Young lads that went to Scotland

[Billbob]

Does anyone know if the lads that went to Scotland will be part of the first team or will carry on with the under 23s. There was great effort and movement from the lads.

[TANGODANCER]

^^
Consensus seems to be that the team that started at Dundee may well be the first choice eleven.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Does anyone know if the lads that went to Scotland will be part of the first team or will carry on with the under 23s. There was great effort and movement from the lads.

Depends on transfers and the embargo, and not necessarily in a good way. If we are limited in permitted squad numbers, we're less likely to declare the youths as members of the full squad. But hopefully we can get them some minutes on the pitch as well as continuing the bulk of their progress in the U23s.

[Nicko58]

Is Alex Perry injured? He wasn't on the trip to Scotland despite turning professional with us, and it just seems a bit odd that he wasn't there when third year scholars were.

As DSB says, with the transfer embargo restrictions in place it's difficult to see a young player breaking through. My understanding is that it's tricky to get them into the full squad if they've signed a professional contract as they then have to be registered as one of the 23, though I don't know if there's a bit more leeway with the scholars?

Hopefully one or two might prove themselves good enough for a first team spot regardless. It seems as though Connor Hall has been the pick of the youngsters on tour, so maybe we'll see him at some stage.

[BWFC_Insane]

Doubt it because of squad restrictions under embargo. However, one way or another come September or October you think we either have to be part owned by BM and in the shit, or Ken has resolved it and has got us out of embargo.

At this stage keeping young players is a huge reason for Ken to get a move on in this regard. Like Sam Lavelle we are in danger of losing others if we are unable to give them any first team time.

[Hoboh]

Doubt it because of squad restrictions under embargo. However, one way or another come September or October you think we either have to be part owned by BM and in the shit, or Ken has resolved it and has got us out of embargo.

At this stage keeping young players is a huge reason for Ken to get a move on in this regard. Like Sam Lavelle we are in danger of losing others if we are unable to give them any first team time.

Not wanting to sound too cynical but just how many of our 'world beating' starlets have actually y gone on to do anything after being released?

[BWFC_Insane]

Doubt it because of squad restrictions under embargo. However, one way or another come September or October you think we either have to be part owned by BM and in the shit, or Ken has resolved it and has got us out of embargo.

At this stage keeping young players is a huge reason for Ken to get a move on in this regard. Like Sam Lavelle we are in danger of losing others if we are unable to give them any first team time.

Not wanting to sound too cynical but just how many of our 'world beating' starlets have actually y gone on to do anything after being released?

Oh indeed. But some probably have been held back in their development as we couldn't offer them any game time.

For example, Parky wanted to promote Jeff King to the first team squad middle of last season. But couldn't because of the embargo. Say he'd managed 10 appearances in league one...who knows he might now be considered part of the squad. But as it is he has no real experience still and I assume will be loaned out to get some.

[Nicko58]

Related to this thread, Iles has written a timely article in the BN about who might and who might not break through. The most interesting thing to note is that he confirms what we thought about the restrictions under the transfer embargo, and the implications that that has on the development of our Academy graduates/development squad players. As suspected, youngsters who have signed a professional contract HAVE to be included as a part of the quota to play in the first team, making it less likely that they feature, whereas those who are merely scholars don't.

I suppose that there might be an argument that it's a just punishment for being reckless with our finances, but it just seems to me to be a bit of a boneheaded policy if it means that a) it hampers our ability to get back into the black by signing to a professional contract, playing and then selling our best young talents, and b) has the potential to stunt the development of young players who might not be potential world-beaters but have earned a professional contract with us (I understand that they can go out on loan but, still, what happens when they return and aren't allowed to play for the first team?).

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Related to this thread, Iles has written a timely article in the BN about who might and who might not break through. The most interesting thing to note, is that he confirms what we thought about the restrictions under the transfer embargo and the implications that that has on the development of our Academy graduates/development squad players. As suspected, youngsters with a professional contract HAVE to be included as a part of the quota to play in the first team, making it less likely that they feature, whereas those who are merely scholars don't.

I suppose that there might be an argument that it's a just punishment for being reckless with our finances, but it just seems to me to be a bit of a boneheaded policy if it means that a) it hampers our ability to get back into the black by signing to a professional contract, playing and then selling our best young talents, and b) has the potential to stunt the development of young players who might not be potential world-beaters but have earned a professional contract with us (I understand that they can go out on loan but, still, what happens when they return and aren't allowed to play for the first team?).

Yeah, I thought it was a good piece and it the situation raised the same objections in my head.

I guess it falls under Good Intentions, Unintended Consequence. Taking a step back from our own personal involvement, I do think that clubs who are demonstrably unstable (or, in our case, not provably stable) shouldn't be allowed to hand out contracts to more than an operational minimum of players: no point twatting on about Fit & Proper Persons if you're just going to let clubs with proven cashflow problems free rein to promise contracts to as many people as they like.

But it does seem to me that including youngsters – which these days means U23s - in this, you're definitely impeding their progress. Whether their finances are healthy or not, clubs often prefer to spend on the quick fix than train up the next generation, so it seems daft not to maximise the opposite opportunity: if clubs are struggling, they should be encouraged to use their own resources.

For instance, had we been out of embargo and flush with cash last season we may have come nowhere near asking permission to play Jeff King, as we requested (unsuccessfully) in March. For another instance, under the current rules (and embargo) Samizadeh would have been more likely to play in our first team this season if he'd stayed a scholar than if he'd signed a professional contract with us, which seems to benefit neither the player (stifled in his development) nor the club (unable to develop talent).

It's not the only Good Intentions, Unintended Consequence to inhibit player development. Take the Checkatrade Trophy. Leaving aside the understandably contentious (and suspicion-arousing) idea of including elite clubs' U23 sides, much of the complaining last season came from managers who were frustrated by the League insisting they could only make five changes or whatever it was. Many loudly claimed that this strangled youth development, and they're right – but the rule was put in place because so many managers had previously made such wholesale changes that it was seen as "disrepecting" the competition, driving down its attendances and threatening its existence. So the League insisted on limiting changes from the "first XI", however arbitrarily one decides that, and thus found itself accused of thwarting its own (associate) member clubs' youth development while actively promoting the bigger fishes' academies. Tough crowd. Glad I'm not an administrator.