Brightonian
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 138
- Player
- Ian Goodison, James Norwood
Thanks BBTC. A really informative overview with some examples which help illustrate how the player compensation scheme is applied.
It seems you are correct that compensation could be paid to a National League club who has taken a young player released from a larger club, who later rejects a new contract offer after playing a significant number of games i.e. see Anthony Straker joining Aldershot Town after being developed by Palace then moving onto Southend following rejection of a new contract. However I don't follow your logic that it sounds like we might get money for Michael. Rule 63.3 Football League Rules "any club which makes an offer in accordance with regulation 64.2 of re-engagement to a contract player who is an under 24 Player ............shall be entitled to a compensation fee"
This will mean that a contract offer needs to be made before the current contract expires which clearly has been the case but as Michael was born 20/11/92 he was not under 24 at the time of contract offer as far as we are aware.
Just a thought, albeit perhaps a controversional one. I wonder with us losing the £400k support for the Academy if it should be treated as a profit centre in its own right, with the future determined by income generated to cover costs, given we seem to already make a deficit on covering the players budget after match income until off field income may make up some or all of the shortfall, without one off fixed asset sales. We could perhaps actively look to identify talent released by larger clubs in the age range 18-21 and structure further development rather than develop from scratch. Of course like all it is wonderful to see the home grown lads emerge from the long pipeline but wonder if the success rate might be greater given the compensation rules, our financial circumstances and the surplus talent that must be available. Any thoughts?
It seems you are correct that compensation could be paid to a National League club who has taken a young player released from a larger club, who later rejects a new contract offer after playing a significant number of games i.e. see Anthony Straker joining Aldershot Town after being developed by Palace then moving onto Southend following rejection of a new contract. However I don't follow your logic that it sounds like we might get money for Michael. Rule 63.3 Football League Rules "any club which makes an offer in accordance with regulation 64.2 of re-engagement to a contract player who is an under 24 Player ............shall be entitled to a compensation fee"
This will mean that a contract offer needs to be made before the current contract expires which clearly has been the case but as Michael was born 20/11/92 he was not under 24 at the time of contract offer as far as we are aware.
Just a thought, albeit perhaps a controversional one. I wonder with us losing the £400k support for the Academy if it should be treated as a profit centre in its own right, with the future determined by income generated to cover costs, given we seem to already make a deficit on covering the players budget after match income until off field income may make up some or all of the shortfall, without one off fixed asset sales. We could perhaps actively look to identify talent released by larger clubs in the age range 18-21 and structure further development rather than develop from scratch. Of course like all it is wonderful to see the home grown lads emerge from the long pipeline but wonder if the success rate might be greater given the compensation rules, our financial circumstances and the surplus talent that must be available. Any thoughts?