ARTICLE: Phillips joins Cooney at Morecambe

[ClaretTony]

Adam Phillips follows Ryan Cooney to Morecambe

See link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/phillips-j ... -morecambe

[burnleytom]

Odd one. Club said he'd been offered a new deal, yet have never announced that he's signed it. Presume he has.

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/new ... -players-/

Kind of contradicts with his original unveiling which said we had an option to extend.

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/new ... rets-deal/

So has it just been extended by the option we had already, or has his new deal tied him down for even more years?

[ClaretTony]

Odd one. Club said he'd been offered a new deal, yet have never announced that he's signed it. Presume he has.

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/new ... -players-/

Kind of contradicts with his original unveiling which said we had an option to extend.

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/new ... rets-deal/

So has it just been extended by the option we had already, or has his new deal tied him down for even more years?

He's under contract until next season and is now at Morecambe for the duration. You rarely get any information from the club on non first team players when they sign new deals. Of the other two, I've seen Rob Harker on the pics so I'm assuming he's signed too.

[burnleytom]

Makes you wonder why we extended his deal to then just send him to Morecombe for the rest of it anyway? Might as well have not triggered the extension and let him go there on a free. He's 22 and not played any higher than League 2 level. Would have understood if he was being kept on to improve the quality of the players available to the Under 23's, which is why I believe he was originally signed, but we don't get that benefit by sending him out on loan to the end of his deal.

[Longsidelenny1882]

Totally agree 100 per cent with burnley Tom utc

[ClaretTony]

Makes you wonder why we extended his deal to then just send him to Morecombe for the rest of it anyway? Might as well have not triggered the extension and let him go there on a free. He's 22 and not played any higher than League 2 level. Would have understood if he was being kept on to improve the quality of the players available to the Under 23's, which is why I believe he was originally signed, but we don't get that benefit by sending him out on loan to the end of his deal.

Do you actually think we sign players to improve the quality of the under-23s? We sign players who we feel have the ability to benefit the club, potentially playing in the first team or making money on them. Had they thought that wasn't the case I'm sure we wouldn't have signed him and definitely wouldn't have extended his contract. We want our younger players going out on loan, they will benefit far more doing that than playing all season in the under-23s.

[burnleytom]

"Do you actually think we sign players to improve the quality of the under-23s?"

Yeah, I do to be honest. Let's say you have a promising crop of 19 year old midfielders. You have a choice. Play them at Under 23, or get them out on loan to a more competitive, meaningful standard. If you choose the 2nd option, then you are left with either filling positions in midfield with Under 18 players, and watch them get over-run every week, and potentially harm the development of other players in that team who can't get a grip on the ball or supplied with any quality, or you sign a 21 year old midfielder with some experience in Scotland and in the lower leagues, on a pretty cheap contract, and get him to play in there.

I know which one makes more sense to me in terms of the overall development of the promising, but younger talent at the club.

Of course, the other option is to play people on the fringes of the first team in there instead. However, we know that SD doesn't choose to do that, so ultimately, we can't really count that in our club's example.

I'm no talent scout, nor a professional in this area, but nothing about a Premier League club signing a 21 year old player on a free (after a trial) who last played competitively two years previously in League 2 (4 games) and had since been in the Under 21's of a tiny team in Scotland screams that he'd potentially be able to play in the first team, or make any sort of money on him. As such, we get down to the other 'benefits' to the club, like, for instance, improving the quality of the Under 23's.

You'll find no disagreement that our younger players should go out on loan and will benefit more. However, when Phillips returns from his loan, he will be half way to 24 and out of contract. What benefit do we get from that?

[ClaretTony]

"Do you actually think we sign players to improve the quality of the under-23s?"

Yeah, I do to be honest. Let's say you have a promising crop of 19 year old midfielders. You have a choice. Play them at Under 23, or get them out on loan to a more competitive, meaningful standard. If you choose the 2nd option, then you are left with either filling positions in midfield with Under 18 players, and watch them get over-run every week, and potentially harm the development of other players in that team who can't get a grip on the ball or supplied with any quality, or you sign a 21 year old midfielder with some experience in Scotland and in the lower leagues, on a pretty cheap contract, and get him to play in there.

I know which one makes more sense to me in terms of the overall development of the promising, but younger talent at the club.

Of course, the other option is to play people on the fringes of the first team in there instead. However, we know that SD doesn't choose to do that, so ultimately, we can't really count that in our club's example.

I'm no talent scout, nor a professional in this area, but nothing about a Premier League club signing a 21 year old player on a free (after a trial) who last played competitively two years previously in League 2 (4 games) and had since been in the Under 21's of a tiny team in Scotland screams that he'd potentially be able to play in the first team, or make any sort of money on him. As such, we get down to the other 'benefits' to the club, like, for instance, improving the quality of the Under 23's.

You'll find no disagreement that our younger players should go out on loan and will benefit more. However, when Phillips returns from his loan, he will be half way to 24 and out of contract. What benefit do we get from that?

Not a clue who you are referring to us having been in the u21s or a tiny team in Scotland. That’s not Phillips who came from Norwich.

I’m not a professional in this area either but I clearly have more respect for the work our academy staff are doing than you have. I think I’ll trust the club’s judgement over yours.

[boatshed bill]

Is there a possibility of us calling these players back in January?

[ClaretTony]

Is there a possibility of us calling these players back in January?

Nothing said but that is often the case

[superdimitri]

Its for the chance we can make a few thousand on him. Worse case we could be entitled to 3% or something in the future if he has a transfer worth any money.

Typically players of a similar age in a similar situation have earned us next to nothing though. They usually only sign for clubs on free transfers. I don't see the point either when they are already this old.

[mdd2]

At what age can they refuse a contract and leave with no compensation for the club. Is it aged 23years by the summer they leave? In Adam's case next summer he can walk but if we have offered him a contract we would get some compensation as he is not 23 until next season. The same would apply to Dunne and O"Neill. Not sure of the rules if any leaves for a club outside England

[superdimitri]

Compensation is just a one-off fee if a team decides to sign a player under 24 who is out of contract at the previous club.

If you train a youngster in your academy you get a certain percent through any future transfers which is separate from compensation.

For example, when Trippier was sold too Athetico Madrid from Spurs, Man City would receive a small percentage of that fee despite not being sold directly by them.

So when Phillips has played for a few clubs if he turns out to be a gem and someone pays a lot of money for him we'll get some cash. Multiply that for each youth player who may potentially be worth some money in the future and you get some nice income.

Problem is we are quite a bit away from producing that kind of player regularly. The bigger academies probably make quite a bit of money not just from their add on fees from players they sell, but this small percentage for each player that leaves on a free.

So if there's any reason to hold on to these players, its because the club thinks there's a chance of us getting a small fee for them in the future.

[burnleytom]

Not a clue who you are referring to us having been in the u21s or a tiny team in Scotland. That’s not Phillips who came from Norwich.

I’m not a professional in this area either but I clearly have more respect for the work our academy staff are doing than you have. I think I’ll trust the club’s judgement over yours.

Last time I checked Wikipedia, it said he had been at Hamilton Academical, and made no appearances other than one for their U21’s. I’m going to claim them as a tiny team in Scotland.

What has shown a lack of respect for the academy staff? If anything, I’ve suggested it’s a good thing to have better quality in the U23’s to help to bring on other players. That’s a positive, not a negative. All I’ve done is questioned what benefit we get from him seeing out his contract at another club? It’s all very well players improving on loan, but if that happens this year and he makes the jump from a League 2 player to a Premier League standard one, we don’t have him under contract and can therefore lose him for nothing.

As it is, I think someone approaching 24 will probably be released at the end of the season. In the post Covid world, I find it hard to imagine that anyone will offer us a fee of any nature for him. Just my opinion and we’ll see how it plays out.

[ClaretTony]

At what age can they refuse a contract and leave with no compensation for the club. Is it aged 23years by the summer they leave? In Adam's case next summer he can walk but if we have offered him a contract we would get some compensation as he is not 23 until next season. The same would apply to Dunne and O"Neill. Not sure of the rules if any leaves for a club outside England

You are entitled to compensation if the player is under 24 and he chooses to move on to another club rather than sign a new contract. That’s if he moves to another English club. If it is outside England then the compensation is limited.

Some clubs are getting a bit wise to it all. Leicester wanted George Hirst from Sheffield Wednesday a couple of years ago. The lad went to Leuven in Belgium for a year so Wednesday received peanuts. One year on and he signed for Leicester. Leuven are owned by the people who own Leicester.

[ClaretTony]

Last time I checked Wikipedia, it said he had been at Hamilton Academical, and made no appearances other than one for their U21’s. I’m going to claim them as a tiny team in Scotland.

As I said, we signed him from Norwich.

[burnleytom]

So he hadn’t last played for Hamilton or their Under 21’s then?

https://www.hamiltonacciesfc.co.uk/adam ... cellation/

Someone should probably tell them to correct this. Never said we’d signed him from them.

[ClaretTony]

So he hadn’t last played for Hamilton or their Under 21’s then?

https://www.hamiltonacciesfc.co.uk/adam ... cellation/

Someone should probably tell them to correct this. Never said we’d signed him from them.

Didn’t say he hadn’t, he was on loan there. I think you should look at what you posted, think you said he’d been there since he played in League Two which is not the case.

[burnleytom]

“signing a 21 year old player on a free (after a trial) who last played competitively two years previously in League 2 (4 games) and had since been in the Under 21's of a tiny team in Scotland“

Did I?

[ClaretTony]

“signing a 21 year old player on a free (after a trial) who last played competitively two years previously in League 2 (4 games) and had since been in the Under 21's of a tiny team in Scotland“

Did I?

Yes you did. And had since been in the under 21s of a tiny team in Scotland. That is incorrect. He was merely on a short term loan there from Norwich.

Just as a matter of interest, given your comments on here, do you not rate Phillips? Would you, from what you’ve seen of him, have released him?

[burnleytom]

If he was on loan there, then he’d been at a tiny club in Scotland since he had last played competitively in League Two, hadn’t he?

I have no opinion on Phillips, and haven’t offered one. My opinion on his current rate of progress, level of games, age and the fact that we’ve sent him out for the remainder of his contract extension suggests to me that he’s a long way from even the level of our bench.

So, from what I’ve seen of him (the goals he scored for Morecombe in League Two), yes, I’d have released him. I would have further explained this decision with the rationale that I believe this would have had exactly the same benefit for the club as letting him play out his last year of his deal at another club. None. Which was always my point anyway.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Why do people who don't watch or have any idea about the youth set up, the players themselves or any experience in development football have the strongest opinions about what the people employed in these roles should be doing and which players should be released.

[ClaretTony]

Why do people who don't watch or have any idea about the youth set up, the players themselves or any experience in development football have the strongest opinions about what the people employed in these roles should be doing and which players should be released.

Incredible really, and then he says all he’s seen of him is the goals he scored for Morecambe. The decision to offer Adam Phillips will not have been made by one person but you have to wonder how they all got it so wrong when all they had to do was ask someone who saw him score a couple of goals, presumably on tv.

[burnleytom]

Not really that incredible. It was you who pushed me for a response or opinion on whether he should be released. Have I said they've got it wrong? No. All I've said is what I'd have done, when you asked me for that opinion.

What is yet to be explained to me, and I presume you know better having watched him in depth from his time at Morecombe of course, is what benefit do Burnley get from renewing his deal for a year and then sending him away from the club until that deal ends?

[burnleytom]

Do you actually think we sign players to improve the quality of the under-23s? We sign players who we feel have the ability to benefit the club, potentially playing in the first team or making money on them. Had they thought that wasn't the case I'm sure we wouldn't have signed him and definitely wouldn't have extended his contract. We want our younger players going out on loan, they will benefit far more doing that than playing all season in the under-23s.

"Do you actually think we sign players to improve the quality of the under-23s?"

Think that's pretty much what the club have said in their headline today. New Faces To Help U23s Step Up. Quartet of new signings bolster ranks ahead of PL2 bow

https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/new ... s-step-up/

[andysisson]

On a seperate note, I’m sure i read Henri Ogunby had been released,but his latest instagram posts seem to show him back in training with Burnley?

[ClaretTony]

On a seperate note, I’m sure i read Henri Ogunby had been released,but his latest instagram posts seem to show him back in training with Burnley?

We did announce he’d been released but I’ve seen him on some training photographs that the club published.