Slow on the uptake?

[somersetcrewe]

I know Mike takes specific issue with Max and his apparent refusal to re-sign, preferring to seek fame and fortune elsewhere before most (if not all of us!) think he is ready.

And fair point, you'd find many on here who would agree with that - without question! - but for every Max, (and presumably Billy Jones Mk.1 before him), there's a Deano, Seth, Murphy (both), Westy, Powell, etc, etc, etc.

The pros *BY FAR* out-weigh the cons!!!
And that is justification enough in my view!!

The Hassall thing?? - don't know enough about it, apart from what I read on here.
So I have no facts!
From what I hear, it smells - and so it needs fixing.
But what can I do other than leave it to someone who can?!!

[Gobstopper]

I've been supporting Crewe for about 39 years and I remember the dire games and crowds of 1500 and the constant re-election process my memories pre Dario are slightly different than those of Mike SB, no offence meant, we just view things differently. I remember the season when we achieved a total of 27 points and got re-elected. Then along came Dario and eventually the academy began to take shape and with it came the excitement and promotions and some outstanding players, would I want to go back to what we had, scrap the academy and rely on free signings, no way, we had Powell for too little time, but without the academy we wouldn't of had that and we wouldn't have the money from the sale.

I know the fees from the sales are a two edged sword and the board have a constant battle on there hands to keep control of it, but some of it does filter down to the academy and first team. Although the academy is not cheap I wouldn't have it any other way. The only fly in the ointment is a certai

[Teammoo]

I think the crux of Mikes problem with the Acadamy is that 10 years ago the youngsters were being produced to improve the first team, today it seems that the first team is only there to advertise the youngsters. I don't think that at this stage we could/should do without the Academy -it does define Crewe, but I would like to see more interest in bringing failed starlets to the fore (aka Platt, Higdon etc). We need a mix, a good mix of youngsters and slightly older more experinced players. (Chucks would be an excellant example- pity we could not afford him.)

All this comparison with other teams is fruitless as examples for both sides of the argument can be quoted eg Yeovil, Walsall, Shrewsbury etc. Also each season the status of some of these sides including ourselves changes, so small teams doing well one season can struggle the next and vice versa.

Football is still a matter of opinions - the money men have not completely taken over- yet. We have a diverse and good selection of opin

[Proggs]

I think the crux of Mikes problem with the Acadamy is that 10 years ago the youngsters were being produced to improve the first team, today it seems that the first team is only there to advertise the youngsters.

Not correct in any way. 2003 was Championship and players came through, were played and sold on...have you heard of "Ashton"? The model today is 100% the same as it was qo years ago, just look at the current squad and the last few sales - in fact it is easier to argue the team is now ABOUT making first team players, from fielding a home grown starting line-up not so long back (under SD) to the current amount in the squad - BG, MT, AD, HD, OT, BW, BM, MC etc etc etc, ALL first team players and not much sign of many 'outsiders' coming in.

Sorry, your argument doesn't add up - nor does MikeSB's

[Teammoo]

I think the crux of Mikes problem with the Acadamy is that 10 years ago the youngsters were being produced to improve the first team, today it seems that the first team is only there to advertise the youngsters.

Not correct in any way. 2003 was Championship and players came through, were played and sold on...have you heard of "Ashton"? The model today is 100% the same as it was qo years ago, just look at the current squad and the last few sales - in fact it is easier to argue the team is now ABOUT making first team players, from fielding a home grown starting line-up not so long back (under SD) to the current amount in the squad - BG, MT, AD, HD, OT, BW, BM, MC etc etc etc, ALL first team players and not much sign of many 'outsiders' coming in.

Sorry, your argument doesn't add up - nor does MikeSB's[/quote]

Proggs , You sum up my point perfectly with your last statement " not much sign

[Proggs]

Are you not then saying the club "uses its own players to play in the first team and we are in League 1 so it is working. Then we sell them as they are better assets"?

I'm not being nasty (honest) but I think your argument is flawed. The Academy is of even more use now than in 2001/2/3 or any other date you care to mention. They come through, they play and we're in lg1. Jack, Walton and Brammer cost us over £2million and brought us in...

[Teammoo]

I agree with your comments, I'm just saying that I think there is possible an over reliance on the Academy kids. Of course we still need to bring them on, give them first team experience and sell them on- that is how we work but as a club are we moving forward , standing still or going backwards in relation to other clubs. (I mean generally, not specifically League position today.)

I am not against the Academy and definatly not against SD, I just worry that the first team is considered as extra to the academy and not the other way round.

And Proggs, I know that you are never nasty to contributers on here (especially regular ones ).

[alexbarmy]

The arguments against the Academy only hold water if the academy players are played at the expense of getting results.

In my opinion that happened just prior to Steve coming in - post match defeats were explained away with Dario saying it is all part of the players development.

It is a fine balancing act giving players experience and getting results. It makes me laugh when managers of other clubs say "if they are good enough, they are old enough". That may be true, but a 21 year old with 100 games under his belt is a much more saleable asset than a 21 year old who has played 15 games.

[Proggs]

This is the part I don't get Teammoo

"I think the crux of Mikes problem with the Acadamy is that 10 years ago the youngsters were being produced to improve the first team, today it seems that the first team is only there to advertise the youngsters."

I don't think the Academy does that or did that, I think it is the same brief then as now. Nurture, play, sell, replace. The use of Academy starlets is even moreso about the team doing well and achieving. And we have Pogba (Col Little/Steve Jones types) and Inman/Grant (Jack/Brammer types).

[VindePays2009]

The Academy is needed, more than ever.

And from the news of unusually early contracts being offered to three 17-y-os, we've a rich crop of talent coming on.

There is solidarity between these lads who have developed together. And it was heartening to hear Calum Saunders saying that, although of course tentative feelers had been put out, he would never have contemplated leaving his oppos behind (how IS Liverpool's D. Smith doing, by the way?).

The existence of the Academy saves Steve and Neil some of the thankless negotiating they have to do with established players when they don't have enough money to bring to the table. And I repeat, getting Grant was a major coup, but they won't always be as lucky.

The Academy boys would probably not want to earn more than their team mates, and as long as they've got a nice motor and a bit of cash to splash around, they're happy. In five years' time, perhaps already with family responsibilities, it'll be a different story.

So it's no paradox to s