Villa the potential English version of Barcelona!!

[Mazrim]

No of course not. Selling our best young players is in complete contrast to a policy of developing a strong side by our own means. In that situation we would just refuse any offers. We have enough clout to. Of course, it would depend on who it was, how vital they are and what the deal was.

Crewe aren't trying to produce a team to compete at the hghest levels. We are.
It's the only way to compete for us. Otherwise we would have to compete with the likes of Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea and whoever for the best players and thats not likely to come off well for us is it?
So it leaves us one path and fortunately, its a path we're already paving handsomely.

Unfortunately, when we've sold our best two players, two years running, it doesn't bode that well for holding onto people.  As things stand, we absolutely don't have the financial clout to refuse big offers.

They werent our best youth players. And yes, we do have enough financial clout to refuse offers that dont suit us.
If the player then kicks up a fuss it's our policy to move them on when it suits us. Obviously we need to make sure players, especially ones we've spent years bringing through, dont feel like they want to leave us.
Other teams manage it.

[pauliewalnuts]

No of course not. Selling our best young players is in complete contrast to a policy of developing a strong side by our own means. In that situation we would just refuse any offers. We have enough clout to. Of course, it would depend on who it was, how vital they are and what the deal was.

Crewe aren't trying to produce a team to compete at the hghest levels. We are.
It's the only way to compete for us. Otherwise we would have to compete with the likes of Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea and whoever for the best players and thats not likely to come off well for us is it?
So it leaves us one path and fortunately, its a path we're already paving handsomely.

Unfortunately, when we've sold our best two players, two years running, it doesn't bode that well for holding onto people.  As things stand, we absolutely don't have the financial clout to refuse big offers.

They werent our best youth players. And yes, we do have enough financial clout to refuse offers that dont suit us.
If the player then kicks up a fuss it's our policy to move them on when it suits us. Obviously we need to make sure players, especially ones we've spent years bringing through, dont feel like they want to leave us.
Other teams manage it.

Isn't that all a bit hopeful, though?

We have a policy of not selling players unless the offer suits us ... OK

but, if the player then kicks up a fuss, we move them on when it suits us ... which is pretty soon after the player kicks up a fuss, which tends to be when an offer comes in.

The end result is the same, the player goes. It's fine having a policy of not selling - in the sense of not being an active selling club, one that developers or buys to sell, like Wigan, for example - but it is a totally different thing thinking we can withstand the same pressures which lead to almost every other club having to sell when another club offers more money.

[peter w]

Its not easy to keep your better youth players when you're not offering chances of winning medals, and then the very top honours. Also if anyone thinks we're not a selling club to the top clubs then they are also deluded. it doesn't mean we are a selling club in terms of finances, but more in terms of pecking order.

It wasn't the likes of Stoke or Sunderland taking our best players but Man City. And like it or not they are above us in teh pecking order in terms of success, or perceived success. I don't believe Bent moved for money but he thought he had a better long-term chance of winning something with us than Sunderland. proving that despite position we are above them, perhaps, in the pecking order - although this season will narrow that hugely.

[Mazrim]

I dont see any point in worrying who's going to come in for our best youth players. They wouldnt be worth big money until they been successful for us first anyway.
The aim is to produce the best players and after that you have to trust the powers that be to do the right thing.

Now, are we producing the best players to make money from or to be successful? I'm willing to bet heavily that it's the latter.

[not3bad]

Or are we just bringing the younger players through to the first team quicker, because it is cheaper than buying players and paying them big money contracts, enabling us to sell off the high earners,  therefore maximising profits and AVFC the franchise is successful.

That would be a high risk strategy to say the least, not that there is a strategy without risk.  My take on it would be to enjoy the success of the youth team, hope they are given a chance but don't put too much expectation on them.

As for Graham Fenton, chanting his name certainly shut up the Newcastle fans at one memorable away match!

[LeeS]

Bringing youth through will be even more important when the new European rules on club finances come in. If we are ahead of the game when that happens then it will give is a chance to bridge the gap.

Which ever way you look at it, I'd rather have a top performing Academy than a failing one. Even if the 'only' benefit is financial profit throough selling them on.

[Beijing Villan]

We have a policy of not selling players unless the offer suits us ... OK

but, if the player then kicks up a fuss, we move them on when it suits us ... which is pretty soon after the player kicks up a fuss, which tends to be when an offer comes in.

Paulie - I share your frustration at selling our best/better players (especially Milner), but the situation with Man City was highly unusual. They have been able to offer silly money to any player they choose and follow that up with crazy money on transfer fees. No club has been able to say no once their player has been turned by the notion of wheelbarrows of cash.

On a more general note, having a highly successful academy can only be a good thing for us. As others have said, sometimes we will reap financial benefits and sometimes we will reap player benefits.

[KevinGage]

although tbf risso, neither did liverpool or man utd when it came to torres and ronaldo respectively...

its unfortunate when players want to leave, but all we can do when that happens is to get the best deal for them...

Whilst that's true in the case of Man U (and Arsenal to a certain extent, with Adebayor and Toure), it doesn't seem quite so bad if you're still challenging for trophies and qualifying for CL. Those sides could make a decent argument to say they haven't been too adversely affected by taking advantage of a business opportunity.

Where we are slightly different is that selling Barry and Milner has  impacted on our status as one of the sides challenging in and around 4th. Both deals made a degree of financial sense at the time, but the simple fact of the matter is we didn't have the depth of squad to work around losing two players of that calibre.

[cdward]

Are we seeing the emergence of the youth team players in the first team because they are good enough or because they represent better value for money,
Of course, I am playing devils advocate by saying this, but it seems convenient that suddenly the academy and youth team players is where it's at, and older experienced more expensive players are now considered surplus to requirements.
The younger players need to be blended into a team.  Players like Hogg, Herd, Baker, Lichaj, Lowry, are not ready yet, and their inexperience may cost us.
I can't help but think that this strategy, as well as selling off the big earners, will provide a quick fix solution to the balancing the wages to turnover ratio problem.

[hartman_1982]

Are we seeing the emergence of the youth team players in the first team because they are good enough or because they represent better value for money,
Of course, I am playing devils advocate by saying this, but it seems convenient that suddenly the academy and youth team players is where it's at, and older experienced more expensive players are now considered surplus to requirements.
The younger players need to be blended into a team.  Players like Hogg, Herd, Baker, Lichaj, Lowry, are not ready yet, and their inexperience may cost us.
I can't help but think that this strategy, as well as selling off the big earners, will provide a quick fix solution to the balancing the wages to turnover ratio problem.

We have been moaning for ages that our youngsters don't seem to get a chance and I am delighted that they are at the moment. The key is getting the balance right. I would much prefer Lichaj to be an emergency full back than Beye who is on £40,000 a week. Even the top clubs do this and I think we were in a league only with Man City before where we played players stupid amounts of money to come in and not get anywhere near the matchday squad.

[Chris Smith]

Having a top class youth setup, on it's own, will not gurantee anything but it gives you a better chance than if you didn't have one.

[Gaztonniller]

The thing with this is two best domestic examples of recent years are Man Utd and West Ham.  The difference between the two was that Man Utd brought their lot into a sucessful side (likes of Schmichael, Keane, Cantona) and then bought on top of it (Yorke, Cole, Stam).  West Ham didn't and the kids eventually got bought off by the big boys.

How successful we are with them and how long we keep them for is dependent on what we do alongside the emerging youth.

Your point seems to reflect this http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,708220,00.html  except Ajax were'nt receiving the kind of monies Villa currently recieve from just being in the Premier league.

[pablopicasso_10]

although tbf risso, neither did liverpool or man utd when it came to torres and ronaldo respectively...

its unfortunate when players want to leave, but all we can do when that happens is to get the best deal for them...

Whilst that's true in the case of Man U (and Arsenal to a certain extent, with Adebayor and Toure), it doesn't seem quite so bad if you're still challenging for trophies and qualifying for CL. Those sides could make a decent argument to say they haven't been too adversely affected by taking advantage of a business opportunity.

Where we are slightly different is that selling Barry and Milner has  impacted on our status as one of the sides challenging in and around 4th. Both deals made a degree of financial sense at the time, but the simple fact of the matter is we didn't have the depth of squad to work around losing two players of that calibre.

as the gareth barry situation has proven, unfortunately, we would have been affected either way, as his performances were not the same after he wanted to leave...

best to cut losses and replace...

again, unfortunately, when barry was replaced with milner (and he performed better than barry), milner then wanted to leave, and the situation arose where we tried to replace milner when he wanted to leave with ireland... that didnt work out...

i dont think man utd have replaced ronaldo, yet arsenal replaced anelka...

swings and roundabouts...