Project Brave rumbles on..

[happyaccie]

In the 1980s Aberdeen FC & Dundee Utd FC were the dominant forces in Scottish football, both clubs were heavily reliant on nurturing young Scottish talent to achieve the levels of success they achieved, both clubs under shrewd management of Sir Alex Ferguson & Jim McLean realised they couldn't compete with the old firm on finances so chose this way to try and redress the imbalance in favour of the west of Scotland clubs.Sir Alex who continued to use this philosophy even at Manchester Utd when he had huge financial resources available, had an incredible knack for identifying and nurturing young talent in particular, the much heralded class of 92 being the best example of a squad full of very talented youngsters ably assisted by a smattering of experienced players, achieving success beyond all expectation ( and making a certain A Hansen eat his words).

After achieving success the aforementioned AberdeenFC & Dundee Utd FC , after attaining a previously unknown wealth, rather with hindsight neglected their previously successful youth policies and opted to splash their new found wealth on players, the short term benifit's of adopting such a policy,allowed both clubs to enter each season for probably the next ten years with realistic prospects of winning silverware, now after both clubs particularly Dundee Utd having endured long periods of underachievement, both clubs I think are of the opinion that trying to compete financially with the old firm is an unviable option. These clubs have allowed their youth programmes to be a mere shadow of the successful programmes they had at their disposal in the 80s, it will take a real level of investment and structuring to allow these clubs to once again be at the forefront of youth development in Scotland. Whether these clubs should be included in the Project Brave programme and therefore entitled to funding from the SFA is questionable.

[capt_oats]

7 minutes ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said:

I haven’t been following this all that closely. Have the selected clubs not been cosen based on track record of progressing players through their system to the first team and beyond?

From what I can tell there's a myriad of criteria. Track record of progression pathway is just one box to be ticked. One of the main stumbling blocks it seems relates to staffing and presumably facilities.

Ian McCall has made fairly unsubtle comments about the various requirements needed when he's been on Sportsound. He's basically said that what they're asking for is unrealistic for many clubs. 

They want full time dedicated staff who are Academy specific, not just coaches who work with the first team and spend some time with the youth sides but Sports Science etc. I imagine there are criteria for access to facilities as well. I'll be honest and say that having a dedicated Sports Scientist looking after the Academy seems like a fairly reasonable criteria however if you start adding those wages up I can see how it's going to become prohibitive.

Essentially that's where there seems to have become an impasse. Rather than being flexible and looking to find a common ground with a view to helping clubs achieve they're simply being dogmatic. If clubs are saying "but we've got a good track record" they're simply saying "tough, you need a full time sports scientist for the academy on the books and you also need to provide access to X number of facilities".

The story goes that a number of clubs raised concerns about whether or not the criteria being set was achievable for most clubs and Regan's response was simply "you can like it or lump it".

[Smokiejohn]

I’ve heard from a couple of sources involved in now unsuccessful bids that no sooner had they satisfied certain criteria , more criteria were then added.
SFA knew/were told from start who was to be in Elite and moved goalposts to ensure that was case .

[parsforlife]

From what I can tell there's a myriad of criteria. Track record of progression pathway is just one box to be ticked. One of the main stumbling blocks it seems relates to staffing and presumably facilities.

Ian McCall has made fairly unsubtle comments about the various requirements needed when he's been on Sportsound. He's basically said that what they're asking for is unrealistic for many clubs. 

They want full time dedicated staff who are Academy specific, not just coaches who work with the first team and spend some time with the youth sides but Sports Science etc. I imagine there are criteria for access to facilities as well. I'll be honest and say that having a dedicated Sports Scientist looking after the Academy seems like a fairly reasonable criteria

 

Is it? Sport science has clear benefits to player performance, but I wonder how much benefit it is to a youth player long term. Is a player entering the same 1st team environment where sport science etc is available really that much better off for receiving this during their youth program?

 

You look at the number of staff being asked for. It might be necessary at rangers to have employ a full time member of staff for every little thing because they have a ridiculous number of kids signed up, but if you run a tighter set up it's easier for a smaller number of staff to fulfill the various roles. Similarly celtic's first team sport scientist isn't going to have time to do sessions with the academy as they run with a bloated squad, but sides with a smaller first team can provide that support to the academy.

 

Just because you might be running a smaller set up and share resources with the first team doesn't automatically mean what is being provided is of poorer quality.

[ayrmad]

It's a load of shite, if those in power were interested in producing players they would be slashing the cost of coaching badges by 80%+ rather than handing cash to teams that already have more than enough finances for Scottish football, in effect clubs like Montrose will be subsidising Celtic and Rangers' youth policy, how the f**k can anyone with half a brain think this is the way to go I'll never know.

[Cerberus]

I think this Project Brave thing is a load of shite, regardless of who is (or isn't) in it.
However, the fact that posts like the above are getting produced almost makes it worth it.
GIRFUY, Dundee slum dwellers.
 

That’s not very neighborly.

[happyaccie]

19 hours ago, Yenitit said:

Should Celtic and Rangers with crowds of 50000+ be getting any funding? If this was for the good of Scottish football they wouldn’t be. Looks like the kids in Tayside and Fife are being shat on. Let’s keep clubs like Hamilton at the forefront of Scottish football, oh ma sides 

 

Hamilton : home support of 1500, away support of 200, stadium with 2 stands, AstroTurf pitch  but let’s give them funding to lead Scottish football forward. 

This post can be summed up in two words sour grapes.

But  I love a verbal joust with Dundee fans so sour grapes does not suffice.Do you think Hamilton having the foresight to have invested in and maintained a very creditable Youth Development Programme over the last decade is grounds for their exclusion of Project Brave? Whilst your club Dundee are trying to grab some of the funding available from the SFA, by belatedly being reactive and advertising posts which require to be filled to even be considered for inclusion in Project Brave.

Hamilton have been included in this programme rightly or wrongly however it's viewed, not because we are seen as a beacon of light with regard to producing stars of the future to be of international standard, our inclusion is based on the existing tried and tested programme run by the club, and not 1 trying to be implemented by Dundee.

[Squirrelhumper]

12 hours ago, Yenitit said:

Not 1 of them will get anywhere  near the national side. You are aware this is meant to be for the benefit of the nation run by the ‘national’ football association. There’s a fifth of the nation’s population in Tayside, Fife and The Highlands yet not an academy between them. 

 

Is it really that difficult to have had 2 academies in the Glasgow area, 2 in Edinburgh, 1 in Aberdeen, 1 in Tayside, 1 in the Highlands and 1 around the Dunfermline/Falkirk area? After all it’s for the benefit of the game up here. 

Not our fault those clubs are diddies and can't meet the criteria.

[Squirrelhumper]

13 minutes ago, happyaccie said:

This post can be summed up in two words sour grapes.

But  I love a verbal joust with Dundee fans so sour grapes does not suffice.Do you think Hamilton having the foresight to have invested in and maintained a very creditable Youth Development Programme over the last decade is grounds for their exclusion of Project Brave? Whilst your club Dundee are trying to grab some of the funding available from the SFA, by belatedly being reactive and advertising posts which require to be filled to even be considered for inclusion in Project Brave.

Hamilton have been included in this programme rightly or wrongly however it's viewed, not because we are seen as a beacon of light with regard to producing stars of the future to be of international standard, our inclusion is based on the existing tried and tested programme run by the club, and not 1 trying to be implemented by Dundee.

For once I agree.

Dundee's attempt to be included appears a bit last minute/going through motions.  Means they can moan about it though.

[Savage Henry]

11 hours ago, stumigoo said:

Probably a stupid idea but what about having four or five centralised academies with state of the art facilities, great coaching and education (all subsidised by the government and SFA) but at a certain age, just like in American sports, there is a draft like system so that these young players get spread evenly amongst the clubs in Scotland on an initial, lets say two year contract, just to give them first team exposure and experience. Total pie in the sky but I still think the worst part of this whole process is the funnelling of talent through a narrow pathway to benefit the bigger clubs whilst putting additional financial burden on those trying to chase elite status. 

Yup.  Regionalised youth development run in conjunction with local colleges followed by an annual draft pick.

Trouble is the clubs (and as we've seen, certain clubs at that) are far too powerful, and for the most part short sighted.  It's the same reason there's no Scottish Football TV subscription package.

And on top of that  we have a performance director who can barely string a coherent sentence together without a racial epithet, and seems utterly unqualified for the job.

[RiG]

12 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Not our fault those clubs are diddies and can't meet the criteria.

What is the criteria for Project Brave? Given Aberdeen don't have a training ground of their own and the players run about a local park I'd be surprised if any infrastructure / facilities criteria could be in place unless the SFA know something others don't about the Kingsford application.

[harry94]

49 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

For once I agree.

Dundee's attempt to be included appears a bit last minute/going through motions.  Means they can moan about it though.

It's all a bit of a mystery right now as we don't really have access to the information about the specific criteria required and what was demanded of the clubs but as far as I'm aware, Nelms and the board are absolutely seething about this and have been working on this project from a really early stage. Their talking points about money they pledged towards a new training facility (initially more than £1 million towards a shared council facility which failed in planning but they've moved on to the new stadium + training ground facility which they are aiming for planning permission at the start of next year). I also know for a fact that the posts advertised were planned a long long time before.

Now, maybe Dundee didn't have a bid that was within the eight best (and from a perspective of the record of youth development - Hamilton have been outstanding at this for the last decade and deserve plaudits), I don't know, but at this stage we don't really know anything. The arbitrary limit of eight teams seems seriously short-sighted.

I suspect though that they've maybe made a requirement for an indoor facility firm to root out the Tayside clubs in an effort to filter down to eight. There just isn't any facility like that here (in terms of a full 11aside indoor pitch) but there will be in a few years when the new regional performance centre is built.

In all honesty, if the board are sincere about their intentions and commitments towards youth development, they should just go ahead with their work and there isn't anyone in the area with superior status to handicap us. Once the new facility is built, some other new scheme will come around when Scotland get humped in qualification a few times and we'll repeat the process all over again to target 'Project Courageous'.

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Not our fault those clubs are diddies and can't meet the criteria.

I've nothing against the clubs that have been chosen but do you seriously think this is going to make Scotland produce a lot more talented footballers, who's going to critique the coaches and systems already in place at these clubs to ensure the coaches aren't pish?

[PauloPerth]

I agree with the rationale that the funding should be for elite youth player development rather than the blanket approach the youth initiative has been where a lot of money is spent on development of thousands of average youngsters, instead of being targeted more at the best...

But this should have been done through regional centres as many have said. 

The point made a few posts ago about Montrose effectively funding Celtic's youth programme is an interesting one.. why are we throwing more money at a club that already has more that the rest put together?

The repeated poor showing by our national team is only one of several failings currently in our game:

Other than celtic, all of our clubs have been very poor in Europe for many years. And, the biggest failing of all, we have a league where only one club will ever win it. A domestic game where one club wins everything, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. Even if rangers improve all that means is two teams challenging for the league every season. As far as entertainment from sporting competition goes, it is abysmal.

By distributing resources and the best upcoming young players more fairly, there is more chance of chipping away at the disparity.

It would be interesting to see how the SFA reacted if people boycotted Scotland matches, stopped renewing supporters passes etc in protest at this. It could potentially have a big impact on revenue.

[cilitbang]

I wouldn't be bothered if being in Project Brave was purely a funding for youth program since we have the Weirs

But what I remember is that if you are not within Project Brave,  your club is denied access from the pool of "elite youth players" as the Project Brave academies get them and then play against eachother within their own league - happy to be corrected if wrong on that

[Big Fifer]

9 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

I agree with the rationale that the funding should be for elite youth player development rather than the blanket approach the youth initiative has been where a lot of money is spent on development of thousands of average youngsters, instead of being targeted more at the best...

But this should have been done through regional centres as many have said. 

The point made a few posts ago about Montrose effectively funding Celtic's youth programme is an interesting one.. why are we throwing more money at a club that already has more that the rest put together?

The repeated poor showing by our national team is only one of several failings currently in our game:

Other than celtic, all of our clubs have been very poor in Europe for many years. And, the biggest failing of all, we have a league where only one club will ever win it. A domestic game where one club wins everything, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. Even if rangers improve all that means is two teams challenging for the league every season. As far as entertainment from sporting competition goes, it is abysmal.

By distributing resources and the best upcoming young players more fairly, there is more chance of chipping away at the disparity.

It would be interesting to see how the SFA reacted if people boycotted Scotland matches, stopped renewing supporters passes etc in protest at this. It could potentially have a big impact on revenue.

That'll never happen. Thousands of TA "footsoldiers" that will sign up till the cows come home.

Incidentally, does anyone have a link to exactly what project brave is and what it changes? I've tried googling it but all I can find is vague pie in the sky newspaper articles that don't put down in black and white exactly what is changing.

[bunglebonce]

2 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

I agree with the rationale that the funding should be for elite youth player development rather than the blanket approach the youth initiative has been where a lot of money is spent on development of thousands of average youngsters, instead of being targeted more at the best...

But this should have been done through regional centres as many have said.

Greenie for this part.

Roy MacGregor (and Academy Director Steven Ferguson) said at a recent fans' Q+A that they would continue with their investment and improved structure if they weren't included in Project Brave.  So there will be a regional centre in the Highlands of sorts.  My concern will be for the appetite for that in the long term, but Roy is certainly putting his money where his mouth is for the time being.

Another concern from my own club's point of view is who will the Ross County youth teams play against?  They're already battering their regional rivals at youth levels and have to travel down the A9 every weekend for better competition, but if the 'elite 8' have segregated themselves from the rest of the competition then what quality will be left.

There is a good argument for going the Brentford way - or more accurately, the old Ross County way - of picking up Celtic's early-20s cast-offs. 

[capt_oats]

5 minutes ago, cilitbang said:

I wouldn't be bothered if being in Project Brave was purely a funding for youth program since we have the Weirs

But what I remember is that if you are not within Project Brave,  your club is denied access from the pool of "elite youth players" as the Project Brave academies get them and then play against eachother within their own league - happy to be corrected if wrong on that

I'm not sure that you're denied as such.

Surely which team a youth signs pro-terms for is a personal choice? The rationale simply seems to be that if a player has the option of joining one of 4 "elite" academies (Rangers, Celtic, Motherwell or Hamilton in our area) which by definition should offer a better set up or joining a "performance progressive" academy ie: Thistle then you'd imagine that player would go for one of the "elite" options.

Then again, I'm not sure how Thistle's academy recruitment has worked up until now and whether they're already directly in competition with these clubs for players. With the Weir money behind them and a new training centre in development I wouldn't have thought it'd have impacted massively on the players they've been recruiting up until now. I could be miles out on that though.

[cilitbang]

13 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

I'm not sure that you're denied as such.

Surely which team a youth signs pro-terms for is a personal choice? The rationale simply seems to be that if a player has the option of joining one of 4 "elite" academies (Rangers, Celtic, Motherwell or Hamilton in our area) which by definition should offer a better set up or joining a "performance progressive" academy ie: Thistle then you'd imagine that player would go for one of the "elite" options.

Then again, I'm not sure how Thistle's academy recruitment has worked up until now and whether they're already directly in competition with these clubs for players. With the Weir money behind them and a new training centre in development I wouldn't have thought it'd have impacted massively on the players they've been recruiting up until now. I could be miles out on that though.

I will happily admit I haven't been following this mess that much so you will have a far better understanding than me

I had it in my mind that for arguments sake there will be X amount of elite youth players, and Project Brave academies got 1st dibs on that pool, a bit like the NFL draft

In regards to recruitment, just the trivial thing in having "Elite/ Project Brave" attached to your academy name will attract youngsters as parents will see that as better coaching etc etc

[Ludo*1]

Just to mention - for whatever reason, and like most I don't know the reason - Nelms was known to be seething when this whole Project Brave was announced and dead set against it. f**k knows what changed his mind with the posts being advertised in a late attempt to snag a place - but there's obviously some political manoeuvring going on with all the club's at the moment.