*Official* English Football Season 2014-15

[GIMH]

Are you saying young players shouldn't have a choice who they play for?

I don't have a choice who to play for because I'm not good enough. Same here. Big clubs are keeping hold of players that are never going to cut the mustard. You can't blame the players for choosing Chelsea or Liverpool over Orient or Tranmere, as you say. But if there was a cap on how many players they could stockpile, then the clubs only choose the most talented players and the rest have to find a different club.

I'm not for a minute proposing any kind of draft etc. And I don't know at what age I would bring in the cap. But the root of the problem is in your implication - young lad will, in most cases, choose the bigger club. If the bigger club has a limit, the young lad who's not quite the next Ronaldo or even Rooney but maybe the next Lallana, the next Aaron Creswell, whoever, has a more pragmatic choice to make.

 

[Furball]

I don't have a choice who to play for because I'm not good enough. Same here. Big clubs are keeping hold of players that are never going to cut the mustard. You can't blame the players for choosing Chelsea or Liverpool over Orient or Tranmere, as you say. But if there was a cap on how many players they could stockpile, then the clubs only choose the most talented players and the rest have to find a different club.

I'm not for a minute proposing any kind of draft etc. And I don't know at what age I would bring in the cap. But the root of the problem is in your implication - young lad will, in most cases, choose the bigger club. If the bigger club has a limit, the young lad who's not quite the next Ronaldo or even Rooney but maybe the next Lallana, the next Aaron Creswell, whoever, has a more pragmatic choice to make.

Yeah the problem with that is that the young lad in question will choose Chelsea because he doesn't recognise that he's the next Aaron Creswell. He thinks he's the next Ronaldo because he's spent his youth being that damned good at the game that nobody's told him any different. And even if he's lucky enough to have a coach or parent who's a bit prudent and tries to set his sights lower - well **** him, I know how good I can be, and I'll prove it.

 

[sledger]

I occasionally wonder if I actually would choose a really big club over a smaller (but still decent one) if I was in such a position tbh. Not sure I would, but it's about as hypothetical as a scenario can get (unless there's a plague that only effects goalkeepers that descends upon the world, and someone fancies taking a punt on an erratic and inconsistent 27 year old), so I guess my view here is moot.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah that is exactly why he wants to limit the number of players Chelsea and the like can have....

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah the problem with that is that the young lad in question will choose Chelsea because he doesn't recognise that he's the next Aaron Creswell. He thinks he's the next Ronaldo because he's spent his youth being that damned good at the game that nobody's told him any different. And even if he's lucky enough to have a coach or parent who's a bit prudent and tries to set his sights lower - well **** him, I know how good I can be, and I'll prove it.

You're making his argument for him.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, what they said, that's my whole point

 

[sledger]

Haha, Furball.

 

[cpr]

I occasionally wonder if I actually would choose a really big club over a smaller (but still decent one) if I was in such a position tbh. Not sure I would, but it's about as hypothetical as a scenario can get (unless there's a plague that only effects goalkeepers that descends upon the world, and someone fancies taking a punt on an erratic and inconsistent 27 year old), so I guess my view here is moot.

Its an interesting one.... There were a couple of lads I played with growing up who had a chance to make it (one or two of our great Hale Barnes Utd team turned out for the likes of Altrincham, but I'm not counting them. Likewise the one who went to Macclesfield who's name I can't remember)

Alex thought he was a hot shot striker - in truth he was quite easy to tackle I found when I played outfield. He played for Everton and Blackburn's youth set up before moving to Man Utd at 14. Believed he would be a huge star - In truth he got where he was because his dad was a scout. Ended up being taken by Leicester at 16, but never made the grade, petered out, last seen getting the odd game for FC Utd or Salford.


Phil worked hard, worked on his weaknesses, kept himself modest, like Alex he bounced around a few acadamies. Finally got signed for a lower team. Now captains Everton.

 

[sledger]

You'd think the precedent of the whole "go to a big club and then fade into nothingness" thing would be well-established enough by now to make young players think twice about going for the bright lights too early these days. I guess a lot will depend on your ambition and self-belief, but my philosophy has always been to work hard and aim high, but not to take any risks that would unnecessarily jeopardise a presently favourable and expedient situation. I'd like to think that's the attitude I would adopt if I was a young footballer.

 

[Furball]

Apologies, I wasn't clear on gimpeh's point...

There's no real right or wrong solution though. I think we've had this conversation before but I think B sides could be part of the solution. I understand why you guys who support teams in the Football League would be dead against that (as I would be in your position to be fair) but I definitely think it's a better alternative step to parking players out on loan, although it doesn't solve the hoarding problem. It definitely helps a player get decent first team experience.

Ultimately it comes down to money though. The reason Chelsea etc hoard young players is in the off chance that one of the dozens that they sign (see Thibault Courtois) actually develop into a first team capable player. And they can hoard them because having 30 young players on the books earning £5k a week is nothing to a club the size of Chelsea. Maybe what really needs to happen is that clubs need some sort of incentive to play younger players rather than an arbitrary "oh you need 12 homegrown players in your squad" rule. Maybe have some of the TV money withheld and used for incentives similar to the incentives that the counties receive.

Ball park figures here but let's say £100m of the TV money was withheld and a club earned £100k every time they field an English eligible player under the age of 23. At the end of the season, any spare change from this £100m fund that isn't used gets distributed to the Football League to share amongst its clubs. Would that even begin to work as a solution?

 

[Furball]

You'd think the precedent of the whole "go to a big club and then fade into nothingness" thing would be well-established enough by now to make young players think twice about going for the bright lights too early these days. I guess a lot will depend on your ambition and self-belief, but my philosophy has always been to work hard and aim high, but not to take any risks that would unnecessarily jeopardise a presently favourable and expedient situation. I'd like to think that's the attitude I would adopt if I was a young footballer.

Well yeah, but let's switch the focus here to Arsenal for a second. Arsene Wenger has a (justified IMO) reputation of being a manager who's good at managing and developing younger talent. In the last 15 years, we've brought through Cole, Gibbs and Wilshere through our own academy and there's a whole line of players that Arsenal have signed young and developed into really good players - Szcezsny, Kolo Toure, Ramsay, Cesc, Alex Song, RvP, Walcott, Ox all immediately spring to mind as good young players that Wenger has played a significant part in developing. You're not going into contract negotiations as a 15 year old protege who's only really known success thinking "I'll probably fade away into insignificance", you're thinking "if I'm as good as I think I am then this manager has a track record of unearthing diamonds, I'd be foolish not to try and be the latest off the production line." And that's before you figure in the attractiveness of living in London as a young man earning £100k+.

 

[Pothas]

Well yeah, but let's switch the focus here to Arsenal for a second. Arsene Wenger has a (justified IMO) reputation of being a manager who's good at managing and developing younger talent. In the last 15 years, we've brought through Cole, Gibbs and Wilshere through our own academy and there's a whole line of players that Arsenal have signed young and developed into really good players - Szcezsny, Kolo Toure, Ramsay, Cesc, Alex Song, RvP, Walcott, Ox all immediately spring to mind as good young players that Wenger has played a significant part in developing. You're not going into contract negotiations as a 15 year old protege who's only really known success thinking "I'll probably fade away into insignificance", you're thinking "if I'm as good as I think I am then this manager has a track record of unearthing diamonds, I'd be foolish not to try and be the latest off the production line." And that's before you figure in the attractiveness of living in London as a young man earning £100k+.

Because we never do that.

 

[sledger]

Because we never do that.

 

[GIMH]

A lot of the 'B team' players if that ghastly situation ever occurred would wind up playing at L2 level for their B teams I believe. Let me tell you. L2 is hideous. Whereas if these players were not hoarded by the vultures at the top of our game, they could potentially be playing for Championship or L1 clubs. So I don't even think it would help a little bit. And even then, it only helps the goal of improving English talent for the benefit of the national team and the big clubs. That's where Dykes and his imbecilic committee have it wrong, as Uppercut said, they aren't looking at what actually matters. I do care about the England team but the decimation of the competition I watch all year round is not worth any rewards that could come from it, even if they were tangible and realistic (they aren't).

I'm not sure your suggestion would even be lawful. But for me it's not really about money as the primary issue here. Don't get me wrong. It's a factor. EPP and all that makes it worse. But giving the Football League clubs more money isn't going to do a whole lot if all the talent is on the books at Chelsea A/B/C/D team. So you'd merely wind up with either wage inflation (as we saw in the ITV Digital fiasco, which hurt some clubs badly) or more foreign talent coming into the lower leagues. i don't have a problem with that per se, but if Dykes and Mills and whichever other cretins are part of this brainwave want to improve English talent, I don't see that it would meet their desire. Btw, speaking of Mills I read a quote from him saying, "even some League 2 clubs have foreign players!" as if to say 'how dare they?!' ****.

I mean you're absolutely right, it's no issue to Chelsea to have however many kids on their books at a small wage. Which is the whole point and the whole issue. It's a policy that serves Chelsea well. And every other top club. I'd love to see some stats on how many players who turn pro at one of our 'big' clubs, so thinking current top four + Liverpool, actually go on to make more than, say, five Premier League appearances for the club.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of our players who turn pro don't wind up making the grade either. Probably three or four a season. But they don't generally make it as pros full stop.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah have said many times that even if B teams worked perfectly I would not want them but to even be of any use at all they would have to play at very least at League One level if not Championship. The gap between Championship and League two is so massive, both on and off the pitch that it is not really useful to refer to the 'Football League' as one thing tbh.

 

[Furball]

A lot of the 'B team' players if that ghastly situation ever occurred would wind up playing at L2 level for their B teams I believe. Let me tell you. L2 is hideous. Whereas if these players were not hoarded by the vultures at the top of our game, they could potentially be playing for Championship or L1 clubs. So I don't even think it would help a little bit. And even then, it only helps the goal of improving English talent for the benefit of the national team and the big clubs. That's where Dykes and his imbecilic committee have it wrong, as Uppercut said, they aren't looking at what actually matters. I do care about the England team but the decimation of the competition I watch all year round is not worth any rewards that could come from it, even if they were tangible and realistic (they aren't).

I'm not sure your suggestion would even be lawful. But for me it's not really about money as the primary issue here. Don't get me wrong. It's a factor. EPP and all that makes it worse. But giving the Football League clubs more money isn't going to do a whole lot if all the talent is on the books at Chelsea A/B/C/D team. So you'd merely wind up with either wage inflation (as we saw in the ITV Digital fiasco, which hurt some clubs badly) or more foreign talent coming into the lower leagues. i don't have a problem with that per se, but if Dykes and Mills and whichever other cretins are part of this brainwave want to improve English talent, I don't see that it would meet their desire. Btw, speaking of Mills I read a quote from him saying, "even some League 2 clubs have foreign players!" as if to say 'how dare they?!' ****.

I mean you're absolutely right, it's no issue to Chelsea to have however many kids on their books at a small wage. Which is the whole point and the whole issue. It's a policy that serves Chelsea well. And every other top club. I'd love to see some stats on how many players who turn pro at one of our 'big' clubs, so thinking current top four + Liverpool, actually go on to make more than, say, five Premier League appearances for the club.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of our players who turn pro don't wind up making the grade either. Probably three or four a season. But they don't generally make it as pros full stop.

Surely if the ECB do it then it's lawful, and it would be entirely up to the clubs anyway whether they wanted to take advantage of it. If they don't want to play young English players then nobody's forcing them to, they just earn £0 a year from the young talent incentive, whereas at the other extreme end, a team who's entire starting XI is English and under 23 earns £41.8m.

 

[Furball]

In terms of the B team idea, my support of it stems from the benefits I think it gives the individual players. I think once a player hits the age of around 17 or 18 then he really needs to start getting regular, competitive football. You look at the top German and Spanish players - and I'm not just referring to your average, run of the mill players, but the elite players who have come through - and a lot of them have played 40-50 games worth of B team football in regional leagues at the age of about 18 before breaking into the first team. I think a lot of young English players struggle because they'll come through at age group level looking the goods up until about U18 or U19 level but then don't get enough first team football at that stage to really begin to kick on. That's one area where B team football could help - the alternative would be doing what Bayern Munich did with Lahm and Kroos and loaning them out for 2 years and 18 months respectively - or do what Chelsea did with Thibault Courtois and punt him off to Atletico Madrid for 3 years. Of course, this doesn't discourage top teams from hoovering up young talent but it brings the most benefit to the player, who need to be the focus when it comes to youth development, not the clubs.

Lahm benefitted from a spell at Stuttgart when he wasn't quite at Bayern's level, Kroos benefitted from a spell at Leverkusen, Courtois benefitted from playing for Atleti and Iniesta benefitted from 60 B team games and gradually being introduced to the first team (he wasn't a regular starter until he was 21.)

That being said, the FA's proposals are ludicrous and will have the opposite effect of what's intended.

 

[Cabinet96]

https://vine.co/v/O3JxungLqrI

 

[grecian]

Pfft, just have a decent yoof system and you'll be alright.

Admittedly I've not read hardly any of this argument, just feel left out coz I can't be arsed to read it, so have posted a snarky comment instead.

A concise look at my posting style there for you all.

 

[cpr]

I know its not a major thing, but I've heard some argue that those coming through the youth system get little exposure to playing in front of decent crowds/decent pitches.

So why not play the reserve games just before/after the Prem fixture?

Many of the reserve fixtures are between teams in the same first team division, so marrying up the fixtures should be possible. Having a 3pm Prem game could be paired with a 12.30/5.30 reserve fixture. Make the ticket for the main match valid for both. It'd get the reserves playing at the main stadium, probably in front of a larger crowd than they are used to (even in a 40,000 seater stadium, you might find 5-7k stay for both games - the away fans more likely to make a full day of it), so gradually these kids get used to playing at the big stadiums in front of more than one man and his dog. Considering some teams are already trying to play some reserve games at the main stadium (utd have had a few at OT this year), it'd make sense from a staffing point of view to only man the ground once for the two games.

Also I think it'd make a chance for young players to get a look in for the first team. It might open up more getting a chance on the bench - the manager knowing they can still get a run out after if they are an unused sub rather than being a day sat on the bench doing nothing. Likewise the kid who plays a blinder in a morning reserve game might come off after 60 mins, the manager giving them a bit of a rest before promoting them to the for the main game as a reward (again, the possiblity of 30 mins in the first team if the games going well)