The on topic thread

[chef]

To me, Sterlings more of a QPR product and not sure he'd be a guaranteed starter for us.

Bale and Fab so far.

 

[Zidane98]

Sterling's been with us for nearly 5 years now. I'd say that qualifies as our product otherwise you could go even further back and say Sterling was a product of his junior club that QPR picked him up from.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Unfortunately McEarcheran just wasn't/isn't that good of a player. He's shown that at a number of clubs at a number of different levels.

What players gave Spurs, Saints, Pool or Arsenal developed (serious question) that would get games at a City, Chelsea, Bayern, Barca etc?

 

[Loonerty]

Mourinho says that he thinks Loftus-Cheek will be getting a lot of game time next season. Hopefully that's true, has looked very good when I've seen him play.

 

[moomba]

Under the proposed rules Fabregas would be classed as a foreign player. Bale and Sterling would be classed as local players but no club could claim them as a club trained player.

 

[chef]

Cant see it on my phone.

 

[SM]

The big issue is England's persistence with selecting players almost exclusively from the big sides. They'll have token selections from poorer sides like Delph and others but the majority comes from the big clubs. This limits the development of some young English players who otherwise could have stepped up to the England set up. An example I'll use is from my own club in James Chester, who has been a fantastic defender for us for a while now but has been overlooked for England so is now playing regularly for Wales and has been spoken of as the second best player on the field in a number of their recent matches (obviously to Bale). Now when he's playing in said matches with guys like Allen, Ramsey, Williams etc. these are no slouches.

The link from U21 to the senior England team needs to be a lot stronger.

 

[elhadjihenry]

Cant see it on my phone.

N. Bentdner

 

[ADL9798]

Whats wrong with English youth getting a chance because they've earned it?

This would set the game back years if it ever got up.

At City we'd buy up the best English youth if this came through. They'd sit on our bench rather than play week in week out for their club, albeit at a lower level.

And while you can name bad foreign players you can just as easily name good ones that have enhanced the league that might not get a chance if the rules are changed.

A tad presumptuous, these players still have to agree to sign for you! If this attitude of 'we'll buy all the best young English players to sit on our bench just to pay lip service to FA rules' doesn't change to one where you start presenting a clear pathway and actually giving senior opportunities to these guys, then I think you can expect to see the best English youngsters preferring to go elsewhere in the near future (regardless of the money on offer or the hundreds of millions invested in 10,000 seater stadiums for your under 9's to run around in).

Restricted opportunities for these players is obviously a symptom of your success in recent years, and thus not something you'd want to change if it came at the expense of that success, but it's an unavoidable reality and one that I think will scare off the best young English talents (if it hasn't already). Jordon Ibe is one recent example where a more clearly defined pathway to first team football was presented by the academy coaches at Liverpool, and despite receiving a big offer from Manchester City his dad and his manager at Wycome both advised him to sign with Liverpool. Just one example (I'm sure there are others involving other clubs) but it tells you a bit about what motivates players and their families at that age.

 

[ADL9798]

The FA's rationale for intervention here is fairly sound in my opinion. It makes the issue of developing youth talent in this country everyone's problem and far from being groundbreaking, merely formalizes the plan that was set in motion back in 2011 when the EPPP was brought in. All clubs signed off on that plan, and knew that this was the direction the FA wanted to head in so it shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. The EPPP system is great but at present there is still not enough of an incentive for the top clubs to develop and then actually use English talent, because with a 25 man squad you can get away with only having to play 1 or 2 of them throughout the course of the season and not run the risk of fatiguing your superstar foreign imports. It's like the government complaining of a shortage of doctors or nurses, funding tertiary places for them to ensure they have all the knowledge they need to become excellent health professionals, but not funding enough jobs for them at the end of the line. You'll be left with the same issues you started with in addition to having to carry the sunk costs of developing these individuals.

If you increase the number of English players clubs are forced to have on their roster, it then becomes beneficial for all clubs to ensure that these players are at a standard whereby the performance of the team is not going to suffer as a consequence of playing them. Obviously if you have 12 as opposed to 9 'home grown' players in your 25 man squad then the likelihood of these players having to actually play a significant number of games throughout the course of the season increases relative to the status quo, where many of them are merely squad fillers. Will it work? Impossible to say for certain, however it's good to see the FA actually trying something different and as others have mentioned, it's a model that seems to have served other countries well in terms of developing talent over the years.

 

[elhadjihenry]

It would take compliance from all UEFA leagues, but instead of restrictions, having incentives to increase the number of home grown players could be a better response.

Home grown or local players could have some of their salaries exempt from FFP regulations or something like that.

Of course it would be very difficult to implement across all european leagues, but its an idea.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

WC 2002

Kahn - Bayern (Worlds best keeper at the time)
Linke - Bayern (2001 Champions league winner)
Ramelow - Leverkusen (2002 Champions league runner up)
Metzelder - Very good player for both Dortmund and Madrid
Frings - Good but limited player
Hamann - Good player for Bayern and Liverpool
Jeremies - Bayern (2001 Champions league winner)
Bode - Didn't want to leave childhood club Werder Bremen even though was good enough for Bayern
Schneider - Leverkusen (2002 Champions league runner up)
Klose - Great player - 137 caps/71 goals is pretty decent
Neuville - Leverkeusen (2002 Champions league runner up)
Bierhoff - Yeah probably past it
Asamoah - Yeah probably poor
Zieger - Good enough player

Their team wasn't overly poor with most players coming from the Bayern/Leverkusen teams that back to back Champions league finals.

Brazil would have beaten any team that year with their team.

Probably also worth mentioning Shoei they had Ballack too (who missed the final due to suspension) who had a very good tournament.

I also agree that saying the team was 'poor' is a bit of a stretch - Germany had 3 players (Kahn, Ballack and Klose) make the team of the tournament (Brazil had 4).

If you also compare their 2002 and 2006 squads, 10 members of the 2002 team made the 2006 squad which finished 3rd - so you could argue that the nucleus of that team did quite well as they backed up their runner's up finish with a third place at consecutive World Cups.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Well considering you'd only have 2 CB's and are in 4 competitions they wouldn't just be sitting on the bench. You'd probably look at young English guys like Lascelles or Joe Gomez from the Championship. They'd get at least 15 appearances in the first team each roughly (26 starts & 8 for Demi & Boyata in all comps to get split)

Just on Lascelles , while promising, he hasn't featured that regularly (16 games) for Forest this season (often being behind other English CBs in Mancienne, Hobbs, Wilson or Fox at various times). The fact he can't get regular games and is behind (important to note) English CBs at the lower level, should suggest he isn't ready to play regularly in the PL.

Not sure if you are aware jd but he is actually a Toon player on loan at Forest this season - as is Karl Darlow, another promising GK prospect. The problem with buying promising young English talent is they are not guaranteed to be better than what is already at the club they are joining. In the case of Darlow, he will most likely be our second choice keeper (unless Krul is sold - which is always a possibility under Ashley) and has been suggested as a possible future England keeper. The implication of requiring more home grown players at a club means EPL teams will most likely fill the quota by buying the most promising young talent from the lower league sides. That in turn causes the issue of depriving lower league club's from hanging onto their best young players and trying to progress up the football pyramid (as they essentially have to go back to step 1 and replace that player).

In the case of Lascelles, he would most likely be a walk up start for us given how poor (and lacking in depth) our CBs are and he will most likely start his Toon career as the top ranked CB at the club in many fans eyes - but, given he can't get regular games at a lower level, it is both an indictment on Newcastle and the English CB players we have on the books already (Williamson, Taylor, Dummett) are not good enough.

The gap between the top 6 and the rest is already big enough. Encouraging sides outside the 6 and even those big 6 to bring through UK talent isn't going to harm them. Just look at Southampton. Sold off their HG talent for good money added some quality foreign talent and they've actually improved.

The national team wins for having a side give them a chance. The players win by improving by playing top flight football. The original club wins financially and on the pitch too!

Have to disagree with you on this one too jd.

The gap between the top 6 and the rest is already pretty big - if you force teams to play more English players, those teams that are looking to try and break into that bracket will most likely struggle as the existing talent pool for English talent that is good enough to play in the PL is already pretty limited. The rich and powerful teams will simply by the best English talent, giving them stronger squads while the rest will need to make do with the scraps of journeymen, no frills academy players and battlers.

Also, not sure you can use Southampton as a good example - as said, they improved after buying quality foreign talent. Can you honestly say they would have had the same season if they bought English talent?

I'm quite sure the answer would be no (not to mention English talent is vastly overpriced by comparison to what can be bought from abroad). If you restrict a club's ability to look for cheap (and generally better) players from abroad, you are merely further hamstringing them from challenging the establish top order.

Again, look at Southampton - their impressive (and largely English) team of last season was gutted by the big clubs (Arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd) who raided them and took their best English players (perhaps in part to help meet their existing 'home grown' squad requirements). If the minimum number of home grown English players is increased, things like this will be even more common (with the flow on effect rippling all the way down the football pyramid).

 

[NUFC Tiger]

The other major implication I can think of (from a league/club perspective) if the changes to the work permits are made is the potential impact on international viewers.

The EPL is the most commonly followed league in the world and as demonstrated by the latest TV deal, is big business globally.

If you restrict the number of foreigners who can play in the league, there is a potential drop off in international fans who might only watch the league to see players that represent their country. Plus with the decrease in quality of the league across the board, casual fans may turn to other leagues for entertainment.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I'm quite sure the answer would be no (not to mention English talent is vastly overpriced by comparison to what can be bought from abroad). If you restrict a club's ability to look for cheap (and generally better) players from abroad, you are merely further hamstringing them from challenging the establish top order.

Again, look at Southampton - their impressive (and largely English) team of last season was gutted by the big clubs (Arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd) who raided them and took their best English players (perhaps in part to help meet their existing 'home grown' squad requirements). If the minimum number of home grown English players is increased, things like this will be even more common (with the flow on effect rippling all the way down the football pyramid).

Good post mate. I don't think the big clubs 'gutted' Southampton per se. They received very good prices for the players they sold. Southampton are a bit of an anomaly though, a very well run club with an emphasis on youth development.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Rather that forcing teams to have a certain number of home grown players in their first team squad, wouldn't limiting the number of foreign players a team can have in the u18s and u21's have a similar effect without negatively impacting the first team?

Another option, a touch nanny state though, is if the FA make clubs reinvest 5-10% of their TV Renenue in their academy (coaches, players, infrastructure).

 

[SM]

Fairly sure you have to invest a certain amount to maintain a Cat A or B status anyway.

 

[moomba]

A tad presumptuous, these players still have to agree to sign for you! If this attitude of 'we'll buy all the best young English players to sit on our bench just to pay lip service to FA rules' doesn't change to one where you start presenting a clear pathway and actually giving senior opportunities to these guys, then I think you can expect to see the best English youngsters preferring to go elsewhere in the near future (regardless of the money on offer or the hundreds of millions invested in 10,000 seater stadiums for your under 9's to run around in).

What do you think we will do? Play kids that arent close to being ready for senior football? Or just get the next best available English players? Of course we'll target the best, and make sure we do our very best to get them. I'll ignore the patronising guff about our stadium as I'm well aware that you know our academy is about much more than that.

Restricted opportunities for these players is obviously a symptom of your success in recent years, and thus not something you'd want to change if it came at the expense of that success, but it's an unavoidable reality and one that I think will scare off the best young English talents (if it hasn't already). Jordon Ibe is one recent example where a more clearly defined pathway to first team football was presented by the academy coaches at Liverpool, and despite receiving a big offer from Manchester City his dad and his manager at Wycome both advised him to sign with Liverpool. Just one example (I'm sure there are others involving other clubs) but it tells you a bit about what motivates players and their families at that age.

We'll win some, we'll lose some. But our aim is to develop the best kids, not necessarily buy them. I posted before that when we overhauled our academy we wrote off the oldest, bought players for the next level and worked the youngest. That level are now our U16's and below. The results have been spectacular including a number of nation champions, tournament wins, and 7 of our U16 squad represnting England last year. Mainly local lads who have been at the club for years.

Next step us creating the chances for them. It will happen, but it was pointless before now as we just didnt have the players ready to make a contribution. I'm sure we'll still look at buying top talent, but hopefully less and less as the years go by.

 

[Buckleys Jocks]

Will just leave this here for discussion.

This has been criminally over looked.

Fair enough to make the call Gerrard was a better player than Giggs, but to claim better career? How about claiming Giggs only managed limited game time at 35 in 08/09 and thus was seen as past it in the clubs eyes? He played 47 games and won PFA POTY that season FFS.

Saying Gerrard is better because at 35 he's more important to his team than Giggs was at the same age is so factually incorrect it's lauaghable, Gerrard is literally being let go because LFC don't see him in their future plans, whereas Ferguson had this to say about Giggs...

He will be 35 this November but at 35, he can be United's key player

At least the guy had the sense to forget about drawing comparisons to Scholesy.

 

[Latro]

This has been criminally over looked.

Fair enough to make the call Gerrard was a better player than Giggs, but to claim better career? How about claiming Giggs only managed limited game time at 35 in 08/09 and thus was seen as past it in the clubs eyes? He played 47 games and won PFA POTY that season FFS.

Saying Gerrard is better because at 35 he's more important to his team than Giggs was at the same age is so factually incorrect it's lauaghable, Gerrard is literally being let go because LFC don't see him in their future plans, whereas Ferguson had this to say about Giggs...



At least the guy had the sense to forget about drawing comparisons to Scholesy.

I should of tagged Bojan

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I should of tagged Bojan

I wonder if Ian Herbert is still balls deep

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Good post mate. I don't think the big clubs 'gutted' Southampton per se. They received very good prices for the players they sold. Southampton are a bit of an anomaly though, a very well run club with an emphasis on youth development.

Maybe 'gutted' was the wrong choice of word mate - as they were handsomely repaid for the players they lost (was thinking more that the core of their tear was essentially bought in the span of one off season). If Southampton had struggled this season, maybe it would have been more appropriate to use the term but they have gone from strength to strength

No doubt they are a well run club. Very impressive outfit. Well coached too. Wish my own mob could be half as well run as they are!

I guess the overall point I was making that Southampton were able to bounce back/build on the loss of key players by smart buying of foreign talent (they actually made a profit I think after sales/purchases are all accounted for IIRC).

Back when Pardew got his 5th place finish with us, that was largely on the back of some smart transfer business as well (Cabaye for $4.3m, Ba on a free, Santon for $5m and Cisse - Carroll's belated replacement, for $9m).

I definitely reckon requiring EPL clubs to invest more in their academies/youth setups would be better than restricting the number of foreigners allowed in squads.

 

[moomba]

Maybe one thing the FA should be doing is subsidising coaching courses at the grass roots level, it's currently much more expensive to get coaching qualifications in england than elsewhere in Europe.

Maybe as a result, the number of qualified coaches per registered footballer is very low compared to the likes of Spain and Germany.

Would be a real positive step by the FA, but as it would involve them actually doing something rather than dictating to others it was unsurprisingly absent from the masterplan.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Maybe 'gutted' was the wrong choice of word mate - as they were handsomely repaid for the players they lost (was thinking more that the core of their tear was essentially bought in the span of one off season). If Southampton had struggled this season, maybe it would have been more appropriate to use the term but they have gone from strength to strength

No doubt they are a well run club. Very impressive outfit. Well coached too. Wish my own mob could be half as well run as they are!

I guess the overall point I was making that Southampton were able to bounce back/build on the loss of key players by smart buying of foreign talent (they actually made a profit I think after sales/purchases are all accounted for IIRC).

Back when Pardew got his 5th place finish with us, that was largely on the back of some smart transfer business as well (Cabaye for $4.3m, Ba on a free, Santon for $5m and Cisse - Carroll's belated replacement, for $9m).

I definitely reckon requiring EPL clubs to invest more in their academies/youth setups would be better than restricting the number of foreigners allowed in squads.

Yep, Saints did very well in the market and i'm sure they'll replace Schneiderlin with a likeminded player at half the price or buy Will Hughes. I find it ridiculous at the lack of talent generally (not just English) coming through the English academies. United produce a hell of a lot of footballers who go on to have good careers in the EPL and the lower divisions (more than other club in England) but haven't produced a genuine star since 92 (although they're very high hopes on James Wilson).

I don't like the fact that the FA dictate to the clubs what they should be doing whilst doing sfa themselves. City brought in a whole bunch of experts (from Barca i think) to help them transform from a middle-lower table epl club to a top 4 club and it clearly worked. Why wouldn't the FA get a dutch, German, French and spanish FA member/strategist/coach to help them transform youth football in England.

It astounds me.

 

[jod23]

This has been criminally over looked.

Fair enough to make the call Gerrard was a better player than Giggs, but to claim better career? How about claiming Giggs only managed limited game time at 35 in 08/09 and thus was seen as past it in the clubs eyes? He played 47 games and won PFA POTY that season FFS.

Saying Gerrard is better because at 35 he's more important to his team than Giggs was at the same age is so factually incorrect it's lauaghable, Gerrard is literally being let go because LFC don't see him in their future plans, whereas Ferguson had this to say about Giggs...



At least the guy had the sense to forget about drawing comparisons to Scholesy.

Gerrard can be far more important to Liverpool than Giggs was to United at the same age because he is simply a better footballer and always was. The only difference is that Giggs was prepared to take on a smaller role, a bench role where he wont start many games and may spend games just sitting on the bench and not coming on at all.

Gerrard isnt prepared to do that. He still wants to play. So he will go to LA and do just that.

Also the year Giggs won that PFA was ridiculous and everybody knows it. Only United fans think he deserved it that year. Gerrard should have won it but they gave it to Giggs more for a lifetime achievement award. It was bullshit.