Is there any response from this supporters group to help support and sponsor the youth teams.

 

Parents are being asked to support the youth teams by £10 a week. 

 

Could we not commit to a sum per week to specifically support some kids. 

 

I would support a weekly stipend for this. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

I agree. It has been running for years now and there is no evidence that it is any more successful in developing young players than what preceded it.

If anything, the contrary seems to be the case.

Don't think three years is quite long enough to come to that judgement yet...

5 hours ago, IBM said:

Project Brave just created more jobs for the boys running it and doesn't improve the quality of the coaching the youngsters get. 

I wonder how much employment costs are?

51 minutes ago, Satan said:

Don't think three years is quite long enough to come to that judgement yet...

from what I hear PB costs are in the 6 figure bracket so 3 years is certainly long enough for the club to review everything and take the required action if it is not producing a return.

 

3 years is a bit short term even for the least patient out there, and if you're looking for a return after that...😂

 

39 minutes ago, Satan said:

 

3 years is a bit short term even for the least patient out there, and if you're looking for a return after that...😂

 

Patience is not something our club can afford Satan. If our directors  and managers are happy then so be it but it is only prudent to review every part of our business regularly considering our financial situation. 

Would far prefer seeing our own youth players getting a game than most of the journeymen wev been "treated" to last few seasons will never no how good they are if the manager doesn't play them

1 hour ago, Alan Simpson said:

Would far prefer seeing our own youth players getting a game than most of the journeymen wev been "treated" to last few seasons will never no how good they are if the manager doesn't play them

I think we would all prefer to see our home grown talent get a game but they have to be good enough to get into the squad in the first place and get the experience to help them stay there. That's where a Reserve team helps.

21 hours ago, caleyboy said:

I think we would all prefer to see our home grown talent get a game but they have to be good enough to get into the squad in the first place and get the experience to help them stay there. That's where a Reserve team helps.

Ye reserve teams help but at huge cost sometimes a managers just gotta be brave and see what the young guns can do look at man utd they've a lot of youngsters in there top team 

I seem to recall figures well into six figures being mentioned to meet the "Progressive" level of Project Brave. Falkirk talked about costs running to around £470,000 so they scrapped it without hesitation.

It's of course far too early to determine whether it's a success or not but it certainly seems like an expense the club can do without right now.

31 minutes ago, RiG said:

I seem to recall figures well into six figures being mentioned to meet the "Progressive" level of Project Brave. Falkirk talked about costs running to around £470,000 so they scrapped it without hesitation.

It's of course far too early to determine whether it's a success or not but it certainly seems like an expense the club can do without right now.

Not just could do without but, almost certainly, simply can't afford.

So it turns out that Project Brave isn't costing the club anything near the £500,000 that Messrs Morrison and The Spoof have been claiming.  The cost is about £170,000 and half of that is paid by the SFA.  Are we really saying that we can't afford to invest 2.5% of the club turnover in our Youth?

1 hour ago, Reliably_Informed said:

So it turns out that Project Brave isn't costing the club anything near the £500,000 that Messrs Morrison and The Spoof have been claiming.  The cost is about £170,000 and half of that is paid by the SFA.  Are we really saying that we can't afford to invest 2.5% of the club turnover in our Youth?

You don't seem to have grasped the reality of the situation. In normal times, of course developing youth should be a priority but these are very far from normal times and it is likely to take every penny we can muster just to get a first team squad capable of completing the season and, with any luck, being competitive.

Even on the figures you quote, which are highly dubious, you are suggesting that we have a turnover in the region of three and a half million pounds. This season it is most unlikely to be even half of that.

Our single focus right now is to survive and, hopefully having done that, we can focus on other things that may be desirable but not essential.

2 hours ago, Reliably_Informed said:

So it turns out that Project Brave isn't costing the club anything near the £500,000 that Messrs Morrison and The Spoof have been claiming.  The cost is about £170,000 and half of that is paid by the SFA.  Are we really saying that we can't afford to invest 2.5% of the club turnover in our Youth?

What is the source of the numbers you quote? They are quite different from the understanding of most posters on this topic. 

https://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/2018/09/19/chairmans-question-answer/

Quote

A lot of fans believe the decision to close the Academy and switch funds to player recruitment was short-sighted. What’s your response?

A full business review was undertaken during the second half of 2017 that showed ever-increasing costs related to our development of young players. This included the Academy and ongoing development of players in our development team. The total cost at that time was £340,000 per year. This would rise to £433,000 in the first year under Project Brave and up to £467,000 per year by year three. This also excludes any capital or running costs of an indoor facility.  This was unsustainable for a club of our size and in danger of putting the future of the Club itself at risk.

Maybe those costs don't include any contribution from the SFA or they are costs after any SFA contributions have been taken into consideration?

Thanks, I’ve read the full link and the last answer is enlightening too. A full review of youth development in this country is long overdue as it needs to look after the youngsters but also be sustainable and affordable for clubs. At present it seems to do neither. 

Regardless of youth systems I can't see youth players flourishing unless we increase the league numbers.

 

12/10 is far too tight/competitive to blood youngsters. Managers are fearing for their jobs and will stick with experience over youth. Yes it makes for more excitement and intrigue. We have seen especially in the championship you can go from relegation candidates to having playoff potential after a couple of wins. This is great for fans but not for young players.

A larger league and less risk of relegation would probably increase the game time afforded to younger players to gain said experience and allow them to develop. Until this happens all this 'projects' are a waste of time imo.

I entirely agree. When Scotland had two large national leagues the national team were constantly successful and competitive.

Ever since the introduction of ten or  twelve team divisions the number and quality of youngsters being brought through has diminished to the detriment of both the clubs and the national team.

Reconstruction is sensible and long overdue. Unfortunately, however  greed and narrow self interest means it's unlikely to happen.

I agree fully with both posts above. 

Some clubs need to take a long hard look at themselves and realise that a different formula will be better for the game in this country.

Some countries have larger leagues that split mid way through, so keep the interest going for fans. Something like that could be successful here if clubs can look at things with an enlightened, longer term view.

3 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

I entirely agree. When Scotland had two large national leagues the national team were constantly successful and competitive.

Ever since the introduction of ten or  twelve team divisions the number and quality of youngsters being brought through has diminished to the detriment of both the clubs and the national team.

Reconstruction is sensible and long overdue. Unfortunately, however  greed and narrow self interest means it's unlikely to happen.

That's a long time ago, the premier division has been around in some form since the end of the seventies, and the national team and clubs had the most successful period on the back of that small premier division.

The two divisions below that, being semi pro/amateur or whatever were bigger until 1994 when 2 clubs from the north joined and brought the 4 league system...so we can blame ourselves.

Reconstruction may seem sensible  but it happens every 5 to 10 years, so I doubt it's overdue really...unless your club got relegated and your looking for a way back into the top league.😋

When/If we get back then we may want to use different terms than greed and self interest.

2 hours ago, Satan said:

That's a long time ago, the premier division has been around in some form since the end of the seventies, and the national team and clubs had the most successful period on the back of that small premier division.

The two divisions below that, being semi pro/amateur or whatever were bigger until 1994 when 2 clubs from the north joined and brought the 4 league system...so we can blame ourselves.

Reconstruction may seem sensible  but it happens every 5 to 10 years, so I doubt it's overdue really...unless your club got relegated and your looking for a way back into the top league.😋

When/If we get back then we may want to use different terms than greed and self interest.

Yes. I know that the truncated top league has been about since the seventies.

I am long enough in the tooth to remember thinking what a bad and short sighted decision that was at the time !

But you said that when there was two large leagues the national team were constantly successful and more competitive... was this based on home nations or tournament qualifying??

We certainly did better in major tournaments for a prolonged period after the premier was introduced ( with 14 team 1st & 2nd divs ), and we did well in youth tournaments also, I'm just trying to see what point you're trying to illustrate here.

Perhaps the big lower/semi pro leagues were a better environment for introducing young players as the pressure was less and the standard was lower. Interestingly they only played each other twice a season which on the surfaces at the time meant less fatigue related injuries.

Only recently has the standard of youth football slid, previously we were always top rated - it was the next level where we failed, due to the lack of further development in first team coaching perhaps.

I'm not sure the quantity of the coaching is the issue , perhaps we need look at the quality - after all the game has moved on a bit.

 

 

Cost figures are here

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/sport/crunch-time-for-caley-thistle-youth-academy-207194/

That seems awfully low considering the figures banded about previously. Is that definitely all of the costs associated with the Progressive level of Project Brave?

Some good news for the youth set up...

https://ictfc.com/ictfc-academy-update?fbclid=IwAR0RqPLvTFzuu1gJC0snDivaaPMAPjYT4AZi3ack3mPUSDAFCYg5i0w8RVQ

Definitely is. Hopefully we can cultivate youngsters who break through and give us a foundation for the future over time.