• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

chapperzUK

Guest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32024808

The proposal includes:


  • A player will have to have been registered with his club from the age of 15 - down from 18 - to qualify as 'home-grown'.
  • The minimum number of home-grown players in a club's first-team squad of 25 will increase from eight to 12, phased over four years from 2016.
  • At least two home-grown players must also be 'club-trained' players - defined as any player, irrespective of nationality, that has been registered for three years at their club from the age of 15.
  • Only the best non-EU foreign players will be granted permission to play in England.

It seems like they are trying to get more players from the academy through to the first team and playing matches, but that is irrespective of nationality. What is there to stop the top clubs going into Europe and signing 12-14 year olds for their academies, as they would be classed as 'home-grown'.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32024808

The proposal includes:


  • A player will have to have been registered with his club from the age of 15 - down from 18 - to qualify as 'home-grown'.
  • The minimum number of home-grown players in a club's first-team squad of 25 will increase from eight to 12, phased over four years from 2016.
  • At least two home-grown players must also be 'club-trained' players - defined as any player, irrespective of nationality, that has been registered for three years at their club from the age of 15.
  • Only the best non-EU foreign players will be granted permission to play in England.

It seems like they are trying to get more players from the academy through to the first team and playing matches, but that is irrespective of nationality. What is there to stop the top clubs going into Europe and signing 12-14 year olds for their academies, as they would be classed as 'home-grown'.

Because there are rules about signing players from overseas at that age.
 
Thought I saw something recently about Chelsea signing a few European kids for their academy, but can't find it.

You can, but I think the youngest has to be 16. I think there are also rules around parents coming with. I have looked on the internet (briefly) but haven't managed to find anything.
 
Because there are rules about signing players from overseas at that age.

Does that apply to the EU countries though? With the EU allowing free movement of labour between its member countries would it be legal for the FA to disallow it?
 
Does that apply to the EU countries though? With the EU allowing free movement of labour between its member countries would it be legal for the FA to disallow it?

Yes, it does apply to EU countries. I can't remember the actual rule, but it's something along the lines of a kid not being allowed to move countries unless it is for his/her parent's work.
 
Yes, it does apply to EU countries. I can't remember the actual rule, but it's something along the lines of a kid not being allowed to move countries unless it is for his/her parent's work.

Aye, which is why Chelsea suddenly ended up with about 25 under-qualified part-time groundsmen last year :winking:

The proposals seem fairly sensible if that's the route the FA want to go down, but I have no confidence in their efficacy in bringing through English talent good enough for the world stage. Without the requisite coaching infrastructure, all this will do is make clubs include and field sub-standard players. The cost of "home grown" players will inflate, and this will filter down the leagues. Take someone like Assombalonga, many thought Forest were mad to have shelled out £5m+ on him last summer, but he's going to be worth an enormous amount more under these proposals.

At least the FA do at last appear willing to invest in the coaching infrastructure though, and it's those proposals - the precise details of which haven't been released yet - which will ultimately be the most important.
 
Aye, which is why Chelsea suddenly ended up with about 25 under-qualified part-time groundsmen last year :winking:

The proposals seem fairly sensible if that's the route the FA want to go down, but I have no confidence in their efficacy in bringing through English talent good enough for the world stage. Without the requisite coaching infrastructure, all this will do is make clubs include and field sub-standard players. The cost of "home grown" players will inflate, and this will filter down the leagues. Take someone like Assombalonga, many thought Forest were mad to have shelled out £5m+ on him last summer, but he's going to be worth an enormous amount more under these proposals.

At least the FA do at last appear willing to invest in the coaching infrastructure though, and it's those proposals - the precise details of which haven't been released yet - which will ultimately be the most important.

I do agree that coaching is still the key. However, there are, as the FA put it, a lot of mediocre foreigners in the PL. It is also interesting that something like 90% of work permit appeals are successful. That tells me there is an issue there, and the process isn't robust enough.

Greg Dyke's example of how Harry Kane was on loan at Millwall, and only got his chance "by luck" because Tim Sherwood happened to give him a go is also interesting. There must be loads of players like that. Players that just need a break and a bit of experience to push them on. Most managers, however, aren't prepared to take that risk, and would rather buy a player with equivalent ability, but that has had a bit of experience.

The one thing I disagree with you on is the price of home grown players. Even if that were the case, surely that is actually a good thing since it would ensure money stays within football in this country rather than being lost overseas.
 
I do agree that coaching is still the key. However, there are, as the FA put it, a lot of mediocre foreigners in the PL. It is also interesting that something like 90% of work permit appeals are successful. That tells me there is an issue there, and the process isn't robust enough.

I disagree, the figure is so high because you aren't going to go after a player unless your lawyers tell you that you'll be able to win the work permit appeal. The vast majority of non-EU foreign players are not eligable for a permit.
 
I disagree, the figure is so high because you aren't going to go after a player unless your lawyers tell you that you'll be able to win the work permit appeal. The vast majority of non-EU foreign players are not eligable for a permit.

There is an issue when 90% of the time an appeal is upheld. Either the player should have received a work permit and not have needed to go to an appeal, or there is an issue with the appeal process that is being exploited.
 
Would anyone argue that our U21 team is poor? I wouldn't. We seem to do pretty well in U21 competitions, but this is telling:

Current U21 squad minutes on the pitch in the top flights:

France: 79,973
Germany: 66,756
Spain: 61,844
Italy: 31,765
England: 30,274

(This is actually available in a graph, but I can't find it.)

If we currently do well at U21 level why is it that we can't promote our own players to the first team in the same way that the other countries can? Our players must be at least as good as the other countries mentioned otherwise we wouldn't do very well in the U21 tournaments, yet our players get less than half the minutes on the pitch than more successful countries.
 
Back
Top