CCL Under 21 League

[Chris Clapham]

Ooh look. A quality thread on here for a change!
I went to Farnham v Wood in the SYL Cup tonight (we won 4-1 btw  ) and we discussed this U21 thingy in depth on the way down.
Irrespective of whether it is a good idea or not, we were concerned re playing days for fixtures.
We have a small first team squad which is, occasionally, supplemented by our new under 18 youth team, which started this season.
No way could we field two sides on a Saturday which is why we folded our reserve team this season. That reserve side was full of 20somethings whose football was going nowhere (we retained the 2 or 3 decent ones this season) and home games costing us £200 to stage with little or no gates or bar take! No brainer we thought. Get a youth team and develop an infrastructure which can get the kids on board and make CWUFC type players for the future. Five, so far, have played for our first team this season. Early days, but things are OK at present
The crux of our discussion was we may be interested in a midweek league but not Saturdays. How can we go up against AFC Wimbledon, Fulham, QPR, Chelsea, Sutton, Kingstonian etc etc in attracting any support, thus funding the U21 set up, for this on a Saturday? We can't - end of.

We barely get 40 for CCL games although our "gates" are up this year.

So, we are a "don't know" for now but we have not written it off completely and there will be talks between our club and youth manager soon re this.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Chris Clapham

[Powelly1]

Not patronising at all 1966.

We have played some lads in different positions and they've done well. Our results have been very up and down but generally we accept that.

I agree with the philosophy of 7 and 9 a side at youth level - the Dutch and Germans have been doing that for years and rotating player positions - in theory it's great and the more coaches that buy into that the better.

If you're ever free on a Saturday and want to discuss after a game then pop down to Westfield - I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

[HKP]

Hi Smudge, brainwashed by Sir Trevor Brooking not at all,  I have had the opportunity to discuss youth development with several senior members of the FA over the last few years. I do have a background in the pro game with coaching and academy management experience. I have disagreed and agreed with policies concerning youth development recently introduced by the FA. Do I think we have got it right or are anywhere near getting it right in this country, no we are years away. This discussion could take several pages and go on for several weeks which I guess the forum is for. 

 

My views are as follows, we haven't enough suitable facilities available for youth development. They are simply not enough floodlit grass or 3G pitches available. We have some great youth development coaches coming through. Although these specialist coaches will struggle to break into senior roles in the top pro clubs. Unfortunately we are still employing experienced ex pro players not experienced player development coaches in the top positions. How many Youth Development coaches are sitting on the board for the FA Commission? None. Contact time, due to the lack of quality facilities, actual time that the boys are coached is limited. The EPPP recommends 3 x1.5 hours a week plus a fixture as a minimum. League 1&2 clubs or Cat 3 Academy's simply cannot afford to hire the facilities for any longer even with the £290k grant. In Europe, the access to facilities is massively easier and cheaper. 

 

In answer to your comments about how our players are treated. Players are signed to pro clubs at Under 9 level, although its not uncommon for younger players to be invited in for training. Man City have Under 5s in pre academy's. Upto Under 11 they are signed for a year, Under 12 and above 2 years. They are reviewed constantly with player reviews given every 6 weeks. Any player falling below the expected standard is notified in these reviews with a development plan offered to assist him to get back to the required level. Releases are never a surprise, but yes the player is obviously very upset.

 

Now hears a thing, every player I've had to give a negative review to has been offered a development plan. A player has never refused this advice. If they continue to not meet the standard, they are offered the chance to play down a year group or join the development centres rather than remain in the pressurised academy environment. Has a player ever turned me down ? No, but guess what, the parents have. So rather than accept the support offered they drop out of the game or back into grassroots football. Parents are very proud of little Johnny being in an Academy, but are not proud to admit that Johnny is having a difficult time. So rather than support Johnny's development they teach him how to quit. There lies a massive problem in this country, we are not patient. We want results overnight. I have only released 2 players due to their ability, I have released 5 because of parents misconduct . I cannot record how many players the parents have removed from the Academy's. You can tell a man his wifes ugly, but you can't tell him his son is struggling at football. Although I've never tried telling him both. So have I broken hearts of kids in the academy's Ive worked in ? Yes, however I've taken every step to avoid it. Do you think if I said I recommend you join an Under 21 league he would accept my advice? Yes the player would, but would his dad? Probably not. A good player development coach working with an Under 21 team is worth his weight in gold. I can see an Under 21 league being incredibly successful if the club's ethos is player development and not results driven. It's got to be worth a go. 

 

Your next point, yes several clubs are financially able to bring in players from abroad. Why are these players technically/tactically better ?

 

My opinion is that the facilities, coaches and contact time in these countries are better than ours. We need a professional coach in every school, and in every grassroots club running a development program. Football should be offered after school every evening, as it is in many European countries. We all used to play walking home from school every night anyway. So lets do it under the guidance of a professional coach. 

 

So yes ,you might of guessed I think an Under 21 league is a great idea. Will clubs being able to afford to be in it ? Doubtful, maybe the FA will offer financial support to all the clubs that want to enter. 

 

Thanks for listening. 

Posts like this make the forum worth reading. Top marks fella.

Edited November 8, 2013 by HKP

[duncs]

 

Stuart Pearce found playing for Wealdstone at 21 by Coventry . Ian Wright, found playing for Greenwich Borough by Crystal Palace and signed at 22.

 

Very glad these 2 didn't take your advice duncs !!! 1247 football league appearances and 111 England caps between them.

that was a long time ago 1066 I think you could even pass the ball back to the keeper then,now move forward 30 odd years and the scouts have learnt a lot since those days old chap

[Krooner]

I think you could use lots of examples to prove different arguments.  The change to 5, 7 and 9 a side football is the first step forward.  the next is to make the laws the same across all leagues as they differ in what you can and cannot do at the moment.  Then actually get money invested in pitches across the country not just in supposed "Poorer" areas.  This means places like Surrey Heath where I am that has had NO money from the Football foundation ever because it has been perceived as an "Affluent" area.  I know this is changing.  While our kids play on pitches that are provided at the moment we will never challenge the best.

 

IMHO I think an U21 league is a good idea and I do think a lot of clubs use their reserve teams like that anyway so allowing a number of over age players is a good idea.

[VPCTFC]

This means places like Surrey Heath where I am that has had NO money from the Football foundation ever because it has been perceived as an "Affluent" area.  I know this is changing.

 

 

I'm not sure where you get this idea from. There's been loads of FF money in neighbouring boroughs, some of which are 'more affluent' than Surrey Heath. Eversley & California were the recipients of the biggest grant the FF have ever awarded. That's not exactly deprived is it?

 

The Ryman League now has a midweek U21 league. Maybe that's an option for some clubs? They've relaxed their rules on who they let into their U18 divisions in recent years so I expect they'd be open to applications for the U21 league as well.

[BAD GUY]

Over the recent seasons, I have seen quite a few reserve games and I have to admit that players are getting younger and younger which is brilliant, so as stated on other posts, many clubs almost adapt to being U21 anyway, its just application of the rules that change and to be adhered to.

 

Whist I agree CC that reserve team is a financial loss, I believe its important stepping stone for developing young talent to the 1st team, notwithstanding to assist 1st team players getting game time (say being 1st team sub on a few occasions), returning from injury and fitness improvement.  Also it can less burden the manager to play players in the reserves if not selected for the 1st team as opposed to doing nothing, then in this situation, the payer is getting game time and retains his fitness ready for selection. 

 

Again CC I can see what you are achieveing at CW putting youth team players into the 1st team who are obviously good enough one would presume, but not many clubs are doing or can do this simply 'cos of players build, level of football and simply if good enough, this is where the reserves come into its fore in my opinion.  I hope. like me , we want to see young players develop, but from youth to 1st team can be a big jump and its quite possible harmful to young players who could possibly get bullied, perhaps not the correct word, lets say out muscled and be tackled stronger by senior players.     

 

Youth team football is primarily mid-week so where do the youth players go on Saturdays ?  With the reserve team some could go with the reserves to experience senior football and gradually play senior football as their career develops then if good enough progress to the first team.

 

Yes there will always be pros and cons to almost every subject.  The above is my personal opinion in order to keep young players interested in football, progress and develop their career and that means reserve team football.......

 

All professional clubs used to have reserve team., Yes I know they can afford it, but they see it as a progression for talented youngsters to try and get them upto 1st team level/standard.  Its just so unfortunate that clubs at Step 5 & 6 struggle financially so the easiest thing to do is drop the reserve team 'cos its not finacially viable which is understandable ...its just a shame for young talented players who could go by the wayside if not involved in Saturday football.   . .

[Terrence Collina]

different sport, but adding on the theme of facilities, I went on holiday to Santorini last month and every night the floodlights for the village basketball court were on and free to use.

 

I hold hope that the commission will do something good for the development of the game but I can't see it.  Not enough good facilities available and those that are are over priced and taking the example of 'Goals' centres, poorly maintained.  What little is available is booked up so far in advance, hardly anyone gets a look in.

 

The next problem is the coaching badges people are expected to have.  I sit on the fence on this subject as in my time I have come across coaches who have all the badges under the sun but have never played the game and are therefore clueless to match situation sessions.  Regardless of that, the biggest problem with the coaching scheme is the prices to take the courses and the inconsistancy of prices.  For level one, the Berks and Bucks changes £155, Surrey £150 and Hampshire £100. 

I have considered doing the courses, but trying to justify to my wife spending that amount for no benefit other than a certificate is an arguement I (and probably others) will always lose.

 

Back to the subject, I think it is a good idea and the invitation should be extended to other leagues which would perhaps allow regionalised divisions like the Allied Counties (assuming it still is).  I also think it is a good idea for the four over-aged players for those needing match practice and signing players on on the day allowing for last minute call ups is an excellent idea.

 

Of course, it has to be financially viable for teams to participate and maybe getting a sponsor to subsidise the cost of 3 officials would help.

[Windsor_Sec]

Some very interesting points expressed both for and against so far and it's a subject where nobody will actually be right or wrong because every club's infrastructure is different so what's good for one club might not be so good for another one.

 

We would be interested in an U21's league rather than reserve team football as we see it as a natural progression from U18's level though to senior football whereas reserve team football in our experience is so varied in the age range that clubs put out that sometimes you could be up against a team of late 20's early 30's aged players or even in the case of 1st team postponements a full first team which is of no learning value whatsoever to players in the U21 bracket. 

 

However we do have some misgivings in that costs need to be looked at in terms of travelling and the logistics of doing so as many U21's either can't afford to drive or haven't learnt yet and also that many players in that age group actually work on Saturdays so for those very reasons any U21 league would for us have to be locally based and play midweek fixtures.  No disprespect to the Croydons and Horleys of this world but we would rather be -playing the likes of Ascot, Bracknell, Holyport, Binfield, etc as they're more local and because of that you should get bigger attendances which would help offset the costs involved.  The other issue with Saturdays is that 9 of our current 1st team squad are under 21 so they're likely to be involved with the 1st team on matchdays which would mean including more of the U18's in the side or having U21's that we know won't be good enough to progress ! 

 

We have a club policy of promoting young players to the 1st team wherever possible and any scheme which will help these players develop must be good in the long term as 8 of our current 1st team squad aged 21 or over progressed through U18's football with our current manager and couple that with the 9 current U21's and you have a picture of how the progression of younger players can be done although we'll be the first to admit that age and their lack of experience can lead to costly mistakes in games which for us is another reason why an U21 league would be viable to provide that game-day experience for the younger lads. The proposal to allow 4 'over age' players also allows returning injured players to get game time under their belts as well as giving unused squad players some match fitness so in conclusion it's a yes for us but with some misgivings !  

 

As I said in opening though what's good for us isn't necessarily good for someone else therefore each club will have to make their decisions based on their own circumstances.  

[Windsor_Sec]

The next problem is the coaching badges people are expected to have.  I sit on the fence on this subject as in my time I have come across coaches who have all the badges under the sun but have never played the game and are therefore clueless to match situation sessions.  Regardless of that, the biggest problem with the coaching scheme is the prices to take the courses and the inconsistancy of prices.  For level one, the Berks and Bucks changes £155, Surrey £150 and Hampshire £100. 

I have considered doing the courses, but trying to justify to my wife spending that amount for no benefit other than a certificate is an arguement I (and probably others) will always lose.

 

TC, your course costs can be covered by grants from various organistions so should never really be a factor in deciding whether to do it or not ! 

 

 

Of course, it has to be financially viable for teams to participate and maybe getting a sponsor to subsidise the cost of 3 officials would help.

 

Or maybe getting the up and coming U21 match officials to officiate these games funded by the FA as part of their personal development programme ? 

[Chris Clapham]

Some very interesting points expressed both for and against so far and it's a subject where nobody will actually be right or wrong because every club's infrastructure is different so what's good for one club might not be so good for another one.

 

We would be interested in an U21's league rather than reserve team football as we see it as a natural progression from U18's level though to senior football whereas reserve team football in our experience is so varied in the age range that clubs put out that sometimes you could be up against a team of late 20's early 30's aged players or even in the case of 1st team postponements a full first team which is of no learning value whatsoever to players in the U21 bracket. 

 

However we do have some misgivings in that costs need to be looked at in terms of travelling and the logistics of doing so as many U21's either can't afford to drive or haven't learnt yet and also that many players in that age group actually work on Saturdays so for those very reasons any U21 league would for us have to be locally based and play midweek fixtures.  No disprespect to the Croydons and Horleys of this world but we would rather be -playing the likes of Ascot, Bracknell, Holyport, Binfield, etc as they're more local and because of that you should get bigger attendances which would help offset the costs involved.  The other issue with Saturdays is that 9 of our current 1st team squad are under 21 so they're likely to be involved with the 1st team on matchdays which would mean including more of the U18's in the side or having U21's that we know won't be good enough to progress ! 

 

I wonder if any non CCL clubs would be interested joining (if allowed)?

 

We have a club policy of promoting young players to the 1st team wherever possible and any scheme which will help these players develop must be good in the long term as 8 of our current 1st team squad aged 21 or over progressed through U18's football with our current manager and couple that with the 9 current U21's and you have a picture of how the progression of younger players can be done although we'll be the first to admit that age and their lack of experience can lead to costly mistakes in games which for us is another reason why an U21 league would be viable to provide that game-day experience for the younger lads. The proposal to allow 4 'over age' players also allows returning injured players to get game time under their belts as well as giving unused squad players some match fitness so in conclusion it's a yes for us but with some misgivings !  

 

As I said in opening though what's good for us isn't necessarily good for someone else therefore each club will have to make their decisions based on their own circumstances.  

[Smudge]

1966,you pick out 2 Players from a different era to make your point.Suprised you did not mention Chris Smalling(Maidstone) to Man Utd.Stefan Payne(Croydon/Sutton)to Fulham.You mention schools having a qualified coach at every school,do they not need the facilities first?Like everything in this Country,the powers that be never listen to sensible ideas put forward.A local school  near me Whitgift School has excellent coaches,and excellent facilities for the few select youngsters,Victor Moses was one of the beneficiaries,not because he was brainy,but he had excellent Football potential.You knock the parents for their ideas,but how would these u9s/u16s get to training for the pro clubs in the first place,without their parents putting their hands in their pocket, plus not forgetting the time and commitment to do this.Final question to you,do you make living out of your Football involvement.I know an Arsenal Scout who has for over 12 years done so.Running an Academy makes you a mint,whereas running an U21 League,will cost Decent Non Profit Making CCL Sides a small fortune.

[Smudge]

 

that was a long time ago 1066 I think you could even pass the ball back to the keeper then,now move forward 30 odd years and the scouts have learnt a lot since those days old chap

 

Duncs made me laugh.DUNCS WILLiam the CONQUERerer

Edited November 8, 2013 by Smudge

[duncs]

some excellent posts which are mainly in favour of this league,I however am very against it as we seem to be moving away from the main focus at every club which is the 1st team,if there is extra money available then it should be ploughed in the 1st teams direction,you seem to all be forgetting the idea is to move onwards and upwards and out of this league as quickly as possible,for some this has taken years but for others thier hear one minute then gone the next and not because they have a good reserve team or a good u/21 team but because the clubs focus is solely the 1st team IMO.

[1966]

1966,you pick out 2 Players from a different era to make your point.Suprised you did not mention Chris Smalling(Maidstone) to Man Utd.Stefan Payne(Croydon/Sutton)to Fulham.You mention schools having a qualified coach at every school,do they not need the facilities first?Like everything in this Country,the powers that be never listen to sensible ideas put forward.A local school  near me Whitgift School has excellent coaches,and excellent facilities for the few select youngsters,Victor Moses was one of the beneficiaries,not because he was brainy,but he had excellent Football potential.You knock the parents for their ideas,but how would these u9s/u16s get to training for the pro clubs in the first place,without their parents putting their hands in their pocket, plus not forgetting the time and commitment to do this.Final question to you,do you make living out of your Football involvement.I know an Arsenal Scout who has for over 12 years done so.Running an Academy makes you a mint,whereas running an U21 League,will cost Decent Non Profit Making CCL Sides a small fortune.

 

 

1966,you pick out 2 Players from a different era to make your point.Suprised you did not mention Chris Smalling(Maidstone) to Man Utd.Stefan Payne(Croydon/Sutton)to Fulham.You mention schools having a qualified coach at every school,do they not need the facilities first?Like everything in this Country,the powers that be never listen to sensible ideas put forward.A local school  near me Whitgift School has excellent coaches,and excellent facilities for the few select youngsters,Victor Moses was one of the beneficiaries,not because he was brainy,but he had excellent Football potential.You knock the parents for their ideas,but how would these u9s/u16s get to training for the pro clubs in the first place,without their parents putting their hands in their pocket, plus not forgetting the time and commitment to do this.Final question to you,do you make living out of your Football involvement.I know an Arsenal Scout who has for over 12 years done so.Running an Academy makes you a mint,whereas running an U21 League,will cost Decent Non Profit Making CCL Sides a small fortune.

Smudge, Ive picked 2 players that are the most successful late developers in this country to make a point about not giving up trying after 16.

 

I'm not aware of too many schools without a sportshall or playing fields or access to them. Although I am certain you will find one. Whitgift sounds like a forward thinking school, they have excellent coaches which was my point. I'm glad we agree on that point.

 

To clarify my point on parents, every boy within an Academy environment attends voluntary. The decision to join is a big one and has major time and financial commitments for all involved. I have always explained the commitments to parents and players on their enrolment evenings.

 

However, I can speak with experience that all the time the player is progressing well parents are happy with the time and financial commitments. When the going gets tough, which for every player it will, they give up too quickly, and its everyone else's fault. However, like I said, every player I have offered development support to has accepted it, only for some of the parents to decline, often with a torrent of verbal abuse.

 

My point is if we listen to the experts these players may well develop into excellent players and find a role that suits them, rather than dropping out of the system after 5 or 6 years in some cases. Now, to use a line a colleague of mine uses, "if i was a swimming coach and told you your son couldn't swim, would you still insist on me throwing him into the deep end?"

 

Yes its my job, so I do expect to be paid. 

 

Fact, running an Academy does not make a profit. The FA fund Cat 3 clubs £290k ( following a successful audit). A Cat 3 Academy has to have an Academy Manager, Senior Professional Development Coach,Youth Development Coach, Foundation Phase Coach,  Physio, Sports Scientist full time and age group coaches for Under 9s -16s part time roles. Some clubs then have to hire training facilities, so after wages and pitch hire costs, most clubs go into the red. Sponsorship is harder to come by as Im sure you are all aware so the clubs have to fund the shortfall.  Many clubs are no longer able to afford to run Academy's and have closed theirs or run a Cat 4 Academy only. So believe me, the smaller pro clubs are in a similar boat as many non league clubs. 

 

The CCL is a fantastic league with fantastic clubs and has a great reputation, which is why you'll often find coaches at the midweek games or on a rare weekend off.

 

I still think an Under 21 league is a great idea. Young players bring friends and families, they buy a cuppa. Charge a minimum gate cost to cover officials and lights. i think you'll be surprised at how many coaches would be interested in working with these players.

 

Thanks for the debate Smudge, brightened up my day.

Edited November 8, 2013 by 1966

[Smudge]

1966,running academy does not make a Profit? Thats because they are run by Greedy Individuals who are not in it for the love of the game,but to line their own pockets.To run a Club at CCL Level costs say £20k per season,hardly £290k for 7 staff,pitch hire,Officials.Most Managers/Coaches at CCL Level do it for free,unlike Academy Coaches,who my guess ring a Club before going to a game,so as to get Free Admission.

[1966]

Smudge, have a great weekend. As greedy individuals that earn so much out of football and put very little back into the game we can afford to pay to get in.

 

As it's career I'd expect a salary. I'm sure even you get paid for working.

 

I do enjoy a professional discussion about the future of the game !!!

 

I'll be joining friends on Tuesday evening watching a game in the CCL, as I said before I have the upmost respect for the league and all the good work being

done by so many people.

[Krooner]

I'm not sure where you get this idea from. There's been loads of FF money in neighbouring boroughs, some of which are 'more affluent' than Surrey Heath. Eversley & California were the recipients of the biggest grant the FF have ever awarded. That's not exactly deprived is it?

 

The Ryman League now has a midweek U21 league. Maybe that's an option for some clubs? They've relaxed their rules on who they let into their U18 divisions in recent years so I expect they'd be open to applications for the U21 league as well.

I get that idea for the fact that the Football Foundation now have someone looking into investing in areas deemed "Affluent" after a self acknowledgment that for a long time they have for the majority of time only invested in "Deprived" areas.  This I know for a fact.

[VPCTFC]

I get that idea for the fact that the Football Foundation now have someone looking into investing in areas deemed "Affluent" after a self acknowledgment that for a long time they have for the majority of time only invested in "Deprived" areas.  This I know for a fact.

 

 

Their own newsletters and yearly reports say differently. One of them said that 40% of their money goes to 'deprived' areas.

More projects have been funded in the South East than anywhere else in the country and it's the smallest geographic area. I'm only saying this because I know there was some discontent in the past that the FF was handing out more money down here than in other areas. It was announced in October that the next three years funding will have more of an emphasis on deprived areas so that says something. I know it's just playing with numbers and we can twist stats to suit our own purposes but plenty of clubs in wealthy parts of Surrey, Hampshire & Berkshire have received funding so it is possible to get money if your application is strong enough but, like all these things, they don't just throw money around willy nilly. Unless you're Farnborough!

[Krooner]

Their own newsletters and yearly reports say differently. One of them said that 40% of their money goes to 'deprived' areas.

More projects have been funded in the South East than anywhere else in the country and it's the smallest geographic area. I'm only saying this because I know there was some discontent in the past that the FF was handing out more money down here than in other areas. It was announced in October that the next three years funding will have more of an emphasis on deprived areas so that says something. I know it's just playing with numbers and we can twist stats to suit our own purposes but plenty of clubs in wealthy parts of Surrey, Hampshire & Berkshire have received funding so it is possible to get money if your application is strong enough but, like all these things, they don't just throw money around willy nilly. Unless you're Farnborough!

Indeed you can VP.  Feel free to point to FF funded project in Surrey Heath.