Moderator
They aren't making money off the parents, as a couple of other users have pointed out.Originally Posted by boban
If their motivation is money, that money will be made in creating quality players that they can then send to the big team, or sell to other clubs. That benefits the team.
- Scott
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
Have you ever considered that player development and profitability may in fact be condusive to one another long term? MLSE is investing in the infrastructure of the organization at a grass roots level which will provide a pipeline of home grown talent to the first team. It is entirely possible that at some point in the future, a few academy graduates might generate interest from European clubs and command a modest transfer fee.
EDIT- I see Scott already made the point
Last edited by ManUtd4ever; 01-24-2011 at 10:33 PM.
There's always one.....
Scratch that apparently he is taking the negative angle.
I for one agree that it is a great plan. I am a tad disappointed it's taken this long but I always knew they'd get there as it was a goal since day 1.
^^ Speaking of which, whatever happened to Giambac, LOL?
If MLSE tries to get MLS to change the rules so that they are able to keep 100% of transfer fees from academy graduates then it would give the appearance of only looking to fill their pockets but right now I don't think that'd be a good investment (financially not in terms of making the team better) on their part, under the current rules.
And such a change would require a drastic change in the single entity system. Even if it was 100% it wouldn't be into the pockets of MLSE.. it would 100% going to allocation money to spend on players or facilities.
Let's not forget none of the players actually sign with Toronto FC. They sign with Major League Soccer.
Ok so, safe to say that's not the intention of MLSE then, right?
I know this is a little off-topic but I found it funny that there are still some people (like that guy who posted under the article) who seem to think there is some secret society of players out there that TFC is missing out on.
I thought we were past this kind of crap. If you're that good, go play in the CSL and tear it up. It's not like TFC can stop you from joining one of the 12 or so teams in there. There are guys like Chris Suta and Miloš Šćepanović who have done just that.
Not saying we get every player. Not saying there aren't a few talented guys who have been overlooked. But overall TFCA is running a pretty decent operation and the players we have showed their quality.
Of course it's much more fun to take the piss about how yo boys would run circles around TFCA!
Free Masons FC is being ignored dammit!
Seriously, you hit the nail on the head. Which should emphasize the need to expand TFCA down further. Development needs to be perfected at younger levels because Canada simply is not producing the talent needed to be playing at a higher level.
10, 12 yr. olds are not free. Too much of a gamble for them to be.
You have to remember this is MLSE we're talking about.
Can't compare them to 17 and 18 yr. olds.
Moderator
Sure you can. Taking in kids at ages like 10 or 12, allows professional coaches to get these kids on a proper training regiment far earlier in life, and coach out potential bugs in their game long before they become ubreakable habits.
Much better than taking in kids who are already nearly adult age, and trying to turn them into professionals after years of rec league volounteer coaches, and so on.
I think this is a great move for the Academy.
- Scott
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
Looking forward to the day when TFC can rely on its academy instead of NCAA players.
I feel like that's exactly what the top academies do, and I think that should be the goal of anyone setting up an academy, go big or go home.
Well this thread spawned the easiest ignore list add I've ever seen. That's like arguing investing in a new stadium is dumb because the return can't be seen for years. How is any investment in development at all bad? Especially when it gives children a place to play? I don't hear any complaints about the GTHL and other leagues for kids as young as 10 that not only have coaches but have separate general managers who scout and recruit talent, then have parents pay out the ASS for it. It's one reason Canada develops good hockey players. It's also a scummy world (see the story of that girl who quit her team in Hamilton because of a douchy hockey dad). Such a public investment in allowing kids to develop in an open, fair and watched system can only be good in the short and long term. If not for the club and national team (which it obviously will), for parents and kids. Which really, sport is supposed to be about.
MLS changed this in November 2010. There is no limit.
I was curious to know myself, boy is that a board name from the past, I even went to the membership list for the board to see when he last posted and could not even find him in the list, what happened, can you unregister your board name?
Remember The Man, The Legend, The Goal 5-12-07 and All That #9 Left On The Pitch, Thanks For The Memories !!!
MLS does not allow their clubs' academies to charge players or their parents. So the business model is not that of making money by selling dreams to parents (the model of a lot of independent academies in North America). Rather it is like Vancouver has done quite successfully for a number of years and a lot of clubs do around the world: get players early, develop them and sell them. Keep a number of them for the first team.
In MLS, the club gets up to $500k in cap space for every player they sell. 2/3 of any transfer fee above $750k goes to the club for MLS-approved improvements (facilities, training, etc.), 1/3 goes to the league. So there is a tremendous incentive both for each club, and also for MLS as a whole to develop players.
If your cap is say $4 million two years from now, and you sell two players for $1 million each, you can potentially have $5 million in cap space (a 25% improvement), plus $320k extra for improvements! Plus your first team can benefit by having a stream of cheap home-grown talent. That is why ML$E pouring $$$ into the academy makes a lot of sense. It's how to build a long-term winner, which means more $$$$ for ML$E.
By the way, going to an NCAA college does not mean you have to enter the draft, if you are a home-grown player. That rule changed, a while ago as well. You just have to have been sufficiently long-time in your home club's academy.
Last edited by Oldtimer; 01-25-2011 at 08:11 AM.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
Moderator
THIS.
In the very least, it just gives Toronto greater access to potential players and less dependence on the draft(s).
Did the USA , of all countries, just fix soccer? - C. Ronaldo, May 27th commenting on the FBI-led investigations into fraud and corruption throughout FIFA.
Re: "selling dreams to parents" - I think you miss the bigger picture of independent, sanctioned academies. Cost is very comparable to the Club Rep systems with a great deal more developmental advantages.
One part of this that hasn't been addressed is whether a jump from academy to first team for an 18 year old is the best option for them. Foregoing the NCAA and a College education for the sake of a league minimum 42k isn't something I would advise any player to consider.
One injury and its over with nothing to fall back on. Even a solid MLS career would net player a salary of 100 to 200k per year. Hardly set for life and with no education, the post career life could be really uncomfortable.
I guess there is always the EPL dream but realistically, it isn't going to be an option for 99% of the graduates.
I am 100% in favour of the academy model for youth development but incorporating an education has to be an end goal for players (and administrators) of an academy program.
Good decision.
Strongest technical coaches should be working with the youngest players.
If they get the kids at 10ish, when the kid hits 15 / 16, the club should know if there's potential or not. No potential, kid gets released in time to salvage an opportunity to head south on a scholy at 17 or 18 ....
Getting a kid into the academy stream at 15 is too late. As previously stated, bad habits, and "outside" coaching have to me corrected.
It will be very interesting to see how TFCA "staff/stock" these younger programs: regional youth scouts? regional TFC youth ID camps? the OSA programs?
Don't forget that college education isn't for everyone. For some people their option is a vocational school. In those cases, taking a few years out to try to be a pro soccer player is not that big a deal, you can always take your truck driving lessons later.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
Well, that's a fairly provocative way to put it, "truck driving lessons," but you're right, university isn't for everyone and the world of sports scholarships shouldn't be looked at so superficially as "good." Sure, soccer isn't at the point of football in the NCAA, but if the sport gets more popular it will likely go that way.
But vocational schools vs. college is a whole different topic (although one that doesn't get discussed enough and should).
Frei "flunked out" at Cal. Good thing Gen A came along, he wasn't academically eligible for his senior year.
Also, re: minimizing and distancing TFC from the draft.
Here's some questions to think about.
How many players do you think TFCA should produce each year?
How many players do you think TFCA will produce each year?
Will the quality of play and player improve over the next couple of years?
FYI - rep fees for Pickering are a whopping $575 per player plus regular registration $200 (last year) plus most had to pay a new winter registration fee of $125. Now add on the team budget cost for tournaments etc.
1- Ideally more than we can sign, but id be happy with 1-3 for the first few yearsHow many players do you think TFCA should produce each year?
How many players do you think TFCA will produce each year?
Will the quality of play and player improve over the next couple of years?
2- Prob about 1-3, as many as we have had in the last few years
3- absolutely, take a look at how far we've come as a league within the last 4 years. I think what we are doing with our academy will definitely put us eventually in the top 5
Really good news! Happy to see the Academy moving in the right direcftion.
Nothing wrong with truck driving lessons, so don't take it that way. My brother-in-law drove a rig to the U.S. for several years until he got into farming.
Vocations can be a real option, sometimes a better one.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
I regret wasting all those years in university almost every day. But seriously, yes, vocational schools are often (mostly?) the best option. Too bad they don't offer scholarships that could be used at a later date - let the kids go full out in athletics until they're 22-23 years old and then pay for a few years of school. And vocational schools are offering a lot more of what we used to think as college studies (I had a few professors who used to rant that, "university is not and never was job training"
).
Sir Alex started off working in the shipyards, his job was treating metal with various coatings. And then it was off to football ...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote