English FA planning tougher home-grown rules

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.

Definitely necessary.

Proof:

Spoiler:

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.

Sub all 3 after 5 minutes
Wenger mah n

Kick wrote:I doubt it. Less homegrown players suits Mourinho.

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

Anyone who doesn't want the Prem's quality to drop will agree with him.

Won't make a difference. The coaches are terrible at all levels.

GoonerJay29 wrote: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.”

lmfao unreal

When I was a kid playing Pokemon on Gameboy, it was a strategy to make a low level Pokemon the default first choice for battles, with my first move being replacing it with a high level one. => XP was split evenly when the battle was won, thereby making the low level creature gain tons of XP without being knocked out.

Clearly, the Yugoslav FA thought the same applies to football

srigooner wrote:When I was a kid playing Pokemon on Gameboy, it was a strategy to make a low level Pokemon the default first choice for battles, with my first move being replacing it with a high level one. => XP was split evenly when the battle was won, thereby making the low level creature gain tons of XP without being knocked out.

Clearly, the Yugoslav FA thought the same applies to football

Everyone did that

Also you did this yesterday " when i was a kid " you ain't fooling no one brah.

Well.. Gameboy is timeless ffs

It's so badass that there are dedicated centers for it:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g1066451-d480633-Reviews-Pokemon_Center_Tokyo-Minato_Tokyo_Tokyo_Prefecture_Kanto.html

(Been there, definitely worth a visit for Gaijins in Tokyo)

Pretty sure the kids these days are missing out on stuff like this. And Rock n' Roll, while we're at it.

srigooner wrote:Pretty sure the kids these days are missing out on stuff like this. And Rock n' Roll, while we're at it.

Agreed. How can people grow up without Pokemon, good music and Cartoon Network ffs.

srigooner wrote:When I was a kid playing Pokemon on Gameboy, it was a strategy to make a low level Pokemon the default first choice for battles, with my first move being replacing it with a high level one. => XP was split evenly when the battle was won, thereby making the low level creature gain tons of XP without being knocked out.

Heck yaa, I did that too !! ..

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:

srigooner wrote:Pretty sure the kids these days are missing out on stuff like this. And Rock n' Roll, while we're at it.

Agreed. How can people grow up without Pokemon, good music and Cartoon Network ffs.

They don't.