Even worse is, particularly at the bigger clubs, young players (not just English, though) remain in the reserves, or are bench/loan fodder until they're about 21 sometimes, and then either make it, or get sold. Sebastian Coates is 24, and he's currently on loan at Sunderland, from Liverpool, and Wikipedia tells me he's barely played.
The reason Coates can't get a game, is because he was purchased on huge wages, isn't good enough, but is not too expensive fir championship teams to go for.
He could take a pay cut and play, or stay as he is earning a huge amount.
Coates is just an example, no need to focus on it. My point is you get players waiting in the reserves of the bigger clubs or sitting on the bench or being constantly loaned out. Some break into the first team, some leave early, but there are a lot of players who stay reserves for too many years. That's my point. Forget the Coates example since it doesn't matter.
We had Danny Pacheco for a few years, constantly loaning him out. Conor Coady got sold last year. He's still only 22, but he's just now actually starting a career. There are other examples, and not just players at Liverpool, either.
Does a restriction on what players can be announced in the starting XI and substitutes get around the eu employment law? After all, you're not restricting the clubs on employing eu players, just restricting the amount that can appear in the match squad.
Does a restriction on what players can be announced in the starting XI and substitutes get around the eu employment law? After all, you're not restricting the clubs on employing eu players, just restricting the amount that can appear in the match squad.
I'm not sure myself so thought I'd ask.
That was my point, it doesn't stop them being employed.
Coates is just an example, no need to focus on it. My point is you get players waiting in the reserves of the bigger clubs or sitting on the bench or being constantly loaned out. Some break into the first team, some leave early, but there are a lot of players who stay reserves for too many years. That's my point. Forget the Coates example since it doesn't matter.
We had Danny Pacheco for a few years, constantly loaning him out. Conor Coady got sold last year. He's still only 22, but he's just now actually starting a career. There are other examples, and not just players at Liverpool, either.
Chelsea currently have about 25 players out on-loan - maybe it'd better to stop this stockpiling of young talent by barring clubs from loaning out players with-in the first 2 years of them signing for a club, barring loans between clubs in the same division, and clubs that want to loan out young players for experience can't charge a loan fee and must pay the wages of loanees.
It's a daring risk and an almost arrogant one, too. Foreign players make the Premier League. A majority or exclusivity of English players (or British) will see a decline in product value. Of course, there is the off-chance that more competitive football could bring their game up, but considering they will be schooled in the same 'British coaching ethics and mentality' - I don't see where the change will come from.
Is it that any different from other players who are paid on a weekly basis but don't play because they aren't good enough.
I know the Greek Football League (2nd tier) do something similar, they have a 5 or 6 player home nation rule and no-ones ever sued them. Mind you, they have no money to be sued for.
Tenuous links aside though, I could see this being damaging to the EPL in the longer term if it was adopted.
Is it that any different from other players who are paid on a weekly basis but don't play because they aren't good enough.
I know the Greek Football League (2nd tier) do something similar, they have a 5 or 6 player home nation rule and no-ones ever sued them. Mind you, they have no money to be sued for.
Tenuous links aside though, I could see this being damaging to the EPL in the longer term if it was adopted.
Have you got a link anywhere where it says about the Greek league? Have googled but can't find anything.
I know thats about as helpful as a chocolate teapot but I haven't got time to go through it myself right now. If I can find the actual clause I'll post it and translate it.
If I remember though, it was classifying Serbians, Albanians and Cypriots as Greeks for the purpose of the rule but it's been a long time since I've read up on it. It definitely does (or did?) exist though.
It's a daring risk and an almost arrogant one, too. Foreign players make the Premier League. A majority or exclusivity of English players (or British) will see a decline in product value. Of course, there is the off-chance that more competitive football could bring their game up, but considering they will be schooled in the same 'British coaching ethics and mentality' - I don't see where the change will come from.
British coaching ethics and mentality?
Most of the top clubs do not have a traditional British style and haven't done for many years.
Of the top six, only Liverpool have a British manager -0 and he has a continental approach.
Most of the top clubs do not have a traditional British style and haven't done for many years.
Of the top six, only Liverpool have a British manager -0 and he has a continental approach.
Fair point, to a degree. But I was really referring to children (academy kids) and their coaches, who I assume are mainly British staff. On top of this, there are cultural things still in place. That's why certain players are favoured and England's style hasn't evolved. Overall, we're resistant to change. So, don't expect any International trophies anytime soon.
In the triumphalist, semi-coherent interview Greg Dyke gave to the Guardian after the arrests of Fifa executives in June, the Football Association chairman shared his personal philosophy: “The only advantage of being old – well, of being old and having made money,” he said, “is you don’t give a ****.”
How that remark looks to FA staff now, the day after more than 100 were told they will be losing their jobs as part of Dyke’s “restructure” and “reprioritising” of the FA can hardly be imagined. None of them will have the luxury of enough money – Dyke lucked out in 1994 when he made £7m selling his London Weekend Television shares in the takeover by Granada – that they can afford not to give a ****. These are good, dedicated people who must support families and maintain eyewatering London rents or mortgages, many having moved there for the opportunity to work at the FA.
The rationale for Dyke, whose tenure at the FA ends next year, making so many people redundant is to save around £5m for investment into building 3G football pitches nationwide. Nobody can argue with a programme to raise England’s public football facilities above the level of squalor, but it is unclear whether Dyke even understands how much of a personal climbdown this programme represents, or how complete his political defeat by the Premier League.
Then came commission’s modest but sensible proposals to improve coaching and facilities, with Dyke promising to find money for 3G pitches. The Premier League is expecting £8bn from its 2016-19 TV deals, but Dyke has now cut out a trifling £5m by sacking 100 of the FA’s own people.
There is an argument, of course, for examining whether the FA, like any organisation, is structured and staffed ideally. But it is wretched to lay so many people off as part of a political shrinkage, to save a relatively tiny amount of money for investment. To have the job losses perpetrated by a man who says he personally has so much money he “doesn’t give a ****” is close to unspeakable.
Comments
No i don't. I didn't say stop people joining clubs.
I didn't say he was...
He could take a pay cut and play, or stay as he is earning a huge amount.
Guess which he opted for?
We had Danny Pacheco for a few years, constantly loaning him out. Conor Coady got sold last year. He's still only 22, but he's just now actually starting a career. There are other examples, and not just players at Liverpool, either.
I'm not sure myself so thought I'd ask.
That was my point, it doesn't stop them being employed.
England players are hesitant to play abroad, and the national team suffers because of it.
Chelsea currently have about 25 players out on-loan - maybe it'd better to stop this stockpiling of young talent by barring clubs from loaning out players with-in the first 2 years of them signing for a club, barring loans between clubs in the same division, and clubs that want to loan out young players for experience can't charge a loan fee and must pay the wages of loanees.
Stopping them playing is still a restraint of trade.
I know the Greek Football League (2nd tier) do something similar, they have a 5 or 6 player home nation rule and no-ones ever sued them. Mind you, they have no money to be sued for.
Tenuous links aside though, I could see this being damaging to the EPL in the longer term if it was adopted.
Have you got a link anywhere where it says about the Greek league? Have googled but can't find anything.
Or is it more absurd that City have a second team to buy players, who loan then to the parent club for free?
Nothing in English. Here's the official player registration document in Greek, it's pretty hard going though.
http://www.epo.gr/media/files/KATASTATIKO_KANONISMOI/KANONISMOS_IDIOTHTAS_METEGGRAFON_IOYNIOS_2014_b.pdf
I know thats about as helpful as a chocolate teapot but I haven't got time to go through it myself right now. If I can find the actual clause I'll post it and translate it.
If I remember though, it was classifying Serbians, Albanians and Cypriots as Greeks for the purpose of the rule but it's been a long time since I've read up on it. It definitely does (or did?) exist though.
"Arsenal - 2, Aston Villa - 4, Burnley - 7, Chelsea - 2, Crystal Palace - 5, Everton - 5, Hull - 2, Leicester - 4, Liverpool - 4, Man City - 2, Man Utd - 5, Newcastle - 4, QPR - 6, Southampton - 3, Stoke - 2, Sunderland - 4, Swansea - 4, Tottenham - 6, West Brom - 4, West Ham - 6"
I dont think that its arsenals or chelseas or city/ lfcs problem. They have the top talent from around the world to choose from.
But Hull? 2 same as chelsea, this is an odd thing.
Having a restriction wouldn't stop Newcastle going to France and getting a few more players.
British coaching ethics and mentality?
Most of the top clubs do not have a traditional British style and haven't done for many years.
Of the top six, only Liverpool have a British manager -0 and he has a continental approach.
Fair point, to a degree. But I was really referring to children (academy kids) and their coaches, who I assume are mainly British staff. On top of this, there are cultural things still in place. That's why certain players are favoured and England's style hasn't evolved. Overall, we're resistant to change. So, don't expect any International trophies anytime soon.
In the triumphalist, semi-coherent interview Greg Dyke gave to the Guardian after the arrests of Fifa executives in June, the Football Association chairman shared his personal philosophy: “The only advantage of being old – well, of being old and having made money,” he said, “is you don’t give a ****.”
How that remark looks to FA staff now, the day after more than 100 were told they will be losing their jobs as part of Dyke’s “restructure” and “reprioritising” of the FA can hardly be imagined. None of them will have the luxury of enough money – Dyke lucked out in 1994 when he made £7m selling his London Weekend Television shares in the takeover by Granada – that they can afford not to give a ****. These are good, dedicated people who must support families and maintain eyewatering London rents or mortgages, many having moved there for the opportunity to work at the FA.
The rationale for Dyke, whose tenure at the FA ends next year, making so many people redundant is to save around £5m for investment into building 3G football pitches nationwide. Nobody can argue with a programme to raise England’s public football facilities above the level of squalor, but it is unclear whether Dyke even understands how much of a personal climbdown this programme represents, or how complete his political defeat by the Premier League.
Then came commission’s modest but sensible proposals to improve coaching and facilities, with Dyke promising to find money for 3G pitches. The Premier League is expecting £8bn from its 2016-19 TV deals, but Dyke has now cut out a trifling £5m by sacking 100 of the FA’s own people.
There is an argument, of course, for examining whether the FA, like any organisation, is structured and staffed ideally. But it is wretched to lay so many people off as part of a political shrinkage, to save a relatively tiny amount of money for investment. To have the job losses perpetrated by a man who says he personally has so much money he “doesn’t give a ****” is close to unspeakable.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/aug/21/greg-dyke-job-cuts-fa-bitter-taste?CMP=share_btn_tw