[Milkins]

Clubs aren't run on dreams, they're run with money. Yes the ground capacity does need to grow and the academy does need to either improve or get replaced by a B team simply to allow young players a better pathway to the first team. But the club is owned by an investment company with investors to answer to. Imagine trying to say to them that they'd be spending god knows how much to spend on a category one academy that will in all liklihood run at a massive loss unless we unearth the next Mbappe, persuade him to ignore all the interest from Chelsea, Man City etc, put him on a professional contract with a massive release clause and then cash in. 

Academy and ground expansion are both things that make more sense as we progress rather than spending money on them in in advance. If we progress to the Premier League say then it becomes that much easier to keep any academy gems and that much easier to fill a 30,000 seater stadium. 

Our capacity has risen a bit and a ground that was once beginning to show some signs of falling into disrepair is now looking better than ever.

Ha. 

I didn't say that the "club should be run on dreams". I did suggest that fans that "self-censor" and continually push the owner's lines rather than arguing for better might contribute to us settling for second best. 

The question remains, what can the club now do to increase its revenue? Infrastructure won't help aside from at the margin. TV money might go up, but its not realistic to think we will go up to the Prem and cash in. To be clear, I would not advocate for the club to spend big on players trying to do so either. On your Mbappe analogy, isn't that the (buy cheap, sell high) golden ticket they are already be looking for to perhaps keep a lid on their equity? The club, net of Fratton works, has cost them £19m over the last 8 years. A few years of championship spending will push that up.

Back to that £65m in equity estimate after 18 years bit that you ignored. When it comes time for Tornante to sell the club, I assume that they would want their equity out of the club as part of the deal. That initial outlay might well make it more difficult for the next owner to improve the infrastructure. 

Here's a thing; After the last eight years, I wonder what odds a bookmaker would offer on Tornante ever building, say a new North stand. Would you put money on that bet D'Alessandro? If so, I might have some magic beans to sell you.

[Hammie]

I'm not a betting man, a mug's game as the only people to get rich are a few professionals and the bookies. No wonder they sponsor every sport going, they have profits to burn.
But I totally expect a new North Upper, withing the limitations of the City plan.

[Milkins]

I'm not a betting man, a mug's game as the only people to get rich are a few professionals and the bookies. No wonder they sponsor every sport going, they have profits to burn.
But I totally expect a new North Upper, withing the limitations of the City plan.

I appreciate your measured response and caveat.

[teeftwo]

Milkins,

My point was to demonstrate yet again to those who think that the answer to our improvement in the short and medium time (the next decade or so) hinges on a top class academy, the sarcasm, an added bonus. It's a pipe dream and one that is far beyond our responsible fiscal reach and may always be so. I don't think in my lifetime, if ever, that we are going to become a giant in world football that attracts the brightest and the best to our academy.

So for the purposes we need, our current academy is sufficient for the next few years. There is more to be gained elsewhere by investing in the infrastructure of the ground and surrounding area, the training facilities and the squad. These are the areas I would hold to owners to account on if they showed no willingness to proceed. By and large thus far they have done this and I'm confident they will continue to deliver.

Of the money they have invested thus far not all has resulted in the issue of share capital so could not be considered as equity. But however you want to cut it that has been largely capital outlay on much needed to work to secure and improve the existing infrastructure. The next big expense will be to create more seats which will drive bigger income and thus provide a return. So the money spent and the money to be spent is not equal in it's purpose or impact regarding an increase in revenue.

As to what Tornante would seek in the event of a sale, and nothing suggests this is their purpose in owning Portsmouth, then they will get what someone is willing to pay. Given the cash reserves of the club won't even come close to covering the £65 million figure I fail to see, beyond the sale price, how exactly they would extract their equity from the club beyond that. Are they going to take a few players to become pool boys. Pull down the Roko building and ship it brick by brick (ironically) back to the states? Can you really expect a new owner to happily part with more money and immediately cripple the club they have just bought from improving it's revenue stream just because Tornante invested in the past?

[Roth's Child]

I don't see anybody here hinting 'that the answer to our improvement in the short and medium time (the next decade or so) hinges on a top class academy'...?

[D'Alessandro dreaming]

Clubs aren't run on dreams, they're run with money. Yes the ground capacity does need to grow and the academy does need to either improve or get replaced by a B team simply to allow young players a better pathway to the first team. But the club is owned by an investment company with investors to answer to. Imagine trying to say to them that they'd be spending god knows how much to spend on a category one academy that will in all liklihood run at a massive loss unless we unearth the next Mbappe, persuade him to ignore all the interest from Chelsea, Man City etc, put him on a professional contract with a massive release clause and then cash in. 

Academy and ground expansion are both things that make more sense as we progress rather than spending money on them in in advance. If we progress to the Premier League say then it becomes that much easier to keep any academy gems and that much easier to fill a 30,000 seater stadium. 

Our capacity has risen a bit and a ground that was once beginning to show some signs of falling into disrepair is now looking better than ever.

Ha. 

I didn't say that the "club should be run on dreams". I did suggest that fans that "self-censor" and continually push the owner's lines rather than arguing for better might contribute to us settling for second best. 

The question remains, what can the club now do to increase its revenue? Infrastructure won't help aside from at the margin. TV money might go up, but its not realistic to think we will go up to the Prem and cash in. To be clear, I would not advocate for the club to spend big on players trying to do so either. On your Mbappe analogy, isn't that the (buy cheap, sell high) golden ticket they are already be looking for to perhaps keep a lid on their equity? The club, net of Fratton works, has cost them £19m over the last 8 years. A few years of championship spending will push that up.

Back to that £65m in equity estimate after 18 years bit that you ignored. When it comes time for Tornante to sell the club, I assume that they would want their equity out of the club as part of the deal. That initial outlay might well make it more difficult for the next owner to improve the infrastructure. 

Here's a thing; After the last eight years, I wonder what odds a bookmaker would offer on Tornante ever building, say a new North stand. Would you put money on that bet D'Alessandro? If so, I might have some magic beans to sell you.

Self censorship and arguing for better is a total non issue. There's not a chance the owners are taking business advice from the fans whether they demand a new stand or not. Our fans on the whole are not outrageously demanding, nor are they pathetically timid. The vast majority recognise the progress that has been made and the vast majority also want more. As for increasing revenue, it's what every club in the division is looking to do and there are no easy ways to do that without first spending big. 

The Mbappe analogy was relevant only to academies. Young talent yet to sign a professional contract can be stolen away for a pittance. Big clubs are hoovering up kids as young as 6, that's how on the ball they are on that front. We've seen evidence from clubs like Palace who have benefited very little recently for having a Cat 1 academy. It isn't as simple as build it and they will come. Academies can take years and decades to make profit if indeed they ever do. Even the legendary La Masia at Barcelona ran dry for a time. 

You seem to be suggesting that the Eisner's would essentially asset strip the club if they ever sold it. Please clarify as I may have misread your insinuation. I suspect in the event of a sale, the Eisner's would get their investment back as a result of the increased value of the club as a result of their investment. When people buy a fixer upper house to sell it on, they get their investment and more back in the sale. They don't sell the house and then take the fireplace and garden fence with them.

[teeftwo]

I don't see anybody here hinting 'that the answer to our improvement in the short and medium time (the next decade or so) hinges on a top class academy'...?

You're kidding right? You might want to check your very first post in this Thread titled "Academy".

"Sunderland had four academy graduates playing on the weekend, one captained the side and another scored the last minute winner.

Great example of what's possible and something we can learn from."

[Roth's Child]

I've not mentioned timeframes or anything about our improvement hinging on having a top class academy. You've plucked that out of thin air.

[Prickles]

Some allegations on here. Let's not forget what Micah went through.

[Roth's Child]

To be fair, he's got me. The man can literally read your mind. You don't even need to say it. Case closed.

[teeftwo]

I'm not playing pigeon chess with you as you can't even subtract 2025 from 2045 correctly. Apparently it's 10.

What can we learn then? Why are we learning it? The Sunderland timescale that we can learn from is historical fact. Are you saying that we can't learn anything from what Sunderland has done as we can't possibly match what they have done given all the points above? Why then is the exemplar of the Sunderland Academy cogent to our situation?

Construct a counter argument that actually flies (well better than that plane with a banner anyway) and we'll compare the two.

[Roth's Child]

What are you bleating on about? The only person talking timeframes and numbers here is you.

My message is pretty simple really - you're more likely to have homegrown talent emerge by investing in your academy than if you don't, Sunderland are the best example in England of that right now.

You said yourself it's a long process. So what are we waiting for? Find land in this or neighbouring counties and start building those foundations.

The Eisners have Prem ambition so by the time the planning is complete and ministers are pocketed we'll be closing in on another stint with the big dogs.

If we're lucky we might already have some parachute payments to supplement.

That last bit of sarcasm was for you, Queef, an added bonus

Be careful who you call a 'fag' these days. If I had blue hair and a pair of fake tits I'd have had you done for a hate crime

[D'Alessandro dreaming]

As to what Tornante would seek in the event of a sale, and nothing suggests this is their purpose in owning Portsmouth, then they will get what someone is willing to pay. Given the cash reserves of the club won't even come close to covering the £65 million figure I fail to see, beyond the sale price, how exactly they would extract their equity from the club beyond that. Are they going to take a few players to become pool boys. Pull down the Roko building and ship it brick by brick (ironically) back to the states? Can you really expect a new owner to happily part with more money and immediately cripple the club they have just bought from improving it's revenue stream just because Tornante invested in the past?

Well the pressure conference table did just get removed. No doubt that is sitting in Michael Eisner's study in California. His laptop is now on it as he checks Ebay to see if he's got any offers on all that spare kit.

[teeftwo]

What are you talking about Mothman, or should it be Methman? You must be on something like meth if you think Tornante are going to be able to find a 220 acre site anywhere around Portsmouth or the neighbouring counties to emulate Sunderland. Are you even aware of the geography or population density around you?

What are you going to do, build it in the sea? Even Staplewood is only a quarter the size.

I asked you to construct a cogent argument but you just wrote what amounts to the wittterings of Mikey.

We do not need a grade 1 academy to be successful, there are cheaper ways. The market for these things is saturated. There is, quite simply, not enough talent in the UK that would graduate to be Championship and above for all the existing academies. No sane person would sign it off as fiscally responsible.

[Roth's Child]

What are you talking about Mothman, or should it be Methman? You must be on something like meth if you think Tornante are going to be able to find a 220 acre site anywhere around Portsmouth or the neighbouring counties to emulate Sunderland. Are you even aware of the geography or population density around you?

What are you going to do, build it in the sea? Even Staplewood is only a quarter the size.

I asked you to construct a cogent argument but you just wrote what amounts to the wittterings of Mikey.

We do not need a grade 1 academy to be successful, there are cheaper ways. The market for these things is saturated. There is, quite simply, not enough talent in the UK that would graduate to be Championship and above for all the existing academies. No sane person would sign it off as fiscally responsible.

Methman? Jeez. Get your coat.

[Milkins]

Clubs aren't run on dreams, they're run with money. Yes the ground capacity does need to grow and the academy does need to either improve or get replaced by a B team simply to allow young players a better pathway to the first team. But the club is owned by an investment company with investors to answer to. Imagine trying to say to them that they'd be spending god knows how much to spend on a category one academy that will in all liklihood run at a massive loss unless we unearth the next Mbappe, persuade him to ignore all the interest from Chelsea, Man City etc, put him on a professional contract with a massive release clause and then cash in. 

Academy and ground expansion are both things that make more sense as we progress rather than spending money on them in in advance. If we progress to the Premier League say then it becomes that much easier to keep any academy gems and that much easier to fill a 30,000 seater stadium. 

Our capacity has risen a bit and a ground that was once beginning to show some signs of falling into disrepair is now looking better than ever.

Ha. 

I didn't say that the "club should be run on dreams". I did suggest that fans that "self-censor" and continually push the owner's lines rather than arguing for better might contribute to us settling for second best. 

The question remains, what can the club now do to increase its revenue? Infrastructure won't help aside from at the margin. TV money might go up, but its not realistic to think we will go up to the Prem and cash in. To be clear, I would not advocate for the club to spend big on players trying to do so either. On your Mbappe analogy, isn't that the (buy cheap, sell high) golden ticket they are already be looking for to perhaps keep a lid on their equity? The club, net of Fratton works, has cost them £19m over the last 8 years. A few years of championship spending will push that up.

Back to that £65m in equity estimate after 18 years bit that you ignored. When it comes time for Tornante to sell the club, I assume that they would want their equity out of the club as part of the deal. That initial outlay might well make it more difficult for the next owner to improve the infrastructure. 

Here's a thing; After the last eight years, I wonder what odds a bookmaker would offer on Tornante ever building, say a new North stand. Would you put money on that bet D'Alessandro? If so, I might have some magic beans to sell you.

You seem to be suggesting that the Eisner's would essentially asset strip the club if they ever sold it. Please clarify as I may have misread your insinuation. I suspect in the event of a sale, the Eisner's would get their investment back as a result of the increased value of the club as a result of their investment. When people buy a fixer upper house to sell it on, they get their investment and more back in the sale. They don't sell the house and then take the fireplace and garden fence with them.

Ha.

That is interesting - for the second time in two days you seem to have at best over-egged and at worst deliberately misinterpreted something that I have posted. Is that your thing?

Right then to clarify for you for the second time "I assume that they would want their equity out of the club as part of the deal" is dealing with the reality of their ownership. It does not "insinuate" as you put it "asset stripping". It identifies that as an investment fund (pointed out up thread) I guess that they will want a return on their investment when it comes to sell and buying out their equity in the company might (but only might) be the price. Whether anyone would pay that for an infrastructure poor business looking for golden tickets is anyone's guess. 

I see that you didn't fancy the speculative (just for shit and giggles on a message board) opportunity to say "yes, I would bet on Tornante building a new North Stand". I don't blame you, neither would I.

[Site_Admin]

Please exercise caution when phrasing some personal opinions and accusations as facts. You know what I'm talking about. Thank you kindly.

[Milkins]

Milkins,

My point was to demonstrate yet again to those who think that the answer to our improvement in the short and medium time (the next decade or so) hinges on a top class academy, the sarcasm, an added bonus. It's a pipe dream and one that is far beyond our responsible fiscal reach and may always be so. I don't think in my lifetime, if ever, that we are going to become a giant in world football that attracts the brightest and the best to our academy.

So for the purposes we need, our current academy is sufficient for the next few years. There is more to be gained elsewhere by investing in the infrastructure of the ground and surrounding area, the training facilities and the squad. These are the areas I would hold to owners to account on if they showed no willingness to proceed. By and large thus far they have done this and I'm confident they will continue to deliver.

Of the money they have invested thus far not all has resulted in the issue of share capital so could not be considered as equity. But however you want to cut it that has been largely capital outlay on much needed to work to secure and improve the existing infrastructure. The next big expense will be to create more seats which will drive bigger income and thus provide a return. So the money spent and the money to be spent is not equal in it's purpose or impact regarding an increase in revenue.

As to what Tornante would seek in the event of a sale, and nothing suggests this is their purpose in owning Portsmouth, then they will get what someone is willing to pay. Given the cash reserves of the club won't even come close to covering the £65 million figure I fail to see, beyond the sale price, how exactly they would extract their equity from the club beyond that. Are they going to take a few players to become pool boys. Pull down the Roko building and ship it brick by brick (ironically) back to the states? Can you really expect a new owner to happily part with more money and immediately cripple the club they have just bought from improving it's revenue stream just because Tornante invested in the past?

I wouldn't disagree with your stance on the academy, but I do subscribe to the idea that the "longest journey starts with a single step". My frustration with the owners is that after eight years, we have realistically taken very few steps when our competitors all seem to be zooming off over the horizon. A better academy could be a step, more capacity could be a step (and let's be clear that as things stand even Luton fkin Town will have a larger capacity than we do by the end of the decade).  There is no need to repeat the "repairing the lack of investment over the last fifty years argument". My experience on company boards, of much lesser status than Michael Eisner's I hasten to add (if somewhat needlessly), is that after a couple of years, blaming what happened or didn't happen before you took over tends not to fly. At some point the new broom owns the previous failings and has the responsibility to overcome them and set a new direction. 

I have some experience in the UK, USA and Far East of dealing directly with, and also through their staff, HNW's. The one thing they have all had in common was a desire to use their wealth to save time, probably as most have some sense of their own mortality. I struggle to understand how we are held up by other parties not wanting to put relatively small change into for example a feasibility study. In my experience if a billionaire wants something, they will tend to throw money at it to get it done. So why the diffidence?

I also agree that getting their putative 65m (after 18 years) out looks a challenge. I suppose that begs the question why did they buy the club? We were a profitable business, unlike the last eight years it seems, but we were never likely to generate a return that would be attractive to investors in the grand scheme. We were not looking for a buyer at the time. So why did they rock up and blow everyone's (well 81% of the voter's) socks off? Just asking....

[D'Alessandro dreaming]

 

Academy and ground expansion are both things that make more sense as we progress rather than spending money on them in in advance. If we progress to the Premier League say then it becomes that much easier to keep any academy gems and that much easier to fill a 30,000 seater stadium. 

Our capacity has risen a bit and a ground that was once beginning to show some signs of falling into disrepair is now looking better than ever.

Ha. 

I didn't say that the "club should be run on dreams". I did suggest that fans that "self-censor" and continually push the owner's lines rather than arguing for better might contribute to us settling for second best. 

The question remains, what can the club now do to increase its revenue? Infrastructure won't help aside from at the margin. TV money might go up, but its not realistic to think we will go up to the Prem and cash in. To be clear, I would not advocate for the club to spend big on players trying to do so either. On your Mbappe analogy, isn't that the (buy cheap, sell high) golden ticket they are already be looking for to perhaps keep a lid on their equity? The club, net of Fratton works, has cost them £19m over the last 8 years. A few years of championship spending will push that up.

Back to that £65m in equity estimate after 18 years bit that you ignored. When it comes time for Tornante to sell the club, I assume that they would want their equity out of the club as part of the deal. That initial outlay might well make it more difficult for the next owner to improve the infrastructure. 

Here's a thing; After the last eight years, I wonder what odds a bookmaker would offer on Tornante ever building, say a new North stand. Would you put money on that bet D'Alessandro? If so, I might have some magic beans to sell you.

You seem to be suggesting that the Eisner's would essentially asset strip the club if they ever sold it. Please clarify as I may have misread your insinuation. I suspect in the event of a sale, the Eisner's would get their investment back as a result of the increased value of the club as a result of their investment. When people buy a fixer upper house to sell it on, they get their investment and more back in the sale. They don't sell the house and then take the fireplace and garden fence with them.

Ha.

That is interesting - for the second time in two days you seem to have at best over-egged and at worst deliberately misinterpreted something that I have posted. Is that your thing?

Right then to clarify for you for the second time "I assume that they would want their equity out of the club as part of the deal" is dealing with the reality of their ownership. It does not "insinuate" as you put it "asset stripping". It identifies that as an investment fund (pointed out up thread) I guess that they will want a return on their investment when it comes to sell and buying out their equity in the company might (but only might) be the price. Whether anyone would pay that for an infrastructure poor business looking for golden tickets is anyone's guess. 

I see that you didn't fancy the speculative (just for shit and giggles on a message board) opportunity to say "yes, I would bet on Tornante building a new North Stand". I don't blame you, neither would I.

No deliberate misinterpretation. I asked you to clarify and you did. A lot of your contributions on this are no less ludicrous than what I asked was your meaning so it is always good to clarify. I'll clarify this for you, I would be that the Eisner's will build a new North stand or equivalent capacity improvements. 

I'm not sure what you think is going on but In the event of a sale, their return on investment comes in the form of the increased value of the club as a result of the improvements made under their tenure.They would put a price on the club that would offer them a return on investment and it's up to the potential buyers whether they match that price. If Tornante can't sell at that price and withdraw all but the minimum investment needed to run the club day to day in order to minimise their costs then I'll join you on the picket line and even help you get another plane off the ground. I would suspect their aim is more likely longer term than that to get a return on their investment through Premier League revenue at some point.

[teeftwo]

Whilst on paper we may have made a small profit before Tornante bought in you have to agree we were heading for a fall. We'd have either had to borrow heavily at punitive interest rates to maintain capacity or face having to close parts of the ground. We were stumbling along and our future would likely have become non-league. This is to take nothing away from the Trust, they did the absolute best they could with what they had been left with.

I also disagree with you on the amount of progress over 8 years. It has been steady, it has been consistent and it has been manageable. And it continues.

I don't believe for one minute they bought the club as a going concern to tart up and sell on for a few bucks profit. Nothing they have said or done in the tenure indicates this.

As for billionaires throwing money at the issue, the club is just one tiny part of the Tornante portfolio. They have been and are continually clear that the club should, within limits, be able to financially self support. For other very HNW individuals a purchase such as a club is an ego trip and they throw silly money around because it's their toy, their status symbol. I don't believe the Eisner family view Portsmouth this way.

In the long term of course we will find out.

[teeftwo]

What are you talking about Mothman, or should it be Methman? You must be on something like meth if you think Tornante are going to be able to find a 220 acre site anywhere around Portsmouth or the neighbouring counties to emulate Sunderland. Are you even aware of the geography or population density around you?

What are you going to do, build it in the sea? Even Staplewood is only a quarter the size.

I asked you to construct a cogent argument but you just wrote what amounts to the wittterings of Mikey.

We do not need a grade 1 academy to be successful, there are cheaper ways. The market for these things is saturated. There is, quite simply, not enough talent in the UK that would graduate to be Championship and above for all the existing academies. No sane person would sign it off as fiscally responsible.

Methman? Jeez. Get your coat.

I didn't realise you were so delicate and lacked a sense of humour. My apologies to you. You can call off the admin now flower.

[Roth's Child]

I'm not offended and didn't speak to admin.

Actually I am offended that you thought such a crap joke would be funny. You've been watching the BBC again haven't you.

[D'Alessandro dreaming]

As to what Tornante would seek in the event of a sale, and nothing suggests this is their purpose in owning Portsmouth, then they will get what someone is willing to pay. Given the cash reserves of the club won't even come close to covering the £65 million figure I fail to see, beyond the sale price, how exactly they would extract their equity from the club beyond that. Are they going to take a few players to become pool boys. Pull down the Roko building and ship it brick by brick (ironically) back to the states? Can you really expect a new owner to happily part with more money and immediately cripple the club they have just bought from improving it's revenue stream just because Tornante invested in the past?

I wouldn't disagree with your stance on the academy, but I do subscribe to the idea that the "longest journey starts with a single step". My frustration with the owners is that after eight years, we have realistically taken very few steps when our competitors all seem to be zooming off over the horizon. A better academy could be a step, more capacity could be a step (and let's be clear that as things stand even Luton fkin Town will have a larger capacity than we do by the end of the decade).  There is no need to repeat the "repairing the lack of investment over the last fifty years argument". My experience on company boards, of much lesser status than Michael Eisner's I hasten to add (if somewhat needlessly), is that after a couple of years, blaming what happened or didn't happen before you took over tends not to fly. At some point the new broom owns the previous failings and has the responsibility to overcome them and set a new direction. 

I have some experience in the UK, USA and Far East of dealing directly with, and also through their staff, HNW's. The one thing they have all had in common was a desire to use their wealth to save time, probably as most have some sense of their own mortality. I struggle to understand how we are held up by other parties not wanting to put relatively small change into for example a feasibility study. In my experience if a billionaire wants something, they will tend to throw money at it to get it done. So why the diffidence?

I also agree that getting their putative 65m (after 18 years) out looks a challenge. I suppose that begs the question why did they buy the club? We were a profitable business, unlike the last eight years it seems, but we were never likely to generate a return that would be attractive to investors in the grand scheme. We were not looking for a buyer at the time. So why did they rock up and blow everyone's (well 81% of the voter's) socks off? Just asking....

If we were a profitable business it was because we were paying League 2 wages and (rightly for the moment as was) not making anything like the investment in infrastructure we are now. Our competitors all laid the groundwork for zooming off into the horizon while we were tumbling through the leagues and many even before that. We weren't exactly state of the art in terms of facilities when we won the FA Cup in 2008. Luton Town who you bring up as if it is relevant have had a Premier League season in that era and invested that money into building that stadium. 

So take a club that was well behind off the pitch back then, add five years or so of financial free fall. Then some years under the brilliant but not exactly flush with cash PST and you end up with a club probably 20 years behind. That takes time to catch up barring an absolute splurge of cash which is unlikely to come from an investment fund with investors to answer to trying to run things as sustainably as possible. I cannot stress this enough, this isn't Michael Eisner's club it is Tornante's club which is a subtle but key difference. He is a business man not a sugar daddy with a hobby horse. His aims also aren't short term, he wants this in the family beyond his lifetime. I'm sure he could fund the feasibility study himself but I strongly suspect he wants us firmly established innthe championship before any building work begins. It is also shrewd to involve network rail in the process as it will make them more likely to approve anything.

The PST weren't looking to sell at any cost to just anyone. They turned down all sorts of bids from all sorts of the same type of chancers who got us into strife in the first place. I think eventually though they were always likely to sell when a serious and sensible investor came in because there was a hard ceiling for us under fan ownership. You seem to have a conspiratorial tone when asking why the Eisner's bought the club. What do you think their reasons were and what do you think they intend to do?

[D'Alessandro dreaming]

I'm not offended and didn't speak to admin.

Actually I am offended that you thought such a crap joke would be funny. You've been watching the BBC again haven't you.

Not offended but you keep replying.

[mikey393]

Sunderland had four academy graduates playing on the weekend, one captained the side and another scored the last minute winner.

Great example of what's possible and something we can learn from.

I agree that Sunderland's academy has been producing some good talent. Let's see what we can learn from them.

In order to emulate that achievement and make it work we need to find an approx. 220 acre site (easy work in the south of England, look at all the wasted space in South Downs National Park). We buy that for nearly £3 million, possibly more. We then spend 5 years wrangling with the planning authorities and local environmental protesters for permission to build the infrastructure on green belt land (and it would be green belt as you are not going to find a site that big anywhere else). If we're lucky and have a government minister or two in our pocket, objections would get over-ruled.

Bear in mind we can't even get a bridge sorted!

Having done all that we will need to spend (due to rising construction costs) something in the region of £20-£25 million building the thing. It won't be staffed by volunteers or powered by fairy dust and we can't rely on sheep to cut the grass so we can look at the cost of running the whole affair on a yearly basis. Lets say around £4-5 million a year as a conservative estimate. That's probably low.

Eventually, 10 years down the line (so around 2040-2045), with the right coaching staff and having taken the time to build a reputation, we would begin to see the first one or two make their way into the first team. By 2050 or 2060 we might even make a profit and cover the £100 million or so costs we've incurred if we were really, really lucky and are costs weren't even higher (which they probably would be).

So yes, we can learn that right now we can't afford that.

Seems you're the "Expert" now on Academies TFT. Always good to get a name check BTW. Where does the 220 acre site come from? We don't need anything as grand as Staplewood which is most impressive! That was built with PL monies & was a good investment in the future. We just want a decent set up & facilites with good coaching staff. 
Our current Level 3 Academy isn't working with 8 players being released where as Bristol City have just signed 10 on full pro contracts. 
We should be aiming at Level 2 for next season with our currenttraining ground just about qualifying with extra pitches etc; 
This only part of the equation with ground capacity crucial as well, more sponsorship monies being generated & competitive playing budget being given to RH & JM.
Our progress has been far too slow compared with our direct competitors. 12 years to return to the Championship is totally unacceptable. We now need to grip the horn by the teeth & show more ambition!