, for next to nothing due to extenuating circumstances - ie. a kid being released due to on-going disciplinary problems - doesn't happen often. Ranger opportunistically fell into our lap.

 

There is an accepted going rate, and Championship outfits are loath to part with fees lower than 5m - that's a rough figure - for kids who are highly thought of within England's respective U'19 and U'21 ranks.

 

My issue lies with the board's unwillingness to part with anything over 1m for such a player, in comparison to what we've been prepared to outlay for the likes Jenas - to what Spurs are willing to pay for as speculating on Bostock's scope for improvement. Yet for a comparable player, or the kid i highlighted when quoting the original article, we are laughed-off for our pisstake on what the market is saying.

 

You, for your own reasons, have a differing opinion. But in my eyes the club's ambition isn't good enough, and in this instance the belated effort shown on our part - ie. when actually having cough up a transfer fee, for what is a risk based on speculating on a player's potential - is an embarrassment.

 

The club, under Ashley's ownership, has truly become a hot-winded shrinking violet.

 

Spurs are only paying £700,000 up front for Bostock, hardly speculating on his improvement.

 

You also can't compare Jenas to Delph, Jenas was an established first team player at Forest where as Delph hadn't even made a start for Leeds when we moved for him in the Summer.

 

Sizeable outlay all the same, and 2m or thereabouts will be added to that when he makes enough 1st team appearances - the reported amount seems to be 40. Redknapp will give him a fair crack at the whip. Add substitute appearances into the equation, and that should roughly take about a season or thereabouts. A three million pound outlay for a 15yr old, over the space of season and not much longer. That's fairly speculative if the lad doesn't make it at the Senior International, or fizzles out in a couple of years down the track as per Jenas.

 

And the Jenas comparison still stands. The lad and already captain of the Reserve team, before we made a move. It was clear the lad was being fast-tracked towards the 1st team, at the time when we spotted him. The strength of Leeds' academy has to respected. They produced a line of solid, premiership able players and before Risdale went crazy with the cheque book their academy formed a solid base for the first team. Clubs like Leeds & Nottingham Forest don't let the most promising products of thier respective academies on the cheap. 

 

Another bolter at Youth level, Dos Santos, will ultimately cost Spurs 9m. Nearly half of that payed for initially, for a lad who barely made a handful of 1st team starts for Barcelona's 1st team. Much of the speculative risk, and what a club is willing to pay, boils down the team's needs/areas which needed to built on. Spurs hope that Bostock will eventually fill the current void in their midfield set-up, subsequent to Carrick's departure and their failure to replace him.

 

Our scouts are looking at our need areas - young & athletic goalscorers - if the acquisition of Ranger is anything to go, but the acquistion of Ranger was an extremely fortuitous one. Such players don't arrive for next to nothing all that often.

 

The club has peddled it's youth orientated recruiting line for well over a year now. And it's sensible provided that the policy is balanced and that we embark on signing seasoned pros as well, and i've given due credit when we signed Collocini in the relevant thread. But the aforementioned youth buying policy amounts to nothing but hot air if the board isn't prepared to facilitate a strategy  when attempting to seize an opportunity to sign such players from under the noses of our rivals, before their scouting antennae have well and truly risen - as per other clubs' reported interest. In this is recruiting strategy supposedly geared towards us sneaking back into the top-6, aka steady improvement to use your own phrasing.

[Baggio]

Sizeable outlay all the same, and 2m or thereabouts will be added to that when he makes enough 1st team appearances - the reported amount seems to be 40. Redknapp will give him a fair crack at the whip. Add substitute appearances into the equation, and that should roughly take about a season or thereabouts. A three million pound outlay for a 15yr old, over the space of season and not much longer. That's fairly speculative if the lad doesn't make it at the Senior International, or fizzles out in a couple of years down the track as per Jenas.

 

Not sure where you're getting the figure of an extra £2 million from, £1.25million will be the most they pay if he reaches a certain amount of appearances.

 

Not that much more than we've paid for either Tozer ot Kadar.

 

Delph would be comparable to Jenas now because he's broke into the first team and established himself as a regular, at the time of our bid he was a reserve player who had made a few substitute appearances and was rated in the same bracket as Danny Rose, funnily enough Spurs signed him from Leeds the previous Summer for £1 million.

 

 

[sicsfingeredmong]

Sizeable outlay all the same, and 2m or thereabouts will be added to that when he makes enough 1st team appearances - the reported amount seems to be 40. Redknapp will give him a fair crack at the whip. Add substitute appearances into the equation, and that should roughly take about a season or thereabouts. A three million pound outlay for a 15yr old, over the space of season and not much longer. That's fairly speculative if the lad doesn't make it at the Senior International, or fizzles out in a couple of years down the track as per Jenas.

 

Not sure where you're getting the figure of an extra £2 million from, £1.25million will be the most they pay if he reaches a certain amount of appearances.

 

Not that much more than we've paid for either Tozer ot Kadar.

 

Delph would be comparable to Jenas now because he's broke into the first team and established himself as a regular, at the time of our bid he was a reserve player who had made a few substitute appearances and was rated in the same bracket as Danny Rose, funnily enough Spurs signed him from Leeds the previous Summer for £1 million.

 

 

 

Overall the staggered payment system - when having to pay a higher fee for a prospect/project type of player - is the means often adopted by Levy. *This time around they were bloodly lucky the tribunal ruled heavily in their favour, and was odds at what Jordan was demanding. They never have to stretch the balance sheets, by coughing the lot upfront, yet they're able to maintain a balanced buying policy of also buying established 1st teamers who naturally would cut a sizeable hole into the weekly wage bracket.

 

*my bad: i didn't follow up on this.

 

Comparing Delph to Rose, and their likely cost, is like comparing apples to oranges. The nature of grassroots recruits eminates from spotting attrributes at matches which attract the barest minimum of attendance ie. matches pertaining to the respective levels. If scouts, and club's negotiators further down the track based their buying valautions on camparisons such as substitute apps they may as well utilise goolgkle

[juniatmoko]

I'm wondering where the Indian players are. I used to live in England and I'm Indian and love football to death. At my school there were plenty of Indian kids playing but I haven't seen any at youth level yet. Am I wrong? There are a lot of Indian cricet players in England but I haven't seen any apart from Chopra(and he's half and half... my favorite... Get the reference?)

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article3341861.ece

 

There is a book on the subject, but I forgot who wrote it.

 

edit: http://www.routledgesociology.com/books/British-Asians-and-Football-isbn9780415395007

Yeah, this is somethingyou always wonder just in general. I mean the poor kids in  Mumbai love football just as much as the poor kids in Rio, Buenos Aires, Lagos, Abidjan, etc. Same with China. You'd think just with the sheer quantity of young kids playing football, that there would be some sucess...but this has not been the case. I remember some folks saying it's because they're less physical, but this is nonsense when you consider the best player in the world is 5'4".

 

i think not because being less physical or something...

i think it's how still they do their football...

 

it's already proved it's not applied Korean, Japanese & Iranian they scatter all over Europe already.

 

Trainer or Coach must be seeing them about how they their football... it's them who decide whether they can continue their football.

 

I am Asian and I've got to admit that mostly Asian parent don't teach their children to make sports as the be source of living in the future...

that one of paradigm that hard to be eliminated...

 

it's different to argies (quite lot of their player is small) but football in there is like religion... it mean you do football if you want to be rich and famous...

[sicsfingeredmong]

I've been away on holidays for nearly a couple of weeks, so i'll address a couple of points raised by Baggio as there were intangibles involved - especially re:Rose.

 

Danny Rose walked away from his scholarship at Leeds, round about two weeks prior to Spurs signing him. His move to Spurs has been viewed as controversial. If Bates hadn't taken the 1m fee the matter would've ended up at the tribunal, in front of a bunch of FA appointed lawyer types who essentially reach a compensation figure by crunching the numbers ie. training costs, time in their system, and *whatever 1st team appearances they've racked up along the way.   *which usually isn't much, ala Bostock's handful of 1st team appearances at Palace. Leeds didn't exactly have a bargaining position of power, when a possible fee - via the tribunal - would've been lower. It was better for Bates to cut his losses, and best not to ruin what has been a pound-spinning transfer market relationship for Leeds in recent years.

 

Looking at the two player's respective contractual status' at the club - ie. Delph & Rose - you're comparing apples & oranges by comparing the so-called merit of our 1m Delph bid to what Leeds no doubt begrudgingly accepted.

 

As for Bostock. Jordan effectively played Russian Roulette with Spurs on this one. Initial reports suggest that Spurs' early offer was competitive - ie. not far off the 5m number being touted - and Jordan got a little too cheeky, and the matter went to tribunal where Jordan lowered his expectations in terms of the compensation figure he was expecting. That being the 2m, or thereabouts figure mentioned. Funny how the tribunal system can lower a chairmans demands on a dime, as far what they should receive in terms of fee/compensation.

 

You've got another thing coming if you think our club can go around an attempt to sign top prospects enmasse, *by limping in like paupers and offering derisory sums which are comparable to merely compensating a club for their training & player development expenses. We'll have the door slammed in our face more often than not. Our failed Delph bid is an example. The Rangers of the football landscape don't just fall into your lap out of sheer bloody good fortune. Sometimes the club has to go the extra mile.  *to borrow NE5's phrasing ,"behaving like 2nd raters".

 

For years, in his business enterprises as a cheap merchant-type, Ashley has taken the piss out of his wholesale suppliers. Umbro is the most notable case example. His dealings with Umbro for a decade or thereabouts should make for some interesting reading for you Baggio, and other Ashley-ites. The transfer market is a different beast entirely, one can't just play hardball and expect to pay well below the odds enmasse in it's acquisitions at the supply level.

 

One thing you often read about among business competitors, is that at least there is a certain level of reluctant & begrudging respect for one another. In relation to Ashley i've heard of very few blokes who have attracted the sort of ill-feeling which Ashley has. Ethically challenged, in how he has gone about his business, both in terms of scamming *suppliers and customers alike seems to be the common chorus of feeling. His relationship with Umbro has been raised, and Nike at one stage - when Ashley was holding out, when offloading his Umbro shares - threatened to blacklist him.

 

In his short time here, as owner of NUFC, we've trodden on numerous toes in the transfer already. Gone are the days when the previous board largely sealed deals for talented & raw prospects like Viana and Jenas etc, with a minimum of fuss and without being told to f***off. A phone call, or fax, from the club when interested in a highly rated prospect-type used to be worth something. I doubt that to be the case anymore.

 

*Unlike the business world it's impracticable for a football club owner to attempt to lower the wholesale market - for what he pays at the pump proverbially speaking - price by strategically acquiring shareholdings in bodies which are central to his business interests. In the football world, where player/supply acquirement is involved, they have to at least try to tempt an unwilling seller with a figure which doesn't result in the club being laughed at and virtually told to f**ck off.

 

 

*Mike Ashley 101.