Have performances really been that bad? A statistical performative analysis. *FYI may contain stats*

[Forbury Lion]

Not reading all this thread, but my theory on the academy

We have a blip because we blooded players a year or so too early out of necessity and then sold them off also out of necessity. We also struggled to attract players for a period when we lost cat 1 status and all the uncertainty with the previous owner making us nobody's first, second or third choice.

This blip will go away once the supply of new talent comes though the system, this is assuming the level of investment in the academy remains as it was.... but if the blip means we have a year or so of players, maybe fewer players who require fewer resources then it maybe makes sense to cut the cloth accordingly.

I think being seen as a selling club that allows young talent to grow and move to bigger clubs or similar clubs to grow is a positive when it comes to attracting talent.

[fred sharpes nose]

I had some time, so...

The transfer fees I think we've received for various academy players since EPPP came in (start of 2012-13):

Code: Select all

Season	Player				To		Fee		TM-Estimate*
2014-15	McCarthy, Alex			QPR		£ 2,000,000	
2015-16	Dvali, Lasha			MSV Duisburg	        ???
2015-16	Hector, Michael			Chelsea		£ 4,000,000	
2015-16	Taylor, Jake			Exeter		£   200,000	Yes
2016-17	Tshibola, Aaron			Aston Villa	£ 5,000,000
2016-17	Semedo, Lisandro		AEZ Zakakiou	        ???
2016-17	Collins, Billy			Brighton	        ???
2016-17	Capkin, Anil			Bonner SC	        ???
2016-17	Griffin, Shane			Cork		        ???
2016-17	Scheving, Sindri		Valur		        ???
2017-18	Fosu, Tariqe			Charlton	£    25,000	Yes
2017-18	Jules, Zak			Shrewsbury	£    50,000	Yes
2017-18	Stacey, Jack			Luton		        ???
2017-18	Keown, Niall			Partick		£    25,000	Yes
2017-18	Samuel, Dominic			Blackburn	£   500,000
2017-18	Cooper, Jake			Millwall	£   400,000
2017-18	Dickie, Robert			Oxford		        ???
2018-19	Andresson, Axel			Viking		£   150,000	Yes
2019-20	Ward, Lewis			Exeter		        ???
2019-20	Hillson, James			Arsenal		        ???
2019-20	Kelly, Liam			Feyenoord	£   500,000	Yes
2019-20	Desbois, Adam			Brighton	        ???
2019-20	Novakovich, Andrija		Frosinone	£   750,000	Yes
2019-20	Barret, Josh			Bristol Rovers	£   150,000	Yes
2019-20	Nolan, Jack			Walsall		        ???
2019-20	Roberts, Myles			Watford		        ???
2019-20	Howe, Teddy			Blackpool	£    75,000	Yes
2020-21	Holsgrove, Jordan		Celta Vigo	£   100,000	Yes
2021-22	Nevers, Thierry			West Ham	£   500,000
2021-22	Olise, Michael			Crystal Palace	£ 8,370,000
2021-22	Dunbar-McDonald, Christian	Man City	        ???
2021-22	Samuels, Imari			Brighton	£    75,000	Yes
2023-24	Fletcher, Luca			Man City	£   650,000
2023-24	Rohart-Brown, Thierry		Southampton	        ???
2023-24	Jambang-Brown, Ayyuba		Ipswich		        ???
2023-24	Semakula, Eliah			Chelsea		        ???
2023-24	Frederick, Cameron		Southampton	        ???
2023-24	Homes, Tom			Luton		£   400,000
2023-24	Abbey, Nelson			Olympiacos	£   200,000
2023-24	McIntyre, Tom			Portsmouth	£    75,000
2023-24	Vickers, Caylan			Brighton	£   250,000
2023-24	Harris, Taylan			Luton		£    50,000
2024-25	Giscombe, Naeem			Brentford	        ???
2024-25	Mpofu, Cameron			Man Utd		        ???
2025-26	Garcia, Andre			Club Brugge	£   350,000
Total							£22,845,000

*Estimate is taken as half of the TransferMarkt value of the player at the time of the transfer.

The reported sell-on fees we've received in that time (we would've received payments from a lot more transfers):

Code: Select all

Season	Player				From		To		Fee		Received	Share
2019-20	Stacey, Jack			Luton		Bournemouth	£ 4,000,000	£ 1,200,000	30%
2019-20	Hector, Michael			Chelsea		Fulham		£ 8,000,000	£ 2,000,000	25%
2024-25	Olise, Michael			Crystal Palace	Bayern		£50,800,000	£ 5,080,000	10%
Total											£ 8,280,000

Adding the two together, that's £31.125m with plenty of gaps, especially in sell-on fees. I've probably missed some players too.

The gaps in direct fees are where I believe we would have received some fee for those players, but can't find a reasonable estimate. There are twenty of these. If we averaged £25,000 for them, we would've received an additional £500,000.

It's worth remembering also, the club's definition of an academy player is anyone who played for the U18s or younger. Players like Femi Azeez and Michael Craig don't count as academy players under that definition and so I haven't included in these calculations.

I haven't included Sam Smith being sold to Wrexham in 2024-25 for £2m either, due to us having re-signed him prior to that move.

Simply in terms of transfer fees, we're looking at a net expenditure-neutral operation at worst based on the £2.5m expenditure per season.

Thats makes a lot of sense - also there are some massive sales which skew the results to cost neutral.

Seems to me that a long term, forward thinking, ambitious club with maturity in its decision making (and a tidy wedge to cover the years where there is a deficit) will invest in its Academy.

A club with a shorter planning horizon may conclude its not worth the risk, especially if cash is tight, as loss making years will really hurt the back pocket. If the owners assessment is we are not going to be a high end Championship club in say 5 years, and the modus operandi is to live within means sensible etc etc would make sense to reduce the investment. Given Robs intention to flip the club and is not awash with cash - its not hard to imagine this as the outcome. Get out of the market early - sell Pork Bellies !!

[Clyde1998]

Thats makes a lot of sense - also there are some massive sales which skew the results to cost neutral.

Seems to me that a long term, forward thinking, ambitious club with maturity in its decision making (and a tidy wedge to cover the years where there is a deficit) will invest in its Academy.

A club with a shorter planning horizon may conclude its not worth the risk, especially if cash is tight, as loss making years will really hurt the back pocket. If the owners assessment is we are not going to be a high end Championship club in say 5 years, and the modus operandi is to live within means sensible etc etc would make sense to reduce the investment. Given Robs intention to flip the club and is not awash with cash - its not hard to imagine this as the outcome. Get out of the market early - sell Pork Bellies !!

The academy, and football in general, is massively fat-tailed (ie. significantly greater than expected returns at the extremes). The opposite would be thin-tailed (height for example, where the extremes aren't significantly greater than the average)

That's to say, our average sale of an academy player may be around £250,000, but you'll get a player who could be worth £10m+ (in the current market) come along every five years or so. A £10m sale could fund the academy at our current expenditure by themselves for four years.

Of course, all these figures just look at transfer fees received vs academy expenditure. Judging the economic benefit of reduced need to sign first team players due to academy players coming through; and their initial lower salaries is difficult, but would skew in favour of having the academy.

That's without the less tangible things like being able to attract better young players to the club (compared to being a lower category); the requirement to have a better level of coaching staff; etc.

I don't think you'll find many fans who think scaling back academy funding is a good idea.

[Clyde1998]

Not reading all this thread, but my theory on the academy

We have a blip because we blooded players a year or so too early out of necessity and then sold them off also out of necessity. We also struggled to attract players for a period when we lost cat 1 status and all the uncertainty with the previous owner making us nobody's first, second or third choice.

This blip will go away once the supply of new talent comes though the system, this is assuming the level of investment in the academy remains as it was.... but if the blip means we have a year or so of players, maybe fewer players who require fewer resources then it maybe makes sense to cut the cloth accordingly.

I think being seen as a selling club that allows young talent to grow and move to bigger clubs or similar clubs to grow is a positive when it comes to attracting talent.

We've lost a lot of academy players, even U16 and lower, during the past few years and struggled to sign players from other clubs (even lower category clubs) for financial and instability reasons.

There was also the issue of either rushing players through the late-development stages as we needed them in the first team squad or being prevented from sending players out on loan due to squad requirements.

We probably lost academy staff too. Even if replaced, it will cause transitional problems.

Especially as a League One club, we have to accept any young players who'll develop beyond this level has the potential to be sold to clubs in higher divisions. As long as we're getting decent fees, with sell-ons, for them, we need to accept that as the reality of a club like ours.

[stealthpapes]

Thats makes a lot of sense - also there are some massive sales which skew the results to cost neutral.

Seems to me that a long term, forward thinking, ambitious club with maturity in its decision making (and a tidy wedge to cover the years where there is a deficit) will invest in its Academy.

A club with a shorter planning horizon may conclude its not worth the risk, especially if cash is tight, as loss making years will really hurt the back pocket. If the owners assessment is we are not going to be a high end Championship club in say 5 years, and the modus operandi is to live within means sensible etc etc would make sense to reduce the investment. Given Robs intention to flip the club and is not awash with cash - its not hard to imagine this as the outcome. Get out of the market early - sell Pork Bellies !!

The academy, and football in general, is massively fat-tailed (ie. significantly greater than expected returns at the extremes). The opposite would be thin-tailed (height for example, where the extremes aren't significantly greater than the average)

That's to say, our average sale of an academy player may be around £250,000, but you'll get a player who could be worth £10m+ (in the current market) come along every five years or so. A £10m sale could fund the academy at our current expenditure by themselves for four years.

Of course, all these figures just look at transfer fees received vs academy expenditure. Judging the economic benefit of reduced need to sign first team players due to academy players coming through; and their initial lower salaries is difficult, but would skew in favour of having the academy.

That's without the less tangible things like being able to attract better young players to the club (compared to being a lower category); the requirement to have a better level of coaching staff; etc.

I don't think you'll find many fans who think scaling back academy funding is a good idea.

There is a constant murmur. I’ve definitely seen the argument “why not spend the money now trying to get promoted, then reinstate “.


A clubs identity feels vital to me. We take the loss because the intangible story is worth much much more. Lose the story, lose the identity, and we are Just Another Club.

[The Cube]

There is another significant source of income for the Academy (other than player sales). The Premier League provides central funding to EFL clubs with an academy, and for Reading that was about £1m per year a few years back. I imagine that must still be in place, and the intention was that the amount should increase over time.

So now if our total expenditure is at the minimum level of £2,5m, that means you only need £1.5m in sales each year to break even in cash terms. And all that ignores the fact that we also have a higher quality conveyor belt of young players coming through when the manager is intelligent enough to use them.

Having said that, there are some proposed changes in the compensation payments. I've not been able to see all the details, but I think it might reduce the amounts we get for players who are (effectively) poached. On the other hand, as a Category 1 academy we could get cheaper players from other clubs.


Clyde's excellent list of player sales misses out some of the younger ones, who can bring in sizeable sums. I am sure that Man City have taken far more than two players, and I also remember a 16-year-old player going to Tottenham which was quoted by them as being for £684k.

[Clyde1998]

Clyde's excellent list of player sales misses out some of the younger ones, who can bring in sizeable sums. I am sure that Man City have taken far more than two players, and I also remember a 16-year-old player going to Tottenham which was quoted by them as being for £684k.

That player to Tottenham could be Tyrell Ashcroft, who I've realised I missed off my list.

With some quick googling, I've found the compensation rules and I'm clearly under estimating how much we might get for players who are poached from us in these younger age groups.

I don't know when these levels of fees were introduced (the appearance element seems to be 2022-23), but they're different to (usually higher than) what's on the Wikipedia article for the EPPP. The Wikipedia figures seem to be from the initial proposal for EPPP, not what was actually implemented.

362. The applicable annual fixed training costs by reference to the age group of the Academy Player and the Category of Academy are as follows:

Code: Select all

Age group of the Academy Player	Category 1		Category 2		Category 3
Under 9 			£ 5,000 		£ 5,000 		£ 5,000
Under 10 			£10,000 		£ 8,750 		£ 7,500
Under 11 			£15,000 		£12,500 		£10,000
Under 12 			£45,000 		£30,000 		£15,000
Under 13 			£60,000 		£40,000 		£20,000
Under 14 to Under 16		£80,000 (per year)	£50,000 (per year)	£25,000 (per year)

[...]
363. The contingent compensation referred to in Rule 359 shall consist of:

1. appearance fees calculated by reference to the number of First Team Appearances (up to a maximum of 100) made by the Academy Player for the Applicant Club or any other Club or EFL club for whom the Academy Player subsequently becomes registered (including by way of a Temporary Transfer or other loan) and to the divisional status of the relevant Club as set out in the table in Rule 365;
2. subject to Rule 364, appearance fees shall be calculated up to a maximum of 100 First Team Appearances;
3. if the Academy Player’s registration is transferred prior to his 23rd birthday to a club affiliated to a national association other than The Football Association (save for any Welsh club which is a member of the League, the EFL or the National League), 20% of any Compensation Fee, Loan Fee and Contingent Sum that the Applicant Club receives which is in excess of:
   1. any amounts of training compensation and/or solidarity payment paid to the Applicant Club and the Training Club pursuant to the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players; and
   2. the actual sum (if any) paid by the Applicant Club to the Training Club to acquire the Academy Player’s registration;
4. 5% of all Compensation Fees (and transfer fees, where applicable), Loan Fees and Contingent Sums paid in respect of all future transfers of the Academy Player’s registration (whether permanent of temporary) to Clubs (or clubs) in membership of the League, the EFL or the National League; and
5. 5% of all Loan Fees and Contingent Sums paid in respect of all future transfers on loan to a club affiliated to a national association other than the Football Association (save for any Welsh club which is a member of the League, the EFL or the National League).

364. For the purposes of calculating the contingent compensation referred to in Rule 359, First Team Appearances made in excess of 100 and up to a maximum of 200 (the “Additional Appearances”) will result in contingent compensation being payable in circumstances where one or more of a Player’s Additional Appearances are played for a Club (or clubs) in a higher division than one or more of the Player’s first 100 First Team Appearances. In such circumstances the Additional Appearances will be treated as if they had formed part of the Player’s first 100 First Team Appearances, with the result that an additional compensation fee will be due which is equal to any difference in the compensation paid in respect of the Player’s first 100 First Team Appearances and any Additional Appearances of a higher value (starting with the lowest compensated appearance).
[...]
365. The appearance fees referred to in Rule 363.1 are as follows:

1. Premier League: £30,000;
2. EFL Championship: £2,500;
3. EFL League 1: £500; and
4. EFL League 2: £250.

If I'm reading this correctly, any U16 player 'poached' from us, who's been in the academy since the U9s would net us (we did have one year as a Category Two academy, which I haven't factored in):

Code: Select all

Age group	Added fee	Running total
Under 9		+£ 5,000	£  5,000
Under 10	+£10,000	£ 15,000
Under 11	+£15,000	£ 30,000
Under 12	+£45,000	£ 75,000
Under 13	+£60,000	£135,000
Under 14	+£80,000	£215,000
Under 15	+£80,000	£295,000
Under 16	+£80,000	£375,000

This is adjusted pro-rata too. Any player we've had in the academy for half a season would be worth half of the annual total.

If they'd also went on to play 25 first team matches for a club in the Championship, we'd get an additional £62,500 (£2,500 x 25).

It also appears anyone above U16 or been offered a scholarship deal are subject to negotiations between clubs and will be decided by tribunal in the event of a default:

356. Rules 359 to 370 govern the compensation due in respect of an Academy Player who is in, or about to enter, any age group between Under 9 and Under 16 at the time when he is first registered with the Applicant Club save for an Academy Player to whom Rule 357.2 applies.

357. In default of agreement between the Applicant Club and the Academy Player’s most recent Training Club, the Professional Football Compensation Committee shall (in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 13) determine the compensation payable to the latter in respect of an Academy Player:

1. who is in any age group between Under 17 and Under 21 when he is registered for the Applicant Club; or
2. to whom the Training Club made an offer of a Scholarship Agreement pursuant to Rule 305.

This is will be why certain sixteen year-olds have provided higher fees than the effective maximum under this system (as we've already offered them scholarship deals or they were at a higher age group).

All these higher fees will be pushing the transfer fee benefits from our academy further in the positive direction.