money from under 20's

as far as i know, the under 20's have made the most money so far from all the other teams playing in the whole competition. the way this money was made is for every player under the age of 18 who played the club gets money at the end of the competition. this team was the youngest in the country, what with it basically being the under 18 team.

i know for a fact from other managers in the league that they could not get their head around why the first teamers who were underage and not playing first team football were not playing. i know for example one of the teams who the under 20's played came to have a look at one of the first team players with a view to signing him next year and thought it was madness that he wasnt with the under 20's seeing as he was underage and not playing with the first team regularly!

Not sure what your point is? We've been often criticised for not bringing through players, and now we're focussing too much on it? Or is it we didn't facilitate an opposition manager who was put out by not seeing one of our players?

Ye ive got to say I dont really understand this thread eithier....sorry

I think he's saying that nearly all other League teams let their under 20 players(who are part of the first team squad) to play under 20 when needed but Town don't let them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the 12 th man

I think he's saying that nearly all other League teams let their under 20 players(who are part of the first team squad) to play under 20 when needed but Town don't let them.

---

and to delve deeper into 12th mans point the name michael lee springs to mind...

didnt think it was really complicated but yeah that was my point,every other team in the country used it for giving their players in the senior squad more game time and didnt have them just sitting on the bench collecting a wage for not playing. michael lee i would not really include as he is a regular first team starter who plays 90mins week in, week out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Not sure what your point is? We've been often criticised for not bringing through players, and now we're focussing too much on it? Or is it we didn't facilitate an opposition manager who was put out by not seeing one of our players?

---

dont think we are focusing on it at all. not using the system to our full advantage like all the other teams in the league. the bohs lad who came on last night near the end, he has played under20's and a league football all season, flirthing between both, if bohs didnt have an A team do you think this player would have been just sitting on the bench or in the stand every week or would he have been sent playing football to get game time and match fitness so that he would be sharp when he is called upon? hope our current u20 team come into their own in the next year or two when they are playing at their age group!

Ohh right have ya now and yes I totally agree with you

good point raised, and cousins failure to release eligible players for the under 20's is a strange call by him.. we all give out (myself included) that Craig walsh hasnt been great since he arrived, but maybe with more football he might be a sharper player, surely there is no substitute for playing games regardless if its u-20 football

money wise as well, surely paying a player for sitting in the stand week in week out doesnt make much sense..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cabs88

money wise as well, surely paying a player for sitting in the stand week in week out doesnt make much sense..

---

Depends on how much is being gained by an under 18 team, I would've thought.

Fair enough views I guess, not sure what's gained at this stage of the season either way though. Drop someone who's been playing all season, so someone who's probably off in a couple of weeks gets a run?

knowing our squad turnaround in recent seasons, most of them will probably be off anyway!

who knows what 4 or 5 months extra football could have done for a young player