Quote from: Mazrim on March 10, 2011, 10:19:37 AMNo 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.
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.
Quote from: Risso on March 10, 2011, 10:59:54 AMQuote from: Mazrim on March 10, 2011, 10:19:37 AMNo 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Quote from: pablopicasso_10 on March 10, 2011, 11:03:29 AMalthough 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.