Rory Wilson - Villa offer 5 year deal

Paterson went for £16m.
Unreal money when we look back, Gerrard to thank for laughing at the opening offers that previously we'd have lapped up. Although not playing regularly or well because Dyche is a dinosaur imo but we also have a 20% sell on iirc
Amazing business
 
Paterson went for £16m.
My point was its irrelevant what stock they come from. if the money comes in, theyre gone. Whether its the family or the club taking it.

Gilmores family is allegedly of good stock, if theyre good stock, im never making soup again.
 
My point was its irrelevant what stock they come from. if the money comes in, theyre gone. Whether its the family or the club taking it.

Gilmores family is allegedly of good stock, if theyre good stock, im never making soup again.
Given the choice, why would anyone want to play in our league? especially if you’re given the chance and are good enough to play in one of the big leagues
 
Of course it is you need an academy to be granted a license to play in Europe. We can't compete with the money these clubs will offer kids down south but we can't complain too much as we do similar with clubs of other players.
We don't need to compete with the money, but we could maybe build a team around our most promising youths? But then again you can't win anything with youth!!
 
We don't need to compete with the money, but we could maybe build a team around our most promising youths? But then again you can't win anything with youth!!
The problem with kids like Wilson, and Gilmour before him, is that they can’t be on pro contracts until they hit 16. Rightly so in my opinion. However, if they are at the sort of level Gilmour - and maybe Wilson - are, then the EPL comes calling offering thousands of pounds a week to sign for them on their 16th birthday. Rangers offer a comparative pittance, simply because we can’t afford to take the high risk gamble. So the kid, naturally, grabs the money when they can. Nothing to do with building a team around them. They are, understandably, going to chase the money and head for the EPL golden land.
 
To play in Europe, yip.
To get credit towards loses in FFP, yip.
To pinch other club’s players with the money we get paid when ours are pinched, yip.
To develop players like Patterson and make £16 million, yip.

That’s some of the many reason why we have to have an academy ill regardless if some of the best are gone before we see them.
End of debate right there.
 
We don't need to compete with the money, but we could maybe build a team around our most promising youths? But then again you can't win anything with youth!!
Build a team round a sixteen year old or two?
Has Wilson played for Villa’s first team yet?
Are you then thinking that we could build a team around an AV reserve?
Is that what you’re considering?

Also, regarding everybody’s go to line when discussing youth players, other than the comparative fluke that was Ferguson’s team, has there been another successful, youth based team?
 
Will/can the SFA change these rules to make it harder for our youth to be poached?

You'd think the SFA would be kicking down doors to do so.

There has been recent talk that the age at which players could sign a pro contract might be cut to 14. Dunno if there's anything in it.
 
I know clubs get a developmental fee. But it’s peanuts.

There should be an automatic percentage of the next sell on transfer fee or another top up fee should the contract be extended.
Under FIFA rules I’m sure we get a cut of any transfer fee until the player turns 23 or something like that. Small slice but we do receive something.

That might apply only to international transfers but some FA’s have introduced it for domestic transfers also.
 
The question is.....is it actually worth our while having an academy if most of the absolute cream of the crop are poached for pennies?
Yes

Youth football is heavily financed by fifa/uefa who give money to sfa for time trained we get money and fees are paid between clubs even at younger ages.

It's quite a self sufficient business in that regards

You will lose some and you will gain some throughout

But in general it makes money and if you add in that on occasions you are going get a player as well its very beneficial
 
I know clubs get a developmental fee. But it’s peanuts.

There should be an automatic percentage of the next sell on transfer fee or another top up fee should the contract be extended.

There is i believe, 5% of any transfer fee the player goes for is distributed to the clubs who trained him between the age of 12 to 23.

I don't have the exact breakdown of it but i think its 0.25% per ages 12-16 and then 0.5% from ages 16-23.

So Billy Gilmour for example, he was here ages 12-16 so we should get 1% of any transfer he ever completes till the end of his career.

It's also how Chelsea makes so much money from their academy, its basically recurring income for them even long after a player is sold.
 
The question is.....is it actually worth our while having an academy if most of the absolute cream of the crop are poached for pennies?
V. good question. Does it (the academy) pay its way? I doubt it. We certainly don't get enough coming through. Look at what L'pool and Chelsea produce. Can be done.
 
The question is.....is it actually worth our while having an academy if most of the absolute cream of the crop are poached for pennies?
It’s not always pennies , we’ve made hundreds of thousands from numerous lads. The Academy is a hub that the club needs to have as part of our existence.
 
There is i believe, 5% of any transfer fee the player goes for is distributed to the clubs who trained him between the age of 12 to 23.

I don't have the exact breakdown of it but i think its 0.25% per ages 12-16 and then 0.5% from ages 16-23.

So Billy Gilmour for example, he was here ages 12-16 so we should get 1% of any transfer he ever completes till the end of his career.

It's also how Chelsea makes so much money from their academy, its basically recurring income for them even long after a player is sold.
We’ve made over £1.5m from Billy so far
 
Build a team round a sixteen year old or two?
Has Wilson played for Villa’s first team yet?
Are you then thinking that we could build a team around an AV reserve?
Is that what you’re considering?

Also, regarding everybody’s go to line when discussing youth players, other than the comparative fluke that was Ferguson’s team, has there been another successful, youth based team?
I'd suggest Ferguson is more than a flukey manager? He brought through after giving them experience on loan the best crop of youth who were used to each others style of play and built around them.

Up until now our pathway for youth has been diabolical and Clement is well aware of this. Whose to say Gilmour/Wilson if getting 1st team games wouldn't have signed a 1-2 year deal and still have got the big move with us also getting big money?

Plenty of teams have won with younger players, you've probably heard of Ajax?
 
given the players you see playing at 18 it seems strange he hasn’t seen some first team involvement if he is the second coming of van basten. The top kids in the English game get game time.

I suspect he will be more of a salable asset like a Patrick Bamford. Sold to championship for 10 million
 
We don't need to compete with the money, but we could maybe build a team around our most promising youths? But then again you can't win anything with youth!!

We could do that but if a team down south is offering them 5 figured salaries a week to turn pro plus incentives for their families compared to say our 3 or 4 figures a week on offer with us there's only one place that kid is going to go and that's down south sadly. Its a huge pressure situation for a 16 year old to come into with us as well but it takes a manager with faith and knowledge of developing younger players to give them opportunities.

Gerrard wouldn't really do it Patterson was forced on him with Tav's injury he gave Middleton game time took him out when he was doing well and wasn't to be seen again cause he didn't go on loan. Gio the same really bar I think Stirling Albion in the cup Leon King had to play due to injuries he was quickly written off on here for looking like a fish out of water in the champions league. Beale didn't give any an opportunity I don't think and now with Clement he will give them the opportunity as we've saw with McCausland but he's another with some on here/social media writing him off already as well.
 
I'd suggest Ferguson is more than a flukey manager? He brought through after giving them experience on loan the best crop of youth who were used to each others style of play and built around them.

Up until now our pathway for youth has been diabolical and Clement is well aware of this. Whose to say Gilmour/Wilson if getting 1st team games wouldn't have signed a 1-2 year deal and still have got the big move with us also getting big money?

Plenty of teams have won with younger players, you've probably heard of Ajax?
Need to name a lot more for it to be ‘plenty’.
 
I'd suggest Ferguson is more than a flukey manager? He brought through after giving them experience on loan the best crop of youth who were used to each others style of play and built around them.

Up until now our pathway for youth has been diabolical and Clement is well aware of this. Whose to say Gilmour/Wilson if getting 1st team games wouldn't have signed a 1-2 year deal and still have got the big move with us also getting big money?

Plenty of teams have won with younger players, you've probably heard of Ajax?
I haven’t implied he’s a “flukey” manager.
Gilmour and Wilson were away before we could play them.
They were offered contracts we could not match, we possibly could not match for senior players.
Ajax?
Everybody’s go to example.
Problem is that it’s inconsistent.
Brilliant for a year, poor for two.
Would you be happy with that?
If so, do you think you’d be in the majority.
 
I haven’t implied he’s a “flukey” manager.
Gilmour and Wilson were away before we could play them.
They were offered contracts we could not match, we possibly could not match for senior players.
Ajax?
Everybody’s go to example.
Problem is that it’s inconsistent.
Brilliant for a year, poor for two.
Would you be happy with that?
If so, do you think you’d be in the majority.

You could argue even Ajax lose their best youngsters now but have bought them back.

Brobbey went to Leipzig then came back, Rijkihoff went to Dortmund when he was the biggest talent in the academy, they just signed him back for a few million I think.

Naci Unavar was the biggest talent the academy produced in years but isn’t cut out physically for top level football. Went on loan to Turkey and now back on loan in Holland, scored against Ajax this season.
 
Never keep hold of our up & coming talent, although a move to EPL would be hard to pass up. It is a shame we struggle to keep hold of academy prospects then see the millions they end up becoming worth.
 
I haven’t implied he’s a “flukey” manager.
Gilmour and Wilson were away before we could play them.
They were offered contracts we could not match, we possibly could not match for senior players.
Ajax?
Everybody’s go to example.
Problem is that it’s inconsistent.
Brilliant for a year, poor for two.
Would you be happy with that?
If so, do you think you’d be in the majority.

Ajax also spend a lot of money year on year to go with the young talent they bring through. They're struggling this season cause they made a rip roaring mess of their recruitment in the summer as well as their manager choices but you're right in general.
 
I know clubs get a developmental fee. But it’s peanuts.

There should be an automatic percentage of the next sell on transfer fee or another top up fee should the contract be extended.

It is the way of the world and we need to find our place in it but I totally agree that the compensation is a bit 20th century. There needs to be an uplift in the fee or share of any sell-on. It may also reduce the amount of stockpiling by some clubs/leagues.
 
I'd suggest Ferguson is more than a flukey manager? He brought through after giving them experience on loan the best crop of youth who were used to each others style of play and built around them.

Up until now our pathway for youth has been diabolical and Clement is well aware of this. Whose to say Gilmour/Wilson if getting 1st team games wouldn't have signed a 1-2 year deal and still have got the big move with us also getting big money?

Plenty of teams have won with younger players, you've probably heard of Ajax?
They left when they were turning 16 mate, and therefore not contracted players. Can’t play them in the SPFL at 15 anyways.

And if they had signed a contract at 16 then it would only have been for two years and they’d have walked away for free at 18 anyway.

The ‘system’ is poor and could do with some changes. However, there are many occasions when it works in reverse and we ‘steal’ the best of other clubs players too. All about your place in the food chain.:confused:
 
Some you win some you lose with the youngsters going North or South. We have in the past done well out of this but have also lost what looks like real talent to a stronger league.

It is the way of the world and we need to suck it up.

Best of luck to the lad, you never know what the future holds for him, he may go on to be a super star, he may come back to us at one point, he may pick up a career ending injury.

You just never know.

We will continue to lose young talent to the EPL as they pay big wages to un-tried youths.

Until such times as we are brave enough to get these kids in the 1st team and have a proper pathway to the 1st team (hopefully McCausland is the start and other follow).

Its hard for our managers to do that with the pressure of a must win every game, its a risk to play youth when the logical option is to buy or play a snr player.
 
Never keep hold of our up & coming talent, although a move to EPL would be hard to pass up.
That’s just not true, though.

We obviously lose some players like Gilmour, Wilson & Mebude. However, we also have players that turn down lucrative offers down south like King (on a few occasions) and Lowry, to name a couple.
 
For what its worth I think he's overrated.

In the games I saw he didn't show any real pace. Isn't slow, but isn't particularly quick.

It's not uncommon for young strikers who lack pace to bang in bucket loads at youth level then not make the grade.
 
On the wider academy debate I would say we should definitely have one, but would significantly move the starting age up.

Picking up 7 year olds is utter nonsense in my view and totally unnecessary.

I'd have an academy but I'd start with 12 year olds.
 
That’s just not true, though.

We obviously lose some players like Gilmour, Wilson & Mebude. However, we also have players that turn down lucrative offers down south like King (on a few occasions) and Lowry, to name a couple.
Yeah true we have King who looks a very good prospect, flung in the deep end during an injury crisis, however, Lowry wasn't spectacular at hearts & if not for being injured would have been most likely gone in the January*.

If we had managed to keep hold of Gilmour, he would be the most valuable player in Scotland, along with coming from our academy.
 
Last edited:
Some you win some you lose with the youngsters going North or South. We have in the past done well out of this but have also lost what looks like real talent to a stronger league.

It is the way of the world and we need to suck it up.

Best of luck to the lad, you never know what the future holds for him, he may go on to be a super star, he may come back to us at one point, he may pick up a career ending injury.

You just never know.

We will continue to lose young talent to the EPL as they pay big wages to un-tried youths.

Until such times as we are brave enough to get these kids in the 1st team and have a proper pathway to the 1st team (hopefully McCausland is the start and other follow).

Its hard for our managers to do that with the pressure of a must win every game, its a risk to play youth when the logical option is to buy or play a snr player.

There wasn’t a pathway for mccausland he’s only playing due to injuries and that’s at 20.

There would’ve been a pathway for Gilmour as you need to be special to make it here. Patterson was also getting rotational minutes prior to his sale.

The bigger argument is we’ve not produced the talents. How many have went on to play for top teams?
 
On the wider academy debate I would say we should definitely have one, but would significantly move the starting age up.

Picking up 7 year olds is utter nonsense in my view and totally unnecessary.

I'd have an academy but I'd start with 12 year olds.

Then you run the risk of them being happy at other clubs.

Foden joined city at 4, Cole palmer and rico Lewis were under 8s for example.
 
On the wider academy debate I would say we should definitely have one, but would significantly move the starting age up.

Picking up 7 year olds is utter nonsense in my view and totally unnecessary.

I'd have an academy but I'd start with 12 year olds.

The club can't officially sign a player until they're 10 into the academy which I would say is fair enough age to start as they move out of 7s and into 9s at that age group. They do get first dibs on a player if they play the same day as their boys club if not they're still allowed to play and train which is a good thing. I coach at 2017s and have seen a few talented kids already at that level they stand out something awful and for me the club should be keeping tabs on them at that age. One of our own who is a year younger was in last Friday.

If fans want European football then there's no debate to be had about having an academy it's a requirement to obtain the license to play in Europe.
 
Then you run the risk of them being happy at other clubs.

Foden joined city at 4, Cole palmer and rico Lewis were under 8s for example.
But in our country you're either us, them or a diddy club fan.

If a boy at 12 is a Rangers fan, 99% of the time we're getting him if we want him.
 
The problem with kids like Wilson, and Gilmour before him, is that they can’t be on pro contracts until they hit 16. Rightly so in my opinion. However, if they are at the sort of level Gilmour - and maybe Wilson - are, then the EPL comes calling offering thousands of pounds a week to sign for them on their 16th birthday. Rangers offer a comparative pittance, simply because we can’t afford to take the high risk gamble. So the kid, naturally, grabs the money when they can. Nothing to do with building a team around them. They are, understandably, going to chase the money and head for the EPL golden land.

Read last week that a few SPFL clubs (not Rangers) were suggesting that the pro contract age in Scotland be reduced to 14 to try and avoid the pillage now taking place by rucher English clubs.
 
There wasn’t a pathway for mccausland he’s only playing due to injuries and that’s at 20.

There would’ve been a pathway for Gilmour as you need to be special to make it here. Patterson was also getting rotational minutes prior to his sale.

The bigger argument is we’ve not produced the talents. How many have went on to play for top teams?
Hopefully with McCausland making the jump then it opens the door for others to do the same, the pathway has to be there or it is a waste of time having the b team.

We need to unearth them and play them, I am not convinced that with the risk to a managers job, the wrath of the fans if it goes wrong many will take the plunge.

Gilmour may have made it but again would be have done it, as good a prospect as he was I am not convinced that he would have got the chance. Did he only get the chanse at chelsea due to the transfer embargo?

Paterson couldnt put Tav out the team, his pathway to the team was blocked by the captain, would he have hung about if everton never came in??

We have a need due to finance to create players, someone will have to be brave enough to do it
 
Read last week that a few SPFL clubs (not Rangers) were suggesting that the pro contract age in Scotland be reduced to 14 to try and avoid the pillage now taking place by rucher English clubs.
Yeah, I’m not really in favour of pro contracts at that age if I’m honest. Too young IMHO. I think tweaks around compensation paid might be better.
 
Yeah, I’m not really in favour of pro contracts at that age if I’m honest. Too young IMHO. I think tweaks around compensation paid might be better.

If you reduced it to 14 years old then that would only be 2 years max I think of them playing 11s football which isn't a lot of football. 16 is fair enough but whilst that massive pot of cash down south is available and better development for younger players we will continue to lose players before they turn pro.
 
Read last week that a few SPFL clubs (not Rangers) were suggesting that the pro contract age in Scotland be reduced to 14 to try and avoid the pillage now taking place by rucher English clubs.

Chelsea paid 4 million for a 14 year old from Brighton.

Leeds lost their best prospect to Man City at 15 for multi millions.

City signed that 14 year old American kid and already agreed to loan him to another city group club when he comes over.

It’ll likely happen as clubs are losing them earlier now.
 
Back
Top