Man Utd and Man City academy players at centre of age-fraud claims

I've seen a headline from The Telegraph suggesting it was Man Utd and Man City. Does anyone have any more information on it?

Basically, some kids who've played for Man City and Man Utd played in older age groups overseas before playing for them. City pointed out that kids often play in older age groups so this isn't proof they (now playing in their proper and younger age groups) are older kids now pretending to be younger.

They also say they followed requirements for documentation etc so, if these kids are older, then the club are unaware and not complicit.

Imagine having players who are older than stated.

On another unrelated note does anyone remember that fantastic semi at Elland Road in 96? Ahh... what a game.

Why haven't the Premier League, FIFA or UEFA got something that demands parents or guardians of players under the age of consent must show verifiable proof of age? Or at least a sworn affidavit of same giving details?

Clubs failing to undertake proper checks or commit multiple offences are banned from signing players from outside their country of competition.

These academies are not helping kids football… in fact, I would go as far as to say they are having a real detrimental impact because they disrupt many teams by taking players away from them at any given time.

They would argue differently but, when they offer kids an 8-week trial, it's only logical that most kids prefer just to concentrate on their trial and stop playing for their teams for a while.

A lot of kids come back trying to play a completely different game because they have been told they need to improve on their weaknesses – instead of realising that they only got a trial in the first place because of their strengths!

I'm actually talking about 10-year-old kids here – kids who love playing football, are developing at their own pace, are taken away too soon (just in case other clubs are watching them) and slowly fall out of love with the game because it's no longer just getting played for fun.

I've let my youngest go to a couple of development centres but, when people ask me, I tell them he's not ready. "Don't say that!" is what my father and oldest son say to me…. "Why?" I ask, "I will know when he's ready, if he's ever ready, and while he's not ready, he's only going to end up disappointed anyway."

Hey academies – leave those kids alone! At least until they go into senior school; that is my own opinion.

I don't think young players should go near an academy until they are 14 years old; you think 12.

The way academies swallow kids up, chasing their dream, only to be disillusioned when they are spat out, often to give up playing football or try somewhere else.

I think I've told this before. 1996, the Man Utd v Liverpool FA Cup Final. My wife and sister, working at Anfield, were on the train with the rest of the staff and the older academy players, 16 or 17.

On the way back, the coaches went around, telling each one that they were being kept on (not many), that they were going to Oldham or Wigan, and for quite a few, that they were being released. Some of the kids were in tears. I don't know who made that decision, but what a brutal and callous way to deliver that news in view of non-playing staff.

Your last piece resonates with me. Kids develop at different ages. Some in their early teens, some not until 18 or even beyond.

I agree with you entirely and I mentioned the age of 4 or 5 as I'm sure I read here on TW some months ago of Everton releasing a kid who had been with them since 4 or 5 which caused me to remark at the time "How do you scout anybody of that age?"

I even find 8 somewhat disagreeable and think that perhaps it should go back to representative schoolboys level and others of that age asking for trials, about 14 or 15 years old, minimum.

Is there a difference between signing and being allowed to participate in coaching, with parental permission? Obviously there will be exceptions, such as Rooney, and I think Trevor Francis, who could have been considered ready at 15.

Remember when Tommy Smith was guest speaker the night Liverpool Boys had a dinner at the end of the season? He said keep on enjoying playing football at your age because if any of you sign forms and go on to become professional footballers I doubt if you will enjoy it as much as when you were younger.

I'd harbour a guess that the selling of players that have come through the Everton academy kept Everton going during the Kenwright years: Franny Jeffers, Michael Ball and Richard Dunne,

The rumour of why Trevor Birch didn't last long is because his job was done once he told Kenwright that he had to sell the asset from Crocky.

Professional football is a brutal industry. The best way to explain how absolutely brutal it is, is that – when you consider how few kids will actually make the grade – this doesn't stop these clubs taking them at a younger and younger age.

I could talk about it all day because nearly everyone wants to go to these academies even though the end game is miles and miles away.

"When you consider how few kids will actually make the grade – this doesn't stop these clubs taking them at a younger and younger age."

Doesn't that exactly reveal the cold logic behind it? There's a massive reward if just one of 100 academy kids goes on to be a £100M asset?

Thus arguably 12 to 14 is simply too late. That potential moneypot has been developing for 10 years at that point; so why not make sure it's you who gets him on the books a little bit earlier?

Yes, it's tough perhaps for the 99.9% who don't make it. But who's to say they would have made it anyway? Perhaps with different treatment...

It's a cruel, cruel world out there. But I'm not sure you can change this part of it.

Clubs will then go on to have 3 teams, and a holding pen of another x number of kids that will supplement the 3 groups. Scouts feed that holding pen, with the weaker being told "Thanks very much."

It is brutal, but there will be a path for very few.

A mate of mine had three boys, all of them decent, none of them special, who joined… and he spent a fortune taking them to training, buying them kit and nurturing their hopes. They are in their early twenties now and none of them even play non-league footy. One of them is a decent cricketer and another has a sports degree but no footy.

It's a con. I coached an age group in one of the largest youth clubs in Horsham. The chairman has been involved for 30 years. In that time, he has only seen one lad who “could've” made it and he stood out by far. He turned up late for a trial at Brighton and never got another chance.

With the rare exception of the Rooneys and the likes, it's not feasible to spot future talent at such an early age. Don't get me started on pushy parents…

The older I get, the more I have come to dislike the academy system, but I suppose it just epitomises both the selfish nature and the absolute greed of modern life.

If he was good enough, I'd sooner send him to a place that might want to teach him how to kick with two feet, but we have all seen the success stories of academy football and I'm not sure they actually teach these children enough to warrant such special status.

I suspect the Anfield Iron was probably correct. A guy I was at school with joined Liverpool. Didn't make it there and had spells with several lower-division clubs before spending most of his career at the top end of non-league.

After retiring, he said that the most enjoyable football he played was school football (representative level) and non-league because in these environments most players played for the love of the game (and a few quid in expenses).