Stop 'elite' clubs hoarding players

MooShop

I just came across this article on the BBC this morning:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/39355514

Aleksander Ceferin, president of European football's governing body Uefa, says a "luxury tax" on rich clubs and squad limits could also help to stop elite clubs dominating the game.

He said the "excessive concentration of talent with a few teams" had to change.

I think a measure like this would be widely accepted by clubs and supporters, though the top clubs would throw up a fuss I'd imagine! I think it could only be good for the game. Too many top clubs now are hoarding young talent, a lot of whom are being loaned out, to multiple clubs, for years. Their progression either stagnates or regresses with players being touted as the next big thing either falling way down the divisions or out of the game all together.

A more even playing field when recruiting young players would help smaller clubs in the long run, players would get more opportunities in first team football which could help develop a lot of younger players sooner, rather than being passed around from club to club, because you are a youth prospect at X big club.

What's the solution? I'm not really sure to be honest but I'll be following this with interest. The more feasible solutions would probably be to restrict squad sizes for youth teams, but you'd have to be cognisant of closing any loaning out loopholes that could arise. Loaned out player figures from that artcile are ridiculous, Chelsea have 30 and Juventus have 50 :eek: loaned out alone this season.

It's good to see this issue being brought to light, and I just hope somethign comes of it and he's not just paying lip service to ths issue to be seen to be doing something!

Mr.H

Maybe introduce club limits on players. A squad limit but include players loaned out??

No team should have 30 players loaned to other clubs. Thats another full club let alone squad

MooShop

Yeah, I think that's probably the only way to enforce a measure like this. The current loan system is being abused by the bigger clubs. It's nearly like an arms race between Chelsea, City, Utd to hoover up the best talent and then just loan them out.

The loan system should only be used sparingly, when you are trying to transition a youth player into your first team squad to evaluate if they can make the grade, in my opinion.

SuperTortoise

It does need to be stopped, a squad limit should be imposed, and agreements such as "first refusal fees" should also be done away with.

GLaDOS

A limit on how many players you can loan out would help

grumpymunster

Indeed that is a fantastic idea, we should go back to the good old days where apprentices should clean boots, clean out the changing rooms, wash the playing and training kit even paint the stadium that is the only way to become a professional footballer.

We should so deprive young people a chance to train in the best facilities available, learn from the best coaches available. Be schooled in the importance of nutrition and eating correctly, have an opportunity to review their performances with coaches. Have recognition that everyone is different and have development programmes tailored to meet the individual rather than the group. Have an opportunity to review the performances and tactical movement of professional players throughout the world with coaches.

It is interesting what the Brentford owner Matthew Benham had to say about the Chelsea set up.

“Chelsea’s academy is by far the best in England. We hope to build that relationship. Neil Bath and his team have done a great job there, and have always been very good to us. I love their philosophy.

The FA could learn a great deal from them. They have a lot of humility – which isn’t a word that usually springs to mind when people think of Chelsea. They are constantly looking to improve in every way they can, rather than saying “We are the best” which is very common in football, especially English football. They take a lot of care on the development of the players as people and not just footballers – for example – more focus on education than most.”

It is very difficult to become a top grade professional soccer player, for example there are 20 teams in the Premier League each week they select a starting XI and have 7 subs that is a total of 18 players involved per club per matchday. So a total of 360 players per week can actively participate in a round of Premier League matches. If a young player does not made the grade at possibly the best 2 academies in England at the minute (Chelsea and City) they are well educated and trained for a good career in soccer with another club as Josh McEachran and Jon Swift among many others are doing.

So yea lets make it even more difficult to make the grade by forcing youngsters into poor training conditions fantastic idea absolutely top notch.

Corholio

grumpymunster wrote: »

Indeed that is a fantastic idea, we should go back to the good old days where apprentices should clean boots, clean out the changing rooms, wash the playing and training kit even paint the stadium that is the only way to become a professional footballer.

We should so deprive young people a chance to train in the best facilities available, learn from the best coaches available. Be schooled in the importance of nutrition and eating correctly, have an opportunity to review their performances with coaches. Have recognition that everyone is different and have development programmes tailored to meet the individual rather than the group. Have an opportunity to review the performances and tactical movement of professional players throughout the world with coaches.

It is interesting what the Brentford owner Matthew Benham had to say about the Chelsea set up.

“Chelsea’s academy is by far the best in England. We hope to build that relationship. Neil Bath and his team have done a great job there, and have always been very good to us. I love their philosophy.

The FA could learn a great deal from them. They have a lot of humility – which isn’t a word that usually springs to mind when people think of Chelsea. They are constantly looking to improve in every way they can, rather than saying “We are the best” which is very common in football, especially English football. They take a lot of care on the development of the players as people and not just footballers – for example – more focus on education than most.”

It is very difficult to become a top grade professional soccer player, for example there are 20 teams in the Premier League each week they select a starting XI and have 7 subs that is a total of 18 players involved per club per matchday. So a total of 360 players per week can actively participate in a round of Premier League matches. If a young player does not made the grade at possibly the best 2 academies in England at the minute (Chelsea and City) they are well educated and trained for a good career in soccer with another club as Josh McEachran and Jon Swift among many others are doing.

So yea lets make it even more difficult to make the grade by forcing youngsters into poor training conditions fantastic idea absolutely top notch.

So every decent youngster should just join Chelsea then, and not letting them would be depriving them of the best of everything? There's lots of clubs across Europe with very good facilities and coaches, the idea that if they aren't at a select few then they will be practically out cleaning boots or painting walls is quite a bit far fetched. So called 'smaller' clubs across Europe have brought through better and more frequent quality players than either Chelsea or City with their setup. Plenty of clubs and plenty of setups that can bring through players and give them an education, having 30+ players loaned out isn't the only way to do it, in fact it's not even that successful.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

grumpymunster wrote: »

Indeed that is a fantastic idea, we should go back to the good old days where apprentices should clean boots, clean out the changing rooms, wash the playing and training kit even paint the stadium that is the only way to become a professional footballer.

We should so deprive young people a chance to train in the best facilities available, learn from the best coaches available. Be schooled in the importance of nutrition and eating correctly, have an opportunity to review their performances with coaches. Have recognition that everyone is different and have development programmes tailored to meet the individual rather than the group. Have an opportunity to review the performances and tactical movement of professional players throughout the world with coaches.

It is interesting what the Brentford owner Matthew Benham had to say about the Chelsea set up.

“Chelsea’s academy is by far the best in England. We hope to build that relationship. Neil Bath and his team have done a great job there, and have always been very good to us. I love their philosophy.

The FA could learn a great deal from them. They have a lot of humility – which isn’t a word that usually springs to mind when people think of Chelsea. They are constantly looking to improve in every way they can, rather than saying “We are the best” which is very common in football, especially English football. They take a lot of care on the development of the players as people and not just footballers – for example – more focus on education than most.”

It is very difficult to become a top grade professional soccer player, for example there are 20 teams in the Premier League each week they select a starting XI and have 7 subs that is a total of 18 players involved per club per matchday. So a total of 360 players per week can actively participate in a round of Premier League matches. If a young player does not made the grade at possibly the best 2 academies in England at the minute (Chelsea and City) they are well educated and trained for a good career in soccer with another club as Josh McEachran and Jon Swift among many others are doing.

So yea lets make it even more difficult to make the grade by forcing youngsters into poor training conditions fantastic idea absolutely top notch.

I stopped reading at the bolded part tbh. How, in the name of god, is it a choice between joining one of the clubs that is hoarding talent, and the above? An idiotic post to say the least.

MooShop

Wow, you really spun your own narrative there and went for it, or maybe you were just being facetious for the sake of it?

I wasn't rubbishing the current set up of academies at the top clubs, every top league club should strive for the best youth set-up as possible.

The point being made, which I think you missed, was that the top clubs (facilities great that they may be) are hoarding players, beyond the scope of the capacity of their facilities....because they can.

grumpymunster wrote: »

We should so deprive young people a chance to train in the best facilities available, learn from the best coaches available. Be schooled in the importance of nutrition and eating correctly, have an opportunity to review their performances with coaches. Have recognition that everyone is different and have development programmes tailored to meet the individual rather than the group. Have an opportunity to review the performances and tactical movement of professional players throughout the world with coaches.

So how many of the 30 or so players on loan from Chelsea, or the 50 or so from Juventus are training at their facilities, and using their coaches daily as you suggest?

I'm all for youth players being developed properly and being given the proper tools to achieve their goals. But there has to be a balance, surely clubs with 30-50 players out on loan points to a broken system??

grumpymunster

MooShop wrote: »

Wow, you really spun your own narrative there and went for it, or maybe you were just being facetious for the sake of it?

I wasn't rubbishing the current set up of academies at the top clubs, every top league club should strive for the best youth set-up as possible.

The point being made, which I think you missed, was that the top clubs (facilities great that they may be) are hoarding players, beyond the scope of the capacity of their facilities....because they can.



So how many of the 30 or so players on loan from Chelsea, or the 50 or so from Juventus are training at their facilities, and using their coaches daily as you suggest?

I'm all for youth players being developed properly and being given the proper tools to achieve their goals. But there has to be a balance, surely clubs with 30-50 players out on loan points to a broken system??

Until they are 18 all of them.

grumpymunster

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

I stopped reading at the bolded part tbh. How, in the name of god, is it a choice between joining one of the clubs that is hoarding talent, and the above? An idiotic post to say the least.

Well perhaps you should have read more and you might have found out?

How are the big clubs hoarding talent exactly. No one forces them to sign contracts at any stage do you know what hoarding actually means?

grumpymunster

Corholio wrote: »

So every decent youngster should just join Chelsea then, and not letting them would be depriving them of the best of everything? There's lots of clubs across Europe with very good facilities and coaches, the idea that if they aren't at a select few then they will be practically out cleaning boots or painting walls is quite a bit far fetched. So called 'smaller' clubs across Europe have brought through better and more frequent quality players than either Chelsea or City with their setup. Plenty of clubs and plenty of setups that can bring through players and give them an education, having 30+ players loaned out isn't the only way to do it, in fact it's not even that successful.

You might be good enough to point out where I made the comment which I have highlighted?

Plenty of clubs have produced excellent players indeed and long may that continue - but this is just another half assed idea from UEFA which will not work. It is most likely going to lead to an even more feudal system then current.
No one forces any young lad to join Chelsea, City, Juve, Munich, Barca whoever - I dare say they want to sign as it is giving them perhaps a better opportunity to achieve their dreams. So UEFA saying you cannot join these clubs as they have their share you must join Halifax or Southend (with all due respect to Halifax and Southend) instead. Just how is that a fair and just system then?

People have often complained Ireland is a nanny state (which it is) how is this different. Personally I think people should be allowed to make up their own minds.

Mr.H

Its easy to get a young player tell him he is the future of the club and offer him a chance to train at "the best academy" (Not so sure about that) only for him to end up playing loanee football down the leagues.

Its a disgrace and it only damages the growth of players

Mr.H

Its easy to get a young player tell him he is the future of the club and offer him a chance to train at "the best academy" (Not so sure about that) only for him to end up playing loanee football down the leagues.

Its a disgrace and it only damages the growth of players

LuckyLloyd

Mr.H wrote: »

Maybe introduce club limits on players. A squad limit but include players loaned out??

No team should have 30 players loaned to other clubs. Thats another full club let alone squad

But why not? That it's a relatively new approach doesn't make it ethically or morally wrong.

I think what Chelsea have done is ingenious to be honest. And I struggle to believe that being loaned out long term will be responsible for the failure of many player's careers. If anything, it might only expose players who aren't good enough.

If people want a regulated transfer market with salary caps, squad limits, some method of talent drafting and collective bargaining agreements I'm game. Within the current labour context that underpins football, Chelsea et al are merely acting logically. There is no compelling reason to curb their activities.

loyatemu

there are already limits on how many players can be in the squad for the PL.

What difference does it make if player A is playing for Burnley, but is owned by Chelsea rather than being owned by Burnley themselves?

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

Its easy to get a young player tell him he is the future of the club and offer him a chance to train at "the best academy" (Not so sure about that) only for him to end up playing loanee football down the leagues.

Its a disgrace and it only damages the growth of players

But really is it easy to tell a young player (and his parents that)? It has been well documented how few break through to premier league first teams. I personally would credit them with more intelligence but indeed I may be wrong.

So it is a disgrace and damages the growth of players. How exactly?

Do you have any idea how much time and effort is invested in these young men?
Is there a significant difference to what large professional clubs do with apprentices and most multinational companies who take on an apprentice spark, fitter whatever?

I really fail to see why giving a young man an opportunity to make a living in a profession a lot of us would love to be able to work at is such a bad thing.

And other then sweeping generalisations of how bad this is I have never seen any well founded evidence that it is indeed bad and damaging the person and the sport.

Mr.H

loyatemu wrote: »

there are already limits on how many players can be in the squad for the PL.

What difference does it make if player A is playing for Burnley, but is owned by Chelsea rather than being owned by Burnley themselves?

In that case why have squad limits at all?

Why should Chelsea not be allowed to hire 40-50 first team players??

Chelsea have no interest in developing first team players. Their plan is to hire as many young players as possible and hope they become mid level players that can be sold on as a revenue stream.

How many players have they actually "developed" through their academy in the last 10 years?? I mean they have had this amount of loanees for a long time now and are producing nothing of note

derm0j073

For me a team salary cap would solve a lot of problems in football . You'd see smaller squads and more talented players at clubs that otherwise couldn't afford them . It would create a more even playing field , make competitions more competitive and IMO be a lot more interesting than the mostly same old teams winning pretty much everything . But there isn't a hope in hell this will happen .

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

But why not? That it's a relatively new approach doesn't make it ethically or morally wrong.

I think what Chelsea have done is ingenious to be honest. And I struggle to believe that being loaned out long term will be responsible for the failure of many player's careers. If anything, it might only expose players who aren't good enough.

If people want a regulated transfer market with salary caps, squad limits, some method of talent drafting and collective bargaining agreements I'm game. Within the current labour context that underpins football, Chelsea et al are merely acting logically. There is no compelling reason to curb their activities.

It's both. Are you purposely neglecting the fact that we are speaking of teenagers? Teenagers that would jump at the chance to represent any PL club. If I had have been offered a position at an academy when I was younger, like a quite a few lads I knew were, I'd now have no career, and no standard of life, like many of those that did go over.
There were also lads that went over, with the benefit of hindsight, that hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of making it, and they are now left with no skills or qualifications.
And don't say next that it is up to the player in question to insulate his own life; you offer any 12-18 y.o. a chance to join any top club and they will take it. They don't have the life-experience at that age to realise that what they are doing could seriously limit their life.

Mr.H

grumpymunster wrote: »

But really is it easy to tell a young player (and his parents that)? It has been well documented how few break through to premier league first teams. I personally would credit them with more intelligence but indeed I may be wrong.

So it is a disgrace and damages the growth of players. How exactly?

Do you have any idea how much time and effort is invested in these young men?
Is there a significant difference to what large professional clubs do with apprentices and most multinational companies who take on an apprentice spark, fitter whatever?

I really fail to see why giving a young man an opportunity to make a living in a profession a lot of us would love to be able to work at is such a bad thing.

And other then sweeping generalisations of how bad this is I have never seen any well founded evidence that it is indeed bad and damaging the person and the sport.

Your kidding right??? So its not easy to sell that pipe dream to kids and parents who already bought into that pipe line dream in the first place??

How about the fact that less players are coming through academies these days??

Fact is there is more chance of players getting first team football during the learning years at a club that isnt part of the elite.

Can you really tell me that Conor Gallagher (chelsea u18s) is getting as much attention at Chelsea as he would if he was at lets say Leeds?? Or would leeds give him more attention because they have less players to deal with.

Its simple ratio maths. How many coaches do you need if you have 100 kids or 20 kids???

Conor Gallagher would have a better chance to get near a first team squad at his age at Leeds rather than Chelsea. He would be up against men instead of other kids also being held back.

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

In that case why have squad limits at all?

Why should Chelsea not be allowed to hire 40-50 first team players??

Chelsea have no interest in developing first team players. Their plan is to hire as many young players as possible and hope they become mid level players that can be sold on as a revenue stream.

How many players have they actually "developed" through their academy in the last 10 years?? I mean they have had this amount of loanees for a long time now and are producing nothing of note

You no doubt have proof of this scandalous accusation? I am really interested to read this or is it just another piece of widespread generalisation.

This despite the club stating clearly they want and expect players to make it in the first team. This season Loftus-Cheek and Chalobah have had game time (more would be nice but best has always been the enemy of good) they are young and on lucrative long term contracts. Seven of the listed 25 first team squad have come through the academy, they are actively involved with the first team of one of the biggest clubs in Europe. That for me is a great step forward - how would you define this?

Is it your contention that these young men are being victimised in some way?

loyatemu

Mr.H wrote: »

In that case why have squad limits at all?

Why should Chelsea not be allowed to hire 40-50 first team players??

Why should they not? Who's to say how many employees they're allowed have provided they stick to the squad limits in individual competitions. It's not in their interest to have players sitting around doing nothing so they loan them out.

The players still get to play, if one of them turns out to be a top level player, Chelsea can call him back into their own squad. I don't see the material difference between that player being signed by (say) Burnley and subsequently being bought by Chelsea.

I'm not saying I like this, presumably the big clubs are doing it because they feel it gives them some sort of advantage, and allows them to abide by fair-play rules, but you know big clubs have more money and will always have an advantage. I'm not sure banning this would make much of a difference (and would probably contradict EU law).

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

Your kidding right??? So its not easy to sell that pipe dream to kids and parents who already bought into that pipe line dream in the first place??

How about the fact that less players are coming through academies these days??

Fact is there is more chance of players getting first team football during the learning years at a club that isnt part of the elite.

Can you really tell me that Conor Gallagher (chelsea u18s) is getting as much attention at Chelsea as he would if he was at lets say Leeds?? Or would leeds give him more attention because they have less players to deal with.

Its simple ratio maths. How many coaches do you need if you have 100 kids or 20 kids???

Conor Gallagher would have a better chance to get near a first team squad at his age at Leeds rather than Chelsea. He would be up against men instead of other kids also being held back.

Well it is quite clear you have absolutely no idea how a modern academy works.
You speak of ratio's where did you derive your data from or did you just make that up?

GavRedKing

Its very difficult to make a call on a player at 18 or even 21 if hes going to be good enough.

The leagues from the EPL all the way down is littered with "rejects" that have gone on to become good players in their own right with other clubs, just not being able to make it in the EPL, look at Drinkwater and Shawcross as examples, theyed be nothing but squad players at Utd but their doing fantastic jobs for thier current teams because they found their level.

Times have changed too, clubs if they sign under 16s have to provide them with an education and pay for it in full. A club isnt going to take on 50 players in the hope that one will be good and have to fork out thousands on education to all of them.

The very best youth talents end up at the very best academies and they have a pick of where to go, even within that elite group, a very tiny amount make it to the first team, if any at all.

Theres a reason that very few elite level players are produced by academies, its because they dont grow on trees and just because you've failed at say 19, to make it at a club like Chelsea etc etc, doesnt meant that you'll fail if you go down the leagues to come back up again.

Harry Palmr

Mr.H wrote: »

In that case why have squad limits at all?

Why should Chelsea not be allowed to hire 40-50 first team players??

Chelsea have no interest in developing first team players. Their plan is to hire as many young players as possible and hope they become mid level players that can be sold on as a revenue stream.

How many players have they actually "developed" through their academy in the last 10 years?? I mean they have had this amount of loanees for a long time now and are producing nothing of note

Rubens Loftus Cheek and Nathaniel Chalobah are probably the nearest at the moment but they'll both be loaned again probably having played about 100 mins of PL between them so far this season. That said Loftus Cheek got a decent number of minutes last season.

grumpymunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

Its very difficult to make a call on a player at 18 or even 21 if hes going to be good enough.

The leagues from the EPL all the way down is littered with "rejects" that have gone on to become good players in their own right with other clubs, just not being able to make it in the EPL, look at Drinkwater and Shawcross as examples, theyed be nothing but squad players at Utd but their doing fantastic jobs for thier current teams because they found their level.

Times have changed too, clubs if they sign under 16s have to provide them with an education and pay for it in full. A club isnt going to take on 50 players in the hope that one will be good and have to fork out thousands on education to all of them.

The very best youth talents end up at the very best academies and they have a pick of where to go, even within that elite group, a very tiny amount make it to the first team, if any at all.

Theres a reason that very few elite level players are produced by academies, its because they dont grow on trees and just because you've failed at say 19, to make it at a club like Chelsea etc etc, doesnt meant that you'll fail if you go down the leagues to come back up again.

I would say if you play professional football and make a living at it you have succeeded. But you are quite correct Gav the most important thing is for the majority that are not good enough to play professional football and make a living at it must have a good education to fall back on and then let football become the hobby it is for millions worldwide.

lawred2

MooShop wrote: »

Yeah, I think that's probably the only way to enforce a measure like this. The current loan system is being abused by the bigger clubs. It's nearly like an arms race between Chelsea, City, Utd to hoover up the best talent and then just loan them out.

The loan system should only be used sparingly, when you are trying to transition a youth player into your first team squad to evaluate if they can make the grade, in my opinion.

that's exactly what it's being used for

grumpymunster

The old days of digs and what not really are gone for top flight clubs. This article includes a small piece on education of young men in football for me it is a long way from the images portrayed by some.

http://thechels.net/2014/10/the-academys-ten-year-plan/

For me Chelsea have not done their job yet, yes there are plenty of our ex academy players earning a good living at football but like most fans it is always pleasing to see someone come through the ranks. That will nearly always mean time out on loan but that I really do not see as a problem.

KaiserGunner

loyatemu wrote: »

there are already limits on how many players can be in the squad for the PL.

What difference does it make if player A is playing for Burnley, but is owned by Chelsea rather than being owned by Burnley themselves?

There are some differences. The player isn't allowed play against his parent club under the current rules. The player in a lot of cases can be recalled, such as Nathan Ake. Who was playing week in week out and then got recalled and from what I can see is now sitting on the bench.

loyatemu

KaiserGunner wrote: »

There are some differences. The player isn't allowed play against his parent club under the current rules. The player in a lot of cases can be recalled, such as Nathan Ake. Who was playing week in week out and then got recalled and from what I can see is now sitting on the bench.

If he's sitting on the bench then he's in their PL squad - they can only field 14 players per game. Presumably someone else has moved on to make space for him.

grumpymunster

KaiserGunner wrote: »

There are some differences. The player isn't allowed play against his parent club under the current rules. The player in a lot of cases can be recalled, such as Nathan Ake. Who was playing week in week out and then got recalled and from what I can see is now sitting on the bench.

Yes he is providing much needed cover at full back and centre back for a team challenging for the league title - not every one can play but every one can play a role. It is not possible to win titles with only 18 players at your disposal, Ake is an excellent player but he is trying to get into a side with the best defence in the league and that is difficult. Do you suggest there should be no able back up on the bench Chelsea showed faith in Ake over a great servant in Ivanovic that says a lot as well.

loyatemu wrote: »

If he's sitting on the bench then he's in their PL squad - they can only field 14 players per game. Presumably someone else has moved on to make space for him.

Yes Ivanovic was moved on free transfer to Russia

CantGetNoSleep

GavRedKing wrote: »

Times have changed too, clubs if they sign under 16s have to provide them with an education and pay for it in full. A club isnt going to take on 50 players in the hope that one will be good and have to fork out thousands on education to all of them.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. No idea.

Mr.H

grumpymunster wrote: »

Well it is quite clear you have absolutely no idea how a modern academy works.
You speak of ratio's where did you derive your data from or did you just make that up?

http://www.90min.com/posts/4764816-premier-league-launches-widespread-investigation-into-youth-player-transfers?a_aid=36569

Just an example of two kids who suffered from these super academies

764dak

MooShop wrote: »

I just came across this article on the BBC this morning:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/39355514





A more even playing field when recruiting young players would help smaller clubs in the long run, players would get more opportunities in first team football which could help develop a lot of younger players sooner, rather than being passed around from club to club, because you are a youth prospect at X big club.

But they are getting first team football while on loan.

eagle eye

Just or the fun of it, there are lots more of course, just picking out a team I'd like from players who aren't getting much playing time. I have Benatia in there although he is out on loan.

Begovic
Danilo Benatia Ake Digne
Renato Schweinsteiger
Asensio Turan Nolito
Alcacer

eagle eye

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

But why not? That it's a relatively new approach doesn't make it ethically or morally wrong.

I think what Chelsea have done is ingenious to be honest. And I struggle to believe that being loaned out long term will be responsible for the failure of many player's careers. If anything, it might only expose players who aren't good enough.

If people want a regulated transfer market with salary caps, squad limits, some method of talent drafting and collective bargaining agreements I'm game. Within the current labour context that underpins football, Chelsea et al are merely acting logically. There is no compelling reason to curb their activities.

Really?
How can a player settle down when he doesn't know how long he is going to be at a club?

ERG89

eagle eye wrote:

Just or the fun of it, there are lots more of course, just picking out a team I'd like from players who aren't getting much playing time. I have Benatia in there although he is out on loan.

Batshuayi in with a shout too. Even when Costa was out he wasn't played.

Dirty Dingus McGee

It's really the players who are to blame in a lot of cases.Nobody is forcing them to sit on the bench and yet so often players decide to move for money and sit on the bench.

Jack Rodwell,Scott Sinclair and Fabian Delph for example all decided to waste their careers and join Man City for money rather than play every week for a smaller club.

POKERKING

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's really the players who are to blame in a lot of cases.Nobody is forcing them to sit on the bench and yet so often players decide to move for money and sit on the bench.

Jack Rodwell,Scott Sinclair and Fabian Delph for example all decided to waste their careers and join Man City for money rather than play every week for a smaller club.

Poor examples really and completly off topic but for the record Rodwell and Delph would have played far more significant roles at city if they werent injured. The decided to join City to further there career not waste there career.

On topic if my son was good enough to play in england i would 100% push them towards city or chelsea even if it meant it was close to zero they would ever play for either club. The education from city alone(private school education one of the best in Manchester) would be worth it alone.

Dirty Dingus McGee

POKERKING wrote: »

Poor examples really and completly off topic but for the record Rodwell and Delph would have played far more significant roles at city if they werent injured. The decided to join City to further there career not waste there career.

On topic if my son was good enough to play in england i would 100% push them towards city or chelsea even if it meant it was close to zero they would ever play for either club. The education from city alone(private school education one of the best in Manchester) would be worth it alone.

None of those players were ever close to being good enough to be regular starters for Man City and yet decided to go there rather than keep playing for clubs at a lower level in the premier league.They were all brought in to fulfill the home based player criteria not to be key players for the team.

It's not off topic it's pretty much what the issue in the game is the bigger clubs have so much money they can buy/hold onto players they don't need at the expense of smaller teams in leagues.All the bigger clubs across Europe stockpile good quality players that rarely start games when those players could be playing for smaller team and making them better and this making leagues more competitive.

Deise Vu

The current system is bat**** crazy and Chelsea have taken it to the ultimate extreme with three or four teams worth of players out on loan. In any other sport would it be tolerated that a team could lend a player to one of the lesser lights? Could you imagine a spare All Black turning up to play for Ireland in a WC Qtr Final against the Springboks or Australia and then being recalled to New Zealand for the Semi Final? Maybe Tipperary could lend Waterford a player the next time we play Kilkenny in an AI Semi-Final. We would promise to give him back for the final of course.

Lukaku was a Chelsea player for three years I think and played all of about a dozen games for them before being sold for about £30M. That alone must have financed the current set up for at least five years. This season they sent Aké to Bournmouth to replace a player Eddie Howe thought so much of that he borrowed a replacement for as long as he could. Aké than plays in a defeat of Liverpool and a draw with Arsenal but sits in the stand for Bournmouth's polite 3 zip loss to Chelsea.

How can you take that seriously? By signing all the best available talent and lending them out they get their players a football education you can't get on the training pitch and get to see who will make the grade while only playing top pro's in their own team and never having to blood anyone. If they unearth a nugget he gets recalled with experience or sold at a vast profit, the rest get a P45 (and maybe a small transfer fee to help recoup the cost). That can only benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

GavRedKing

Deise Vu wrote: »

The current system is bat**** crazy and Chelsea have taken it to the ultimate extreme with three or four teams worth of players out on loan. In any other sport would it be tolerated that a team could lend a player to one of the lesser lights? Could you imagine a spare All Black turning up to play for Ireland in a WC Qtr Final against the Springboks or Australia and then being recalled to New Zealand for the Semi Final? Maybe Tipperary could lend Waterford a player the next time we play Kilkenny in an AI Semi-Final. We would promise to give him back for the final of course.

Lukaku was a Chelsea player for three years I think and played all of about a dozen games for them before being sold for about £30M. That alone must have financed the current set up for at least five years. This season they sent Aké to Bournmouth to replace a player Eddie Howe thought so much of that he borrowed a replacement for as long as he could. Aké than plays in a defeat of Liverpool and a draw with Arsenal but sits in the stand for Bournmouth's polite 3 zip loss to Chelsea.

How can you take that seriously? By signing all the best available talent and lending them out they get their players a football education you can't get on the training pitch and get to see who will make the grade while only playing top pro's in their own team and never having to blood anyone. If they unearth a nugget he gets recalled with experience or sold at a vast profit, the rest get a P45 (and maybe a small transfer fee to help recoup the cost). That can only benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

Those 2 examples you gave make no sense for various reasons but we'll look passed that to the main crux of the argument and let me put it to you this way, if it was easy as youre mkaing out, every club would be at it and theyed all be good at it.

If theres such a tried and tested blue print like the Chelsea model, it surely makes sense to copy it? Its not illegal.

Deise Vu

GavRedKing wrote: »

Those 2 examples you gave make no sense for various reasons but we'll look passed that to the main crux of the argument and let me put it to you this way, if it was easy as youre mkaing out, every club would be at it and theyed all be good at it.

If theres such a tried and tested blue print like the Chelsea model, it surely makes sense to copy it? Its not illegal.

Please tell me how the other examples make no sense?

Other clubs do it too, Danny Rose played a season with Sunderland but had to sit out the Spurs matches. Still doesn't make it right.

Every club can't do it for the simple reason there are only so many players and only so many teams who can take the loanees. Chelsea are willing and able to spend the money scouting the world for the most promising players and then doing whatever is necessary to circumvent the rules about junior players (residence etc).

ArmaniJeanss

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's really the players who are to blame in a lot of cases.Nobody is forcing them to sit on the bench and yet so often players decide to move for money and sit on the bench.

Jack Rodwell,Scott Sinclair and Fabian Delph for example all decided to waste their careers and join Man City for money rather than play every week for a smaller club.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

None of those players were ever close to being good enough to be regular starters for Man City and yet decided to go there rather than keep playing for clubs at a lower level in the premier league.They were all brought in to fulfill the home based player criteria not to be key players for the team.

Very unlikely those players joined City for the reasons you think.

It's far more likely that those players joined City in order to be a regular starter, multiple trophy winner, future captain, player of the year and Ballon D'or winner. When you've made it at every level that you've played its not easy to see your own limitations.

Richard Hillman

The NFL has a system of where if the player is not in the match day squad, practice squad or certified injured, the player gets released and most of his contact paid in a lump sum. You also have to release a player before they can be moved from first team squad and brought back into the practice squad and they have to settle for a low paying contract.


A lot of squad hoarding in the Premier League is of English players to fulfill their quotas. The clubs are happy to let the foreign players go out on loan but need those younger English players to sit on the bench. Its not very conductive for the national team. You have guys like Rashford and Loftus-Cheek who can't go on loan because they are needed for the quotas. Nathan Ake was dragged back from Bournemouth to sit on a bench because he had qualified as "Homegrown".

But unless these lads are going to kick up a fuss, there aint much that can be done. These homegrown rules seem to be hampering more players than helping them.

FatherTed

grumpymunster wrote: »

Indeed that is a fantastic idea,...... If a young player does not made the grade at possibly the best 2 academies in England at the minute (Chelsea and City) they are well educated and trained for a good career in soccer with another club as Josh McEachran and Jon Swift among many others are doing.

So yea lets make it even more difficult to make the grade by forcing youngsters into poor training conditions fantastic idea absolutely top notch.

The two best academies in England are Chelsea and City? How many academy players in the last 10 years are play in these club's first XI this season? At least Arsenal, Spurs and Man Utd actually develop players who end up in their first XI.

topmanamillion

The sooner something is done to stop clubs hoarding young players the better.
Look at the likes of Ajax who used to be synonymous with youth development but they are in bits now because the mostly Dutch players they would develop and sell on are sitting in mostly English academies since they were 15 or 16.
Look at someone like Daryl Horgan who's been playing senior football since he was 17 and compare him to great white hopes like Conor Clifford and Kenny McEvoy who were pampered in English academies and tumbled through the English pyramid structure.
The current academy/loan structure is absolutely poisoning the game throughout Europe.

POKERKING

FatherTed wrote: »

The two best academies in England are Chelsea and City? How many academy players in the last 10 years are play in these club's first XI this season? At least Arsenal, Spurs and Man Utd actually develop players who end up in their first XI.

Just because players dont play for the first team doesnt mean they arent the best academies. I thought it was common knowledge chelsea and city have the best academies(education and facilities alone i would imagine been the reason). Even before the money came in at city they had one of the best acadamies, they have produced so many professional footballers. According to the article here city have produced more professional footballers than any other premier league team.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/euro-2016-manchester-city-academy-11461449

City had 9 players at euro 2016 from the "old" academy, that's a pretty decent return.

POKERKING

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

None of those players were ever close to being good enough to be regular starters for Man City and yet decided to go there rather than keep playing for clubs at a lower level in the premier league.They were all brought in to fulfill the home based player criteria not to be key players for the team.

It's not off topic it's pretty much what the issue in the game is the bigger clubs have so much money they can buy/hold onto players they don't need at the expense of smaller teams in leagues.All the bigger clubs across Europe stockpile good quality players that rarely start games when those players could be playing for smaller team and making them better and this making leagues more competitive.

You are wrong.

I told you already injuries played a huge part in Rodwell and Delph not playing regularly for City. Delph especially, he had huge opportunity and absolutely made the right decision to sign for city, he was just let down by injuries.

You pick the players who had a tough time for one reason or another but what about Lescott, Barry, Adam Johnson? They all made similar moves, won trophies, played significant parts, played big games, played in the biggest competition in the world and certainly didnt do there international chances any harm.

There was nothing to stop any of the players you mentioned doing similar, no way did they move thinking they weren't getting a game and where there to make up the numbers, there are very few professional sports people esp elite that think this way as another poster has mentioned.

Mr.H

POKERKING wrote:

Just because players dont play for the first team doesnt mean they arent the best academies. I thought it was common knowledge chelsea and city have the best academies(education and facilities alone i would imagine been the reason). Even before the money came in at city they had one of the best acadamies, they have produced so many professional footballers. According to the article here city have produced more professional footballers than any other premier league team.

Here is the first I heard that Chelsea and city have the best academies in England.

West Ham and Southampton are probably rated higher for production. Arsenal rated higher for recruitment.

Man city screwed up their academy when they got cash because they started buying players instead of producing.

Chelsea are just following the arsenal model of recruiting players from other clubs that are young enough to be academy players (Chelsea are not the only club guilty of this by a long shot which is the issue of hoarding)

I remember loads of pundits and ex players praising Liverpool united and arsenal on their academies but I ever heard that Chelsea and city have the beat ones.......