My gripe with training/youth facilities

[trevjim]

I posted this on the reddit forum and was advised to post it here.

 

This isnt new for this year but its something that annoys me.

Ive taken a team from conference south to the prem, now that im in the prem ive started upgrading my facilities due to that fact they were at their lowest level and im now rich from the prems tv deal.

The issue is that with each upgrade, the facilities can only go to the next level, not to the top level.

For example i had poor training facilities, i want them upgraded, money isnt an issue, they get upgraded to below average, then next time they get upgraded to average,then adequate etc.

Why cant i, especially if im rich, just upgrade the facilities to 'good' or 'state of the art' in one go.

Why do i have to go up this ladder of upgrading, then demolishing to upgrade again each season. Why cant i skip several rungs of the ladder if i have the money to do so.

In real life, lets use liverpools melwood facility, its quite good in reality but for arguments sake lets say its poor, if liverpool want to upgrade it, they are going to demolish it(or build somewhere else) and build a top facility, they are not going to upgrade it bit by bit.

 

One reply made a prime example....

 

I agree, it should be done in terms of the team. I know Brighton did this a few seasons ago, going from university fields to a new £25 million state-of-the-art training complex. Would take a years of upgrades in FM.

[elt]

Agreed, this should be changed

[Sherdil]

3 hours ago, trevjim said:

I posted this on the reddit forum and was advised to post it here.

 

This isnt new for this year but its something that annoys me.

Ive taken a team from conference south to the prem, now that im in the prem ive started upgrading my facilities due to that fact they were at their lowest level and im now rich from the prems tv deal.

The issue is that with each upgrade, the facilities can only go to the next level, not to the top level.

For example i had poor training facilities, i want them upgraded, money isnt an issue, they get upgraded to below average, then next time they get upgraded to average,then adequate etc.

Why cant i, especially if im rich, just upgrade the facilities to 'good' or 'state of the art' in one go.

Why do i have to go up this ladder of upgrading, then demolishing to upgrade again each season. Why cant i skip several rungs of the ladder if i have the money to do so.

In real life, lets use liverpools melwood facility, its quite good in reality but for arguments sake lets say its poor, if liverpool want to upgrade it, they are going to demolish it(or build somewhere else) and build a top facility, they are not going to upgrade it bit by bit.

 

One reply made a prime example....

 

I agree, it should be done in terms of the team. I know Brighton did this a few seasons ago, going from university fields to a new £25 million state-of-the-art training complex. Would take a years of upgrades in FM.

Very interesting post! I do agree with you on this one. Let's hope SI incorporate this somehow.

[OTron]

Totally agree with this. It's a long standing gripe for me as I like taking lesser teams to the top division. If the money is there why is the game placing arbitrary blockages on the upgrade of facilities?

[Fox]

Spot on.

[Jimbokav1971]

The question you have to ask yourself here is, "do we want FM to mirror real life?"

If we do, (and I know I do), then we don't want to do away with the situation as it is now. The problem here is that it sounds like those of you who want this time delay done away with and want "instant gratification" just because you have loads of cash in the bank, don't understand what it takes to go from 4 academy level a level 1 academy level in real life. If you did, then you certainly wouldn't be asking for this period of time to be removed. 

The truth is you just can't throw money at it.

In order for a club to meet Academy Level 1 standards, (or 2 or 3 or 4), then it has to meet a set of very specific and detailed criteria. To give you an example, a Level 1 Academy has over 300 criteria that it must meet. 

There is an external audit that checks compliance and if there are short-comings then the academy can be downgraded. 

Some of the criteria are facilities based and any club would be able to meet these, (planning permission and space permitting), just so long as it had the required cash. 

Other stuff takes longer however and this is the problem with these "instant fixes" that you so crave. There are programmes/courses that might be 3 years in length and the only way that you can prove that your course is of the required standard is to create and run the course and then have assessed. You have to actually run the course before you can have it assessed. You can't say this is what we are going to do. It doesn'yt work like that, You have to show what you have done and what you are going to continue to do. If at ant time you are assessed and are not shown to be fullfilling the criteria, then you can be downgraded which means that you lose funding in terms of grants, but also that you lose prestige and this might cause potential young players to go elsewhere.  

FM has this right. It does take time in real life so it should do so in the game too. 

[Jimbokav1971]

5 hours ago, trevjim said:

One reply made a prime example....

I agree, it should be done in terms of the team. I know Brighton did this a few seasons ago, going from university fields to a new £25 million state-of-the-art training complex. Would take a years of upgrades in FM.

You used Brighton as an example so let's look at that shall we. 

 

Brighton & Hove Albion’s academy has been awarded Category One status, the highest ranking under the Premier League’s Elite Players Performance Plan (EPPP).

 

After years of meticulous planning and hard work, head of football operations David Burke and his team were granted the status that they have been striving for, meaning Albion are now recognised as one of the best clubs in the country in terms of facilities, staff and opportunities for young players. 

 

The award, which will see the under-21, under-18 and under-16 teams coming up against some of the biggest sides in England, gives Albion’s youth setup the same recognition as clubs such as Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United and Manchester City.

 

Burke told seagulls.co.uk, “It is fantastic news. We have worked long and hard to get here and we are delighted with what we have achieved. 

 

“Firstly we need to thank Tony Bloom for the financial support he has provided to get us to this level. Tony has given the club magnificent facilities in terms of the Amex and now the American Express Elite Football Performance Centre, and with his continued investment in our youth policy; he has been integral to us taking this next step.

 

“On a personal note I would like to thank John Morling and all his team who have done a fantastic job to take us from a centre of excellence in 2012, to a category one academy in 2014. 

 

“This has been a seismic change over the last two years and his staff have dealt with the pressures of two full inspections - comparable to an Ofsted report -  in order to pass all the criteria in education, coaching, medical, strength and conditioning, analysis, recruitment and sport science."

 

Burke added, “In addition, the administration that comes with this process is a huge task which brings a lot of pressure, but everyone has done an excellent job and I am grateful to them for their efforts.

 

“The advantage of our new status means our players will test themselves week-in, week-out against the best players in the country, in the best facilities to help them develop. However, despite everything at their disposal, the basis for any young Brighton player’s progression will remain hard work and putting in the hours. 

 

"The new status also gives us a better scope for recruitment opportunities as well as in developing the players we already have. We now feel with a Category one academy, a commitment from Sami and his staff to give the young players a pathway, along with the qualified development staff who provide bespoke training plans for our young players, there is a recipe success here at Albion.”

 

Chairman Tony Bloom added, “The news is terrific. We have a real emphasis on developing and nurturing young talent at Brighton and I am delighted with the award.

 

“It has been a primary goal for a while and I am pleased we managed to achieve it so quickly. I commend David, John Morling and the rest of their team for the tremendous job they have done.”

 

Albion’s under-21s will now enter a national league containing sides such as Newcastle and Aston Villa, and Simon Ireland’s team start their league campaign against Blackburn Rovers in August. Under-21 fixtures will continue to be played at either Culver Road, Lancing, or at the Amex.

 

The under-18s and 16s enter the southern regional leagues and will come up against Arsenal and Chelsea. Full fixture lists for the under-21s ad under-18s will be released in due course.

Read more at http://www.seagulls.co.uk/news/article/albion-achieve-category-one-status-1782953.aspx#CeOBYCm7pHfEOsTX.99

What he describes is just the last jump to category 1 Academy. 

[trevjim]

30 minutes ago, Jimbokav1971 said:

The question you have to ask yourself here is, "do we want FM to mirror real life?"

If we do, (and I know I do), then we don't want to do away with the situation as it is now. The problem here is that it sounds like those of you who want this time delay done away with and want "instant gratification" just because you have loads of cash in the bank, don't understand what it takes to go from 4 academy level a level 1 academy level in real life. If you did, then you certainly wouldn't be asking for this period of time to be removed. 

The truth is you just can't throw money at it.

In order for a club to meet Academy Level 1 standards, (or 2 or 3 or 4), then it has to meet a set of very specific and detailed criteria. To give you an example, a Level 1 Academy has over 300 criteria that it must meet. 

There is an external audit that checks compliance and if there are short-comings then the academy can be downgraded. 

Some of the criteria are facilities based and any club would be able to meet these, (planning permission and space permitting), just so long as it had the required cash. 

Other stuff takes longer however and this is the problem with these "instant fixes" that you so crave. There are programmes/courses that might be 3 years in length and the only way that you can prove that your course is of the required standard is to create and run the course and then have assessed. You have to actually run the course before you can have it assessed. You can't say this is what we are going to do. It doesn'yt work like that, You have to show what you have done and what you are going to continue to do. If at ant time you are assessed and are not shown to be fullfilling the criteria, then you can be downgraded which means that you lose funding in terms of grants, but also that you lose prestige and this might cause potential young players to go elsewhere.  

FM has this right. It does take time in real life so it should do so in the game too. 

 

thanks for the reply, you certainly sound like you know your stuff. I guess it backs up the way FM have it currently.

i suppose it does come down to how real we want it to be, and of course we all want it as real as possible, it would be nice to get a bit of input with our facilities, im not talking fifa manager design the stands type input, but perhaps an input on the  general direction

[Jimbokav1971]

2 minutes ago, trevjim said:

 

thanks for the reply, you certainly sound like you know your stuff. I guess it backs up the way FM have it currently.

i suppose it does come down to how real we want it to be, and of course we all want it as real as possible, it would be nice to get a bit of input with our facilities, im not talking fifa manager design the stands type input, but perhaps an input on the  general direction

I don't know much about it at all actually, but it is certainly an area that interests me. 

I think we as "gamers" fall into the trap that something like this is all about "facilities" and if that were the case then yes, money could simply be thrown at it. It's because it is far more involved than that, that it can't just be finished instantly. 

[AFCBeer]

AFC Bournemouth could improve their youth set up given their new riches. Of course we are going to prioritise first team players for now until we establish in the PL. Even with an improved youth set up, having decent 14 year olds doesn't mean good 19 year olds. 

Reality, even if we can establish ourselves in the PL, it's unlikely we will see top quality youngsters come through for many years. In this respect I feel FM has it correct that you can't suddenly replicate the Ajax Academy with your promoted from non league sides. 

[Velodromè]

As a lower league fanatic I was planning to make this thread myself. I play the game the same way every year, I start as low as possible somewhere and work my way up. When I reach the top division the investment in facilities begin. With millions in the bank it is frustrating when you have to do it step by step from poor to adequate and so on. I agree with the post above that you should not be able to go from poor to state of the art in one go, but from poor to good/impressive should be possible if the money is there. It is frustrating the way it is now when the board only spend peanuts on investments when you have generated £80 000 000 in TV revenue. 

 

 

[rimisark]

1 hour ago, Velodromè said:

As a lower league fanatic I was planning to make this thread myself. I play the game the same way every year, I start as low as possible somewhere and work my way up. When I reach the top division the investment in facilities begin. With millions in the bank it is frustrating when you have to do it step by step from poor to adequate and so on. I agree with the post above that you should not be able to go from poor to state of the art in one go, but from poor to good/impressive should be possible if the money is there. It is frustrating the way it is now when the board only spend peanuts on investments when you have generated £80 000 000 in TV revenue. 

 

 

This is good for me. From poor to good, and after that step by step to state of art. How about costs for upgrades. I saw in network some screenshots with ridiculous sums for top condiotions.

[CarltonBanks]

Youth Academy Level isn't the same thing as the quality of facilities though. 

If a club goes to build a new weight room, or new training facilities, they're going to go for the best they can afford. They're not going to sit on a ton of money while saying "oh we can only buy the treadmill one model up from the old ones we had, then next year we can buy the model up from that". 

[mikelfc8]

In the real world is it possible to build a 5 star academy from the ground up? If it is, then shouldn't that be the only consideration regarding making it possible in-game?

[Jimbokav1971]

3 hours ago, Velodromè said:

As a lower league fanatic I was planning to make this thread myself. I play the game the same way every year, I start as low as possible somewhere and work my way up. When I reach the top division the investment in facilities begin. With millions in the bank it is frustrating when you have to do it step by step from poor to adequate and so on. I agree with the post above that you should not be able to go from poor to state of the art in one go, but from poor to good/impressive should be possible if the money is there. It is frustrating the way it is now when the board only spend peanuts on investments when you have generated £80 000 000 in TV revenue. 

 

 

Well the simple answer is that you should improve as you go through the leagues. With respect, if you choose to prioritise a new striker that is going to score you 30 goals and get you promoted, over a level of investment in the infrastructure that will pay dividends moving forward, (and that's exactly the choice you make), then how can you complain when You get to the top league with your basic facilities and have to spend time developing them. How you choose to spend your money is up to you, (through the board), and I think it's a bit rich that people complain because they have chosen not to develop as they go. 

[Jimbokav1971]

51 minutes ago, mikelfc8 said:

In the real world is it possible to build a 5 star academy from the ground up? If it is, then shouldn't that be the only consideration regarding making it possible in-game?

As far as I'm aware, it has never been done, however it is theoretically possible, (although hugely unlikely). 

In order to put the systems in place to be designated a category 1 Academy, you would have to do so much work that there would be no point in refusing to apply for the stages in between as you progress through them. It just doesn't make sense. By upgrading as you go, you would benefit from the grants that come with each level of upgrade. Why would you choose not to receive the grant if you were eligible for it? It just doesn't make sense. It's not how the World works, and certainly not the Football World. 

The problem here is that lots of the people posting in this thread are thinking only in terms of facilities and, (with the exception of the full-time availability of a full-size indoor pitch), the most tasking of the areas of improvement required, are not the facilities at all, (which in most cases will be there already).

You need to stop thinking of an Academy as a Facility and more of of a way of doing things. It's not a building, (although it requires facilities). In a nutshell, an Academy is a level of training. Yes it's needs certain facilities, but the biggest part, (from what little I know), is the teachers/coaches, and the syllabus/course content. Then of course there is the record-keeping/Admin that allows any inspector to come and see that you have the systems in place that prove to him that the training given (and the facilities), are at the desired level.

 

 

[Martini]

As a lower league manager and a real time editor freak I agree with this.

I think that reputation shouldn't matter if you want to improve your facilities, just money, I mean, the purpose of the football game is to win and if a team has the money, why wouldn't want to become better?.

Look at China, they had nothing now they have impressive training facilities just by the magics of money.

[Jimbokav1971]

7 minutes ago, Martini said:

Look at China, they had nothing now they have impressive training facilities just by the magics of money.

But if they owned a club in the UK, then no matter how much money they had, they would still have to satisfy the people who run the structure of the game her, )ie. The Premier League (Academies), and The Football League (Centre's of excellence), as to their compliance in all the relevant areas. 

Throwing money at it is a very small part of it, but that only gets you the facilities. You still have to do the rest which does not miraculously happen overnight. 

How do you show an inspector the syllabus that you have been running for a 3 year course and show the paperwork that shows the tutor feeback for example, without having first run the course for a 3 year period first.

This is about teaching. This isn't about facilities. 

[mikelfc8]

19 minutes ago, Jimbokav1971 said:

As far as I'm aware, it has never been done, however it is theoretically possible, (although hugely unlikely). 

In order to put the systems in place to be designated a category 1 Academy, you would have to do so much work that there would be no point in refusing to apply for the stages in between as you progress through them. It just doesn't make sense. By upgrading as you go, you would benefit from the grants that come with each level of upgrade. Why would you choose not to receive the grant if you were eligible for it? It just doesn't make sense. It's not how the World works, and certainly not the Football World. 

The problem here is that lots of the people posting in this thread are thinking only in terms of facilities and, (with the exception of the full-time availability of a full-size indoor pitch), the most tasking of the areas of improvement required, are not the facilities at all, (which in most cases will be there already).

You need to stop thinking of an Academy as a Facility and more of of a way of doing things. It's not a building, (although it requires facilities). In a nutshell, an Academy is a level of training. Yes it's needs certain facilities, but the biggest part, (from what little I know), is the teachers/coaches, and the syllabus/course content. Then of course there is the record-keeping/Admin that allows any inspector to come and see that you have the systems in place that prove to him that the training given (and the facilities), are at the desired level.

 

 

I agree that it is unlikely, I also get that it is more than a building and equipment. My sole intention was to illustrate that if the most extreme example is real-world possible, then larger incremental jumps between the stages could, more reasonably, be introduced into the game. Revamping the facilities and infrastructure of an existing academy from, for example, good to state of the art, seems reasonable in that context.

The grant process is a very interesting point and, if implemented in the game, could indeed be an excellent reason to maintain the current structure. Isn't that, however, tying a global in-game function specifically to UK/Euro-centric practices?

Furthermore, emergent cash rich countries like China (as suggested above) could very well be turning the whole process on it's head in their rush towards a global football brand and FM has to reflect the diversity of the football world.

 

EDIT: just thought that you may be referring to a grant system that is, indeed, global, so apologies if that is the case.

[Jimbokav1971]

@mikelfc8I think you make a some reasonable points, but not at all about China. They haven't suddenly started pumping out World Class players have they? They have all these facilities, but in reality what level of coaching are they receiving? 

I only know specifically about 1 of the Chinese Academies, (Evergreen or something I think it was called). There were originally something like 12-15 Real Madrid trained Spanish coaches sent there and although this number has improved, it hasn't improved hugely. There were originally just 100 students studying there and it's now snow-balled to something like 3,000. They spent approx £200M in building the infrastructure and the Spanish provided the syllabus, but what has it produced so far. (albeit in the very early stages of the process?) How many Chinese kids have developed and been snapped by the Barca academies or elsewhere? How many player have been so good playing in the Chinese league that foreign teams have enticed them away?

There is another completely different way to look at this. Rather than looking at a huge country doing something on a huge scale, let's look at a tiny Country, doing something on a small scale. Let;s look at how Iceland, with a Populations of approx a third of a million, (which is roughly the same as the London Borough of Barnet), achieved success in the recent EURO's. 

It's really really really simple believe it or not. 

In Iceland, the key to success is marrying facilities with education. You need both.

In Iceland, 1 in every 825 people is qualified to UEFA B level, (or above). That's 1 in 825!

In England, the ratio rises to 1 in 11,000. Let's just let those numbers sink in.

And we wonder why we are rubbish? 

China has a population of 1.3B or something. How many UEFA B licenses, (or similar), do they have? Not very many I would suggest. 

This isn't about facilities, it's about education, and while the likes of China, (and England), might be improving the facilities, until they improve the standard of footballing education in line with facilities, then little will change.  

Because it's about education rather than facilities, that's why cash thrown at it isn't an instant fix.

[mikelfc8]

But aren't we attempting to apply objective standards to the quality of the facilities and infrastructure here? The quality of the output is a different matter.

All I am attempting to comment upon is how the system is incrementally put into place and how that is a little too rigid in-game, not how to make it work.

You are spot on regarding the real world issues, as exemplified by UK vs. Iceland, but they are far beyond what the game can reflect aren't they?

[Jimbokav1971]

If you can show me just 1 single example, of anywhere in the World, that has created an Academy, (or a similar type system to Academy Level 1 as we see in the UK), without going through what we would call "lower levels" then I will agree with you. Unfortunately China certainly isn't a good example and nor at the other end of the scale is Iceland, (no matter their success). 

Your argument is that you should be able to "buy" and produce in a relatively short amount of time, something which has not ever been done so in real life. 

 

[mikelfc8]

I see what you are saying, and the problem is indeed down to effectiveness.

In the real world state of the art facilities and infrastructure don't necessarily equate to the desired output, it is more complex than that, whilst in FM, they probably do - making it work is removed as a factor.

All I am suggesting is that it is reasonable to jump a stage or two in-game in order to reflect the impact investment in the facilities can make.

In real life, Liverpool are currently discussing moving the Melwood senior training ground to the Kirkby academy. When the work is finished it would not be ridiculously unreasonable for the game to reflect that as a move from good to state of the art. Just a hypothetical example that reflects the options that some wealthier clubs have.

 

 

[trevjim]

1 hour ago, Jimbokav1971 said:

If you can show me just 1 single example, of anywhere in the World, that has created an Academy, (or a similar type system to Academy Level 1 as we see in the UK), without going through what we would call "lower levels" then I will agree with you. Unfortunately China certainly isn't a good example and nor at the other end of the scale is Iceland, (no matter their success). 

Your argument is that you should be able to "buy" and produce in a relatively short amount of time, something which has not ever been done so in real life. 

 

The difference is, we are doing things that are not done in real life. Its not unheard of in FM to take a team from conferance south/North to champions league winners in 10 seasons. This doesnt happen and most likely never will in real life.

But if it did happen, lets say salford city won the champions league in 2024, and lets say they have money coming out their ears, would it be out the question for them to build state of the art training facilities?

[BayernMB]

I agree with the opening post... if a club has the money, they should be able to invest in any way they see fit - you can have poor facilities, but if a club has grown, there is no reason not to invest in best they can afford. It is not necessary just to upgrade what you have, IRL club can buy new land and build top notch facilities from scratch.

[Martini]

Remember staff, maybe we need more staff to accomplish that, for example, let's improve the infrastructure and have world class facilities with crappy staff that you could train buy educate, etc to differentiate both.

You could buy the infrastructure right away if you got the money but the human talent takes time to flourish.

An extra layer of reality compared to today's game.

[Ellis_D]

Thanks for all that information Jimbokav1971, I have always thought it was literally just about spending the money to build the facilities. So it always annoyed me that I had to do it bit by bit in FM. It always felt like I was building a facility one year, and then knocking it down and building it a bit bigger and better the year later. Always felt so unrealistic to me, but seeing what you have written has shown me that is not the case. I'm pleased about that as it means the magical FM world in my head no longer has to invent scenarios to explain why the club would be doing it this way!

[mavericktangoII]

On 01/11/2016 at 13:56, mikelfc8 said:

In the real world is it possible to build a 5 star academy from the ground up? If it is, then shouldn't that be the only consideration regarding making it possible in-game?

Manchester City built their academy from the ground up but it wasn't instant. It was part of a six year plan and cost the best part of a billion pounds. Eight years after the start of the Academy project we are starting to see the benefits emerge with the sides starting to dominate at U13, U14, U15 & U16 levels while the older levels are still being matched by Chelsea 

[mikelfc8]

Interesting, thanks.

I am assuming that upon completion it would be what the game would call state of the art. It would be interesting to know what system was in place before and to try to approximate it to an in-game facility level, just to have an idea of how far they came and how quickly. Did they achieve greater incremental jumps that the game would allow? Really difficult to assess, I know.

Also, given the six-year plan, does the ladder of levels in the game adequately reflect the development of the City facility? In-game, if built from the ground up, at some initial point it would have to be described as poor. Is that a fair description of the initial stages of a billion pound academy. Would something like 'In Development Phase 1' be better?

[matty2323]

Money can buy anything physically. If i was to inherit 100billion pounds tomorrow and wanted to build "state of the art" facilities in my backyard, i could. The issue with the game is that the facilities directly relate to the level of player being produced - where in real life, it's more to do a combination of things, specifically the development philosophies of a club (the coaching). 

If i have below average youth facilities, and i go to the board and ask to upgrade, they should then come back with a range of options "This is how much it would cost to do this and how long it would cost to do it.." Incremental jumps would be quicker to build and more tangible in the short term, whereas bigger jumps would take longer (lets up to 2-3 years to build the facilities). Ultimately it would be quicker to jump from A to Z, but in those existing years, development would plateau.

The game also needs to provide the option for more in depth training programs and a revamp of the coaching system. Theres plenty of clubs around the world who have standards the game would consider "average" at best that continue to produce talent purely based on the level of coaching they provide and the development plans in place. 

[Quacky]

The youth facilities rating is more of an abstract concept than simply the bricks in the buildings, a point well made.

Even if it wasn't though, and one day you you go from a club with nothing to the best academy setup ever it would still be best represented as an incremental change in the quality in terms of the game. The rating changes the quality of 16 year old players appearing at your club. These kids have presumably been at your club for many years already. So if in 2016 you instantly have the best setup ever, your first youth intake has had less than a year of this exceptional football training, not enough to really turn them into wonderkids. In 2026 you will have had players coming through who had spent their entire childhood at your club with the best facilities and hence are now amazing prospects. All the years in between will be a mixture of steady progress.