Khaled: "The vision of the club is to have 23-year-olds and younger."

Khaled came out with the 23 statement when the toss pot twins were in charge think you might find things are about to change
According to Neerav

 

Khaled was quite clear that he operates alone and made the decisions

 

Mawson hadnt played many 1st team games when we signed him. Conor and winnall had but at league 2 level.
I always thought oulare was supposed to be the big signing 26 so hardly a nipper played for some bigger clubs than us paid big wages but just isnt interested.

 

Think you'll find that will change too. As for signings, Neerav said the board will set the budget and decide which players we can afford, the manager (yes he said manager but that may have been a slip of the tongue) will decide which positions he wants, then the data team will identify 4 or 5 players for each position and after further research (videos, background checks) the manager and data team will agree together which players they should go for.
Quite a difference from the old regime I think.

 

Mawson had 50 + starts by the time he was 20.

Oulare has 45 starts and he’s 26.

I don’t think the level matters as much as the experience of playing competitive games. Pinnock is another example. People like Oulare there is a reason they aren’t playing.

 

Just a bit worrying that the man who was clear HE didn't want players over 23 is still CEO. His ideals are at odds with that of the ever so slightly tweaked shareholders

 

He never said he didn't want over 23s Conway said that was HIS aim if I'm not mistaken....

 

Yeah mawson was on loan to a league 2 side. With conor,winnall and mawson they had excelled at league 2 level winnall top scorer conor top assists they were pinged up by data. They only had to step up one division it wasnt too much of a gamble.
When your giving a waste of snap like oulare 7k a week terrible stats always injured and a 3 year deal its terrible recruitment. Possibly Worst ive ever seen at oakwell.

 

Think that's quite the understatement in fairness. Khaled was operating alone during the Chien and Conway era because it was quite clear that while their puppet he was also made to appear to go it alone, so he would have to be accountable for anything and everything that went wrong. Chien and Conway no longer make the decisions, it seems very much a more united front with the new board. Time will tell, but I'm sure we will look for more experience. As Neerav acknowledged on Friday, some experience is key, and he made a point of naming Solly and us feeling the loss of him and his experience when we inexplicably got rid.

 

They never said they didn't want to sign 23 and younger players. Likely they do because the improvement level in that age group is immense and you don't have the baggage of games past you like Jon Parkin mentions at 25 for him.

You are talking about Real Madrid. They will have parameters they want to sign within. It will likely be for 10 million pounds they want young players at x or younger age group. They will also look at commercial value of a player which Manchester United do too. A lot of the older players in that team were signed young

Gerrard Pique talked about how over the History of Barcelona when they have gone away from La Masia players and gone with an aged squad they have always struggled. It's something he talked about on the overlap.

I was watching a video of Wolves Head of Recruitment and he mentioned they have a age cap of 25/26 on players.

I'm going to do a bit of looking in the next few days. When do Manchester City Liverpool Red Bull Dortmund. At which age do these clubs sign players over the last 4 completed transfer windows.

 

The shareholders haven't been 'ever so slightly tweaked'. There's been a sea-change whereby genuine Barnsley fans, formerly in a minority and powerless, are now in the majority and in control.

 

Unlike most contributors, I have always supported the policy of "buy young, improve and sell on". I support the policy because

a. Young players demand lower wages.
b. Young players cost less in transfer fee.
c. The policy allows us to sell the club to young players on the basis that if they do well, both player and club benefit when we sell him on.
d. The policy allows us to balance the books (provided we pick the right players)

If you change the policy, you need a new policy that covers the same ground. I do not know what that policy looks like, but it certainly does not look like rich owners prepared to fund a loss making organisation ad infinitum.

 

The problem with that is we are a sports club

 

Are they? The crynes now own over half the club?

 

If the sports club runs out of cash, it folds. It is easy to run the business if you ignore all other factors other than winning football matches. In the real world, you have to balance the books. That is all I am asking. How do you balance the books

 

By not rejecting 70% of potential employees based on age. I'm actually surprised that publicly stating we won't sign anyone aged over 23 is legal.

I would argue that it is more prudent to sign one or two proven players than to sign 5 or 6 unproven kids with potential on a computer and that the 13,000 empty seats at oakwell are more likely to be filled by us signing a craig hignett than a Josh Benson but that isn't taken into account when you look purely at a players age

 

I don't think anyone who supports Barnsley disputes that the policy you describe is absolutely necessary for the survival of the club. Clearly the criticism is not about the primary objective of the policy, but the way that it's carried out, specifically:
1. Spreading the budget too thinly across too many players, and subsequently having a load of young players outside the reaches of the first team who are nowhere near good enough.
2. Completely ignoring the main factor in the development of young players, which is to have some experienced players from which they can learn.

Anyone who ignores the second is a fool. If your policy is to develop young players, you need some experience players too, or your policy will not be successful.

 

Why don't you read my post and answer my questions point by point. I want to know your new policies and I want to be assured that your policies cover our trading losses.

 

The reason I didn't is because you didn't ask any questions.

a. Young players demand lower wages.
Not necessarily

b. Young players cost less in transfer fee.
Not necessarily. Alex Mowatt didn't cost West brom a penny in transfer fees. We paid a few for Josh Benson.

c. The policy allows us to sell the club to young players on the basis that if they do well, both player and club benefit when we sell him on.
We do but that is irrelevant. We could try selling the club to players with experience too. This is nothing to do with a budget.

d. The policy allows us to balance the books (provided we pick the right players)
The policy has seen us make big losses and turn Patrick crynes war chest into a negative bank balance.

 

Are you sure that your opinion of Sollbauer is not rose tinted. He could not get in our team because we played a high line and he was too slow to catch the opposition forwards under those circumstances. He left because he could not get games.