| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 14:28 - Nov 16 with 2836 views | smegma |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 13:34 - Nov 16 by Esox_Lucius |
Those are the cheapest seats. Silver cost £499 (£21.70 per game) a season and Gold was £575 (£25.00 per game). Platinum was £650 (£28.26 per game) IIRC. |
I paid £465 for silver this season. Last season I paid £400 bronze in HU.
There are lots of bronze seats in HU and QU empty every game, so there were still cheaper seats available at the start of the season. Most of those empty seats are fans that moved to the £250 Ellerslie STs. |  | |  |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 15:41 - Nov 16 with 2768 views | Esox_Lucius |
Early bird special? |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 19:16 - Nov 16 with 2636 views | QPR_John |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 13:44 - Nov 16 by QPR_Jim |
I think FFP has many flaws but I don't see that as one of them (or at least not a main one), their policy promotes clubs building and owning their own training grounds which is good but as with the rest of the FFP rules it does favor the bigger clubs. Hypothetically if a small club had a rich investor who built a state of the art £1m+ a year to run training ground then decided to sell up, he'd have to sell to another rich owner who could afford to finance the training ground. As it's a long term thing for any club I think it makes sense to be sustainable.
I don't understand how shorter term items like transfers can't be financed by a rich owner so long as they don't burden the club with the cost. If a rich owner put in the transfer fee plus the cost of the contract and gave it to the club, not a loan obviously, that wouldn't affect the sustainability of the club but that's banned also. To me that's a flaw and one that is intended to keep the big clubs where they are and to stop other clubs challenging. |
"he'd have to sell to another rich owner who could afford to finance the training ground."
Surely that is what FFP does not allow. It is not the owner who finances the club but under FFP the club has to be self financing in general.
I come back to the point that FFP appears to allow a club to build a state of the art training facility but that club has to keep it going on a day to day basis from the bargain basement. Seems pointless to me. Seems to me if I was being cynical the football authorities were told they would be on dangerous ground re infrastructure spend so they simply allowed that but made sure nothing would come of it to worry the chosen few. | | | |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 21:32 - Nov 16 with 2562 views | QPR_Jim |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 19:16 - Nov 16 by QPR_John |
"he'd have to sell to another rich owner who could afford to finance the training ground."
Surely that is what FFP does not allow. It is not the owner who finances the club but under FFP the club has to be self financing in general.
I come back to the point that FFP appears to allow a club to build a state of the art training facility but that club has to keep it going on a day to day basis from the bargain basement. Seems pointless to me. Seems to me if I was being cynical the football authorities were told they would be on dangerous ground re infrastructure spend so they simply allowed that but made sure nothing would come of it to worry the chosen few. |
What I was trying to say is that having the day to day costs under FFP encourages clubs to have a facility that is sustainable. Which is good.
Having the costs of building a facility outside the FFP rules means that anyone can get a good training facility, which is also good.
As you say it doesn't allow is clubs with low turnover to build a massive state of the art facility then rely on an owner to pay the day to day costs, which is a good thing when they decide to leave.
So my main issue with FFP is not allowing clubs to invest in the playing side using money gifted to them to try and take them to the next level, which I feel is to keep everyone where they are in terms of status. |  | | |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 22:04 - Nov 16 with 2548 views | QPR_John |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 21:32 - Nov 16 by QPR_Jim |
What I was trying to say is that having the day to day costs under FFP encourages clubs to have a facility that is sustainable. Which is good.
Having the costs of building a facility outside the FFP rules means that anyone can get a good training facility, which is also good.
As you say it doesn't allow is clubs with low turnover to build a massive state of the art facility then rely on an owner to pay the day to day costs, which is a good thing when they decide to leave.
So my main issue with FFP is not allowing clubs to invest in the playing side using money gifted to them to try and take them to the next level, which I feel is to keep everyone where they are in terms of status. |
I take your last point completely. If FFP was designed to stop clubs going bust then allowing owners to give money to clubs would be allowed. That it does not speaks volumes | | | |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 10:41 - Nov 17 with 2400 views | francisbowles |
One of the reasons given for not going for Cat1 is that you need a 'dormitory
block'. As well as the cost of building, equipping, maintenance, staffing and extra security for the safeguarding of these young people there is also the space issue.
On a limited 'cut down' site, to build this means less space for something else e.g. pitches, medical facilities etc.
It's about priorities and training facilities come first | | | |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 10:50 - Nov 17 with 2393 views | peejaybee |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 10:41 - Nov 17 by francisbowles |
One of the reasons given for not going for Cat1 is that you need a 'dormitory
block'. As well as the cost of building, equipping, maintenance, staffing and extra security for the safeguarding of these young people there is also the space issue.
On a limited 'cut down' site, to build this means less space for something else e.g. pitches, medical facilities etc.
It's about priorities and training facilities come first |
We need a bigger training ground,Any suggestions.  |  |
| If at first you dont succeed, pack up and f**k off home. |
| |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 11:21 - Nov 17 with 2382 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 10:41 - Nov 17 by francisbowles |
One of the reasons given for not going for Cat1 is that you need a 'dormitory
block'. As well as the cost of building, equipping, maintenance, staffing and extra security for the safeguarding of these young people there is also the space issue.
On a limited 'cut down' site, to build this means less space for something else e.g. pitches, medical facilities etc.
It's about priorities and training facilities come first |
I've learned a lot on this thread and, while I'm still disappointed, I have an open mind.
On this point, though, I'm told that we had planning for a Cat 1 and re-applied and ended up with Cat 2. Not sure if that's true. Either way, I don't think we added pitches.
One poster on here made a point to me which is worth considering - perhaps we re-applied for planning for a Cat 2 to get past SWF and may upgrade in the future.
I hope so. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 11:55 - Nov 17 with 2370 views | Esox_Lucius |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 11:21 - Nov 17 by BrianMcCarthy |
I've learned a lot on this thread and, while I'm still disappointed, I have an open mind.
On this point, though, I'm told that we had planning for a Cat 1 and re-applied and ended up with Cat 2. Not sure if that's true. Either way, I don't think we added pitches.
One poster on here made a point to me which is worth considering - perhaps we re-applied for planning for a Cat 2 to get past SWF and may upgrade in the future.
I hope so. |
On the basis that it is better to ask for forgiveness than for permission? | |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 11:57 - Nov 17 with 2366 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 11:55 - Nov 17 by Esox_Lucius |
On the basis that it is better to ask for forgiveness than for permission? |
That was the idea as told to me anyway. I like that phrase., too. | |
| |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 19:16 - Nov 17 with 2238 views | rsonist |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 11:21 - Nov 17 by BrianMcCarthy |
I've learned a lot on this thread and, while I'm still disappointed, I have an open mind.
On this point, though, I'm told that we had planning for a Cat 1 and re-applied and ended up with Cat 2. Not sure if that's true. Either way, I don't think we added pitches.
One poster on here made a point to me which is worth considering - perhaps we re-applied for planning for a Cat 2 to get past SWF and may upgrade in the future.
I hope so. |
There's not much I can think of worth asking Hoos at the fan's forum after this interview but certainly the Category issue's bearing on the original application/downsizing and the scope (if any) for future expansion would be one. |  | | |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 13:57 - Nov 19 with 1797 views | simmo |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 15:30 - Nov 14 by Northernr |
- Well you have to have top notch facilities to get category one, so that's one thing.
- You play the other category one academies in matches, so better quality of opposition than we have now.
- And, as it says in the interview, the rules currently say that if you have a lower category academy then clubs with a higher one can just come and take your teenagers for a set compensation fee (which is tiny) regardless of how good they are or how long you've coached them. In the Raheem Sterling example it would mean that instead of being able to negotiate a deal with Liverpool that eventually made us £12m they'd simply have been able to come and take him for a few thousand quid.
More details from Simon Dorset here...
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/news/48272/the-greater- |
I don't think the Sterling example is relative any more, regardless of our Youth Category, but I would be interested in the difference in what we'd receive from our prospects.
I am struggling to find a solid financial example of a youth player being taken from a Cat 1 academy, but I'd be interested to know the difference between that and say, Watford, who are still Cat 2 (by choice) but lost Sancho a few years ago and ended up getting something like £66,000 (rising to half a million if he eradicates plastic pollution from the worlds seas) because of EPPP. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 14:55 - Nov 19 with 1751 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 13:57 - Nov 19 by simmo |
I don't think the Sterling example is relative any more, regardless of our Youth Category, but I would be interested in the difference in what we'd receive from our prospects.
I am struggling to find a solid financial example of a youth player being taken from a Cat 1 academy, but I'd be interested to know the difference between that and say, Watford, who are still Cat 2 (by choice) but lost Sancho a few years ago and ended up getting something like £66,000 (rising to half a million if he eradicates plastic pollution from the worlds seas) because of EPPP. |
As all the top clubs who wrote the rules have Cat 1 Academies, Simmo, chances are that the players there are better protected with better compensation. | |
| |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 15:58 - Nov 19 with 1692 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Thanks for the links, rsonist. Will read later. | |
| |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 19:13 - Nov 19 with 1626 views | Roller |
This article from The Telegraph about Sancho sees to say that City paid above the EP3 tariff and voluntarily added a sell-on clause.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/10/06/clubs-discovering-top-talents-fa
They often get forgotten in the story of England’s latest new prodigy, but Watford were there at the beginning of Jadon Sancho’s career, the club who signed him at the age of 10 and were powerless to stop him leaving four years later when the buzz around him became so great.
He was found by the club’s then academy director, Chris McGuane, now at Nottingham Forest, in Sancho’s native Battersea, south London, which is on the doorstep of Chelsea — the most powerful force in development football for a decade. He was the classic south London prodigy footballer who had played most of his football against older boys in the hard-court park cages and it was Watford who oversaw the critical next stage of his development.
By the time he left Watford for Manchester City around his 15th birthday in March 2015, Sancho was out of Battersea and living as a boarder at Harefield Academy in Uxbridge, west London, which has a partnership with Watford. Harefield is not an independent school of the kind that City offer to their scholars, but it has a partnership with Watford that means boys affiliated to the club can board — an option taken by Sancho.
Then Watford’s academy was category three status under the Elite Player Performance Plan and even had it been category two, which it is now, the chances of keeping Sancho were slim — although the club, then in the Championship, did try. The problem Watford faced was that the new tariff system laid out by EPPP meant them losing a player for a fraction of what they believed was his true value. Given that Sancho is in Gareth Southgate’s England squad little more than three years on, it is hard to argue.
Watford were looking at a basic fee of £3,000 per year for every year Sancho was with them up to the age of 11 and then £12,500 for the three years after he was 11 — around £43,500, with some add-ons after that. Watford would earn £150,000 if Sancho made 10 Premier league appearances at his new club, £300,000 if he made 20, right up to a maximum of £1,300,000 for 100 appearances in the top division. In March 2015, Luke Dowling was Watford’s recently appointed director of football — now doing the same job at West Bromwich Albion — and he points out that £300,000 hardly reflects the scale of such an achievement. Had Sancho not left for Borussia Dortmund and by some miracle made 30 appearances for City, his old club Watford would have seen their add-ons rise to £450,000. “What would a teenager with 30 appearances at City be worth?” Dowling asks. “£20 million? £30 million? When it comes to EPPP, it benefits the big clubs.” As it turned out, City’s then academy director Mark Allen, now at Rangers as director of football, recognised Sancho’s singular talent and Watford’s frustration. He sanctioned a basic fee of £250,000 with add-on payments.
Most importantly he agreed to a sell-on fee of 10 per cent which earned Watford just less than £1 million when the teenager went to Dortmund in the summer of last year. All told, the hard work that went into scouting, coaching and schooling Sancho earned Watford just shy of £1.25 million which is more than the club would have got under EPPP.
There is an acceptance looking back, Dowling says, that Sancho made the right decision to go to City just as he made the right decision to leave for Dortmund. The issue is whether McGuane’s hard work and that of his staff to spot a talent and develop him was adequately rewarded. “There are many times when big clubs sign players from academies just because they can, or to stop others having them,” Dowling says. “It was not like that in this case — City got it right. But other times clubs can say ‘Even if he doesn’t make it as a player then signing him doesn’t make any financial impact’. A fee of £60,000 under EPPP is nothing for them.”
Watford were a different club then and now they, too, would not think twice about taking a good youngster from a smaller competitor. Dowling can laugh at the fact that the day in October 2014 he and McGuane made a big pitch to Sancho to stay, they also invited him and his family to Vicarage Road to watch a home game against Forest. Having told their young player there was a pathway to the first team, Dowling looked at the team-sheet that evening and realised that there was neither a home-grown nor a British player in the starting XI.
“He has shown the potential we all thought he had,” Dowling says, “and then he had the personality to make that move to Dortmund. You have to admire him for that. From everything we heard, Pep really made a fuss of him and wanted him to stay. But he was brave enough to move to Manchester from London and|do it again from Manchester to Germany.”
As the first player born in the 21st century to be selected in a senior England squad, Sancho will also be something of a poster boy for EPPP, which has had many positive effects on English football too. The 72 members of the Football League voted to accept EPPP in 2011, the year of Sancho’s 11th birthday, albeit as part of the deal that saw them earn solidarity payments from the Premier League.
Many of Southgate’s Russia World Cup squad began their careers in the Football League, at a parent club or on loan — and in a way Sancho did, too.
He was scouted, coached and nurtured by a then hard-up Championship club coming out of a bad period in their history but still employing dedicated academy coaches to find talented boys. If Sancho turns out to be as good as everyone thinks he is, £1.25 million does not sound enough. |  | | |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 20:28 - Nov 19 with 1593 views | barbicanranger |
Finally caught up on this so many great topics covered, thanks Northern. It's impressive how far the club has come in quite a short space of time in its dialogue with fans, which is great.
I think having our own, new, state of the art, training ground, whether its cat1 or cat2, is going to be huge for the club. If they can do it via a bond with the fans then great - means we keep everything in house and the interest that would have been paid to a bank or third party stays within the club's community.
Accepting that we need to leave LR, the LCS site sounds less positive - I don't know the first thing about planning but it seems a very long shot that it will come to fruition but it could just be the club being sensitive publicly to all the current stakeholders. |  | | |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 11:57 - Nov 20 with 1418 views | simmo |
| Hoos talks Warren Farm, FFP, Loftus Road — Interview on 14:55 - Nov 19 by BrianMcCarthy |
As all the top clubs who wrote the rules have Cat 1 Academies, Simmo, chances are that the players there are better protected with better compensation. |
Watford have Cat 2 status by choice, which I find interesting and speaks more to the link that Rsonist posted, with the difference in compensation being negligible. When you consider the ongoing costs to run a C1 academy over a C2 one (the costs of which do come under the FFP liability), it would be almost silly to pursue a C1 - on that basis at least. | |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
