westoelad wrote:Most impartial cricket fans would, I hope, accept that after a club has invested not inconsiderable cost in developing a player then they are entitled to be compensated for that cost from the club who acquire the player.
I think you would be surprised have low some of the costs are. I read recently about football academy costs, and was very surprised at how relatively low they were. The most costly systems in the world are Bayern and Arsenal, at £3 million a year. I believe this figure is all in (coaching, scouting, travel, etc). La Mesia, the Barcelona Academy, is 10 million a year but its less of a strictly footballing academy, more of a 24 hours a day boarding school where kids are educated academically, and where they stay all the time (take Lionel Messi, who moved from Rosario to Barcelona to train there). Its common for teams to tie in academic facilities to councils, part fund them so they double up usages, and save costs.
I checked through my Sussex Docs from all the members releases, and the last financial accounts released state that Sussex spent a net of just over 100k per year on their age group teams/academy setup. We have an average of 15 players spread over 13 different youth age group teams from U-10 years, we have 12 players in the academy who are going through pathway development, which is done with the county and with the ECB. Thats about 207 players. This doesnt include the list of senior representation teams (we have senior teams up to over 70 years, believe it or not, which come out of that net cost), but I cant get an accurate gauge on which age groups past professionals exist.
That leaves a net cost of £483.00 per player. Assuming a player makes a professional contract at about 20 (possibly 16 at the earliest, 21 at the latest) thats only a development cost of under £5000.00 if they join at the earliest point. This is a youth setup that was rated by the ECB as number 1 out of all counties in 2016, based on school age international representation, proportion of professional contracts given to academy players, and general representation in womens and mens full internationals. So we arent talking a cheaply run, badly neglected system, quiet the opposite.
Yet, the sports courts are awarding teams in football the compensation costs that are totally disproportionate. Ings played two years for Burnley, and that "development cost" at its highest amount if clauses are met, would have been over 3 years the total cost of the worlds most expensive youth system? This isnt compensation! How can you justify that compensation based on development costs? Its like opening a pandora's box.
It is interesting that it is one of, if not the, wealthiest club, Surrey, that has put a motion to this effect to the County AGM.
I hardly think thats surprising, Westo. A team with the most disposable income wanting to base player acquisition on how much money you can throw at the situation obviously works well for them; it takes competition out the market, and opens player movements only to teams that can afford it.
How many teams are cutting profits when ECB money is being cut, and costs are rising? Hardly any counties will be able to afford top talent, so yes, Surrey would no doubt love to have a free pick.