• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

Youth Transfers Thread



Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
He sounds like he (perhaps justifiably) has an axe to grind against us, bringing up the Van Dijk investigation, which has nothing to do with his son.
Quite - also appears as if he's more upset with the 'system' and I can't blame him. It's awful.

Quite why we don't just pay for his school fees and the fee to release him from Stoke to allow him to move on I don't know - also odd why he doesn't just continue with Stoke?
 

costared

TIA Reserve Team
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
3,485
Quite - also appears as if he's more upset with the 'system' and I can't blame him. It's awful.

Quite why we don't just pay for his school fees and the fee to release him from Stoke to allow him to move on I don't know - also odd why he doesn't just continue with Stoke?
I thought we wanted to pay his school fees but the FA said it was illegal.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
I thought we wanted to pay his school fees but the FA said it was illegal.
I mean as a settlement of the dispute. Right now it's one of the principal areas of complaint that could be easily resolved.
 



Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
13,893
Quite - also appears as if he's more upset with the 'system' and I can't blame him. It's awful.

Quite why we don't just pay for his school fees and the fee to release him from Stoke to allow him to move on I don't know - also odd why he doesn't just continue with Stoke?
I guess if he doesnt actually come to us then paying for his education wouldn't be an inducement to anything and so therefore might be seen as acceptable? Just out way of drawing a line under the situation
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
I guess if he doesnt actually come to us then paying for his education wouldn't be an inducement to anything and so therefore might be seen as acceptable? Just out way of drawing a line under the situation
An inducement hasn't got to be successful to be seen as an attempt at such does it? You can be done for an attempted bribe as well as for a bribe wouldn't this be similar set of rules?
 

Gone Kloppo

Formerly known as Ʒan
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
2,281
I am having a really hard time feeling sorry for the parents. Yeah, it sucks for the kid if he is blacklisted at all clubs because of this incident and the outstanding school fees but feel nothing but anger at the parents.

So you signed up to a private school before everything was finalised then complain when the money didn't come through? I guess these people are the type to go out and buy a Bentley Continental before cashing in their winning lottery ticket? I get that there were probably cut-offs for school registration that they needed to meet but in that case, make your fucking move earlier. You are the ones stabbing your current club in the back so if you are going to do that, you may as well get the timing right and do it when it when it suits you best. And why in the living hell are they continuing at the private school if they can't afford it? Withdraw, join a public school like the rest of us, fucking move on and accept you made a mistake by signing up to something before you could afford it.

And spare me the fake outrage about tapping up. They knew exactly what was happening. Like everyone else, they are happy to turn a blind eye so long as they are the ones benefitting. Be upset about getting burnt, but not about tapping up in the sport as you were encouraging it by taking part. Just as someone paying cash in hand is indirectly being a tax avoider, so are these people indirectly supporting the system. Didn't see them making a moral stand before Liverpool approached them.

This isn't a defence of the club at all, but merely that there are no innocents except probably the son.

Disclaimer: I may have missed some parts of the story that explain the parents actions better but I can't read through half of these articles without getting into a blind rage due to the parents being a pair of hypocrites.

EDIT: Ahh, I see its not the school fees that is keeping other clubs away but the £49k Stoke is owed. Have they not tried to keep him at Stoke?
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
@Ʒan

This is a Q&A compiled by The Telegraph

Liverpool tapping-up saga Q&A | How was the case exposed?
Why have Liverpool been hit with a transfer ban on academy players?

They tapped up and offered inducements to a Stoke City schoolboy and his family in order to lure him to Anfield. Both are against rules brought in to prevent the poaching of players who clubs invest time and money in developing. They were banned from signing for at least a year players who had been registered at another academy during the previous 18 months. A further one-year ban was suspended for three years and the club were also fined £100,000.

What did Liverpool do wrong?

The Premier League found Liverpool had arranged an all-expenses-paid trip for the boy and his family to a game at Anfield and had made "other efforts" to lure him from Stoke. Those "other efforts" include alleged conduct revealed for the first time today by The Telegraph. Liverpool did eventually make a legitimate approach to sign the boy from Stoke but only after having broken the rules.

How was the case exposed?

Liverpool offered to take over the payment of the boy's private school fees from Stoke but when they tried to complete his signing, the Premier League informed them that was no longer allowed following a rule change in July prohibiting the practice by clubs unless they make the same offer to all their scholars. Liverpool then withdrew their offer, leaving the boy's parents £5,000 in debt because he had already started school. The family duly pulled out of the deal and complained to the Premier League, revealing the tapping-up in the process.

Why can the boy not join another academy?

Because of a controversial academy transfer system that ensures clubs who develop young players are compensated when they move on. In the boy's case, Stoke were entitled to £49,000: £3,000 for each of his first three years with them and £40,000 for the fourth. Liverpool would have been liable for this had he joined them. The boy cannot join another academy unless the new club are prepared to pay the compensation or Stoke waive it.

What happens next?

The boy and his family are exploring legal action against Liverpool, while Stoke are pursuing compensation from the Premier League, which is now under pressure to prevent other boys suffering the same plight. While the Premier League's new five-step process for ratifying academy transfers is welcome, it does not go far enough to safeguard the rights of vulnerable families.

So this may not be a one-off?

Suspicion is rife that there is a culture of tapping-up and inducements in the academy game. The Stoke chairman, Peter Coates, last week told The Telegraph matter-of-factly after Liverpool were punished: "Unfortunately, they are not alone. It happens and sometimes they get caught."

----------------------------------------​

This is the timeline as provided by The Telegraph. It's his (the father's) version of events.
  • 2012

    Boy signs for Stoke City.

  • Sept 2013

    Father secures two-year scholarship for son at private school after current school stops him joining Stoke’s day-release programme.

  • Sept/Oct 2014

    Liverpool’s head of pre-academy recruitment and player retention, Ian Barrigan, tells father club are monitoring son.

  • Dec 2014

    Stoke offer to pay for school when scholarship ends.

  • Jan 2015

    Barrigan promises to match Stoke’s offer. He offers what became all-expenses-paid two-day trip to Anfield, with tickets for Liverpool v Spurs.

  • 10 Feb 2015

    Party of 10 attend match in players’ box, with some given Liverpool-branded clothing.

  • April 2015

    Family given overnight stay to visit academy. Barrigan offers use of first-team doctor when boy develops chest infection.

  • June 2015

    Father sends resignation letter to Stoke. Barrigan offers trip to a tournament in Paris. He also gives father £50 every time son goes training. Stoke offer to pay school fees until boy is 16. Father agrees to stay at Stoke.

  • June 2016

    After Barrigan maintains his pursuit, father agrees to consider Liverpool move. Barrigan tells family to contact other clubs to give appearance of uncertainty. Also offers trip to tournament in Denmark.

  • July 2016

    Boy feels bullied by team-mates in Denmark, so father sends him back to Stoke.

  • 20 July 2016

    Premier League changes rules prohibiting the payment of school fees by clubs unless they make same offer to all scholars. It introduces five-step process for ratifying academy transfers, to clamp down on tapping-up.

  • August 2016

    Boy feels unwelcome back at Stoke.

  • 2 Sept 2016

    Father and son sign registration form with Liverpool.

  • 23 Sept 2016

    Lawyer acting for Premier League contacts father to arrange interview over son’s move to Liverpool.

  • 28 Sept 2016

    Two representatives of Liverpool tell father to lie to lawyer at that interview (the club deny this).

  • 17 Oct 2016

    Premier League blocks boy’s move to Liverpool.

  • 24 Oct 2016

    Father informs Premier League about the tapping-up.

  • 25 Nov 2016

    Alex Inglethorpe and Alex Marshall, neither of whom are the two aforementioned representatives, meet boy’s elder brother to discuss family dropping their complaint and Liverpool paying first term’s school fees.

  • 24 Jan 2017

    Father signs witness statement after being interviewed by Premier League.

  • 22 Mar 2017

    The Daily Telegraph reveals Liverpool are under investigation for tapping-up and offering prohibited inducements to boy and family.

  • 5 April 2017

    Liverpool banned for one year from signing schoolboys registered with rival academy during the previous 18 months, with second year’s ban suspended for three years. Club also fined £100,000.
 



Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
13,893
An inducement hasn't got to be successful to be seen as an attempt at such does it? You can be done for an attempted bribe as well as for a bribe wouldn't this be similar set of rules?
Right, but we've already been done so that isnt the issue. The issue now becomes whether it is against the rules to pay for the education of some random kid who doesnt play for you. Obviously we know why the offer was originally made, but if it actually happens with the offer to play for us no longer on the table then it is no longer an inducement to anything.

So what would have happened to the kids schooling, given Stoke were paying for it already, had we never got involved? Stoke surely cannot pay for all of their kids. Would the kid have been covered by some sort of grandfather clause that would have ceased to protect him had he transfered to us?
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
Right, but we've already been done so that isnt the issue. The issue now becomes whether it is against the rules to pay for the education of some random kid who doesnt play for you. Obviously we know why the offer was originally made, but if it actually happens with the offer to play for us no longer on the table then it is no longer an inducement to anything.

So what would have happened to the kids schooling, given Stoke were paying for it already, had we never got involved? Stoke surely cannot pay for all of their kids. Would the kid have been covered by some sort of grandfather clause that would have ceased to protect him had he transfered to us?
Not sure about the rest but in response to the earlier bit how can we prove (or even know ourselves) that we will never ever ever try and bring that kid over too us in the future? We'd have still offered financial advantages to a kid we have no right offering and may one day get something out of that.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
13,582
Not sure about the rest but in response to the earlier bit how can we prove (or even know ourselves) that we will never ever ever try and bring that kid over too us in the future? We'd have still offered financial advantages to a kid we have no right offering and may one day get something out of that.
I think by that stage no one will really care.
 

Sweeting

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
8,627
Strikes me the father is a greedy git who is just after what he can get out of it.
If we have left the parents in debt through our wrong doing (tbh I've only half read the story but thats how it sounds) then we deserve ti be punished.
 

TFC

TIA Squad Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
7,464
If we have left the parents in debt through our wrong doing (tbh I've only half read the story but thats how it sounds) then we deserve ti be punished.
If you read the full story you'll see that it wasn't just the club though, it was also his dad who did it to himself in a way as well. Of course he was only being 'greedy' in regards to his sons future, and honestly I would have been just as 'greedy' if I were in his shoes, but after reading how things transpired it seems like had he just decided on one club rather than going back and forth depending on who was offering what, he wouldn't be in the debt in question.

At the end of the day it seems like his priority was his sons education and well being; I don't think he was being actually greedy and as mentioned I would have done the exact same thing, but he was gambling in the way he went about securing his sons future. At the end of the day he lost 5k; but unfortunately it seems like his son may potentially lose a lot more.
 



Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
21,701
It feels like the premier league need to take some of the blame here.

- Liverpool offer to pay the boys private school fees

- father enrols boy in private school and pays 5k fees

- Premier League change rules around private schooling

- Liverpool withdraw offer as per PL ruling

- father complains to PL that they are now 5k out of pocket.

- Premier League fine Liverpool

I mean, what the actual fuck?
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
It feels like the premier league need to take some of the blame here.

- Liverpool offer to pay the boys private school fees

- father enrols boy in private school and pays 5k fees

- Premier League change rules around private schooling

- Liverpool withdraw offer as per PL ruling

- father complains to PL that they are now 5k out of pocket.

- Premier League fine Liverpool

I mean, what the actual fuck?
That's not the right sequence though.

  • Liverpool offer to continue paying for boy's private school (as Stoke are already doing)
  • PL notify clubs that from July any offer/inducement must apply across all academy players at the club
  • Liverpool do not amend offer in light of rule change
  • Father/player accepts unrevised Liverpool offer
  • Player remains in school as at beginning of September 2016 (liability for fees arises)
  • Liverpool submit paperwork to confirm registration (including offer of school fees)
  • PL reject because LFC do not provide private education to all academy players (in breach of revised rules)
  • LFC retract offer to pay school fees in an attempt to comply with PL rules
  • Father/player objects and complains to PL about LFC behaviour/conduct to include dobbing us in about the more innocuous (typical) courting behaviour that shouldn't go on but does and is widespread
 

AussieLad

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
5,260
That's not the right sequence though.

  • Liverpool offer to continue paying for boy's private school (as Stoke are already doing)
  • PL notify clubs that from July any offer/inducement must apply across all academy players at the club
  • Liverpool do not amend offer in light of rule change
  • Father/player accepts unrevised Liverpool offer
  • Player remains in school as at beginning of September 2016 (liability for fees arises)
  • Liverpool submit paperwork to confirm registration (including offer of school fees)
  • PL reject because LFC do not provide private education to all academy players (in breach of revised rules)
  • LFC retract offer to pay school fees in an attempt to comply with PL rules
  • Father/player objects and complains to PL about LFC behaviour/conduct to include dobbing us in about the more innocuous (typical) courting behaviour that shouldn't go on but does and is widespread
So why did we not just offer the private school fees for all kids in the academy?

Would have solved the problem no?
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
So why did we not just offer the private school fees for all kids in the academy?

Would have solved the problem no?
In theory that would solve the problem but that's a lot of money not to mention how you would get so many kids into private school at such short notice?
 

AussieLad

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
5,260
In theory that would solve the problem but that's a lot of money not to mention how you would get so many kids into private school at such short notice?
But doesn't it just have to be offered? If that is the case it is up to the parents to get the kids into the school, then the club handle the fees.

Also, a club the size of Liverpool should not have any problems affording private school fees for all of the academy kids.
 



Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,923
put em in public school. Toughen em up.
Do you mean state school?

Public School means the same thing as Private School in the UK; yeah, I know but it's a relic of the days when there was no state education but instead schools were for certain professions or trades - schools were then created that were for anyone but they weren't state subsidised, they were fee-paying, they were 'Public' Schools. Private only came into terminology when state education was introduced to distinguish them but the moniker of 'Public' is still in use.
 

jgw_geneseo

deeply superficial
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
2,754
You'll have to excuse my Americanisms. Publicly funded (funded by taxes levied by the gov) are referred to as public schools on this side of the pond. Any school that you have to pay extra to attend is a referred to as a private school. Public schools are usually lowest common denominator for schools in the area. Nice areas have nice schools, poorer areas tend to have poorer schools and will have higher percentages of the general pop attending private schools to keep them out of poorer public school systems.

I guess I did mean state school if that's the equivalent.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
13,582
That's not the right sequence though.

  • Liverpool offer to continue paying for boy's private school (as Stoke are already doing)
  • PL notify clubs that from July any offer/inducement must apply across all academy players at the club
  • Liverpool do not amend offer in light of rule change
  • Father/player accepts unrevised Liverpool offer
  • Player remains in school as at beginning of September 2016 (liability for fees arises)
  • Liverpool submit paperwork to confirm registration (including offer of school fees)
  • PL reject because LFC do not provide private education to all academy players (in breach of revised rules)
  • LFC retract offer to pay school fees in an attempt to comply with PL rules
  • Father/player objects and complains to PL about LFC behaviour/conduct to include dobbing us in about the more innocuous (typical) courting behaviour that shouldn't go on but does and is widespread
Could the club have misunderstood the new rules and thought it only applied to kids not yet at private school (so those transferring into the club already attending a private school wouldnt have been affected by the changes?)
 

redbj

hurry up, July 1st, let's get the show on the road
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
17,574
Why didn't the club just offer his mum a contract to wash the clubs laundry....to the value of, say....I dunno....I'm trying to think of the right figure, but it keeps escaping me......
 



phnaarg

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
235
Your memory has significantly simplified what was quite a complicated employee/employer dispute at the time. Bogarde hardly had a track record of doing that, it happened once with Chelsea for a reason.. Hardly the way you describe it!
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
13,582
Your memory has significantly simplified what was quite a complicated employee/employer dispute at the time. Bogarde hardly had a track record of doing that, it happened once with Chelsea for a reason.. Hardly the way you describe it!
Would be interested to know more. Eddie's recollection is how i remember it being reported in the English media at the time.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,087
Your memory has significantly simplified what was quite a complicated employee/employer dispute at the time. Bogarde hardly had a track record of doing that, it happened once with Chelsea for a reason.. Hardly the way you describe it!
Really? It happened once and that's all there is, sat there for 4 years and see out his contract making 11 appearance. And as for me over simplifying a complicated matter, this comes from himself, when asked about his contract during an interview for his autobiography.

According to Bogarde, it would be next to impossible to find a team that would offer him a contract comparable to the one he had at Chelsea: he was astounded at the salary the club had agreed on, as his value depreciated severely due to lack of first-team action, and decided to stay and honour his contract to the letter and appear for training every day, despite being only rarely selected to play. Of his contract he said, "Why should I throw fifteen million Euro away when it is already mine? At the moment I signed it was in fact my money, my contract." In the end, he only appeared eleven times during his four-year contract, reportedly earning £40,000 a week during this period.
He knows he would not make the same amount of money elsewhere, even though was told by the manager he could seek for another club. He also refused to go out on loan and saw out his contract because "at the moment he signed the contract, it's his money, his contract, so he can do whatever the hell he likes". Still over simplifying?

Let's hope if anyone were to sign this kid, keep him away from his uncle.