Macauley Bonne in today's papers

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Koroma and Bonne were fair deals, their value to us was finishing the season and getting us promoted. Fees were reasonable given the situation. Ekpiteta situation is frustrating but even then we had 2 good seasons out of a player who cost us very little.

It's the academy that's a waste of time financially as even T&T admitted. Put in all the effort and get nothing in return.

Ahh did you miss the bit where it pays for itself over a ten year life cycle. Listening to the talk I’d suggest that the plan is to reduce down the life cycle to a lower number say maybe three years or less making it more sustainable and a contribution to the income stream of the club.

What is the difference between it paying for itself over a 10 year cycle or a 3 year cycle?

[Thor]

Instead of making lots of losses you minimise them down, doh! Then the system will pay for itself and contribute in A positive net cash effect than a current negative net cash operation.

[Real Al]

Instead of making lots of losses you minimise them down, doh! Then the system will pay for itself and contribute in A positive net cash effect than a current negative net cash operation.

Fine words.

Every one of those is a fine word. It's just when you put them altogether...

[gshaw]

Koroma and Bonne were fair deals, their value to us was finishing the season and getting us promoted. Fees were reasonable given the situation. Ekpiteta situation is frustrating but even then we had 2 good seasons out of a player who cost us very little.

It's the academy that's a waste of time financially as even T&T admitted. Put in all the effort and get nothing in return.

Ahh did you miss the bit where it pays for itself over a ten year life cycle. Listening to the talk I’d suggest that the plan is to reduce down the life cycle to a lower number say maybe three years or less making it more sustainable and a contribution to the income stream of the club. Look at Brentfords buy and sell policy, it’s just we’d do it with our own home grown players.

Pays for itself, so over 10 years it just about breaks even. The players don't stay now so what's the point? Keeping the "community club" image for what good that does us

As I say imagine what the same sum invested in young pros like Bonne and Ekpiteta would generate over that same period. You get them for minimum 2 years or get a nice chunky transfer fee. Beats investing in academy all ends up imo.

[DuvB]

Koroma and Bonne were fair deals, their value to us was finishing the season and getting us promoted. Fees were reasonable given the situation. Ekpiteta situation is frustrating but even then we had 2 good seasons out of a player who cost us very little.

It's the academy that's a waste of time financially as even T&T admitted. Put in all the effort and get nothing in return.

Ahh did you miss the bit where it pays for itself over a ten year life cycle. Listening to the talk I’d suggest that the plan is to reduce down the life cycle to a lower number say maybe three years or less making it more sustainable and a contribution to the income stream of the club. Look at Brentfords buy and sell policy, it’s just we’d do it with our own home grown players.

Pays for itself, so over 10 years it just about breaks even. The players don't stay now so what's the point? Keeping the "community club" image for what good that does us

As I say imagine what the same sum invested in young pros like Bonne and Ekpiteta would generate over that same period. You get them for minimum 2 years or get a nice chunky transfer fee. Beats investing in academy all ends up imo.

I cannot believe the Board have not looked at the financial analysis of this aspect.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Instead of making lots of losses you minimise them down, doh! Then the system will pay for itself and contribute in A positive net cash effect than a current negative net cash operation.

If it pays for itself over a 10 year cycle, this means the income derived - from selling youth products, namely that 1 big star - meets the costs over the 10 year period.

If we were to make it pay for itself over a 3 year cycle, this merely means the income over the 3 year period meets the costs over the 3 years.

There’s no difference over a 10 year period. It’s still breaking even.

[Sid Bishop]

Changes in the way the game is now, contracts etc, makes we wonder as a small club in Division 2 ( especially with the uncertainty due to the virus ) as to if having the current Youth academy set up is any longer a viable concept. My sentimental heart is undecided, my head says save the money spent on the youth and instead use it shrewdly to get in young pros like Bonne and Ekpiteta. Final verdict..........my head wins !

[gshaw]

Ahh did you miss the bit where it pays for itself over a ten year life cycle. Listening to the talk I’d suggest that the plan is to reduce down the life cycle to a lower number say maybe three years or less making it more sustainable and a contribution to the income stream of the club. Look at Brentfords buy and sell policy, it’s just we’d do it with our own home grown players.

Pays for itself, so over 10 years it just about breaks even. The players don't stay now so what's the point? Keeping the "community club" image for what good that does us

As I say imagine what the same sum invested in young pros like Bonne and Ekpiteta would generate over that same period. You get them for minimum 2 years or get a nice chunky transfer fee. Beats investing in academy all ends up imo.

I cannot believe the Board have not looked at the financial analysis of this aspect.

As per the interview they have but referred to "other benefits" without saying exactly what they were. Whether that's only the fluffy "family club / community club" stuff and they get a warm fuzzy feeling by young players making career elsewhere or there's something more tangible is up for debate.

Go back 10-20 years and the likes of Zakuani yes you could make an argument for a good academy but post-Beelzebub which seemed to coincide with EPPP and youth players' agents getting even more pushy it doesn't look good value now.

[PoliticOs]

As per the interview they have but referred to "other benefits" without saying exactly what they were. Whether that's only the fluffy "family club / community club" stuff and they get a warm fuzzy feeling by young players making career elsewhere or there's something more tangible is up for debate.

Go back 10-20 years and the likes of Zakuani yes you could make an argument for a good academy but post-Beelzebub which seemed to coincide with EPPP and youth players' agents getting even more pushy it doesn't look good value now.

But the warm, fuzzy feeling you're being dismissive of does actually count for something. I know it winds fans up but being 'London's 2nd club' has been worth millions to Orient over the decades I'm sure if you stack it all up. Plus sponsors like the youth angle and I'd imagine a good academy being attractive to good potential managers too.

That aside it is important to remember those that stay and play, not just those that play and go. Youth to pro contracts will be cheaper on average than signing players from elsewhere and first and second contract lower league pros are on very little money. So it is a way of bringing in players without a transfer fee involved that are hungry enough to sign for little money.

Using this season as an example, across Sargeant (17), Ling (18), Judd (13), Happe (37), Sweeney (1), Kyprianou (8), Ogie (3), Sotiriou (11) that is over 100 appearances in first team games this season from players we've developed.

It's easy to just think about who we sell but ultimately we're creating players to play for Orient at first team level. We do that very regularly. It serves its purpose beyond just eventually breaking even.

[gshaw]

Using this season as an example, across Sargeant (17), Ling (18), Judd (13), Happe (37), Sweeney (1), Kyprianou (8), Ogie (3), Sotiriou (11) that is over 100 appearances in first team games this season from players we've developed.

Of those the only two are performing consistently at a decent level; one wants out and the other has under a year left before also likely leaving on the cheap (January I think will be likely if an offer doesn't come in during pre-season).

The others are cheap squad filler but again you could do that with loans or even young pros for what the academy costs in coaches etc. Contrast to what's gone out the door it's quite telling really, Orient doing the hard work for the likes of Leeds, Norwich, Brighton, Southampton and so on.

Alazate, Abrahams, Dalby, Semedo, Adeboyejo, Obafemi, Koroma, Perkins just off top of head.

Ultimately though I get the impression for many at Orient that the whole community / "family" thing comes second to the purpose of winning football matches and being successful on the pitch so can't ever seeing the club making a pragmatic but unpopular choice even if the numbers don't stack up.

[PoliticOs]

You have so much negativity blindness it must be unreal. Sargeant, Judd, Happe, Kyprianiou and Soririou have all been either good, average or the potential to be good. 2 of those have attracted Championship interest.

Of the others you listed 7 of the 8 played for us. That is the point.

Not having a pop but I honestly feel bad for you. Must be so stressful feeling this way!

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

As per the interview they have but referred to "other benefits" without saying exactly what they were. Whether that's only the fluffy "family club / community club" stuff and they get a warm fuzzy feeling by young players making career elsewhere or there's something more tangible is up for debate.

Go back 10-20 years and the likes of Zakuani yes you could make an argument for a good academy but post-Beelzebub which seemed to coincide with EPPP and youth players' agents getting even more pushy it doesn't look good value now.

But the warm, fuzzy feeling you're being dismissive of does actually count for something. I know it winds fans up but being 'London's 2nd club' has been worth millions to Orient over the decades I'm sure if you stack it all up. Plus sponsors like the youth angle and I'd imagine a good academy being attractive to good potential managers too.

That aside it is important to remember those that stay and play, not just those that play and go. Youth to pro contracts will be cheaper on average than signing players from elsewhere and first and second contract lower league pros are on very little money. So it is a way of bringing in players without a transfer fee involved that are hungry enough to sign for little money.

Using this season as an example, across Sargeant (17), Ling (18), Judd (13), Happe (37), Sweeney (1), Kyprianou (8), Ogie (3), Sotiriou (11) that is over 100 appearances in first team games this season from players we've developed.

It's easy to just think about who we sell but ultimately we're creating players to play for Orient at first team level. We do that very regularly. It serves its purpose beyond just eventually breaking even.

Sponsors couldn’t give a toss about our youth system.

Incoming managers neither. They’d much rather know we had £200,000 a year or whatever the cost is to spend on players.

Of the players you listed, Happe is the only one who has consistently played a part in our team. Sarge was in because of injury to our goalkeeping coach brill and replaced as soon as we could bring in someone, Ling was released so can hardly be included as one of our youth team successes, Judd has been mid-managed for years and should be looking to get out to a club where he’s respected, Ruel is about to walk out on us.

There is definitely a financial argument to be had to shutting it down and spending the money on hoovering up young prospects from below like Marvin, or higher league U23 cast offs like
Ebou.

[Confucius]

You have so much negativity blindness it must be unreal. Sargeant, Judd, Happe, Kyprianiou and Soririou have all been either good, average or the potential to be good. 2 of those have attracted Championship interest.

Of the others you listed 7 of the 8 played for us. That is the point.

Not having a pop but I honestly feel bad for you. Must be so stressful feeling this way!

32A2C145-FC35-46C9-819D-09ED0C102108.jpeg (88.5 KiB) Viewed 396 times

[Sid Bishop]

As per the interview they have but referred to "other benefits" without saying exactly what they were. Whether that's only the fluffy "family club / community club" stuff and they get a warm fuzzy feeling by young players making career elsewhere or there's something more tangible is up for debate.

Go back 10-20 years and the likes of Zakuani yes you could make an argument for a good academy but post-Beelzebub which seemed to coincide with EPPP and youth players' agents getting even more pushy it doesn't look good value now.

But the warm, fuzzy feeling you're being dismissive of does actually count for something. I know it winds fans up but being 'London's 2nd club' has been worth millions to Orient over the decades I'm sure if you stack it all up. Plus sponsors like the youth angle and I'd imagine a good academy being attractive to good potential managers too.

That aside it is important to remember those that stay and play, not just those that play and go. Youth to pro contracts will be cheaper on average than signing players from elsewhere and first and second contract lower league pros are on very little money. So it is a way of bringing in players without a transfer fee involved that are hungry enough to sign for little money.

Using this season as an example, across Sargeant (17), Ling (18), Judd (13), Happe (37), Sweeney (1), Kyprianou (8), Ogie (3), Sotiriou (11) that is over 100 appearances in first team games this season from players we've developed.

It's easy to just think about who we sell but ultimately we're creating players to play for Orient at first team level. We do that very regularly. It serves its purpose beyond just eventually breaking even.

Sponsors couldn’t give a toss about our youth system.

Incoming managers neither. They’d much rather know we had £200,000 a year or whatever the cost is to spend on players.

Of the players you listed, Happe is the only one who has consistently played a part in our team. Sarge was in because of injury to our goalkeeping coach brill and replaced as soon as we could bring in someone, Ling was released so can hardly be included as one of our youth team successes, Judd has been mid-managed for years and should be looking to get out to a club where he’s respected, Ruel is about to walk out on us.

There is definitely a financial argument to be had to shutting it down and spending the money on hoovering up young prospects from below like Marvin, or higher league U23 cast offs like
Ebou.

I agree.

[Beradogs]

There is a good argument that having youth set ups now is actually detrimental to performance. Never mind the cost and the likelihood it doesn’t cover itself. Think about it, it stops you having the ability to build a team for the future. You play a talented kid and he does well then it is almost certain he will be off within 18 months. Then you have to go out and fill his position again. Rinse and repeat. It is virtually impossible now to do a Wimbledon and run through the divisions with the same team that are mostly made up of how grown players. You are better off putting all the money into scouting players of 25-28 who have something about them. Vincelot a good example. He drove our team and would have held his own in the championship as well but there was never any real likelihood somebody would buy him because of his age. The club like the youth set up for the community aspect etc but I would rather a winning team.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

There is a good argument that having youth set ups now is actually detrimental to performance. Never mind the cost and the likelihood it doesn’t cover itself. Think about it, it stops you having the ability to build a team for the future. You play a talented kid and he does well then it is almost certain he will be off within 18 months. Then you have to go out and fill his position again. Rinse and repeat. It is virtually impossible now to do a Wimbledon and run through the divisions with the same team that are mostly made up of how grown players. You are better off putting all the money into scouting players of 25-28 who have something about them. Vincelot a good example. He drove our team and would have held his own in the championship as well but there was never any real likelihood somebody would buy him because of his age. The club like the youth set up for the community aspect etc but I would rather a winning team.

No.

Buying players at their peak is not a financially viable way to run a club.

We need to bring in younger players.

[Beradogs]

Everyone does that and wants to find the next young superstar and fine, we can try and do that when we are in the championship. If he is good why is he going to come to us anyway? Right now we should get a team together with a 5 year plan that barring injuries they stay together. It’s then up the coach and management staff, of which we have a plethora of, to do the job they are payed to do.

[AckneyAwks]

Since i have followed football from the early sixties i have always believed in the policy of clubs operating with a apprenteship/accademy/youth system or whatever you want to name it.
It may be a old fashion belief but to see a young person being trained and developed into a proffesional person of talent by senior members of staff within our club gives me a enormous ammount of excitement and pride in our abilities to actually produce someting home grown. When they then reach first team level and eventually move on to a higher level of thier proffession such as premier or international level, there is not a greater satisfaction than being able to say, my club produced that footballer.
The same principal and beliefs that apply to other buisinesses in producing highly skilled young people who go on hopefully to have a enhanced and fulfilling future.
Not sure how long it has been but the club does not even have regular competetive reserve team football which is another detriment to the club and the game itself. The thought of a football club that i support just running with a first team and nothing beneath it growing, developing and more importantally employing people leaves me saddened.
Obviously in the current financial world i can see all the other sides points of view but it's not one i share. Long live youth developement at Leyton Orient.

[PoliticOs]

As per the interview they have but referred to "other benefits" without saying exactly what they were. Whether that's only the fluffy "family club / community club" stuff and they get a warm fuzzy feeling by young players making career elsewhere or there's something more tangible is up for debate.

Go back 10-20 years and the likes of Zakuani yes you could make an argument for a good academy but post-Beelzebub which seemed to coincide with EPPP and youth players' agents getting even more pushy it doesn't look good value now.

But the warm, fuzzy feeling you're being dismissive of does actually count for something. I know it winds fans up but being 'London's 2nd club' has been worth millions to Orient over the decades I'm sure if you stack it all up. Plus sponsors like the youth angle and I'd imagine a good academy being attractive to good potential managers too.

That aside it is important to remember those that stay and play, not just those that play and go. Youth to pro contracts will be cheaper on average than signing players from elsewhere and first and second contract lower league pros are on very little money. So it is a way of bringing in players without a transfer fee involved that are hungry enough to sign for little money.

Using this season as an example, across Sargeant (17), Ling (18), Judd (13), Happe (37), Sweeney (1), Kyprianou (8), Ogie (3), Sotiriou (11) that is over 100 appearances in first team games this season from players we've developed.

It's easy to just think about who we sell but ultimately we're creating players to play for Orient at first team level. We do that very regularly. It serves its purpose beyond just eventually breaking even.

Sponsors couldn’t give a toss about our youth system.

Incoming managers neither. They’d much rather know we had £200,000 a year or whatever the cost is to spend on players.

Of the players you listed, Happe is the only one who has consistently played a part in our team. Sarge was in because of injury to our goalkeeping coach brill and replaced as soon as we could bring in someone, Ling was released so can hardly be included as one of our youth team successes, Judd has been mid-managed for years and should be looking to get out to a club where he’s respected, Ruel is about to walk out on us.

There is definitely a financial argument to be had to shutting it down and spending the money on hoovering up young prospects from below like Marvin, or higher league U23 cast offs like
Ebou.

Then why do they keep sponsoring it?

Your second paragraph backs up my point, not diminishes it. You see that right? You're basically agreeing Happe plays, Judd and Ruel could and should have played more/better and Sarge has been helpful to have on the books - that's then four players in the current team that could or should be playing regularly. Out of 11 places in the team that's not bad going for producing players to play regularly for us.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Sponsors will sponsor anything the club offers up. Do you really think people care about the roof of the West Stand, or James Brophy's socks, or whatever else Macklin can stick a logo on?

I have not said that four players should be playing regularly, nothing of the sort. Even if I had, the fact of the matter is that successive management regimes have overlooked the 'kids' and only used them as cover, opting for 'experience' time and time again. If we were regularly playing 4 youth team products in our first team then of course it would be a totally different argument. But we don't.

[PoliticOs]

It depends, but sometimes, yeah. Youth development being an easier sell than James Brophy's zooming socks.

OK, but you saw the amount of appearances I listed from the players in question, over 100 in a half complete season. I'd say that is pretty regular and has been common he whole time I've watched Orient. Every year we do that and more, so we are producing players of League Two standard at least very regularly. Sometimes we produce players of Premier League and International standard and it pays for the rest. I'm not even suggesting that its a clear cut case for an Academy, but its not clear cut to bin it either.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Happe did well to turn out 37 appearances in a half complete season.

We played 42 games last season. Multiply by 14 possible appearances = 588.

Of which you have listed 90 appearances below (I havent checked, I believe you) so that’s 15.3% or 1.68 squad appearances per game.

The 1 is basically Happe. The other 0.68 per game is the rest of our youth products, and mostly sub appearances. That’s not a great return.

And I’d say that’s pretty standard from my time watching Orient, you get 1 player progress from the kids, 2 if you’re lucky.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I’ve obviously excluded Ling because it’s laughable to include a player we signed from Dagenham as one of ours when we’d bombed him out.

[PoliticOs]

I don't know if its laughable to, he came through our youth system and turned professional, but I get you. Happy to take it out.

15.3%. Not bad going when you consider the other side of the coin mentioned above, those that leave for higher (or are released).

I'm not sure i'll convince you on this despite what I think is pretty good evidence and I doubt you'll do the same for me, so agree to disagree!

[Adz]

I've been saying for years the youth system doesn't make financial sense.
The really good players get picked off well before they get near the first team, and those that do make it are only league one / championship quality at best.
But there's more to it than money. It is an integral part of us being a community club.