Parents: Don't believe all you're told by clubs

My role as an agent is there to protect and enhances the interests of my clients, it is also to help clubs source new players and mediate with players currently there to keep them happy and progressing, regardless of age.

Perhaps fitting into the former more than the latter on this particular issue, I have to admit I am seeing more and more clubs, particularly at academy level, create scenarios, laws and regulations that simply do not exist and portray them to unsuspecting parents as the truth.

The new myth of the month being touted by the odd academies across the country, which I believe was first implemented by a club in the south, is this so called 'scholarship extension'. Now, I am not talking about an 18-year old at the end of his 2-year scholarship being offered a 3rd year on 'scholarship terms' either. I am talking about under-16s being told at this particular time by clubs that at the moment they will not be being offered a scholarship. However, the clubs are then going on to say they want to offer them a month's "extension" or a rolling extention - to give the player time to convince them they are worthy of a scholarship.

Now just for clarity for parents and players that don't know - this is not an extension.

Under regulations, the club has until 1 March to offer a scholarship to a player. It also does not have to release the registration of any player before that. In essence, the player is just continuing on a registered basis as he always has - no extension, no additional contract length, no nothing. All I ask is parents do not be fooled by some of the terminology being used, it is not fair ever to use legal and regulatory language to in essence try to motivate players if it is not true. Additionally, it is just confusing. 

This type of talk is also another ploy by clubs. If on 12 January I tell young Johnny he isn't going to be offered a scholarship and he can have the 6 weeks to prove himself or can go on trial elsewhere if would like, there is a financial reason behind this also. If Johnny decides to go on trial and that club would like to sign him before 1 March then the original registered club of Johnny are within their right to ask for full compensation inclusive of the scholarship years (even if he wasn't going to be offered) as they can still imply they intended to offer a scholarship and therefore expect that payment. This can be done and some clubs are sly in wanting this. However, this does present risks to clubs who to try to maximise compensation may end up offering a scholarship with the interested club(s) pulling out and the club still being obliged to fulfill that scholarship offer. Ultimately, offering for Under-16 players to go out on trial or be heavily watched before 1 March is a good idea for clubs if they have players that truly are 50/50 on whether they want to take or not so they can either aim for full compensation or if it comes to the worst he will have a scholarship but only after clubs have shown interest in him anyway.

At least the regulations protect Under-16s to an extent that at least there is sometime for them to find another club if they don't get offered a scholarship before the season ends. Whereas players coming to the end of their scholars can go until May before finding out if they're going to be offered contracts and by then the season can end without them being able to source a new club or having time to trial. That is something that also needs to reviewed - and will probably require another blog post I'm sure at some point!