English FA planning tougher home-grown rules

I agree.

As I said in the PL thread, the fact that ONLY the PL already has these work permit restrictions designed to keep foreign players out yet they are the ONLY league who's countries NT is underperforming should tell us enough about the usefulness of it.

Rebaño Sagrado wrote:

RedOranje wrote:Because its the right thing to do?

And because history has demonstrated repeatedly that the "blame foreigners/others" option only causes more issues on top of the (ignored) current ones?

Before you bite again, he's joking brah.

Obviously. It is possible to run with a joke, you know?

Obviously. It is possible to run with a joke, you know?

Makes sense to change the age as far as the homegrown theory is concerned. If you want to see if increasing the number of homegrown players improves the national team, the homegrown players to start with have to actually be English. Up till now the experiment has been doomed from the start as in many cases it seems to have only motivated clubs to cherry pick the best youth players from other nations, which wold not be the case with this rule as English clubs the last time I checked cannot take players as young as 15 from other countries. Whether increasing the opportunities given to English players actually improves the level of English football is a whole other question though. Chelsea have an excellent generation of young British players currently and that is purely down to coaching.

Rebaño Sagrado wrote:Obviously. It is possible to run with a joke, you know?

Lazy and cliched.

Art Morte wrote:I really don't think the FA has thought it through with that 15-year-old thing. FIFA rules state that you cannot sign players from abroad who are under 18. Thus far FIFA has turned a blind eye to it, but the transfer ban on Barcelona signals they are going to put a stop to this now. So, if you must have been at the club since you were 15 to qualify as home-grown, all those 12 (half of your 25-man squad) players would have to be English. Meaning that all the Prem clubs who can just afford it, will buy, say, a hundred 15-yo English players in trying to ensure they will have adequate-quality 12 home-grown players in the future.

Thus investing into the future of England (as they will want them to be good). I think this is the only part of the rules that makes any sense, if the objective is to increase the quality of English footballers. And they actually don't have to be English, they can be from anywhere in the EU, but I don't think they can offer pro contracts prior to 16 so I don't see why anyone would want to move there without any assurances.

In any case, I think it would make far more sense to take a portion of the increase in new TV money (say, 10%) and invest that into a nationwide grass roots infrastructure.

RedOranje wrote:

Rebaño Sagrado wrote:Obviously. It is possible to run with a joke, you know?

Lazy and cliched.

I was going to take a shot at your sense of humor, would that have been better?

Hapless_Hans wrote:

To start addressing these problems, in October 2014, The FA announced a major investment in coaching including a new head of coaching education at St. George’s Park, 35 full-time FA coach educators and a plan to drastically raise the number of Advanced Youth and Pro Licence coaching qualification holders.

Biggest load of BS I have heard in a long long time.

If they want to drastically raise the number of Pro Licence coaches then why is the UK the most expensive place in Europe to get those qualifications.

If I want to do all my licences, it would cost me anywhere between 40% and 140% more than European countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Germany?

They straight lying, I have checked this myself personally and its clear the English FA are doing everything they can to make money from their coaching courses. They aint trying to get more people educated, they trying to earn as much money as they possibly can. The prices they charge are simply disgraceful.

I wanted some hard numbers so I did some googling:

The basic FA Level 1 course is £150, while Level 2 rises to £340. Then comes a steep increase. The standard cost of a UEFA "B" License -- a prerequisite to work at a professional club's academy -- is £990, and it can cost as much as £2,450. In Germany, the cost is €430; in Spain it is €1,100. For the UEFA "A" License, an English coach could pay a maximum of £5,820 -- but in Germany it is €530 and in Spain €1,200. Being a member of the FA's Licensed Coaches' Club (free to join for anyone with a basic Level 1 qualification) brings the cost down by 25 percent but the prices are significantly higher than on the continent and unquestionably difficult for the average person to afford, unless sponsored by a club.

http://www.espnfc.us/story/1572894/mark-lomas-counting-the-cost-of-coaching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Pro_Licence

Wow. That is insane. Bear in mind those are pounds being compared to euros, which makes it even more expensive.

Dani it seems that you're better off going to Germany for a few weeks if you want to do this (assuming they do english language tests). Is a UEFA pro lincese valid for every country or just the one you get it in? I assume since it's UEFA that it's valid across all of Europe.

I could be wrong, but last I heard becoming a member of the FA Licensed Caoches' club isnt free any more either.

Oh and sorry to go on and on on this issue, but also consider what you are paying for.

The  level of education before UEFA B is highly questionable.

UEFA B (and A's) syllabus is uniform across the board, but before then the individual FA's from each country themselves I imagine dictate what you learning.

Paying £500 to learn kick and rush

Well, time to jump ship

Hala Atleti

English players are already too expensive. The somewhat decent English players prices are going to tripple when the bigger teams actually need a certain amount and feel like they need a boost in quality and can only do it through signing someone English if they are out of international slots.

Southampton will be the leagues richest club by the end of the decade

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Art Morte wrote:I really don't think the FA has thought it through with that 15-year-old thing. FIFA rules state that you cannot sign players from abroad who are under 18. Thus far FIFA has turned a blind eye to it, but the transfer ban on Barcelona signals they are going to put a stop to this now. So, if you must have been at the club since you were 15 to qualify as home-grown, all those 12 (half of your 25-man squad) players would have to be English. Meaning that all the Prem clubs who can just afford it, will buy, say, a hundred 15-yo English players in trying to ensure they will have adequate-quality 12 home-grown players in the future.

1. Thus investing into the future of England (as they will want them to be good). I think this is the only part of the rules that makes any sense, if the objective is to increase the quality of English footballers. And they actually don't have to be English, they can be from anywhere in the EU, but I don't think they can offer pro contracts prior to 16 so I don't see why anyone would want to move there without any assurances.

2. In any case, I think it would make far more sense to take a portion of the increase in new TV money (say, 10%) and invest that into a nationwide grass roots infrastructure.

1. Sure, it might help the quality of English footballers, but the other effect is lower quality of the Premier League. Protectionism does that. And I think that's too high a price to pay and could in the long run have an adversary effect to the quality of English players.

2. And I totally agree with you here. They should drop this protectionism bs - or at least not make it so very strict as they're planning to do here - and use some of the Premier League's revenue in youth development. I don't think it has to go straight to grassroots level, though. What I would do is this:

The domestic TV rights per season are €1700m, 700m more than in the previous deal.

Give £1m a year to each of the 24 clubs in the Championship and earmark half of that to youth development of that club.

Give £750,000 to each of the 24 clubs in League One and earmark half of that to be spent on youth development of that club.

Give £500,000 to each 24 clubs in League Two and earmark half of that to youth development.

That's just £54m of the £1700m the Prem makes from domestic TV rights per season. But those sums are still big figures for clubs in the Football League. So, give them a little bit of money and oversee that half, for example, of that is spent on youth coaching and youth programs. It will help these clubs to give better coaching to their kids and those who become good enough, the Prem clubs will easily have the money to buy anyway. Benefits everyone at low cost and without ruining the Premier League.

"Right, the standard of English footballers is shit right now lads, so what we're gonna go ahead and make you do, is put more time and money in to investing in these shit players. This will make them magically evolve in to superior footballers overnight"




"Improve our youth structures and coaching at a young level? Bah, *bleep* that. Stupid idea"


Seems about right.

I for one welcome our new English overlords.

This actually makes me happy, *bleep* might stop poaching our Masia and players in La Liga as much with this new rule.

Considering it's more lenient surrounding higher ranking nations i doubt that lol.

Hasn't City taught you anything about rules and working around them?

Reminds me of the Great FFP Deception. Everyone thought football would become more fair. Everyone believed football would become more fair.

With the amount of money in the PL, rest assured, all these regulations mean squat for teams who really want something.

why would any English team keep buying foreign players from the age of 16 to 20, mostly because they are not able to find enough good players in England does it make sense It does !!

HEIL MEIN REDS wrote:why would any English team keep buying foreign players from the age of 16 to 20, mostly because they are not able to find enough good players in England does it make sense It does !!

Well its not exactly a reasonable point. English players vs Global players is hardly an even playing field as a numbers game, is it?

We know English players are overpriced and have higher wage demands.

Why are English players overpriced? A few minor factors contribute to this, homegrown hero has some marketing sway, might sell a few extra shirts I suppose - but meh.

However we do know that home-grown player regulations definately increase their value at top level, because out of a pool of 60 odd players who are good enough for the current standard in the PL, all 20 clubs are vying for the best of them.

So we know that English players value gets increased by current restrictions on foreign players. It could be then, that by increasing the number of home-grown players and reducing the age of youth-system involvement, the value of English players will be increased even further based on wider influences, not related to ability, skill, potential etc.

I'm thinking maybe a free market is best for the NT. Reduce the value of young English players until it becomes in their best interests to play abroad. Eventually the talent pool amongst English players would improve and we can buy back off foreign clubs once the good players with this supposed potential have developed.

It will also stop quality players signing up for clubs like City, who have clearly lackadaisical business ethics, to warm the bench to make up the required home-grown contingent. Because clubs like this wont get in fodder, they will get in top players who when called upon the few times they are needed per season, they can still do a job.

Could look to limit foreign players in the championship and L1+2.. but would it widen the gap further?.. I would say imposing such further restrictions on the "lower leagues" would mean that they should get also heavier investment.

Wenger has raised some decent points against this:

“I believe that we are in the world of competition. Competition means who of you or me is the best one. We have to accept that.

“That means as well that the rules of the game must be structured to favour the best. Or we are not in a competition anymore.

“So we can say one of two things – we protect the mediocre or we produce the best players.

“I personally would support hugely to pay super people who think about how we can produce players from five years old to 20 years old to be as good as they can be rather than protect them through wrong mediocre rules.

“I give you two examples. In Yugoslavia in the past they decided you had to play three players on the team sheet who were under 21. What happened? They became professional subs. It happened in France, too.

“Then they decided you had to play three players under-21 from the start. You know what happened? They subbed all three after five minutes.

“If we want to sell the Premier League for a huge amount of money then we need to say: ‘buy this, this is the best in the world.’ You cannot go against the quality and what is at the heart of our job which is competition.

“The best must be the best. That’s why I will fight against it. I have very little power but I don’t think the idea is right.”

Well said.

Now I fully expect Mourinho to state the exact opposite in his next presser.

I doubt it. Less homegrown players suits Mourinho.

I imagine most EPL managers will agree with Arsene. TBH.