Is It Time For The Rae Family To Move Step Aside?

[BishopBrennan]

Has anyone said we wouldn't have solid pros though? To me there's no harm in aiming to have a competitive team made up of players that have came though our own system but I'm sure they'll know deep down that's not likely and it will be suplimented from elsewhere.

 

I guess the problem is that there's not a lot of trust in how things are being run so people are going to be sceptical.

 

No, the problem is that we remember what happened the last time Morton tried to cheap out on the back of a decent season. Perhaps not this season, but the sustainability model will see us sitting at the wrong end of the table with lower attendances and even less enthusiasm around the club. 

[irnbru]

No, the problem is that we remember what happened the last time Morton tried to cheap out on the back of a decent season. Perhaps not this season, but the sustainability model will see us sitting at the wrong end of the table with lower attendances and even less enthusiasm around the club.

Time will tell but we can't keep being unsustainable either and spending money that isn't there.

[ralston]

Has anyone said we wouldn't have solid pros though? To me there's no harm in aiming to have a competitive team made up of players that have came though our own system but I'm sure they'll know deep down that's not likely and it will be suplimented from elsewhere.

 

I guess the problem is that there's not a lot of trust in how things are being run so people are going to be sceptical.

From the Q&A, that was my understanding. A majority of the first team from the academy, supplemented with a few experienced pros. This of course is based on an assumption that we can retain the decent products of the youth academy...

[ralston]

So you can imagine a future where the youth academy does a brilliant job at producing talented players, who are then signed by other clubs (which the good players aspire to because they’ll get to play with a balanced team of young talent, mid-career and older pros, at a higher level, for decent money etc.) Morton are left with (i) the players nobody else wants and (ii) the training compensation fee for those that have left for other clubs, which covers the costs of the youth academy as it’s based on the cost of training the player from age 12 to 21 (‘in principle’ according to FIFA).

 

The youth academy is therefore self-sustaining and maybe even profitable as it recoups its costs from players moving to other clubs (plus grants, sponsorship etc.), and we continue the cycle year after year, because the strategy is about youth and not about recruitment.

 

 

The first team continues in some form or other, in God knows what league, and the ‘die hards’ continue to spend Saturday afternoons wondering what the hell we’re doing, and spending just enough money to keep the club infrastructure ticking over. And from a business perspective, that might indeed be ‘sustainable’. 

[Clydeview]

From the Q&A, that was my understanding. A majority of the first team from the academy, supplemented with a few experienced pros. This of course is based on an assumption that we can retain the decent products of the youth academy...

 

This will NEVER happen, and it's an absolute fantasy to think it could! Of course it would be a great thing, but there just isn't the depth of talent to make it happen. The very top talent locally will go to bigger clubs, then realistically you'd be very lucky if one boy from each year group was good enough to go pro. It's just annoying to read statements like that from the Q&A, as it's utter nonsense. Simply drivel that Warren Hawke and Jim Duffy are having to come out with to keep their jobs...

 

If a Morton starting 11 could regularly feature 3 players that came through the academy system, for me that would be a really good success rate (assuming of course that we're not sitting as a part-time team outwith the top two levels of Scottish football).

[BishopBrennan]

Time will tell but we can't keep being unsustainable either and spending money that isn't there.

 

Agreed, but the money not being there is symptom of Rae's ownership and his operational methods, nothing else. The money isn't going to be there anytime soon under the Raes, but significantly cutting the outgoing that has the most significant effect on attendances strikes me as a false economy. The solution to falling crowds and growing apathy is not to replace credible, experienced professional with wee Craig from the Belva, and no amount of middle-management jargon is going to change that. 

[capitanus]

Who is wee Craig from the belva?

[irnbru]

Agreed, but the money not being there is symptom of Rae's ownership and his operational methods, nothing else. The money isn't going to be there anytime soon under the Raes, but significantly cutting the outgoing that has the most significant effect on attendances strikes me as a false economy. The solution to falling crowds and growing apathy is not to replace credible, experienced professional with wee Craig from the Belva, and no amount of middle-management jargon is going to change that.

If wee Craig isn't good enough and he's getting played for the sake of it then I agree but if he's good enough then there's no issue. Like I said, there's no harm in aiming to fill the team with youth but it should only be if they are capable of doing a job.

[TONofmemories]

This will NEVER happen, and it's an absolute fantasy to think it could! Of course it would be a great thing, but there just isn't the depth of talent to make it happen. The very top talent locally will go to bigger clubs, then realistically you'd be very lucky if one boy from each year group was good enough to go pro. It's just annoying to read statements like that from the Q&A, as it's utter nonsense. Simply drivel that Warren Hawke and Jim Duffy are having to come out with to keep their jobs...

 

If a Morton starting 11 could regularly feature 3 players that came through the academy system, for me that would be a really good success rate (assuming of course that we're not sitting as a part-time team outwith the top two levels of Scottish football).

 

He's telling you that that is the plan longer term. That is the club aim. 

[Ed de Ball]

And if no one wants it we've got a club that people know the owners don't want. People might not have confidence in things now but that situation would be much worse and a more widespread concern.

I said it in another thread but by trying to address the losses (whether people agree with how it's being done or not), the club will become more attractive to buyers.

Morton might be a club the owners don’t want anymore but the holding company owns fixed assets, including the ground, valued at over £3m. No idea if that really is the current market value or what the underlying site is worth as a building plot but if the Raes simply put the company into liquidation then, as there is no third party debt, the bulk of land proceeds would come their way. Might be that they will need to retain the ground and lease it to a new owner and sell the playing side.

[LargsTON]

He's telling you that that is the plan longer term. That is the club aim.

He's right though, it's pure fantasy. Clubs that invest properly in their youth like Hamilton and Falkirk are good examples. The former haven't sold anyone of note since McCarthur and McCarthy and the latter have all but scrapped their youth policy despite having a semi-regular flow of transfer fees. It's pie in the sky stuff from Morton. The only way Morton can turn a profit is top flight football, not by striving to produce a conveyor belt of kids on the cheap.

[TONofmemories]

He's right though, it's pure fantasy. Clubs that invest properly in their youth like Hamilton and Falkirk are good examples. The former haven't sold anyone of note since McCarthur and McCarthy and the latter have all but scrapped their youth policy despite having a semi-regular flow of transfer fees. It's pie in the sky stuff from Morton. The only way Morton can turn a profit is top flight football, not by striving to produce a conveyor belt of kids on the cheap.

 

It might be fantasy indeed, but IMO there's a lot of stripping back still to come to get to that point. Say we get down the line having continued this penny pinching mission, and the youth doesnt work out as hoped, we'd be fucked

[dunning1874]

If wee Craig isn't good enough and he's getting played for the sake of it then I agree but if he's good enough then there's no issue. Like I said, there's no harm in aiming to fill the team with youth but it should only be if they are capable of doing a job.

They're already including players who aren't good enough for the sake of it though.

 

Warren Hawke's repeated public pronouncements along the lines of 'we have between five and seven youth graduates in the squad for every game ' make it apparent that the club already sees having as many youth products as possible in the first team as an end in itself regardless of the impact on results, rather than the correct approach of youth products who are actually good enough for the first team being brought through, with the only intended outcomes being success for the first team and revenue from player sales.

 

The evidence that we're taking the former approach - the stupid and harmful one - is plain in the bench on matchdays and in our transfer policy. Jim Duffy tells us that he chose to release Connor McManus because we're "over-saturated" in midfield, yet Ruaridh Langan, a player who was behind McManus in the pecking order, is included in the first team squad every week. If we were so over-burdened in midfield, why is a youth player who isn't ready included in the match day squad now that one player has left? Ben Armour has been used from the bench eight times this season, often when we're chasing a game. These players aren't ready for Championship football. Scott Tiffoney being in and around the first team squad at this point isn't ridiculous, but taking part in 17 of our 20 league games already? Does anyone truly believe he's good enough to play that regularly for a top four Championship side, which should have been the minimum target for the club this season if they actually bothered to set targets?

 

Moving away from the debate on here recently around whether even having a youth setup is a good thing, let's take it as a given that it is for the sake of argument. The whole point of the exercise should be to produce players who are good enough to achieve success playing for Morton's first team, but the club is already claiming success on the basis of the number of players in the first team despite the fact the club are going backwards on the pitch. It's not good enough and it's deeply concerning in the context of what they'll consider to be success for Morton in years to come. Will they be happy to see us scrape 8th in this division every season provided we do it with 5 academy graduates playing regularly? If we end up relegated to League One, is staying there a price worth paying for giving more youth products a chance? Their approach suggests a complete detachment not only from the ambitions of the fanbase, but more importantly from the reality of how a youth system is supposed to work.

[TONofmemories]

They're already including players who aren't good enough for the sake of it though.

 

Warren Hawke's repeated public pronouncements along the lines of 'we have between five and seven youth graduates in the squad for every game ' make it apparent that the club already sees having as many youth products as possible in the first team as an end in itself regardless of the impact on results, rather than the correct approach of youth products who are actually good enough for the first team being brought through, with the only intended outcomes being success for the first team and revenue from player sales.

 

The evidence that we're taking the former approach - the stupid and harmful one - is plain in the bench on matchdays and in our transfer policy. Jim Duffy tells us that he chose to release Connor McManus because we're "over-saturated" in midfield, yet Ruaridh Langan, a player who was behind McManus in the pecking order, is included in the first team squad every week. If we were so over-burdened in midfield, why is a youth player who isn't ready included in the match day squad now that one player has left? Ben Armour has been used from the bench eight times this season, often when we're chasing a game. These players aren't ready for Championship football. Scott Tiffoney being in and around the first team squad at this point isn't ridiculous, but taking part in 17 of our 20 league games already? Does anyone truly believe he's good enough to play that regularly for a top four Championship side, which should have been the minimum target for the club this season if they actually bothered to set targets?

 

Moving away from the debate on here recently around whether even having a youth setup is a good thing, let's take it as a given that it is for the sake of argument. The whole point of the exercise should be to produce players who are good enough to achieve success playing for Morton's first team, but the club is already claiming success on the basis of the number of players in the first team despite the fact the club are going backwards on the pitch. It's not good enough and it's deeply concerning in the context of what they'll consider to be success for Morton in years to come. Will they be happy to see us scrape 8th in this division every season provided we do it with 5 academy graduates playing regularly? If we end up relegated to League One, is staying there a price worth paying for giving more youth products a chance? Their approach suggests a complete detachment not only from the ambitions of the fanbase, and more importantly from the reality of how a youth system is supposed to work.

 

Excellent summary

[big B]

Excellent summary

If they are happy to just exist it the championship they are going to findout the hardway now the hardcore of fans are wakening up. And the way to do it is to pick a game and most of the hardcore congregate in the carpark opposite and don't enter the ground and let them know enough is enough. Expecting the fans to show up and part with our hard earned money and just except the crap we have had to endure season after season.

[Alan_Partridge_Ton]

Who is wee Craig from the belva?

He’s related to Domingo from Little Oakley I believe!

[Clydeview]

Dunning's post is spot-on.

 

I have huge reservations over the entire youth set-up - relying on it in any way, and promoting players to the first team squad when they clearly aren't good enough, is not going to end well.

 

Derek McInnes

Derek Collins

Davie Hopkin

John Anderson

Craig McPherson

Derek Lilley

Brian Reid

 

The above - Morton got all of them from boys clubs (aged 16-20 I guess), all went on to become Morton regulars and play at a higher level, some of them making Morton a lot of money in the process. Our best academy players of recent years haven't been a patch on any of these guys, with most of the top prospects failing to make it as pro footballers. The whole worth of having an academy has to be questioned.

[TaunTon]

I think Dunning sums up the current situation well. The number of youth players involved with the first team has become the real measure of success so far as the powers that be are concerned. The fact that this policy is limiting our ability to compete is not as important as looking virtuous in terms of youth development.

 

The policy is doomed to fail as is any hope that we will credibly challenge for promotion so long as it exists. At the moment it feels like fans are being asked to pay to watch the Royal Shakespeare Company while being served up the local school play.

[BishopBrennan]

If wee Craig isn't good enough and he's getting played for the sake of it then I agree but if he's good enough then there's no issue. Like I said, there's no harm in aiming to fill the team with youth but it should only be if they are capable of doing a job.

 

See Dunning's summation above. And let's bear in mind that we're attempting to do this with a THIRD TIER youth system. It's an abysmal business model and it will not reap the rewards that Rae, and Hawke, are desperate for. When we're playing a League One title decider in front of 1200 people Rae will realise that the damage has been done. 

[Jamie_M]

They're already including players who aren't good enough for the sake of it though.

 

Warren Hawke's repeated public pronouncements along the lines of 'we have between five and seven youth graduates in the squad for every game ' make it apparent that the club already sees having as many youth products as possible in the first team as an end in itself regardless of the impact on results, rather than the correct approach of youth products who are actually good enough for the first team being brought through, with the only intended outcomes being success for the first team and revenue from player sales.

 

The evidence that we're taking the former approach - the stupid and harmful one - is plain in the bench on matchdays and in our transfer policy. Jim Duffy tells us that he chose to release Connor McManus because we're "over-saturated" in midfield, yet Ruaridh Langan, a player who was behind McManus in the pecking order, is included in the first team squad every week. If we were so over-burdened in midfield, why is a youth player who isn't ready included in the match day squad now that one player has left? Ben Armour has been used from the bench eight times this season, often when we're chasing a game. These players aren't ready for Championship football. Scott Tiffoney being in and around the first team squad at this point isn't ridiculous, but taking part in 17 of our 20 league games already? Does anyone truly believe he's good enough to play that regularly for a top four Championship side, which should have been the minimum target for the club this season if they actually bothered to set targets?

 

Moving away from the debate on here recently around whether even having a youth setup is a good thing, let's take it as a given that it is for the sake of argument. The whole point of the exercise should be to produce players who are good enough to achieve success playing for Morton's first team, but the club is already claiming success on the basis of the number of players in the first team despite the fact the club are going backwards on the pitch. It's not good enough and it's deeply concerning in the context of what they'll consider to be success for Morton in years to come. Will they be happy to see us scrape 8th in this division every season provided we do it with 5 academy graduates playing regularly? If we end up relegated to League One, is staying there a price worth paying for giving more youth products a chance? Their approach suggests a complete detachment not only from the ambitions of the fanbase, and more importantly from the reality of how a youth system is supposed to work.

Spot on. We are already shoehorning youths in when they are not ready and it's affecting our ability to compete. Filling the bench with youths meaning we have little in reserve to change things when plan A isn't working and Tiffoney, nothing against the guy and he has had some moments of quality, but he is nowhere near ready for regular first team action.

 

His loan stint at Clyde in League 2 was hardly a roaring success (unlike Strapp who earned rave reviews in that league). He should have been out on loan again since then to try to develop further.

 

Duffy's squad building based on 4-3-3, it's (not surprising) failure and reversion to 4 in midfield meant we should have instantly went out and signed a competent wide player capable of regular starts at this level. Many of the teams above us have had a lot of success with competent wide players this season. We didn't, because we're shoehorning youths in, Tiff isn't up to it (yet) and we continue to flounder.

 

Tommy Robson, a youth prospect from a higher level with limited first team game time, absolutely schooled Tiff on Saturday, put him in his back pocket from the off and has anybody actually seen him since?