Stop 'elite' clubs hoarding players

titan18

Tbh, I do think it's an issue, and it's only a very few clubs who are taking the piss with it. United have 9 players out on loan, I'd consider that a normal amount. Likes of Barcelona or Bayern don't seem to have a giant amount out on loan either.

You compare them to Juventus, Inter, AC Milan, Chelsea or City and it's a big different story, and it's not just youth players either. Chelsea have Cuadrado, Remy, Rahman, Atsu, Hector, Van Ginkel out on loan. City have Hart, Mangala, Denayer, Bony, Zucullini out on loan. You've got 20/30 + players at each of those clubs between established players and youths out on loan, and most will never get a shot at starting for those teams.

Mr.H

Exactly who gives a feck about education

This is about HOARDING players and that is something both chelsea and city are guilty of.

I think place a limit on the amount of senior players a club can have (counting the players on loan also)

For example there is nothing stopping Celtic from buying their rivals best players and not even playing them just so their rivals stay weaker.

rwbug

titan18 wrote: »

Tbh, I do think it's an issue, and it's only a very few clubs who are taking the piss with it. United have 9 players out on loan, I'd consider that a normal amount. Likes of Barcelona or Bayern don't seem to have a giant amount out on loan either.

You compare them to Juventus, Inter, AC Milan, Chelsea or City and it's a big different story, and it's not just youth players either. Chelsea have Cuadrado, Remy, Rahman, Atsu, Hector, Van Ginkel out on loan. City have Hart, Mangala, Denayer, Bony, Zucullini out on loan. You've got 20/30 + players at each of those clubs between established players and youths out on loan, and most will never get a shot at starting for those teams.

Barca and Bayern from two nations producing good youngsters have B teams. France is currently producing lots of good youngsters - also has B teams. They don't need to loan out so many - they have ready made place to play them.

Jayop

rwbug wrote: »

Barca and Bayern from two nations producing good youngsters have B teams. France is currently producing lots of good youngsters - also has B teams. They don't need to loan out so many - they have ready made place to play them.

Don't the top English clubs want to enter b teams but we're stopped?

Mr.H

Yea I think the football league (as in every club) would have to vote to allow it and most (of the lower league clubs) dont want it as it would harm their chances at promotion.

I think it would be a great idea

rwbug

Jayop wrote: »

Don't the top English clubs want to enter b teams but we're stopped?

City, United and Chelsea all want B teams I believe, probably most others too. It was voted down in September. The EFL clubs would obv be worried about their place in the pyramid.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/sep/22/efl-rules-out-including-premier-league-b-teams-in-plans-for-new-league-structure

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

Exactly who gives a feck about education

This is about HOARDING players and that is something both chelsea and city are guilty of.

I think place a limit on the amount of senior players a club can have (counting the players on loan also)

For example there is nothing stopping Celtic from buying their rivals best players and not even playing them just so their rivals stay weaker.

How exactly are they hoarding players?

Let us assume the definition of hoarding is;
to accumulate money, food, or the like, in a hidden or carefully guarded place for preservation, future use, etc.

How is - giving them a contract, training them, encouraging them to go on loan (surely this is the opposite of hoarding) and if they are not given a new contract as the old one expires they are free to leave - this hoarding.

Clubs have little control over players when a contract is running down so one assumes they have to treat them well and with respect.

I asked you this question before you didn't answer then,

You do pull figures out of the air as though they are facts so any links to where these young men will get this fantastic one on one training.

Perhaps if you gave a feck about education you would understand the importance of reliable statistics. Regardless of where a young person goes to train for professional football the vast majority are going to fail (the barrier to entry to professional football is very high) this is as it has always been and will continue to be - for those that make the grade education is not only important it is critical. I am at a loss as to understand how such an important principle is lost on you.

Other than of course it destroys your already weak argument.

Mr.H

grumpymunster wrote: »

How exactly are they hoarding players?

Let us assume the definition of hoarding is;
to accumulate money, food, or the like, in a hidden or carefully guarded place for preservation, future use, etc.

How is - giving them a contract, training them, encouraging them to go on loan (surely this is the opposite of hoarding) and if they are not given a new contract as the old one expires they are free to leave - this hoarding.

Clubs have little control over players when a contract is running down so one assumes they have to treat them well and with respect.

I asked you this question before you didn't answer then,

You do pull figures out of the air as though they are facts so any links to where these young men will get this fantastic one on one training.

Perhaps if you gave a feck about education you would understand the importance of reliable statistics. Regardless of where a young person goes to train for professional football the vast majority are going to fail (the barrier to entry to professional football is very high) this is as it has always been and will continue to be - for those that make the grade education is not only important it is critical. I am at a loss as to understand how such an important principle is lost on you.

Other than of course it destroys your already weak argument.

Weak argument that the president of UEFA agrees with

There is no point in discussing the youth academies to be fair. We will keep going around in circles on a matter that is nothing to do with the actually issue of hoarding players.

When a club signs more players than they need this is the definition of hoarding. They have to send players out on loan as they cant have more than the squad limit allows on their books.

Chelsea have approx 60 players on their books that are not considered youth team players. That is the very definition of hoarding.

A squad limit was introduced to stop this very behavior as Chelsea when Roman first entered the scene, started to hoard players back then and UEFA said no this isnt allowed..................

GavRedKing

Mr.H wrote: »

Exactly who gives a feck about education

This is about HOARDING players and that is something both chelsea and city are guilty of.

I think place a limit on the amount of senior players a club can have (counting the players on loan also)

For example there is nothing stopping Celtic from buying their rivals best players and not even playing them just so their rivals stay weaker.

Maybe Celtic can get away with it, theyre after all in a tinpot league.

It rarely ever happens in England because teams wont sell to a direct rival.

Mr.H

GavRedKing wrote: »

Maybe Celtic can get away with it, theyre after all in a tinpot league.

It rarely ever happens in England because teams wont sell to a direct rival.

It happened for years with City buying players from Arsenal. City pretty much took Arsenals place as main title challenger to United and Chelsea by buying their best players.

In fact look at it from a bigger perspective. Liverpool in a way stopped Southampton's progression by buying their best players. A few seasons ago Southampton looked like they could challenge for a top 4 but now look at them.

It does happen. Chelsea bought Begovic for their bench when he was linked with United as a replacement for David de Gea. They didnt need him but stopped United from gettting him

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

It happened for years with City buying players from Arsenal. City pretty much took Arsenals place as main title challenger to United and Chelsea by buying their best players.

In fact look at it from a bigger perspective. Liverpool in a way stopped Southampton's progression by buying their best players. A few seasons ago Southampton looked like they could challenge for a top 4 but now look at them.

It does happen. Chelsea bought Begovic for their bench when he was linked with United as a replacement for David de Gea. They didnt need him but stopped United from gettting him

Liverpool payed very big amounts for the Saints players and most started - not all transfers were successful but then they never are. Southampton could have said no the players were under contract but it just shows Liverpool were being more ambitious than Southampton.

And try and get some facts correct Chelsea had no number 2 goalkeeper of any quality when Begovic was signed - he knew when he signed he had a very tough fight on his hands to start and made comments in the press he knew it would be hard but he joined to be #1 he backed himself fair play - but from a Chelsea aspect a number 2 goalkeeper of high quality is really a requirement of any club wishing to push for titles.

To try and use good management (football is a business I assume you are aware of that) to bolster your totally flawed argument is really grasping at straws.

Mr.H

So having around 60 players on your books is good management and good business?

That's a load of rubbish buddy

It's hoarding and that's a fact

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

So having around 60 players on your books is good management and good business?

That's a load of rubbish buddy

It's hoarding and that's a fact

Chelsea met and always have met the requirements that were associated with FFP so yes it is good business FACT.

As always from you a sweeping statement with no FACT to back it up "buddy"

Mr.H

FFP is nothing to do with rules regarding squad limits and the rest nay way Chelsea satisfy does rules is by have no so many out on loan.

You can argue and by snippy all you want but the fact is having 50 senior players is not good business and is the problem with hoarding.

Salah is another example. Bought when Liverpool tried to sign him and then after a couple of games he was forgotten about and sent out on loan to another league.

Shawn Wright Philips is another example. Chelsea bought him to stop arsenal from getting him. They even paid more than arsenal were about to but ended up barely even using him.

Marin was linked with spurs, schurrie was linked with both arsenal and spurs.

My comments are hardly a fresh revelation as Chelsea have been doing this for 14 years now. To the point where uefa literally mentioned them when they first implemented squad limits.

As mentioned Chelsea are not the only club that do it. United bought arsenals best player in rvp the season arsenal challenged them for the league. Sure united also got a great player but are you telling e they didn't think it was a bonus to weaken their only rival that season?

City bought half the arsenal team to take their place as main title challenger.

Liverpool bought half the Southampton side to both have great players (I'm sure they thought they would anyway) and weaken a top 4 rival which they did.

Spurs signed a few players that were linked with Liverpool and arsenal over the years also.

If you think that clubs don't buy players from other teams or that other teams want, to weaken them then your very naive.

There is a great book called globalisation and football, it is from ex scouts and pundits talking about how the transfer market is a bias economy and how the rich clubs avoid paying what they claim to pay.

GavRedKing

Mr.H wrote: »

So having around 60 players on your books is good management and good business?

That's a load of rubbish buddy

It's hoarding and that's a fact

Its both excellent management and business planning.

The best 20 are so players are kept for the senior squad, like every club and the rest of the places are supplement by youths, those left over, are sent on loan to get experience or because they cant perform at a level expected of them e.g. Cuadrado, Rahman, MVG, Mizagia, Hector.

Those on loan bring in a good few million to keep the wheel turning.

The fact more clubs dont do it is the part I dont understand, its open for everyone to "abuse".

irelandrover

GavRedKing wrote: »

Its both excellent management and business planning.

The best 20 are so players are kept for the senior squad, like every club and the rest of the places are supplement by youths, those left over, are sent on loan to get experience or because they cant perform at a level expected of them e.g. Cuadrado, Rahman, MVG, Mizagia, Hector.

Those on loan bring in a good few million to keep the wheel turning.

The fact more clubs dont do it is the part I dont understand, its open for everyone to "abuse".

You need a lot of money to be able to do it. Salah, Cuadrado, etc were signed for big money. Not a lot of clubs can afford to spend that type of money on players to simply loan out.

Mr.H

But it's not open for every club is it?

For example Bournemouth couldn't do it.

It's only the richest clubs and the clubs at the top.

I'm a Liverpool fan and I believe they are just as guilty as anyone.

Let's say we bought a club and we had more money than any club ever. What is stopping us from buying all of our rivals beat players ever year and loaning them out abroad? Everytime a team is linked with a player we bid slightly more than them and then loan that player out abroad also. We end up with 100 players on our books but other clubs abroad are paying the wages and our rivals can't get the players.

This is not too far from what is literally going on with teams right now.

I know that some fans are taking it as a dig against their teams but it's not a dig. It's a comment on how football culture needs to be forced to change to make the sport more competitive.

GavRedKing

irelandrover wrote: »

You need a lot of money to be able to do it. Salah, Cuadrado, etc were signed for big money. Not a lot of clubs can afford to spend that type of money on players to simply loan out.

So Chelsea spent big money on those players just to loan them out? :pac:

I've heard it all now.

Both were dire for Chelsea under Mourinho. I do think had both signed for Conte, theyed probably have faired better but we've made a profit on Salah and we're breaking even on Cuadrado.

So technically as a business decision its made a slight profit on those examples.

Sometimes, like Salah and Cuadrado, both players dont want to play in England, Conte wanted to keep Cuadrado both he was allowed to go back to Juventus but that doesnt suit a narrative.

GavRedKing

Mr.H wrote: »

But it's not open for every club is it?

For example Bournemouth couldn't do it.

It's only the richest clubs and the clubs at the top.

I'm a Liverpool fan and I believe they are just as guilty as anyone.

Let's say we bought a club and we had more money than any club ever. What is stopping us from buying all of our rivals beat players ever year and loaning them out abroad? Everytime a team is linked with a player we bid slightly more than them and then loan that player out abroad also. We end up with 100 players on our books but other clubs abroad are paying the wages and our rivals can't get the players.

This is not too far from what is literally going on with teams right now.

I know that some fans are taking it as a dig against their teams but it's not a dig. It's a comment on how football culture needs to be forced to change to make the sport more competitive.

Clubs like Bournemouth, as an example, benefit greatly from it, they got Ake for the best part of 6 months and he done pretty well for them.

Normally they wouldnt be able to compete with other clubs if Ake was on the open market, best case scenario from a season long loan is the player settles and wants to stay there.

I'd prefer if Ake stayed on loan but selling Ivanovic meant he had to come back early for cover.

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

FFP is nothing to do with rules regarding squad limits and the rest nay way Chelsea satisfy does rules is by have no so many out on loan.

You can argue and by snippy all you want but the fact is having 50 senior players is not good business and is the problem with hoarding.

Salah is another example. Bought when Liverpool tried to sign him and then after a couple of games he was forgotten about and sent out on loan to another league.

Shawn Wright Philips is another example. Chelsea bought him to stop arsenal from getting him. They even paid more than arsenal were about to but ended up barely even using him.

Marin was linked with spurs, schurrie was linked with both arsenal and spurs.

My comments are hardly a fresh revelation as Chelsea have been doing this for 14 years now. To the point where uefa literally mentioned them when they first implemented squad limits.

As mentioned Chelsea are not the only club that do it. United bought arsenals best player in rvp the season arsenal challenged them for the league. Sure united also got a great player but are you telling e they didn't think it was a bonus to weaken their only rival that season?

City bought half the arsenal team to take their place as main title challenger.

Liverpool bought half the Southampton side to both have great players (I'm sure they thought they would anyway) and weaken a top 4 rival which they did.

Spurs signed a few players that were linked with Liverpool and arsenal over the years also.

If you think that clubs don't buy players from other teams or that other teams want, to weaken them then your very naive.

There is a great book called globalisation and football, it is from ex scouts and pundits talking about how the transfer market is a bias economy and how the rich clubs avoid paying what they claim to pay.

Chelsea were mentioned specifically when FFP was first mooted but always complied. Chelsea are very innovative I am sure if this harebrained scheme does ever see the light of day they will find a way around it.

Could you please point where where I said players are not bought to weaken opponents? Buying players to weaken sides could be construed as excellent business management you are gaining an asset and your opponents are being weakened. As for Salah Chelsea paid some €11m for him loaned him to Florence & Roma for a fee of €5m and then sold him for €15m to Roma showing a tidy profit of some €9m so what exactly is your point - Chelsea are no the longer transfer mugs they were perhaps? That actually is fantastic business.

So do Chelsea buy players to weaken other sides, of course they do and guess what "buddy" football is not the only place this happens ever heard of headhunting in ordinary jobs?

irelandrover

GavRedKing wrote: »

So Chelsea spent big money on those players just to loan them out? :pac:

I've heard it all now.

Both were dire for Chelsea under Mourinho. I do think had both signed for Conte, theyed probably have faired better but we've made a profit on Salah and we're breaking even on Cuadrado.

So technically as a business decision its made a slight profit on those examples.

Sometimes, like Salah and Cuadrado, both players dont want to play in England, Conte wanted to keep Cuadrado both he was allowed to go back to Juventus but that doesnt suit a narrative.

OK, i could have expanded more. Chelsea spend big money on players. If it fails they can afford to keep the player on their books, send them on loan, and the player hopefully plays back some form and they recuperate teh fee they paid. It is a very smart tactic. But you need to be able to afford the initial fee and be able to afford to keep them on your books.

I am not having a go at Chelsea. I think the other clubs that can afford to do so should be following Chelseas example.

But it does take a lot of money to do it.

grumpymunster

irelandrover wrote: »

OK, i could have expanded more. Chelsea spend big money on players. If it fails they can afford to keep the player on their books, send them on loan, and the player hopefully plays back some form and they recuperate teh fee they paid. It is a very smart tactic. But you need to be able to afford the initial fee and be able to afford to keep them on your books.

I am not having a go at Chelsea. I think the other clubs that can afford to do so should be following Chelseas example.

But it does take a lot of money to do it.

The effect of FFP was to limit clubs doing exactly that - basically if you were not a big club at the time of implementing FFP it would be very very difficult to become one. It is no wonder ALL of the major clubs in Europe voted for FFP.

Thing is I still don't understand how this can be called "hoarding" players nobody puts a gun to their heads to sign a contract. If you join one of the biggest clubs in Europe (be that Madrid, Barca, Munich, Chelsea, United, City whoever) getting into the first 11 will be hard - very hard.
For a young player joining such a club it will mean excellent training and education facilities and after that it is down to the person to prove himself.
For an older player it will mean a big wad of money and again after that it is down to the player to prove themselves.

For me it is all about choice and if there are limits for clubs then individuals choices will in turn be limited and that is unfair.

irelandrover

grumpymunster wrote: »

The effect of FFP was to limit clubs doing exactly that - basically if you were not a big club at the time of implementing FFP it would be very very difficult to become one. It is no wonder ALL of the major clubs in Europe voted for FFP.

Thing is I still don't understand how this can be called "hoarding" players nobody puts a gun to their heads to sign a contract. If you join one of the biggest clubs in Europe (be that Madrid, Barca, Munich, Chelsea, United, City whoever) getting into the first 11 will be hard - very hard.
For a young player joining such a club it will mean excellent training and education facilities and after that it is down to the person to prove himself.
For an older player it will mean a big wad of money and again after that it is down to the player to prove themselves.

For me it is all about choice and if there are limits for clubs then individuals choices will in turn be limited and that is unfair.

I didnt call it hoarding.

grumpymunster

irelandrover wrote: »

I didnt call it hoarding.

Apologies didn't mean that it's just the thread title

Mr.H

So the solution is that every club should buy players just so their rivals cant?? Surely that is bad for the integrity of the game??

The fact is money allows certain clubs to stay ahead of other clubs. That shoudlnt be the case.

If squad limits were strictly enforced such as only having up to 30 players on your books (including players loaned out) it would make things more even for teams who are chasing the elite few (I count all the top 8 teams in that).

Money shouldnt dictate who is a big club in football.

Chelsea would be in the spurs/liverpool category without the Russian cash. City would be a mid table side without their arab cash.

Monaco were bottom in ligue 2 when they got cash and persuaded Falcao to join them on their first year back in the top flight ffs

If you look at this as a football fan and not a chelsea fan then you would see it is an issue. But I am the one trying to be objective. The global footballing community agrees with me..................

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

So the solution is that every club should buy players just so their rivals cant?? Surely that is bad for the integrity of the game??

The fact is money allows certain clubs to stay ahead of other clubs. That shoudlnt be the case.

If squad limits were strictly enforced such as only having up to 30 players on your books (including players loaned out) it would make things more even for teams who are chasing the elite few (I count all the top 8 teams in that).

Money shouldnt dictate who is a big club in football.

Chelsea would be in the spurs/liverpool category without the Russian cash. City would be a mid table side without their arab cash.

Monaco were bottom in ligue 2 when they got cash and persuaded Falcao to join them on their first year back in the top flight ffs

If you look at this as a football fan and not a chelsea fan then you would see it is an issue. But I am the one trying to be objective. The global footballing community agrees with me..................

So you want to limit the amount of employees a company can have? - does this figure refer to full time male and female professionals, youth players what exactly would constitute 30 players. So you suggest a professional football team should only have a first XI no youth team, no U-21's only 30 players ............ utter drivel.

You do love sweeping BS statements the global football community you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Any link to a poll substantiating that claim you might share perhaps? Be interesting to see how the sampling plan was put together, the null hypothesis and how the questions were phrased.

Mr.H

grumpymunster wrote: »

So you want to limit the amount of employees a company can have? - does this figure refer to full time male and female professionals, youth players what exactly would constitute 30 players. So you suggest a professional football team should only have a first XI no youth team, no U-21's only 30 players ............ utter drivel.

You do love sweeping BS statements the global football community you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Any link to a poll substantiating that claim you might share perhaps? Be interesting to see how the sampling plan was put together, the null hypothesis and how the questions were phrased.

Jesus you seem to dislike me. I am trying to be civil with you and despite your over use of the "", I still stay respectful. Maybe your 12 and thats the reason for the attitude but either way please just take a breath and try to just debate rather than be snippy.

What BS sweeping statements are your referring to??
The fact that teams buy players to stop players going to other clubs? - you agreed
The fact that clubs have too many players on their books?
The fact that UEFA and the footballing world doesnt agree with this and keep trying to impose ways to stop it??
Tekll me what I am lying about please and maybe I can rectify it. Maybe you misunderstood something I said and that is the issue you have??

Listen dude the things I am saying are opinion and do not mean that its going to impact you. I am not trying to disrespect you or your opinion on your club or anything related to football.

I am merely pointing at the fact that the global footballing community has been calling for this for some time, to reduce the "elite clubs" from hoarding players.

Yes recently we had Aleksander Ceferin (Uefa president) talk about it. But we had the Dutch league president say it a couple of years ago and the bayern munich ex president talk about it a couple of years before that (when talking about his old club). Then of course we can go back 10 years or so to when UEFA imposed the squad limits and FFP to combat HOARDING!!!!! they specifically mentioned this at the time.

As for the squad limit I mentioned of having 30 players on the books. This is something I mentioned a couple of times here in the thread and I specifically said Senior players.

Things went too far off topic with talking about who has the best youth academies so I mentioned that even if you take them out of the equation there is still work that could be done to stop hoarding players.

If a club could only have 30 senior male players on their books (including those out on loan) that would certainly reduce the amount of hoarding that is done. In fact it would cut Chelsea's in half.

In fact I dont think that hoarding is the biggest issue in football. I think dual ownership of clubs is a bigger issue. People should not be involved in more than one club.

grumpymunster

OK then you have no supporting evidence to yet another sweeping statement - no surprise there then. I have referred to your sweeping statements many times if you want a refresher read the thread.

Sorry "buddy" or "dude" I don't dislike you I don't know you. But your ideas are to me total nonsense and until UEFA or FIFA can come up with constructive legal fair plans rather than cute soundbites I will treat them with the disdain they deserve they would be better served putting their own houses in order first.

Mr.H

grumpymunster wrote: »

OK then you have no supporting evidence to yet another sweeping statement - no surprise there then. I have referred to your sweeping statements many times if you want a refresher read the thread.

Sorry "buddy" or "dude" I don't dislike you I don't know you. But your ideas are to me total nonsense and until UEFA or FIFA can come up with constructive legal fair plans rather than cute soundbites I will treat them with the disdain they deserve they would be better served putting their own houses in order first.

What is this new sweeping statement? The lads that have spoken out about it?

This is Ceferin but a link (a different link I think) for this interview is in the OP
http://uk.businessinsider.com/aleksander-ceferins-uefa-president-chelsea-2017-3

Dutch league guy (actually was only 6 months ago. I tought I read this a long long time before that, go figure)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-europe-netherlands-idUKKCN12Q1R8

The Bayern munich president Karl-Heinz Rummenigg (this link is just talking about the interview rather tahn the interview itself. If you wanna read the actual interview I can have a look for it later as its not popping up right away)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2079309-bayern-munich-chasing-sinan-kurt-does-talent-hoarding-hurt-the-bundesliga

Here is Platini's UEFA tackling hoarding in 2005
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/uefa-home-in-on-the-talent-hoarders-1.1147884

Here is Gianni Infantino's FIFA talking about tackling hoarding
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/nov/03/fifa-president-gianni-infantino-transfer-system

Here is a soccer coach in the US talking about how Hoarding is common practice in the sates and how it damages players development as well as the game
https://soccermommanual.com/player-hoarding-club-soccers-dirty-secret/

Now is that enough proof that people are actually against hoarding??

Can you show me anyone at all who says its a good thing??

irishman86

Mr.H wrote: »

So the solution is that every club should buy players just so their rivals cant?? Surely that is bad for the integrity of the game??

The fact is money allows certain clubs to stay ahead of other clubs. That shoudlnt be the case.

If squad limits were strictly enforced such as only having up to 30 players on your books (including players loaned out) it would make things more even for teams who are chasing the elite few (I count all the top 8 teams in that).

Money shouldnt dictate who is a big club in football.

Chelsea would be in the spurs/liverpool category without the Russian cash. City would be a mid table side without their arab cash.

Monaco were bottom in ligue 2 when they got cash and persuaded Falcao to join them on their first year back in the top flight ffs

If you look at this as a football fan and not a chelsea fan then you would see it is an issue. But I am the one trying to be objective. The global footballing community agrees with me..................

Im a football fan and not a Chelsea fan and I dont see a problem with this at all. This is a sports team not a non profit organization. What Chelsea do is brilliant

Mr.H

irishman86 wrote: »

Im a football fan and not a Chelsea fan and I dont see a problem with this at all. This is a sports team not a non profit organization. What Chelsea do is brilliant

What Chelsea do is copy a system that has been in place in Italy for a couple of decades now and it is a system that doesnt work. It allows the elite the keep the status quo while at the same time holding players back that where otherwise fooled with promises of first team football.

You may think its "brilliant" but UEFA and Fifa are trying to stop it as it goes against the ethics of the game

Kirby

Mr.H wrote: »

What Chelsea do is copy a system that has been in place in Italy for a couple of decades now and it is a system that doesnt work. It allows the elite the keep the status quo while at the same time holding players back that where otherwise fooled with promises of first team football.

You may think its "brilliant" but UEFA and Fifa are trying to stop it as it goes against the ethics of the game

Yes because an organization that awards a World Cup to Qatar, should absolutely be able to give lectures on ethics.

Mr.H

Kirby wrote: »

Yes because an organization that awards a World Cup to Qatar, should absolutely be able to give lectures on ethics.

Whats UEFA's excuse?

Doesn't matter. It is unethical and unsporting and will be changed no matter how we feel on the subject

grumpymunster

Mr.H wrote: »

Whats UEFA's excuse?



Doesn't matter. It is unethical and unsporting and will be changed no matter how we feel on the subject

You are seriously suggesting UEFA and FIFA have the heart beat of the football community - that is perhaps the funniest thing I have heard this year. I am always in great humor on a Friday and that has improved it even more so thank you so very much.

Well the NEW UEFA president appears to know how to use the loan system very well

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/sep/21/new-uefa-president-aleksander-ceferin-says-loan-allegations-are-a-joke

The ex UEFA president is serving a four year ban from football

UEFA guarantee a fair level playing field by awarding the 4 richest leagues in Europe 4 guaranteed Champion League spots

UEFA are happy to see the Champions League final played outside of Europe that will be cheap and handy for the fans, but they have the fans interests at heart.

That FIFA campaigned for Ceferin to become President of UEFA says an awful lot for me.

If UEFA and FIFA were ethical institutions fine but quite clearly they must get their own house in order before they even think of fixing a system that is not only not broken but in players interest everywhere.

If clubs have power FIFA and UEFA do not and you think they act in footballs interest - call me an old cynic but no for me they do not. They act only to secure their own power base (they hoard power if you like) as do the clubs - neither are really right but thats the way of things.

Mr.H

Listen I agree about FIFA and uefa not being the greatest but at the end of the day they are the law makers. By the way the only reason the top 4 from the bigger leagues are guaranteed champions league is because the big clubs demanded it. But that's not relevant to the topic.

So let's say for example you had the power. Would you leave it as it is or do you think there is any chance that the current hoarding (and I use that word only to describe what we are talking about) is unsporting and bad for the integrity of the game?

Because if it's the former I doubt this debate has any more legs to be fair.

grumpymunster

To be honest I would leave it as is, introducing quotas never works in any sense and it will create an elitism I think would be very bad for the players involved.

Wherever quotas were introduced in football before they were very quickly relaxed as they simply do not work. Think back to UEFA and the equally as stupid amount of foreign players allowed on the pitch at any given time in European competition rule - at one stage in a European Semi final Chelsea had to sign Graham Rix who was a coach with us at the time to sit on the bench and I have a memory of a latter tie in the European Cup of Peter Schmeichel sitting in the stands with a host of first teamers for United. It was scrapped because it was ill conceived and stupid as this would be - though I don't really expect this to see the light of day.

Parents will always look out for their children, adults will always look after themselves we do not need nanny state rules to regulate this.

jacool

grumpymunster wrote: »

So Chelsea buy players to weaken other sides, of course they do and guess what "buddy" football is not the only place this happens ever heard of headhunting in ordinary jobs?

Yeah, but you never see an ordinary company with 7 IT managers and 5 Supply Chain Managers

grumpymunster

jacool wrote: »

Yeah, but you never see an ordinary company with 7 IT managers and 5 Supply Chain Managers

Ever heard of the public sector (not ordinary but.....) :D:D:D

irishman86

Mr.H wrote: »

What Chelsea do is copy a system that has been in place in Italy for a couple of decades now and it is a system that doesnt work. It allows the elite the keep the status quo while at the same time holding players back that where otherwise fooled with promises of first team football.

You may think its "brilliant" but UEFA and Fifa are trying to stop it as it goes against the ethics of the game

There is a difference to whats happening in Italy though, all the players are getting game time, its just not with Chelsea. You could argue that smaller clubs are getting access to these players due to them not currently being needed at Chelsea. Hazard at Mochengladbach and before that his time in Belgium, Lewis Baker in Holland. From what I can see these are smaller clubs with access to young super talented players

Mr.H

irishman86 wrote: »

There is a difference to whats happening in Italy though, all the players are getting game time, its just not with Chelsea. You could argue that smaller clubs are getting access to these players due to them not currently being needed at Chelsea. Hazard at Mochengladbach and before that his time in Belgium, Lewis Baker in Holland. From what I can see these are smaller clubs with access to young super talented players

But the point is if Chelsea own the player they control where the player goes and doesnt go. For example as long as United held onto Scheinstinager they ensured he didnt sign for a top 4 rival.

I dont agree with the way things are and some do but in the grand scheme of things who gives a sh1t because our opinions hold no weight at the decision table

irishman86

Mr.H wrote: »

But the point is if Chelsea own the player they control where the player goes and doesnt go. For example as long as United held onto Scheinstinager they ensured he didnt sign for a top 4 rival.

I dont agree with the way things are and some do but in the grand scheme of things who gives a sh1t because our opinions hold no weight at the decision table

But sure Ronaldo or Messi cant go anywhere either as they are controlled by Real/Barca by ways of a contract that they signed. What your saying is restricting the earning potential of people and would imo be rightfully challenged.

rwbug

https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP/status/853686579465990145