"They playing Burnley the team over from Australia. Big write up by Coggan in the newsletter this month about how great they are. I watched them get smashed 4-0 by the FTC team and they didn't look too hot"
Totally agree! I watched the game as well and that " Burnley team " were dire. Our lads played them off the park from back to front. Technically they were exceedingly average, and if this is Mainland's idea of " quality " opposition, they're a bigger joke than I thought. Maybe it was just Coggan and Walker's attempt to bolster the image of the FTC programme by slaughtering sub-standard opposition. On another point: it was a little bit disturbing to see some non-FTC players getting decent game time, and fee paying players being subbed off regularly. What's the point in paying $900 then? If my kid was in the FTC programme, I'd expect them to play virtually the whole match, and any ring-ins to be mostly on the bench(injuries permitting). Still, leave it in the hands of " the professionals " eh?...
That's the issue with the whole school of football/FTC setup. It should always be for the best players, not just those who can pay. I would be interested to know how many are on "scholarships" as well. The game will only progress in fits and starts while the body charged with administering the game focuses on player development in this way to the detriment of club development programmes. It wasn't that long ago the local game was administered by volunteers with no staff. Are we any better off now?
Junior leagues are a mess, they are no longer seen as an essential part of player development, an issue driven by too many people in central roles deciding the development of junior players needs to be centred around them. Drive development through the clubs and the leagues, then you'll see real progress. Without rorting parents for $900 a year.