Question I would like answered..

[scram]

But for every graduate to scholar/pro there would be a cost applied to all those that didn't graduate.

Some may have joined at 8 and left by 10 - other may join at 8 to be released at 16 - others join at 14 and get released at 16 whatever whatever....

Then factor in the training contact hours, treatment/physio hours, any medical costs, the cst of education if applicable etc etc

I know what you are saying - but believe the variables are near on incalculable

[edmontonowl]

wouldn't a similar model to school children be used?

Factors would be

time teaching the kids

wages paid to instructors

operating costs during that time(rent, utilities, etc. for the facility)

equipment costs, etc, etc.

[Wise_Owl]

But for every graduate to scholar/pro there would be a cost applied to all those that didn't graduate.

Some may have joined at 8 and left by 10 - other may join at 8 to be released at 16 - others join at 14 and get released at 16 whatever whatever....

Then factor in the training contact hours, treatment/physio hours, any medical costs, the cst of education if applicable etc etc

I know what you are saying - but believe the variables are near on incalculable

yes, the cost needs to apply to those who didn't graduate, and if you take those who would have reached the age of 18 between 01.01.xx and 31.12.xx then work backwards encompassing all the individuals in that group, you have a basis on which to apportion costs. The hours of training should be trackable, given the hours spent with each age group, or the mix of ages in a training session.

I think that given a bit of time, and decent record keeping, it wouldn't be all that difficult to apportion costs between years. I don't believe the variables are incalculable. Only that they might take a little effort to obtain, but that should be one of the key figures in evaluating the success of the academy. A figure that could, and should, be a strong factor in deciding the scale of future investment. Given the scarcity of our resources, it could be a goldmine or a black hole. How is anyone to evaluate it on a financial basis without relevant figures?

[Guest barrowowl]

I reckon were over complicating this.

Lets assume the academy costs £500k p/a to run, over a ten year period = £5m plus medical bills say £250k.

The academy produces 10 players over that period who sign pro forms with SWFC.

During that period we receive TF fees of £1m for players brought through the academy.

ie net total cost £4.250m net cost per pro player £425k.

I would add that the above figures as you can probably guess are not based on fact but just numbers to illustrate the point.

The length of time any academy player has trained or been with the club is irrelevant in so much as if we shut the academy we save £500k p/a (not that I am in anyway advocating this).

[scram]

yes, the cost needs to apply to those who didn't graduate, and if you take those who would have reached the age of 18 between 01.01.xx and 31.12.xx then work backwards encompassing all the individuals in that group, you have a basis on which to apportion costs. The hours of training should be trackable, given the hours spent with each age group, or the mix of ages in a training session.

I think that given a bit of time, and decent record keeping, it wouldn't be all that difficult to apportion costs between years. I don't believe the variables are incalculable. Only that they might take a little effort to obtain, but that should be one of the key figures in evaluating the success of the academy. A figure that could, and should, be a strong factor in deciding the scale of future investment. Given the scarcity of our resources, it could be a goldmine or a black hole. How is anyone to evaluate it on a financial basis without relevant figures?

There are a huge amount of variables - of course it's not literally impossible to work out an average figure - but it's too difficult and ambiguous as to be practicable - it would also probably cost quite a lot of money to work that figure out - as well as extremely time consuming.

The relative success of an academy is measured more in practical costs than financial - right now without working out any calculations would the vast majority of people say our academy is worthwhile or not?

Obviously there is a figure which once beyond is impractical to run an academy without tangible results - but we know we are light years away from that figure - and in theory if we were to develop a player and sell him for say £10m - according to ***-packet maths then that player will pay for the academy for 20 years at current expenditure.

There is a danger this sort of debate can easily descend into semantics - which is why i know where SM is coming from when he says it's impossible to calculate the cost per player

[scram]

The length of time any academy player has trained or been with the club is irrelevant

It's very relevant - in fact it's key to working out how much it has cost to develop that player

[Tyto Alba]

All that really matters is the spending versus outcomes. The bottom line is how much do you spend on the academy each year versus the value of all players that graduate as professionals each year. You would probably get a better picture looking at a five year average. Obviously one successful player sold for a few million funds the whole academy system.

I don't know why it has to be made more complicated than this.

[scram]

All that really matters is the spending versus outcomes. The bottom line is how much do you spend on the academy each year versus the value of all players that graduate as professionals each year. You would probably get a better picture looking at a five year average. Obviously one successful player sold for a few million funds the whole academy system.

I don't know why it has to be made more complicated than this.

Exactly

As i said earlier th cost is measured far more in practical terms than financial - ie the practical application of the funds generated vs funds spent

[Guest barrowowl]

All that really matters is the spending versus outcomes. The bottom line is how much do you spend on the academy each year versus the value of all players that graduate as professionals each year. You would probably get a better picture looking at a five year average. Obviously one successful player sold for a few million funds the whole academy system.

I don't know why it has to be made more complicated than this.[/quote

Spot on and my point exactly, doesnt matter if the player joined as an under9 or u16 the annual costs of the Academy are ongoing.

Edited February 2, 2009 by barrowowl

[scram]

Spot on and my point exactly, doesnt matter if the player joined as an under9 or u16 the annual costs of the Academy are ongoing.

It does matter how long the player has been here IF the cost of each particular player's development is required

[Wise_Owl]

There are a huge amount of variables - of course it's not literally impossible to work out an average figure - but it's too difficult and ambiguous as to be practicable - it would also probably cost quite a lot of money to work that figure out - as well as extremely time consuming.

The relative success of an academy is measured more in practical costs than financial - right now without working out any calculations would the vast majority of people say our academy is worthwhile or not?

Obviously there is a figure which once beyond is impractical to run an academy without tangible results - but we know we are light years away from that figure - and in theory if we were to develop a player and sell him for say £10m - according to ***-packet maths then that player will pay for the academy for 20 years at current expenditure.

There is a danger this sort of debate can easily descend into semantics - which is why i know where SM is coming from when he says it's impossible to calculate the cost per player

It wouldn't be tremendously hard to work out if decent record keeping was followed, but I agree that the financial side is only one aspect of judging the success of the academy. Besides, I suspect there are many clubs who run their academies at a loss in the hope of unearthing the next Alan Shearer or David Beckham.

I don't think it is SM's job to be keeping tabs on it anyway. He's the coach. Someone else is the accountant, and I would expect him to have a good handle on all financial aspects of the academy. IMHO the sort of basic costing exercise I'm talking about falls squarely in his area of responsibility. If part of my company's business was educating kids, I'd sure as hell want to know how as much as possible about what it was costing me. I would be hugely underwhelmed if my accountant was unable to provide with that information.

[Wise_Owl]

I reckon were over complicating this.

Lets assume the academy costs £500k p/a to run, over a ten year period = £5m plus medical bills say £250k.

The academy produces 10 players over that period who sign pro forms with SWFC.

During that period we receive TF fees of £1m for players brought through the academy.

ie net total cost £4.250m net cost per pro player £425k.

I would add that the above figures as you can probably guess are not based on fact but just numbers to illustrate the point.

The length of time any academy player has trained or been with the club is irrelevant in so much as if we shut the academy we save £500k p/a (not that I am in anyway advocating this).

So essentially, if you ran a whisky distillery, you'd ignore the vast stock of work in progress when working out the viability of the business. You would also ignore a ramping up or phasing down of annual production levels in favour of avoiding over-complicating the calculations. You would take the first 10 years from startup, and base the sales on a few meagre batches of substandard, direct-to-supermarket-or-blenders <10 year bottles, ignoring the vast bulk of booze still in the system at the time of cutoff. Barrels and barrels worth of grog, potentially on its way to becoming premium quality 15, 25 or 40 year releases.

Some might say you're over-simpifying things somewhat...