Them Confounded New UEFA 'Home-grown' Rules

leninbenjamin

i see a considerable amount of discussion of these across various threads, and i thought it would be nice to consolidate for the purposes of discussion.

first off the wee explanation for those who don't know:

Tauren wrote: »

One other talking point… clubs are required to name at least eight ‘homegrown’ players on the 25-man List A - four ‘club trained’ and four ‘association trained’, the definitions of which are below:

A “club-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the start of
the season during which he turns 15) and 21 (or the end of the season during which he turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality and age, has been registered with his current club for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons (i.e. a period starting with the first official match of the relevant national championship and ending with the last official match of that relevant national championship) or of 36 months.

An “association-trained player” is a player who, between the age of 15 (or the start of the season during which the player turns 15) and 21 (or the end of the season during which the player turns 21), and irrespective of his nationality and age, has been registered with a club or with other clubs affiliated to the same national association as that of his current club for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or of 36 months.

now, lets get on with the head banging.

I really don't know what to make of this. one potential positive is that it might even out the competition a bit more; large squads like Chelsea's/Pool's will no doubt feel the effects as the need to include the occasional young-uns will no doubt effect their depth in the competition (as we're seeing at Liverpool already, with Hyypia not being entered), whereas the rest of the smaller European clubs in the competition are perhaps less likely to be affected, as by in large the lure of the big leagues makes them rely somewhat more on their own domestic production lines. having said that, i'm just hypothesizing here and don't know if this will really be the case.

The intention of this is no doubt an attempt to boost the number of domestic players in the big leagues. However i can't really see this happening; i think we'll just see even more inflated prices for British players as the big 4 now have a quota to fill, but it doesn't mean diddly for the rest tbh.

I also think it's ridiculously unfair on youngsters like Nemeth, who don't qualify under the rules. they'll have less opportunity to get much needed game time; also what's the situations on loans? if a player on the books spends a couple of years abroad(or at another club) (like Vela for example) can he still qualify? if he doesn't wont that mean young players will have even less opportunity to get experience?

well?

Mitch Connor

leninbenjamin wrote: »

i see a considerable amount of discussion of these across various threads, and i thought it would be nice to consolidate for the purposes of discussion.

first off the wee explanation for those who don't know:



now, lets get on with the head banging.

I really don't know what to make of this. one potential positive is that it might even out the competition a bit more; large squads like Chelsea's/Pool's will no doubt feel the effects as the need to include the occasional young-uns will no doubt effect their depth in the competition (as we're seeing at Liverpool already, with Hyypia not being entered), whereas the rest of the smaller European clubs in the competition are perhaps less likely to be affected, as by in large the lure of the big leagues makes them rely somewhat more on their own domestic production lines. having said that, i'm just hypothesizing here and don't know if this will really be the case.

The intention of this is no doubt an attempt to boost the number of domestic players in the big leagues. However i can't really see this happening; i think we'll just see even more inflated prices for British players as the big 4 now have a quota to fill, but it doesn't mean diddly for the rest tbh.

I also think it's ridiculously unfair on youngsters like Nemeth, who don't qualify under the rules. they'll have less opportunity to get much needed game time; also what's the situations on loans? if a player on the books spends a couple of years abroad(or at another club) (like Vela for example) can he still qualify? if he doesn't wont that mean young players will have even less opportunity to get experience?

well?

with regards to players like Nemeth - it encourages the clubs to keep them around so that they will qualify as home grown eventually. Cristiano Ronaldo and Fabregas are examples of 'home grown' youngsters.

Its the loan situation I don't like - my reading suggests that if a player is loaned domestically they will qualify as association trained (4 home grown and 4 association trained is the minimum) but players like Vela, who have been abroad while registered to Arsenal will only be starting their time once he is actually there to play for arsenal, so Vela is 3 years off qualifying for either lists. I see this as harmfull to youg players. Clubs will probably be tempted, and we see it already, to snap up any youngster with potential and keep them at the club - they could be good enough for championship football, or be able to benifit from playing at another club but United, for instance, can't allow that or he may no longer qualify for 'home grown status. It could stunt the development of a player cause they can't be loaned out as much without the club potentially falling foul of these regulations.

~Rebel~

Personally i think it's an awful rule, in that it won't go any way towards achieving what they want to achieve, which is boosting the national teams.

IMO they went too middle of the road with it. By saying 8 of 25 it means theres still 17 other players to choose from. All the big teams also have at least 1 or 2 local players who would have made the squad anyway so now we're up to 19 players that would have been the same either way. The only time i can see a team like Liverpool fielding these kids is if they qualify after 4 games and can field the weakest 11 to rest the big guns. The rule effectively lessens the potential quality of the competition (by lessening the quality of the fringe players) while not actually boosting the chances of these guys playing. Again looking at pool there is not a hope in hell of Steven Irwin or Martin Kelly stepping foot on the pitch, or being included in the 18man squad, while 2 other youths like Pacheco and Nemeth would have had some chance of getting on as impact subs.

The bottom line is while big teams have 18, 19, 20 players to choose from, they will never call on guys who aren't good enough and who are only included to make up the numbers.

If they had really wanted these young locals to get their game they should have made the rule that 12+ had to be local. It would have been completely to the detriment of the competition, but its the only way these guys would get what the rule is trying to enforce.

Alternatively they could have gone the other way and made it, say, 4 so that at least the Best 4 would be there who actually have a chance, as well as leaving space for other non-english youths too. And if more then 4 are good enough, then great, theres nothing stopping them being included as well.

IMO the whole thing looks like a copout to make it look like they're doing something when in actual fact its really all just for appearances sake.

Smegball

Would make it interesting if they forced you to play one of these U-21 Home Grown Players in your starting 11.

leninbenjamin

~Rebel~ wrote: »

IMO the whole thing looks like a copout to make it look like they're doing something when in actual fact its really all just for appearances sake.

heh, yeah that seems to be the perfect summary.

are they intending to expand upon these rules? as in 8 for now, 10 in say 2 years time, 12 in another two, or is this it?

CiaranC

Wont this stop the bigger leagues in Europe poaching all the best youngsters from the leagues around them? If so, its a great idea.

leninbenjamin

CiaranC wrote: »

Wont this stop the bigger leagues in Europe poaching all the best youngsters from the leagues around them? If so, its a great idea.

nope. if anything it will make it worse; they will need more youngsters to go through the system, and it will encourage the bigger clubs to get those players in before the age of 18. if anything i expect to see many more deals like the two Brazilian twins Man Utd recently bought over. have the deal lined up before the 18th birthday.

PHB

The major reason English clubs go abroad is because of the 90 minute rule.
However, the home grown rule is itself only a good thing. Encouraging big clubs to develop young players is a good thing. Ronaldo being developed by United is a good thing. It's much better than trying to buy him for 100 million.

4 home-grown. To be home-grown, you need to be bought by 17 essentially, to get 3 full seasons. V. few foreign players will get that. Fabio and Rafael will be extremely tight. By in large, this will encourage the development of players through the youth academy, which imo is only a good thing. I'd like the rules to be stronger personally. Players like this are the exception. English clubs already pretty much do this as much as possible. Its going to be harder and harder to do this now, especially since other clubs have to obey this rule aswell!

8 national is a good thing too. There should be imo an English core in any English team. It doesn't have to be a 4 in a first 11, thats bs, but in the squad, an English core, preferably a local core, is a good thing.

Overall, it will encourage a youth focus in the club, which is good, with an average bias towards local talent. That's good.

elshambo

Its class so it is!!!

I think that the people who will complain about it the most are football manager players:eek:

"Dam fifa, they ruining my database fun" etc etc

gustavo

elshambo wrote: »

Its class so it is!!!

I think that the people who will complain about it the most are football manager players:eek:

"Dam fifa, they ruining my database fun" etc etc

This has already been implemented in FM AFAIK

elshambo

gustavo wrote: »

This has already been implemented in FM AFAIK

Probably why there has been so much fuss about it:D

yahoo_moe

I'd pretty much agree with PHB - I think it's pretty good overall.

What's really interesting is in the case of a player like Bentley (to use an Arsenal example) - not sure what the exact timings on him were but reckon he would have spent three seasons at Arsenal before being loaned out and then sold (and even if not, it doesn't really matter for the example). For these kind of situations, I think it'll lead to a lot more 'first refusal' clauses being built into the sale agreements of 18- and 19-year old players as they'll be even more valuable to the big club that originally started them off if they can resign them as "club-trained" players later on.

ie

Youth team player at big club from 16 to 19.

Not gonna crack first team yet so he's being sold on.

Big club builds in first refusal so that if he's a success at Championship/mid-table Premier League level, then they can resign him at first-team standard AND have him qualify as "club-trained" for Champions League.

One Cold Hand

So is this just in all European club competitions, ie. CL and UEFA cup?

leninbenjamin

One Cold Hand wrote: »

So is this just in all European club competitions, ie. CL and UEFA cup?

indeed. that's why i feel it wont make much of an impact overall, only slightly rearrange the balance of the bigger clubs. a team like Derby won't have any more incentive to invest in homegrown talent when they can spend that on ready made foreign talent.

~Rebel~

who does this actually benefit though? Im looking through Liverpool's entered squad and there isn't a single player who benefits by this. The closest really is that Spearing has been boosted above Plessis in the pecking order, but i wouldn't have expected Plessis to have featured anyway given that Gerrard, Alonso, Mascherano and Lucas are all ahead.

Sure players like Steven Irwin get their names on a list and get to feel good about it but i would be willing to bet a lot of money he won't feature on a single 18man match day squad list.

One Cold Hand

Hmmm so the Liverpool squad, for example, isn't really affected in any way, positive or negative, apart from shifting around a few fringe player who won't get in the match day squad anyway? Seems pretty pointless.

Just looking at the Villa squad, and the regulations seems to affect us no way whatsoever. We have 5/6 'club grown' players who would be in there anyway, and probably about 8 'assoc grown' players.
I wonder how teams like Spurs and Citeh are affected. If at all.

Xavi6

I love the rule.

Looking through our squad, it's packed full of homegrown talent - Richards, Ireland, Onouha, Johnson, Sturridge, Evans, Hart (not 100% sure about him as we bought him from Shrewsbury a few years back), Williamson, Schmeichel, Logan, Trippier, Mee etc all could be in that 25.

It's a testiment to the club that so many youngsters have been brought through, and more importantly it shows that it CAN be done. There's no excuse in this day and age for clubs not to be developing their youth. It's just a pity that FIFA have had to put rules in place to effectively force them into it.